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.