New Role for Watson - Villian!

Before I start, let me list my 3 favorite golfers of all time:

1.  Arnold Palmer

2.  Tom Watson

3.  Phil Mickelson 

The march of time has a lot to do with the above list.  By the mid 70s, even I had to concede that Arnie's days of competing for major championships were over. I briefly latched on to Johnny Miller but the talented Tommie and his "go after it" style, plus his ability to win tournaments, made him the obvious choice to take over for Arnie in my mind and heart. Sadly, by the early 90s, I realized that Watson's game, so exemplary from tee to green, had been crippled by one of the worst cases of the yips ever seen in a world class golfer.  I firmly believe Tom would have won 10 or more majors if his ability to make short putts had not become so compromised (that 1987 US Open at Olympic was excruciatingly painful for a Watson fan; probably painful for Watson too).  Fortunately, another Arnie-like golfer was making waves on the tour and thus began my Mickelson obsession (talk about painful;  how many majors did he nearly win before, and after, 2004?). 

There's no need to rehash what happened at the 2014 Ryder Cup.  Suffice it to say there was a major clash between the number 2 and 3 golfers above. As a huge fan of both, it hurts to see this happen.  I'm not going to opine on right and wrong, although I thought what Phil said at the Sunday press conference was not the way to go about it. 

So Watson gave a "tough love" speech on Saturday night.  Told them they need to compete like Reed and Speith were. (mighta helped)  Said they "stink at foursomes".  Let's see.... they lost the foursomes by 7-1.  Yeah, I'd say they stunk at foursomes. Told them they needed to show some heart and some guts on Sunday (paraphrasing here).  Yeah, probably did. Treated a gift they presented him with disdain, saying he only wanted the Ryder Cup (probably not a great move - should've shown some appreciation).  This was generally acknowledged to be treatment bordering on cruelty to the poor US golfers. 

But let's go back 21 years to the PGA National Club where the 1983 Ryder Cup was played. After the four ball and foursomes matches were complete, the US and Europe were tied at 8-8.  That night, captain Jack Nicklaus gave the team a tough guy speech, telling them to show him some balls the next day.  He actually said brass instead of balls but we all know what he meant.  The next day his boys did just that (sort of) and won the cup by a score of 14.5 to 13.5.  Lanny Wadkins was widely hailed as the hero for hitting a wedge to 3 feet on the 18th hole and earning a tie with Jose Maria Canizares that secured the cup in the 2nd to last singles match. What is mostly forgotten is that Tom Watson won the last match 2 and 1. So if Lanny had lost his match, Watson's win would still have retained the Cup for the US with a 14 all tie.   

Nicklaus's pep talk was hailed as a good motivational device.  He remarked after the win something about Lanny having enough brass for several golfers, or words to that effect - I can't find anything on Jack's quotes after a brief search.  I don't recall any words directed at Watson, whose brass quantity would have won the cup for the US regardless of the Wadkins result.

So basically, Watson used the same motivational technique as Jack did back in 1983. Jack was hailed as a great captain and Watson is being excoriated for being an insensitive jerk. Now winning or losing has a lot to do with perception here but is there a chance, just the barest possibility, that these 2014 Ryder Cuppers are candy asses?  Maybe if they had taken that tough guy mentality to the course on Sunday, like Watson did in '83, they would have done a little better (although I doubt they could have caught Europe). 

An interesting correlation regarding 1983 vs 2014:  Watson's opponent that Sunday was Bernard Gallacher. Phil's Sunday opponent in 2014 was Stephen Gallacher, the nephew of Bernard. So, there was a family connection for the two USA antagonists, at least regarding their opponents.

Watson's record was 4-1 in 1983.  The only match he lost was in Saturday foursomes, playing with the immortal Bob Gilder.  I doubt Jack told them they stunk in foursomes after the match. 

1983 was the first year all golfers in  Europe were eligible for the Ryder Cup.  The man who suggested this change in the interest of fairness was none other than  -  Jack Nicklaus.  Maybe Watson should now suggest that the US be allowed to use all golfers originating from North or South America.  That way he could come out as hero and, add to his legacy, which has taken an unfortunate hit due indirectly to his willingness to captain an inferior team. 

I wonder how the 1983 captain would have reacted if his players said he was a mean man. Somehow, I can't see those guys saying that.   Have we gotten wimpier in 2 decades?  Not just in golf but our society in general.  Do we need too much hand holding these days?  Just sayin'.

"NOWHERE" is Defined! Source Unexpected

I always thought that "nowhere" was a vague, undefined concept.  The juxtaposition of the two words "no" and "where" pretty clearly implies that a "where",  i.e. a specific place, can not be determined.  My earliest remembered usage was when my father asked me on some occasions where I'd been and my reply was "nowhere". I also remember reading an article that contained a line referring to our most famed female aviator, the gist of which was "Amelia Earhart went on a flight to nowhere and her plane has never been found."  And then there's the "he's punching a one-way ticket to nowhere-ville" line that is commonly directed at the aimless ne'er do well, at least one of which we've all known.  In all these usages, it is plainly evident that no there is specific place related to the word nowhere.

 

Imagine my surprise then when several weeks ago the explicit location of nowhere was revealed on TV.  No, it wasn't on the Science or National Geographic channels.  And it wasn't Steven Hawking providing the answer to this long-pondered riddle. No, to my amazement, the answer was provided by Dan Fouts, former all Pro quarterback for the San Diego Chargers, on a nationally televised NFL Sunday game. A wide receiver had caught a pass behind the cornerback and was on his way to the goal line. The safety for the defense, who had correctly diagnosed the intent of the play from the get-go, reached out and poked the ball away from the ball carrier. It was subsequently recovered by the defense. On the slow motion replay, Mr Fouts proclaimed with great enthusiasm - "the safety came out of NOWHERE and caused the turnover".  Who knew that nowhere would turn out to be a place so close to the action focal point.  So it's logical to conclude that the location of nowhere is a position of proximity (less than 5 yards in this case) by one body,  in relation to another similar body, and also behind that body.  

This definition is supported by a subsequent reference to "nowhere" I heard in a replay of a 1990s playoff game featuring the Chicago Bulls vs. the NY Knicks. In this example, the Knicks' John Starks had achieved penetration to the basket and attempted a short floater.  Shadowing Starks was the incomparable Michael Jordan, unbeknownst to the enterprising Knick. Starks' attempt was swatted into the 7th row shortly after it left his hand by the NBA's best ever.  The color analyst on the broadcast, whose name I can't conjure up at the moment, lamented that Jordan had come out of NOWHERE to dash the hopes  Knicks' fans had for an easy bucket.  Jordan was slightly closer to the offensive player than the safety had been in my prior example but the locations are still very similar.

I must admit that my elation at solving this riddle is tempered by the fact that the mystery has been removed from the term. Yet I can take solace in the promise this revelation carries with it. After all, it could lead to finding out where Miss Earhart's plane wound up.  I suppose someone could now figure out where I had been prior to avoiding my father's inquiries regarding my whereabouts as well.  I doubt, however, that anyone would be interested in locating nowhere-ville.  After all, who wants to hang out with a bunch of lazy people going to, uh, some unspecified, unrewarding place.

Should I hit a Fade or a Draw?

I have never taken a golf lesson in my life.  I grew up watching Arnold and Jack going at it (dating myself here).  Golf swing analysis was much simpler then, at least from my remembrance of those TV days.  To me it was -  straight left arm, weight shift, shift weight comes back thru, finish high.  This worked pretty well for me;  although I never approached pro level, I did manage to drive my handicap down to a 7 at my peak.  I was pretty proud of my sojourns into the 70s (score, not decade), but it always bothered me that my natural shot was a fade and my big mistake was a slice.  To me, the "manly" shot was a draw and if you swing badly, it should result in a disastrous hook that bores its way thru rough and bush, not some sissy slice that falls softly in the woods or a water hazard.

Problem was, I struggled to hit draws and hooks.  When playing my best, I could hit some draws and hooks, but if I was playing on the "marginal" level, I would always revert to my natural left-to-right ball flight. So at some point I discarded Watson's advice (keep your swing long) and tried to shorten my backswing in order to produce an inside-to-out swing path that would result in a draw.  What followed was not pretty: picture Charles Barkley's ugly hitch-infested swing.  Yes, I was plagued with a horrible, unconquerable, mentally-paralyzing hitch that killed my enjoyment of golf for about 3 years.  Thankfully, I found my way out of that golf nightmare and arrived at a point where I could work on technical aspects of my swing.  After some effort, I now find I can produce draws quite often and my big miss is indeed a disastrous hook.  Now I fall back on the draw/hook when I'm not sure what to do.  This played out yesterday at the Queens Harbour course in Jacksonville, Florida, a Mark McCumber design.  I'd have to say draws really didn't help me that much on that water-laden course so I am now wondering if I should have just stuck with my old swing. Let me think........  Ah, screw it, I want to be a manly golfer with all the ills that come with that approach   ----  let the draws rule!!!!!!!

(this post was done with tongue somewhat planted in cheek.  Truth is if my short game was even close to my peak, I would've scored around 80.)  Gotta love hitting those sweeping right-to-left shots.

Can Tiger Catch Jack? The Definitive Answer You Won't Read Elsewhere

Tiger Woods is on the DL again, but that doesn't stop the tour and non-tour wags from speculating whether he'll break Nicklaus' record of 18 major tournaments.  First let's set the scene; he's been stuck on 14 now for what will be 6 years when the US Open kicks off in June at the legendary Pinehurst Number 2 (personally I can't wait to see how it plays after the Crenshaw-Coore restoration).  Based on recovery times for other athletes who had the same operation as Tiger, I'm counting him out of the majors for 2014.  It's possible he could play in the PGA, or miraculously in the British Open, but I wouldn't bet on him doing much, if he plays at all.  That means he goes to Augusta next year as a 39 year old golfer with a ton of mileage on his odometer.

The history of golfers winning multiple majors after the age of 35 does not bode well for Eldrick.  Arnie and his Army were done at 34.  Tom Watson you ask  -  done at 33.  Bobby Jones, winner of 13 majors?   He retired from competition (such as it was) at the ripe old age of 28 because he couldn't take it anymore.  Walter Hagen, winner of 11, gives Tiger some hope as he won two majors after he reached his 35th birthday.  But the dashing Hagen won these in his 36th and 37th years and was not even a minor factor in the majors afterwards.

But wait, the records of Nicklaus, Gary Player and Ben Hogan shine the light of optimism on Tiger's chances.  Gary won 4 after turning 35:  one at 36, two at 38 and the last when he was 42.  Hogan won all but one of his majors post 35   and Jack added 6 more after that age (although the Masters win at 46 falls into the miraculous category and should probably be eliminated from this study).  Sounds good for Tiger, right?  But hold on now.  First, Mr Player, the "Man in Black".  By the age of 39, Gary only had that '78 Masters still to come.  Also, Gary was one of the few golfers of that era who worked out. He was a "young" 38 when he won the Masters and the Open.  Even the most ardent Tigerphiles concede that he's an "old" 38, having gone through 6 surgeries of a serious nature.  So, Gary really can't offer much hope to Tiger.

How about Hogan?  8 majors after turning 35.  Not only that, he suffered serious injuries in a car accident when he was 37 from which he had to bounce back.  Surely this career is the one Tiger can grab onto for hope, right?   Not so fast.  Hogan won all those majors after 35 because he didn't develop his game fully until then.  He's known as the best ball striker of all time but he didn't become that until his years of intense practice and study produced the revelation that propelled him to the top of the game.  Tiger's career is notoriously "front loaded".  There was that unparalleled streak between the ages of 23 and 26 (featuring the "Tiger Slam") and another between 29 and 32, and then, nothing.  You don't have to be a PGA professional to realize that Tiger can no longer play the game that produced those two amazing streaks.  Another problem with this comparison with Hogan is the nature of the injuries.   Ben's near fatal accident involved broken bones, at least from a structure standpoint.  Athletic trainers will always tell you that a break is the best injury to have because the bone actually becomes stronger after it heals.  Tiger's injuries are typical athletic stress types that have damaged cartilage, ligaments and nerves and thus are much more limiting when it comes to athletic performance.  OK, I'm tossing out the Hogan comparison - too many discrepancies.

That leaves Jack.  Once again, it starts out promising  -  5 majors after turning 35 (as I said above, I'm not counting the '86 Masters - too much help from the Golf Gods).  He even had a "lull" at 36-37, then won one at  38 and two at 40.  Perfect for giving hope to Tiger, right?  Well, maybe not.  Let's compare their performances in majors from age 35 to 38.  In those 16 appearances, Jack finished in the top ten 14 times, one of the misses finishing 11th(!)   and one where he was cut (more on this later).  He won 3 times and finished 2nd or 3rd an incredible 6 times.  During his "lull", he finished 2nd 3 times, losing to hall of famers like Watson, Miller, Player and Trevino.  Tiger meanwhile, had 4 top 10s with the best being 3rd place.  He had finishes of 21st, 32nd, 40th twice, missed the cut in the PGA when he was only 35, and currently has 3 DNPs which could grow to 6 by year end.  Tiger finished well back of such legends as Webb Simpson, Ricky Barnes, Martin Kaymer and the like.  As for Jack's missed cut in the PGA - it quickly led to people saying he was washed up.  The following year he finished 65th.  The next year -  he won!   Meanwhile Tiger followed up his MC with an 11th and a 40th place finish, at a younger age. 

The contrast here is stunning.  Although Tiger has a few top tens, I can never recall feeling like he was going to win a major on the final day.  In fact, he's faded badly on the weekends in several. 
Jack was playing great in his late 30s whileTiger runs hot and cold (sometimes frigid) and injured.

The conclusion? Tiger WILL NOT catch Jack. He may get another major or two if things go very right for him but given his injuries, the diminishing game and the lack of parallels between him and those who have won in their late 30s, the Golden Bear's record is safe.