February 2010: Editors' Blog: Golf Digest

Print
E-Mail
Feeds

Golf Editors Blog: golfdigest.com

Results for February 2010 Back to Editors' Blog Index

More comments on Tiger. . .and on our coverage

Saturday, February 27, 2010 Comments

Your comments on Tiger, his press conference and our coverage of the entire saga has drawn a rainbow of comments from you, in letters to both Golf World and Golf Digest. Clearly, some of you are fed up with the whole story. Some want Tiger to pay his dues and seem happy that he's been made to squirm. Some have found analysis by writers Bill Fields, Dan Jenkins and Jaime Diaz enlightening--or maddening. Surprisingly, some of you, like this first writer, have enjoyed the game without the game's No. 1. A sampling:

The Feburary 2010 issue of Golf Digest was the first I've thoroughly enjoyed in a very long time. Why? Because it wasn't swamped with stories and articles about Tiger. It was so refreshing to read about other players who have been ignored by your magazine in favor of Tiger, that I read through it twice. Tiger has never had the class and sportsmanship of Watson, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, and countless other true gentlemen of this game that we all love, honor and cherish.

Dick Ribble, Deming, NM

Bill Fields opens his article saying he'd rather watch golfers/Tiger play rather than listen to them/him, but in the same paragraph, he states that Tiger should have spoken sooner about what happened "that November night." Mr. Fields says that "it might have helped his cause" had Tiger spoken sooner. What "cause" is Tiger fighting? Does Mr. Fields think Tiger owes it to the media and to all for that matter an apology? He owes me/us nothing and while I know he would be forever hounded until he went public, it remains sad that even after his public speech, there will be those who say he didn't go far enough, he didn't give the sordid details that are craved. With all that is wrong with the world, it is just tragic that this matter that is between Tiger and his family, become so publicly attended. Can you just imagine how much more beneficial this energy can be utilized in a productive manner? It concerns me not in the least what happened that November night, I don't watch Tiger play golf because he is a devoted and faithful husband. Rather, I watch him in delight of what he does and can do as his chosen profession.

Tony Lopez

Dan Jenkins clearly sees Tiger Woods for what he is, well written! Perhaps Tiger will now add a little class and humility to his portfolio.

John Fraioli

Most players have said little about Tiger. Tom Watson is the exception, from the time he criticized Tiger's on-course behavior at the British Open, to his more recent scolding on the scandal. One writer found this hypocritical.

Tom had a nice Open Championship and all but I recall he had his own marital issues. He sounds like a "pot" [vs. kettle] in your story. Too bad he didn't emulate his younger colleagues.

D.Sievers, Tarzana, CA

You may have found the Tiger story fascinating or distracting. You may be bored with it, or can't get enough. But listen closely to Tiger and to the commentators who've covered this disaster seriously and you can learn a lot. We've learned, above all, that Tiger is not the person we thought he was--or the person some of us would like him to be. We've learned that he is neither as aware nor as disciplined as we thought he was. We've learned, to paraphrase his statement, that he thought he was above the rules, that he believed he was bulletproof. We've learned that he had many enablers, the media among them, and that apparently his intimidation of them eliminated dissenters within and outside his entourage. (Does it strike anyone else as strange that not one of his advisers left in protest, fearing that their star was in danger of self (or "brand") destructing? Is this because no one who could tell Tiger "no," or that he refused to listen?) Furthermore, we've got a glimpse of a man who is fueled to a surprising extent by anger, who uses that anger as motivation, something he did somewhat awkwardly in the press conference--"Don't blame Elin," "Leave my family alone!"--and will no doubt call on when he returns to competition. Will Tiger keep track of who has treated him roughly and who has been sympathetic during this time? That press conference suggests the answer is yes. Finally, as a psychologist friend of mine reminds me, where there is anger there is pain. Tiger revealed a cauldron of each in his short address, and you might assume his hurt was born long before this most recent episode. Whether a fan or not, one tends to empathize, and these letters reinforce that. Because Tiger's having to face up to it all now.

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

More reaction to Tiger

Thursday, February 25, 2010 Comments

We got an interesting letter, a column really, from Golf World reader Nate Clark about Tiger's press conference and the whole issue of star athletes as "role models." Nate yearns for a time when role models are unnecessary. It's a long piece; we excerpt here.

I heard Tiger make a plea, to paraphrase: “…Can you (the media, the paparazzi) please leave us alone? Will you respect the privacy of my family if not for me?” When I heard this, and I heard it loud and clear as the most significant thing that Tiger said, I immediately thought: “Is it possible, that, as a society, we can finally evolve to the point where there is no need for ‘role models,’ that each, and all, of us believes enough in themselves so that is no longer necessary to ‘take’ part of another human (and only human) as something that validates our own existence?” As for making history? In the, I hope, near future, we will indeed evolve to the stage where we no longer need to consider the best of ourselves are represented simply by those who are the most visible amongst us. As if simply doing whatever it takes to obtain visibility is a recommended path for each individual. The history here is, that when all of us, as a society, reach the independence of self to let go of the pull on celebrity as our example, then, we will look back on Tiger’s plea as the first, of the many it will take, to say, “Please leave me alone to live the life that I am, and understand that I am not responsible or representative of yours.” Is it ultimately fair to model Tiger as our role model for life (even while he is a model for a golf game none of us will achieve)? Did he ask for that? Is there anything more that he could have done in terms of generous philanthropy growing the game exponentially, building a win/win empire benefiting thousands ? At some point in evolution, people will all live the lives they live for their reasons, not for the reasons of other people. They will sign autographs if and when they want - the consequences being theirs and theirs alone to bear. They will or they will not be what other people think what they should or should not be. Since we are not there, I challenge all--and all means anyone who has seen the dedication Tiger Woods has to his one endeavor--to think deeply to try and determine a) do you live in a glass house?, and b) should you throw stones?

Nate Clark

Nate, like it or not, stars are going to be role models. Tiger's apology to his kids' schoolmates this week suggests that he fully understands that. But you're right; we ought not to encourage it, certainly not to our kids. My father made that point to my brother and me by a recalling a meeting he had with one of his heroes. He lived and played ball near Navin Field in Detroit, which eventually became Briggs Stadium and then Tiger Stadium. One day Dad chased down a baseball hit during a Tigers practice and waited for practice to end and the players to file out to get the one autograph he really wanted: Ty Cobb's. When Cobb walked out my father rushed up, handed him the ball and asked for his signature. "Where the f.... did you get that ball, kid?" asked Cobb, who then walked away with it. That didn't stop my dad, my brother or me from becoming a huge Tigers fans, or from making my hero, Al Kaline, my role model. Kaline, by the way, has never let me down.

---Bob Carney

Keywords:

Your take on Tiger's confession

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 Comments

You've flooded us with letters in reaction to Tiger Woods' press conference. We can't print them all, not even print all of some of them. But here is a sampling, some abridged, that reveal just how much forgiveness got for his confession. It's a mixed bag. One emotion that doesn't get mentioned too much here, or anywhere, it seems to me, is the anger that Tiger manifested that day. I suspect that the anger he feels at himself, his predicament, the media, the fact that he's forced to do "re-hab,"is overwhelming. It revealed itself only occasionally during the press conference--"Leave my family alone!"-- but when it did, it was the most convincing part of his address.

My take on the controlled, invitation-only, staged affair Friday at Ponte Vedra:It reminded me of the Teddy Kennedy/Chappaquidick/Mary Jo Kopechne press conference years ago.No mulligan here, PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem.The Tour Headquarters should never have been used for Tiger, giving the appearance of condoning his indiscretions.Why not Nike or IMG headquarters?The Golf Writers of America hit is straight down the middle by boycotting the event. Ernie Els scored a double eagle by stating that it was selfish to do it on a Friday against the World Golf Championship/Accenture Match Play in Arizona. Additionally, why take away from the Olympic coverage when we're rooting for all athletes, especially from the US?Whatever input Tiger's agent, Mark Steinberg, had, has the late Mark McCormack rolling over!We wonder where Stevie was for support, his bagman who pleads innocent over Tiger's extracurriculars. And, to Elin, you register an "ace" by not attending or in bringing the children along. One wonders, after the kiss from Mother, Kultida, what would have dad Earl done had he been alive? Tiger gets a DNF, and "what I did was not acceptable" also applies to Friday's I'm-sorry-now scenario. Daniel Wilson, Cleveland, OH
If the powers to be want Tiger back, remove his name from the rankings.You don't play, you're not No.1. And when Tiger returns, he would do well to muzzle his caddie. Any more of Mr. Williams "pitbull" attacks on the gallery would not go over well. Not to mention the libel issues it could create for Mr. Woods Inc., the tournament, and the PGA for not protecting the gallery. None of us needs that. Tiger needs to man up and face the consequences of his life decisions. They'll pass with time. Will Reynolds, Issaquah, WA.
Enough already Tiger's private life is just that private. I for one would rather see a rusty Tiger playing in the Masters than seeing a Zach Johnson, Vijay Singh or whomever playing lights out at the Masters. As a fan of Tigers I am more interested in seeing him play golf not in his tabloid achievement Gene Martineau, Roseville,CA
Tiger Woods needed to apologize (in private) to the PGA Tour for how his behavior has tainted the integrity of the tour's players and its sponsors. That's it. The PGA Tour is solely responsible for his wealth and fame. Without the PGA, what would Tiger Woods be? His failure to acknowledge this diminishes greatly his stature among the great golfers of all time. Fred Whitney, Salem, OR
I am not interested in Tiger's private life. But I do care what he does on the course. I terminated my interest in watching TV golf many years ago when I became annoyed by CBS, NBC and Golf Channel announcers who focused a majority of TV time on Tiger and dissed the other golfers on the course. Whether he was on the first page or 25th on the leader board, we were subjected to a rerun of his every shot, his every sip of water, etc., and the constant molasses-like adoration. As the Tiger-less 2010 season began, I discovered a multitude of excellent tour players—both upcoming and veterans —who are a joy to watch. No club throwing, no 'goddams', and no F-bombs. These gentlemen continually acknowledge the crowd while playing a hole or walking thru to the next one.....and spending many hours signing autographs at the end of their round. I am not a Tiger fan. But, I hope if/when he returns he will consider being a "true role model" to those who enjoy this wonderful and challenging game. Tony Scaran, Orange, CA My first impression was that here was a man that had to literally be taught how to say I'm sorry like one might teach his or her child. Many will argue he was sorry alright, sorry that he was caught. My gut tells me he was sincere in his apology and relieved that his secret had been exposed. Call me naive but I actually believe that Woods wrote much, if not all of the statement he read. I'm sure his handlers had their say but I can almost picture Woods writing and re-writing that statement over and over again while in therapy....Tiger needs to get back on the golf course, ASAP! That is where he can find peace. That is where he can escape. That is where he can regain a sense of meaning, purpose, and worth. Once he wins that first tournament all will be forgiven. Golf, Tiger, Golf! His life is not about eclipsing Jack Nicklaus' number of major championships. His life is not about pursuing the calendar Grand Slam. His life is not about being the best golfer on the planet if not in history. No, right now Tiger Woods' life seems to be about trying to save a marriage and family that is on life support. He is facing a mountain, of his own making, that will require a proud arrogant man so accustomed to getting to humble himself and give of himself to his wife and children like he has never done in his life. If the price to be paid is to permanently walk away from professional golf, but to do so with his wife and children by his side, then I will shout from the rooftops of Augusta, Pebble Beach, St. Andrews, and Whistling Straits: Walk, Tiger Walk!
Chris Amos, Norfolk, VA. More tomorrow....

--Bob Carney

Keywords:

"We Are Golf": She's not a fan

Friday, February 19, 2010 Comments

We got a rather pointed letter recently about the "We Are Golf" campaign recently undertaken by the industry with the help of the Podesta lobbying group in Washington and covered in Golf World. The point of the crusade is to remind lawmakers and influencers that golf is more than the folks who play it; it's also the two million folks who work at it, in golf course maintenance, hospitality, transportation, etc. The campaign is also meant to remind them that the game, in one form or another, contributes about $3.4 billion dollars to charity each hear--only $120 million of that from the PGA Tour. Important messages, often missed, in the political dialogue that may find fault with corporate-sponsored tournaments and entertainment. Not everyone is buying the message, though, including this Golf World reader: The "We Are Golf" campaign was born out of a meeting at an event (Masters) epitomizing the exclusionary attitude that controls the game and described in a publication that has become too male and too white within its pages. All the economic numbers, the lobbying money and denial won't make up for the inability to face reality. The industry doesn't need to explain itself, it needs to stop behaving badly. Susan Smith, North Aurora, IL
You make a point. (We won't debate your position, assuming it's your position, that single-gender associations--read golf clubs--are always wrong. That's another discussion.) Here's my problem with the rest of your argument. Golf is trying to change. "We Are Golf" is a step, a reminder that we are more diverse and economically significant than we're given credit for, when you consider the two million people we employ and our increasingly diverse player base--or the annual contribution to charity our players make. In addition, the "Get Golf Ready" effort--bringing new players into the game inexpensively--which was not reported in Golf World, is an even more pointed effort to make the game less exclusionary and less intimidating to beginners--the majority of whom have been women during the pilot program. The PGA of America has also honored pioneers such as the late William Powell for their efforts, in the face of real, ugly discrimination, to keep the game alive for all Americans. So whether the progress is as fast as you would like or not, at least acknowledge the effort. You mention the Masters. Many firmly believe that Augusta will some day have female members. But honestly, that's less important to me than that non-golfers, male and female, white and black, get the message that we want them to play, that we'll make it easy for them to play, and that their participation, as players--or workers--supports our economy and enhances our sport. By the way, the Masters has also made a huge effort to grow the game in Asia, with its Asian Amateur, to start with. In the course of our U.S. Open Contest winner search this past week, I had the chance to meet about 30 "semi-finalist" contestants from all walks of life, sharing only two things: They wrote good contest essays and they really, really love golf. One in particular stood out: a Chinese immigrant from Ohio who had taken advantage of his move here 20 years ago to take up a sport he could not take up in China back then--and then to encourage 30 of his Chinese ex-pat friends to get lessons and play, too. In Justin Wang's world, the dream of open, affordable, enjoyable golf is alive and well. And no person is happier to take advantage of it. So I get it; golf is far from perfect. But give its leaders credit for trying. --Bob Carney

Keywords:

We Are Golf

Monday, February 8, 2010 Comments

If you care at all about how your sport is being treated by Washington these days, John Paul Newport’s weekend piece in the Wall Street Journal about the new “We Are Golf” lobbying initiative, announced at the PGA Merchandise Show is worth a read. Big program, big deal.

But there’s another initiative, less political, less sexy, and a hell of a lot cheaper, that got no attention in Florida and deserves just as much applause. It’s “Get Golf Ready,” the program that, for $99, introduces beginner adults to the game -- five sessions that include lessons, etiquette, on-course play, the whole thing. For the millions of potential golfers who are mystified or intimidated by our clubby ways, it’s a protective cordon that escorts them into middle of the sport. In Orlando, we got the first year update on GGR. Bottom line, it works.

Still in its pilot stage, the program signed up 1,200 facilities last year and “graduated” 17,000 new golfers. Participants reported an incredible 96 per cent satisfaction rate. More than nine of 10 will recommend it to a friend and those nine will continue playing golf. Three of four have played since finishing the program, four of five have visited a range.

This is a big, big deal. There’s a lot of talk these days about whether we can raise enough money to promote our game sufficiently in Washington and elsewhere. But golf’s problem isn’t insufficient funds. It’s insufficient fun. Our game is run by good players -- not only the Tour but teaching pros, amateurs who lead its associations -- and they focus on the sport as competition. (Include Golf Digest here). What do they spend most of their time on? Scores, handicaps, rules., stats. They have created an avid golfer often obsessed with score, frequently intolerant of beginners, and, because they live to break some personal best, study every shot and play as if they have all the time in the world. Our competitions take five and six hours and we talk until our audiences are nodding off about golf’s sacred integrity. To young adults who just want to play the sport, it must be like that Woody Allen quote: “If my film makes one more person miserable, I’ve done my job.”

Listen, our obsession with competition is right -- for OUR half of the sport. But the game’s growth, its sense of inclusion, it’s “We Are Golf” soul, depends upon making way for new players who just want to have fun -- the hitters and gigglers who don’t know Jack Nicklaus form Jack Nicholson, couldn’t identify a square groove if you comped their green fee, and live to hit a drive into the range picker’s cart. Their bible is not Mark Frost’s The Match, but "Happy Gilmore", if they know that much, and golf may be just an excuse to meet a neighbor, play a few holes, spend time with their spouse, walk for a couple of hours, or drink a Corona. They wear shirts with no collars and cargo shorts (OMG!)

Point is, They Are Golf, Too. Can the two groups coexist? They can if “Get Golf Ready” runs interference for the newbies and if the sport- -- serious and casual -- does something about pace of play. If everybody plays quickly, who cares whether the group in front of you is keeping count or not?

-- Bob Carney

Keywords:

Groove wars (Part 2)

Monday, February 8, 2010 Comments

The debate rattles on. Did Phil do wrong, or simply try to point out a flawed policy? Is this a letter-of-the-law or a spirit-of-the-law case? Your opinions fall on all sides of the issue, as these latest letters demonstrate. For more debate and some interesting comments, check out two other sites: Geoffshackelford.com and Golfwrx.com. It's taken our minds off Tiger, hasn't it?

He can get into semantics all he wants, but Phil Mickelson blew a great opportunity to help golf when it needs it the most. He was one of the earliest whiners when the groove changes were made. So, he showed the USGA. He went out and found a club (legal because of the Ping lawsuit technicality) but a club that is definitely illegal in the true sense of the spirit of the game. He could have helped defuse this entire situation by refusing to join a few rogue players in bending the rules. He can use whatever terms he chooses, but he still comes accross as the loser in this controversy. Scott McCarron should be the new hero of the people who love and respect the game of golf. WT Burke, Sarasota FL

Does anybody else think that Scott McCarren's comments about players who use Ping wedges with legal grooves are are a bit silly since he has been using the "long putter" for years? Is this in the "spirit" of the game that he talks about? Scott has a short memory. Richard Galloway, Illinois

He has found a loophole in the system. More Tour players are going to use Eye 2 wedges. These players are playing to make a living. The USGA and R and A should have done their homework. Phil is a class act. If the other tour players dont like it go into your garage and dust off your old eye 2 wedges. But do not disrespect the classiest guy in golf. Please consider publishing in the next issue. Jeff Lombardi, Middletown, CT</blockquote> In case you missed it, Golf World's Tim Rosaforte wrote that he thought this was an "unwelcome" distraction on tour. A number of folks are not so sure. Unlike the Tiger Woods situation, this may be a case of "all news is good news." Sports Center is talking golf, no?

--Bob Carney

Groove wars

Monday, February 8, 2010 Comments

Both Golf Digest and Golf World readers are passionately weighing in on the groove wars: Do players who use the old Ping wedges that contain the "U" grooves but have been grandfathered, cheat? Or are they just taking advantage of a rule, the way you might when you take a drop out of casual water and--gosh, that's a break--away from a tree? Scott McCarron says Phil Mickelson is "cheating" when he uses those old Ping wedges, violating the "spirit of the rule." But not all McCarrons agree.

I am a left-handed golfer that still uses Ping Eye 2 irons and wedges. My favorite pro golfer is Phil Mickelson, not only for his skills but also for his demeanor and integrity. And because my name is McCarron I enthusiastically follow Scott McCarron's success on the tour.
I have to say that Scott McCarron's recent comments were way off base regarding Phil's decision to include square grooves in his bag! The Eye 2 clubs are not illegal clubs so labeling Phil a "cheater" in any way is extremely poor judgement and sportsmanship on the part of Scott McCarron, or any other pro that questions the use of the grandfathered square groove wedges. Question the PGA Tour's policy committee if you want but don't infer that a guy of Phil's caliber and character is cheating by putting the clubs in his bag. Mr. McCarron perhaps should perhaps apolgize to Phil. I am sure Phil will take the high road on the subject. Dan McCarron, Wakefield, MA

Being that he now claims he was "slandered" his road may be heading lower.

Hey Guys! How about giving up the Pings and the Belly Putter (in the spirit of the game).
Dean Toriello MD, Grand Rapids, Mi

Now you're talking, Doc. Anything that makes it harder to get clubs into a travel bag violates the spirit of the game as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe Scott McCarron should invest in the 20-year-old Ping wedges to revive his diminishing golf career. In fact, if it wasn't for McCarron utilizing a questionable legal club the long putter, he would not have had a PGA tour career. Gene Martineau, Roseville, CA.

That's very cold, Gene, but it's within the rules because you used a short letter. Be advised, however, that there are McCarron defenders...

While Mickelson is technically not cheating because of the settlement agreement between Ping and the USGA, he is in fact violating the clear intent of the USGA to eliminate square grooves from competition. Jon Daly's lack of talent and low moral threshold make his use of the old wedges understandable. Mickelson's abundant talent and high moral threshold make his decision unfathomable.

McCarron is right. Mickelson is cheating within the rules and he has lost me as a fan. Professional golf is fast becoming an irrelevant sport.
John R. Linnell, Tucson, AZ

Seems to me that "cheating within the rules" is impossible. Call it unsportsmanlike, perhaps, but if you're within the rules, you're within the rules--and Mickelson is. Could it be that he's trying to make a point for his and other equipment suppliers whose U grooves are not allowed? Stranger things have happened. Some of you have suggested that a "local rule" could take care of this situation. But according to Mike Johnson of Golf World, the Tour signed a settlement with Ping that precludes such a local rule.

--Bob Carney

Hot List: Just "product pushing"?

Monday, February 8, 2010 Comments

Our Michigan friend Justin Blair objects strongly to the suggestion, made by Golf Digest Equipment Editor Mike Stachura in our presentation of the 2010 Hot List, that if you're playing obsolete equipment you're not playing golf! Justin undoubtedly speaks for many readers when he says that Mike is simply "pushing product" and that he's offended by it. To Justin, the editor-reader bond of trust has been broken like an old aluminum shaft. It seems appropriate to address Blair's objection today, on the eve of tomorrow's PGA Merchandise Show opening, where, for three days, more product will be "pushed" than during any three days of the year. Justin's letter:

I just want to say "thank you" to Mike Stachura. His claim that people using equipment not of this decade are "pretending" to golf is the final straw that has broke this camel's back. His comment about people using outdated equipment are "pretending" to golf is offensive. He has the right to feel what he does, but so do I. He's a product-pusher, as there are no numbers to back up any claims made on the Hot List. Opinions about head shapes, paint schemes, looks/lack of alignment aids, etc. doesn't tell anyone that they should shell out their hard earned money to keep up with the arms race. Telling them that they're "pretending" to do something they love because they aren't like him and upgrading every other year (for whatever reason) is uncalled for. Where are the numbers that back up his claims? Coincidentally, a rival magazine reported a couple of months ago that the average male driving distance is 235 yards... is this new technology truly helping, or was it because there were too many "pretenders" involved with that survey? I've never had a subscription to GD, though I bought it faithfully every month for the past five years. Not any more. I'm going to take my outdated clubs and "pretend" to golf without your services. Thanks, it's been a great run, but I no longer feel the need to care about your magazine.

Justin Blair, Three Rivers, MI
It never works to try to talk a reader out of his decision to stop reading Golf Digest, not in the heat of break-up, certainly. But I want to say a few things about Golf Digest's position on obsolescence and especially about Stachura, who has said worse to me personally about my ancient rescue clubs, among other pieces of my equipment. First, Mike is no product pusher. On the contrary, he is one of the most skeptical reporters/editors I know. He's also one of the most knowledgeable because he works so hard at understanding what manufacturers are building and selling, and he is often the last to be convinced of their purported benefits. He is urging--it occasionally comes off as commanding--that you change equipment because he truly believes that it will help your game. Being anxious to make his point indelibly, he urges the way Madison Avenue might--without nuance. (Though he'd kill me for comparing him to Madison Avenue!)

What Mike and Golf Digest both believe is that technology, on display this week in Orlando, is there for the taking and many golfers aren't taking, thus forfeiting benefits beginning with distance but extending to feel, trajectory control and the simple satisfaction of playing better. Take the advice or not. As Jerry Tarde pointed out in his Editor's Letter in March, I'm one of those fellows who hasn't bought in entirely either. I hold on to an old TaylorMade 4 Rescue club because with it I made a hole-in-one and won a car. I'm loyal that way. But deep in my heart I know I can do better. I hope your leave-taking is not permanent, Justin. But Mike ain't pushing. He's pleading.

--Bob Carney

Erin Hills

Monday, February 8, 2010 Comments

Matt Ginella's bittersweet story on Erin Hills' founder Bob Lang has drawn several comments. I can remember, about four or five PGA Merchandise Shows ago--we're heading down to Orlando for the latest show this week--someone handing me a Wisconsin newspaper story on the course. The pre-sell on Erin Hills was off the charts, especially by Lang, but anyone who saw it completely agreed.

The USGA, as Ginella describes, got interested and Lang's dream of hosting a significant event (The U.S. Amateur) became reality. But like the Irish band in the Commitments, the center did not hold; the team of Lang and his designers: Michael Hurdzan, Dany Fry and Golf Digest's Ron Whitten, began to spin apart and eventually Lang had to sell. Their masterpiece, however, endures. I for one can't to see it hosting a big event.

Loved Matt Ginella's in depth feature on Erin Hills. Much more in depth than local coverage. Have played it a few times, opening year and late last year. I do prefer the "newer" version though I felt it was still about a year away from being in the condition that is their goal. Attached is a photo of #18, taken about 6:00 a.m., June 25, 2009, just prior to it's reopening to the public after making numerous changes. Nick Chapel, Franklin, WI I'd played Bob Lang's course before the renovation and didn't care for it at all, as it had many blind shots and little continuity. So, I thought I'd give it a secnond chance after the redo and it was even worse. It presented a jumble of design ideas in absolutely horrible condition. I was impressed that Bob took the effort to apologize to me personally by phone. Nevertheless, a 25 handicapper and a golf writer don't make for a great architectual team and there is was no reason to think that they would. Bob clearly understood the USGA's formula though. Erin Hills photographs "pretty" and has copious amounts of parking for the enormous U.S. Open crowds. It's sports marketing but it ain't golf. John D. Porter, III, Charlotte, NC

-- Bob Carney