In defense of Tiger's shoulder

I get it that Tiger's a terrible husband, maybe not so great a dad, this is all his fault, blah blah blah...

But, to hear the reaction from Tiger's withdrawal from TPC, you'd think he has a history of quitting on the golf course. This couldn't be further from the truth. He has always grinded it out, trying to make tough pars even when he didn't have his best game. The fact is, golf is hard, and no one, even Tiger, can master it.

Tiger didn't get to be the most dominant golfer of his generation by being a quitter. In fact, there aren't many quitters who are at the top of any field.

It's reasonable to believe that Tiger is distrustful of the media given his recent experiences in having his dirty laundry aired in front of the entire world. You can say it was his fault to begin with, but you can also understand why he's hesitant to share everything with them now. Not to mention there's also a culture of athletes not to disclose any injuries unless you have to. Besides, who's to say he really thought it wasn't that bad up until the last minute when it became unbearable.

For all Tiger has done wrong, he should have done enough to earn a reputation on the course that is beyond reproach.

Who's running Tiger's life?

So, Tiger posted a new blog at his website just recently. In it, he congratulates Phil on winning the Masters, and apologizes for using profanity on the course.

Who is this guy? It's obvious his handlers are trying to remake his image. Thing is, I like Tiger for who he is and who he has always been. Family issues aside of course, I'm not married to him. Sure, he's a terrible husband, but he's cold-blooded on the course, and that's what I've always liked. If he turns into the image conscious golfer who congratulates his main rival on victories and apologizes for his intensity, that might be enough for me to fall off the Tiger bandwagon.

Just stick to your guns, Tiger. Play golf, win tournaments, and screw what everyone else thinks.

Why did Tiger choose the Masters?

Interesting to me that Tiger is choosing to come back and play the Masters instead of playing a tournament before that as a "warmup." We all know that in the past, Tiger has always made it clear that whenever he plays any tournament, he's playing it to win. But, I believe it's also true that he believes his best chance to win a major tournament requires being able to come into that tournament competition tested. For this reason, I have to question why he's not playing another tournament before the Masters.

My thoughts all along were that he would play the Bay Hill tournament, or what is commonly referred to as Arnie's tournament. I can't help but think that perhaps Palmer himself made it clear to Tiger he shouldn't play at his tournament as his first one back. On one hand, sure, there are people who would have loved to have seen him there. NBC for one, advertisers just interested in getting more viewers and certain segments of the media.

Some may even say Arnie would want him to play there. I'm not so sure. Tiger and Arnie have always seemed to have a good relationship, evidenced by Arnie's warm congratulations each time Tiger walked off the 72nd green as winner at Bay Hill. However, I thought it was notable that at no time during Tiger's exile from golf did we hear from Palmer. At least I don't remember hearing his thoughts. This always made me wonder if his true, honest thoughts about the situation would have been less than flattering for Tiger, e.g. he was disappointed in his personal lifestyle choices. I also wonder if, when Tiger started making plans to play, he initially planned on playing Bay Hill like he always had, but then Arnie gently persuaded him not to play. His tournament will have plenty of attention anyway, and Arnie probably wanted to avoid all the extra media attention. If Tiger would have played, I imagine the tournament host would have had to answer a ton of questions about Tiger. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to me that behind the scenes, Arnold Palmer could very well have let Tiger know he'd prefer he didn't play his tournament just this one time.

Quick hits

- Golf: so, there was the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines this past weekend. Ben Crane, most known for slow play and maybe but probably not saying something derogatory about Tiger, was the big winner. The favorite subject of writers and other media during the week, though, had to do with Phil and his non-conforming, old, Ping Eye2 wedge. Of course, some other players came out and said it was against the rules, and notably, Scott McCarron apparently called Phil a cheater.

Look, here's my take. First of all, McCarron is one of many golfers who use a long putter. There are many in the game that would say that is against the "spirit" of the game. Is he really in the best position to be criticizing others? Then, there's this thought: Essentially what the critics are saying is that even though by the letter of the law, the use of the old wedge is legal, players shouldn't use it because it just isn't right, or is against the spirit of the game. That may or may not be true, but then, when have the rules of golf had any room for a "spirit of the game" argument?

There are many examples of golfers dq'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, or penalized strokes when their ball just happens to move. Did the player gain an unfair advantage in these instances? Of course not, but by the black and white letter of the law they were penalized. It seems to me that in the case with the Ping wedges, by the strict interpretation of the rules, they are legal. And golf has always used a strict interpretation of the rules. I'd say that by the "spirit of the game," it shouldn't matter that Michelle Wei or Sergio Garcia signed an incorrect scorecard. It was an honest mistake and they didn't gain an advantage by it. So, I say let them keep using the old wedges, until the rule, (or, loophole) is actually changed. Until then, any criticism is unfair.

Watson for President's Cup?

So there's an article, blog posting, editorial, or whatever you want to call it on golf.com in the form of a petition to Fred Couples asking him to pick Tom Watson for the President's Cup. Seriously. Even though the guy a month from 60, and is only competitive on the Champion's Tour a few times a year. Sure, he made for an entertaining British Open, but let's be honest, that was on a course he had won before and knew probably better than anyone else in the field. It was not super long, and being a links course, required a different style of game than any other tournament in the States. And, oh yeah, he didn't win. He couldn't get up and down for par from just off the green on the 72nd hole, and then got embarrassed in the playoff by Stewart Cink.

So, why in the world should he be on the President's Cup team? Are you telling me he should take the place of a much younger player who actually competes on the real tour throughout the entire year? Whoever penned that article for golf.com is taking his fanhood a bit too far in this case in thinking Watson should even be considered for the President's Cup. Let's hope Freddy is smart enough and realistic enough to know picking Tom Watson would make absolutely no sense.

Glover Comes Through...

Congrats to Lucas Glover for winning the recent U.S. Open at Bethpage Black. I've always thought he had a lot of game and frankly, he would have been in maybe my top five darkhorses with a chance to win. He's not a flash in the pan, and I seriously doubt he's going to fade away and never win again. Just the opposite, I think he has more wins ahead of him, and will be a very steady player for years to come.

But seriously though, what happened to Tiger's putting? Time after time, he hit quality shots on Sunday and Monday, but kept missing the putts. More often than not, he hit a good putt that was just barely off and wouldn't go in. A few were misreads I guess but especially on Monday they all looked pretty pure. It really seems like he makes those type of putts only when he's leading a tournament as opposed to when he's trailing. Why is that I wonder? Everyone knows he has yet to win coming from behind on the last day of a major. That's quite an odd stat because it's not like he doesn't play well enough to win. It's just that, as we saw last weekend, the must-have putts drop when he's ahead, and don't when he's behind. Kind of strange...

Judging the Ryder Cup picks.

Paul Azinger just announced his four Ryder Cup picks for this year. His selections were Hunter Mahan, Steve Stricker, Chad Campbell, and J.B. Holmes. Overall, no big surprises since there really just wasn't anybody else that really made a strong case to be on the team. My thoughts on each of the players:

Stricker - Hard to pass on Steve Stricker, he was ninth in final standings, just one spot away from making it on points. He was the most obvious pick, and probably would have been seen as a slight if he hadn't been picked. He's generally known as a solid ball striker and very good putter. No part of his game really stands out as spectacular, and really hasn't done anything great lately to show he's got a lot of momentum. In addition, he's always been known as a guy who doesn't like the spotlight and naturally a pretty quiet person. While this normally may be just fine for a golfer, it is the one thing that suggests he's not cut out to be a great Ryder Cupper.

Mahan - For the last couple of years, seen as a great young talent who has perhaps underachieved. He may actually be great for this format, as his game is a little rough around the edges when it comes to scoring in tournaments, but there is no doubt he can make birdies and will not back down from the challenge. He just recently gave an interview in which he came across as less than enamored with the event, due to all it's obligations and time required. So long as he doesn't actually let his feelings about the event affect his play, he should be a good addition to the team.

J.B. Holmes - Again, not really a surprise, he had a pretty good showing at the PGA Championship that likely impressed Captain Azinger. He's a super long hitter and should be able to make a lot of birdies. Kenny Perry has already expressed a desire to play with him, and others likely will as well, since playing a drive 50 yards ahead of what you're used to would be fun.

Chad Campbell - He's been on the last two teams, so Azinger was probably glad to have the chance to get a little more experience on the team. He has fallen off a bit in his results the last two years, but every now and then he pops on the radar to show his game hasn't completely gone away. I expect a guy like this to do well. He may have been the one surprise in the selections, but it's hard to say it's not deserved. He's a well-liked, easy-going guy who should contribute to the team.

Overall, Azinger did the best he could with these picks. There just hasn't been anyone who really jumped out and made a great case for being on the team. The other players I thought had a chance were Bubba Watson, Sean O'hair, and D.J. Trahan, who didn't help his case by shooting an 80 in the final round this past weekend. The other two guys just hadn't shown enough results either, although a pick wouldn't have been totally undeserved.

In the end, I believe the leadership of Azinger helps these guys upset Captain Faldo's team. For some reason, Faldo seems to be a little more detached from his team. Maybe he's such a big name that there team gets away from the underdog role that has done them well in the past.

Why the LPGA language requirement makes sense.

By now, we've all heard about the LPGA announcing a new rule requiring all its players to become fluent, or at least attempt to, in English. The reasoning behind the move is simply a financial one. The LPGA is an American tour. Prize money comes primarily from U.S. based businesses and other various sponsors. In exchange for the money put into the tournaments, of course the sponsors seek something in return. Usually, this is the cooperation of players in playing in pro-ams with the sponsors and their guests, and often actual marketing efforts by the players. Seems reasonable, right? Just a simple matter of marketing, where all those involved see a benefit.

Now, as those who follow the sport closely probably already know, the LPGA has recently seen a huge increase in foreign players, and in particular South Koreans. This is perfectly fine and good for the game on an international basis. What isn't good for the game is when so many foreigners bring down the tour because they don't do enough or aren't able to promote it due to their inability to speak English.

A quick check of the LPGA website shows that there are 121 active International LPGA players from 26 different countries, and of those, 45 are from South Korea. Of course, not all of the South Koreans can't speak English, but many don't, or at least not well enough to use it in interviews and speaking with pro-am partners. A closer look at money list shows that, by my calculations, there are 9 U.S. players, and 11 South Korean players, in the top 30 on the LPGA tour. Obviously, this is a tour that is heavily International in its makeup.

All the stats aside, it is apparent that the new rule being instituted by the LPGA is for the good of the game. The sport is dependent on its sponsors, and the sponsors in turn expect a return on their investment. While it's not a reflection on the South Koreans as individuals, reality is they can't effectively market the tour since many of them cannot speak English fluently. The LPGA has a responsibility, not only to the decision-makers, but to its players as well, to ensure the purses offered at the tournaments are as high as possible. There's a reason the foreign players come to the U.S. to play, the money. But in exchange for the chance to play for the big prize money offered here, it's only fair to expect the players to cooperate and just learn the language.

light servings

Just a few notes I wanted to get down before I forgot...

1. Okay, after that last Braves post, things have gotten even worse. The series against the Cubs was very discouraging. But, to read other blogs, especially on AJC, it appears many fans are blaming Bobby Cox. Have these people forgotten about the 14 division titles in a row? Did Cox have nothing to do with those. Has he all of a sudden forgot how to manage. Of course he hasn't, so lay off of the team for now and give them time to figure it out. Or go be a Mets fan and whine about every single bad break your team gets. This is why they play the games people, wins aren't automatic, as much as we've been spoiled into believing they are. I'm going to try and remain patient for the time being and not call for drastic changes on the team yet. Besides, I wasn't too optimistic going into the season anyway.

2. I'm going out on a limb and predicting Stuart Appleby will win the U.S. Open. I think he's due to win a big tournament and he's proven in the past he can get on a hot streak and play out of his mind. This is the perfect week to do it. Tiger's injured, and Phil, well let's just say Phil can never play by the book. Yeah, the book says Phil is due this week but things with him just never make sense.

John Daly living the life

It' s easy to knock on John Daly for wasting his talent due to multiple bad habits. On the other hand, can we all say we aren't just a little bit jealous of someone who golfs for a living yet still seems like a kid growing up on a farm in the country. Here's a classic vid of him, presumably close to home in Arkansas, playing in jeans, no shoes, shirtless and smoking a cig.

http://ozarksfirst.com/media_player.php?media_id=34761 (via deadspin.com)

Jim Nantz owes Tiger an apology.

If you were watching the Masters this past Sunday, you may have heard Jim Nantz and others in the CBS crew comment on how frustrated Tiger appeared to be during his final round. Well, I noticed it anyway, and it sounded to me that Nantz was out of line and a bit too harsh. While I wouldn't normally take it upon myself to stick up for an athlete, I did in this case. The following is the email I sent to Augusta National and copied to CBS sports:

I am writing to express my opinion regarding certain
comments made by Jim Nantz in regards to Tiger Woods
during the Sunday Masters telecast.  Mr. Nantz has,
thus far, on two occasions unnecessarily criticized
Tiger for his performance and disposition.

Although I can't recall the exact words used, I
believe Mr. Nantz initially made a comment when Tiger
was around #4, stating that he wasn't handling his
frustration very well.  Then, David Feherty made the
astute observation that Brandt Snedeker caught a break
when he got a great result, from a less than great
putt on #2, which fell in the hole with a rather quick
pace.  Mr. Feherty's point was that other player's
were catching breaks and Tiger simply was not.  Thus,
the cause for frustration by Tiger.

The second unnecessary comment by Mr. Nantz was more
direct.  If I recall correctly, Tiger hit a shot on #7
which was perhaps two yards too short, and spun off
the front of the green.  Peter Kostis made a comment
that frustration was the best description for his
week.  Then, Jim Nantz remarked that all players deal
with the same frustrations.  As Tiger played his chip
shot, Mr. Kostis again reiterated his remarks about
Tiger's frustration level.  At this point, Jim Nantz
derided   Tiger by saying (paraphrasing) "but wouldn't
you think with his seasoning and experience he would
handle it better."  Mr. Kostis responded to the effect
that he certainly had in the past.  Mr. Nantz
apparently fails to realize that Tiger's record over
the years shows that he is able to properly to handle
his emotions while performing at a higher level than
anyone else in the game.

I feel that these comments by Mr. Nantz were
mean-spirited and displayed an obvious bias against
Tiger Woods.  I am aware, from an article in USA
today, that Mr. Nantz may have a history of personal
animosity with Tiger.  Whether true or not, these
comments certainly add validity to that possibility.


Frankly, while I have always enjoyed watching the
Masters, these comments by Mr. Nantz have made it a
less enjoyable experience.  With the Masters history
of great attention to detail and respect for the game,
I am hoping that you will take this opinion seriously
and ensure that Mr. Nantz refrains from offering such
negative commentary in the future. 

As you may have heard, Tiger just revealed yesterday that he had arthroscopic surgery on his left knee two days after the tournament. While he did not in any way blame his performance on an injury, it is apparent that he was dealing with pain during the tournament. Of course, this would explain why he was moving slowly around the course and did not appear to be on top of his game.

As I felt during the tournament, I feel even stronger now that Jim Nantz owes Tiger Woods an apology for his negative comments during the final round. Yes, Tiger was moving slower than usual, and did appear to be laboring more than usual, but now we all know why that was. One would think that Tiger's record, establishing him as the greatest golfer in history, would be enough to earn the respect of those in the media, but apparently Mr. Nantz isn't buying it.

So, Jim, are you sticking by your comments that all players were dealing with the same set of circumstances during the Masters? Do you still believe he had no cause to show frustration on the course during Sunday's round? Or was your commentary in poor taste and presumptuous?