US Ladies Complacent?

Hello. FYI Geroge White wrote a column on thegolfchannel.com quoting Karrie Webb as saying the LPGA needs more American ladies competing and winning tournaments in order for interest to soar. I agree 100% with that statement.
Geroge White is without question the writer who is most responsive to comments on his articles. And while I've had more in-depth email exchanges with John Rolfe of si.com, White is almost a 100% guarantee to reply. The following is a combination of an exchange of emails between George and myself today.

Hello George. Thanks as always for your prompt replies. Believe me, it makes an impression on your audience.
By the way, if anyone replies back saying Karrie Webb's remarks were racist in any way, tell them the IOC does the same thing (seeing how the countries fare in previous Olympics) when awarding the Olympics. That's why if things stay the same Canada will never get another Summer Olympics again. You want the home country to be competitive.
Very well said George! As a Canadian, I heard all the excuses over the years about why we didn't do better internationally in sports (low population, lack of federal money, weather, etc). Finally the "Own the Podium" program was started for the Winter Olympics sports with an aim of #1 nation in 2010 in Vancouver. Needless to say, our team did great this year, finishing 4th overall with our highest ever medal count.
Where are the supposed "young guns" (Christina Kim, Natalie Gulbis, Morgan Pressel, Paula Creamer, Michelle Wie) this year with the wins? I know Creamer has been injured. If they started playing up to the lofty expectations placed on them by the media, your article would've been unnecessary.
Please note too that only 7 of the top 25 in the US Open were Americans, so it's not restricted by gender.
Should the US (and Canada) be taking a look at what the other countries (Sweden, Australia, Korea, Japan) are doing in golf, and model it? Or is North America complacent, like Canada was in 1972 when the USSR gave us the scare of a lifetime in the hockey Summit Series? Or like Ford, GM and Chrysler were when Japanese automakers invaded?
Or are Canada and the US places where you can have a high standard of living without having to excel to be your best, so why bother? How many great potential golfers are watching digital TV or playing video games? Are players from other countries hungrier, because the living they can make here is much higher than back home? A lot of research would have to be done to figure that out.
The last few days I've written in my blog about the different reasons why certain nationalities are not doing as well, and why PGA regulars are going to struggle in majors. I think things will get worse before they get better for North Americans. In the meantime, though, may the best players win!

Regards,
Steve

P.S. If I were the LPGA, I'd market myself a little differently. While sex does sell, the LPGA is really the tour golfers of all abilities should be watching to improve. Just seeing their strategies as they are presented with problems can help all of us. They also hit shots we can all relate too. Se Ri Pak's winning LPGA Championship shot is much more impressive because she used a utility club, whereas Tiger would've probably hit a 7-iron. If the broadcast focus was on course management, consistency, etc I think it would pull in more viewers. Just a thought.

A New Official Set Of Golf Rules Needed?

Hello. It's time to face facts. 90+% of all Canadian golfers do not play in a golf event where they play their own ball the whole way around like on TV. If that's the case, then why do these players use the same rules? Why is there only one set of rules? Why can't there be a "tournament set", like we have now, and what follows, which I'm calling the "regular set"?
All rules would be the same in "regular" golf as "tournament" golf, with the following exceptions:

1. No "stroke and distance penalty" for lost or out-of-bounds balls. If you cannot find your shot, drop a ball where you last saw it with a one-shot penalty. So if your tee shot goes over an OB fence, your 3rd shot is from where the ball crossed the fence.
2. Maximum two shots in the same non-lateral water hazard. If your 1st ball goes into a water hazard in front of you, hit your 2nd ball from the same side as before. If that one goes in too, drop your 3rd ball on the other side of the water.
3. Maximum 3 putts per hole.
4. Maximum "par + 2" shots to get to the whole. This means only 5 shots (including penalties) for a par 3, 6 shots for a par 4 and 7 shots for a par 5. After that, put your ball on the green. With these last two rules, maximum 5 over par scores for any hole.
5. All putts "within the leather" are gimmies. No need to hole out every putt.
6. Play ready golf, no need to wait for person farther away to hit. Farthest away rule only used if both players ready.
7. Same rule for honour on a tee. If low shooter on last hole not ready, then someone else goes.
8. Group one hole behind must skip that hole or let group behind go through.

I feel a lot of golfers are already using these rules unofficially. However, in order to avoid conflicts with someone who insists on playing "tournament" rules, the "regular" rules should be made official. The regular rules will make the game more enjoyable for everyone and speed up play, two big objectives of any golfer.

Regards,

Steve

World Cup Very Revealing

Hello. I've just had a passing interest in the World Cup of Soccer. I was introduced to it in 1984 by an enthusiastic coworker. I certainly appreciate what great athletes soccer players are. While the game is a little dull to me (I'd never watch it if there wasn't the country aspect), it did reveal a bit to me re Canada vs other countries in sports.
Whenever I've asked why Canada isn't doing better in international sports (pro or amateur) the answer I always get is low population. I can safely say this argument doesn't hold water, because of the recent Winter Olympics, where we finished 4th in medal total, and the World Cup.
Australia has 20 million people, as compared to our 32 million. Yet they are in the World Cup. And 4 PGA tournaments have been won by Australians (6 total), and that doesn't count Adam Scott or Robert Allenby, two former winners. And Karrie Webb has finished 1st and 2nd in this year's LPGA majors. They usually kick the stuffing out of us in the Commonwealth Games. And they're starting to have a presence in the Winter Olympics.
Okay you say, but their weather's better than ours. Fine, but that doesn't explain Sweden. They only have a population of 10 million. And they're a northern country. And they're in the World Cup. And they've got great golfers (Annika and a truckload of Swedish men, like Carl Petterson, the Memorial champ). And they do well in the Winter Olympics, especially women's curling.
Guess when Canada's only World Cup appearance was? 20 years ago. We didn't score a goal.
Last Saturday my family went to Ontario Place for a company picnic. It was probably the best weather day of the year, and it was relatively deserted. Combine that with the RCGA survey findings saying junior golf has declined in spite of programs like Future Links, and I start to see a pattern. Canadians in general and Ontarians in particular (only 19% of our Winter Olympians were from Ontario, which is low considering the GTA has more population than 5 provinces) are not going outside for activities as much anymore. And as a result they're not getting to the elite level in sports.
Can these trends be reversed? Unlikely, as a Toronto Star survey found the majority of immigrants are not interested in the "traditional" Canadian sports. Since visible minorities will be the majority in the GTA in 10 years, it means a smaller percentage of Canadians will be playing elite sports.
While we have made progress at the Winter Olympics, it's time to push the grassroots level in all Canadian sports harder. Otherwise, it may be a long time before Canada flags are on cars during the World Cup.

Regards,
Steve

A Valid Training Ground?

Hello. Further to my last entry, I decided to look at the scores from this past weekend's Nationwide and PGA Tour events.
On the Nationwide, two players, Kyle Reifers and Brandt Snedeker, were tied after 72 holes at -26. That's 26 under par. That's averaging 65.5 strokers a round on a course with par 72. Reifers won the first playoff hole with a birdie. Reifers also shot 61 the final day. The cut was -7, meaning someone shooting a pair of 69s was looking elsewhere for a weekend tee-off time.
On the PGA, Ben Curtis, 2003 British Open champion, is waiting for the weather to cooperate so he can win his first tournament on US soil. He has a 7 shot lead at -22, with 2 holes left to play. The cut was -2.
Can these courses be considered tough enough to prepare these guys for the British Open (in the case of the PGA event) or the PGA Tour (in the case of the Nationwide event)?
It used to be that even par would put you in the top half of a tournament, and shooting in the 60s (anywhere in the 60s) was phenomenal. In fact, if a leader could shoot even par the final round, the field would have a tough time catching him.
Now even par at most tourneys doesn't get you anything besides an early flight, and 60s rounds are as common as a runny nose in my son's kindergarten class.
While I'm sure the winners are thrilled with their achievements, how does the golf community feel about it? Now that Ben Curtis is two holes away from using a US PGA Tour event and a major, does that now mean he's better than Colin Montgomerie, or Tim Clark, who have done neither? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who'd agree. And why? Because the'd point to this win and say, "Well, it was just the Booz Allen Classic".
And would anyone today say that Mr. Reifers will be the next great Nationwide Tour grad, to go along such grads as David Duval and Chad Campbell? I don't think so. More a case of, "Well, the Chattanooga Classic course was playing easy".
Listen to this PGA Tour - do all of us a favour, and toughen up ALL your courses. Otherwise, your players will not be winning majors anymore. Fans don't care if the winner is even par, -10 or -20 after 72 holes, as long as they see close competitive tournaments.

Regards,
Steve

Expect Major Success From Non-PGA Regulars

Hello. I learned to play golf on a course that had very few mature trees. It was a brand new course, so only a couple of holes went through the forest. The rest were wide open. When I got on the forest holes, I always had a little more tension, because those holes seemed more intimidating.
This tension went with me when I went to mature courses. Galt, Westmount and Brantford are 3 older clubs that stand out in my mind. That's the key phrase, stand out. They were so different from what I played regularly. While they may have been a little tougher, they played a lot tougher because I was out of my comfort zone.
After watching the US Open last week, my theory is the PGA Tour players now feel the same way in a US Open or a British Open that I felt on mature courses. They are out of their element, because these courses are set up much tougher than their regular tour stops.
Don't believe me? Let's examine the winners of 2004, 2005 and 2006 US and British Opens:

US Open
2004 - Retief Goosen (world player)
2005 - Michael Campbell (European Tour player)
2006 - Geoff Ogilvy (Austraian/PGA Tour player)

British Open
2004 - Todd Hamilton (Japan/PGA Tour)
2005 - Tiger Woods (PGA)
2006 - ?

In case you think that's a fluke, 6 of the past 12 US Opens have been won by non-Americans (Ernie Els in '94 and '97, and Goosen again in '01). Also, both of Tiger's British Open wins have been at St Andrews, the most wide open of the British Open courses.
Why do I believe PGA Tour players are at a disadvantage? Because the PGA Tour doesn't run any of the majors. They are under pressure to set the non-major courses up so the players will come to the events, and can go low. They told the Bell Canadian Open folks in 2002 to shave the rough, even though some players already thought the Angus Glen South course was one of the easiest they'd ever seen. The USGA and the Royal and Ancient are under no such pressure, so they can set up the courses however they like.
That's why Tiger and Phil and Vijay have gotten into such bad habits. They can hit it wherever they want on non-major courses and get away with it. Get them on Winged Foot and they're like fish out of water.
That's also why I wrote last week Michelle Wie would learn a lot playing the European men's tour next year. She'd be exposed to harsh weather conditions and penal rough. The ideal apprenticeship for a new pro. And why I wrote Tiger would also be advised to play les on the PGA Tour.
If they want to win majors, the regular PGA Tour stops are not doing it for them.

Regards,
Steve

What Will Phil Do Next?

Hello. There has been much written about Phil Mickelson's US Open collapse. However, no one has said it more accurately than Dottie Pepper, NBC colurse reporter and The Golf Channel analyst.
Phil Mickelson was lucky to be in the lead. Her words (and mine). Phil Mickelson was lucky to be in the lead. Colin Montgomerie deserves our sympathies more.
The big stat that bears that out of course is fairways hit. Only 2 for 14. No way can someone win at Winged Foot with a number like that.
Another point that must be made is Phil's play on the par-5 5th hole. He was in a right-hand bunker off the tee, with a very severe lip. Instead of hitting a 50 yard shot, which would've given him a chance to still hit the gree in 3, Phil went too far into the left rough, then hit it 3 feet, leading to a bogey.
These things combined for Phil's undoing. The 18th hole was just the one that everyone will remember.
The driver on 18 was questionable, but everyone was having trouble hitting the fairway, so I'll give Phil the benefit of the doubt. The 2nd shot of course was the one when Phil first realizedhe would be fortunate to get into a playoff. That thought should've occurred prior to his 2nd shot, if not prior to his tee shot. From then on he had next to no chance.
Should his caddie have reminded him of that? All I can say is "Bones" did not survive on Phil's bag this long by suggesting alternatives to his player. Phil wasn't listening to the entire golf world 5 years ago when he was majorless. How could Bones suddenly become assertive enough that Phil would take his opinion, if laying up was indeed his opinion?
Anyway, one thing I take issue to are Nicklaus and Watson offering opinions when they didn't see what happened. At least watch the thing before kicking Phil when he's down.
What will Phil do next? A win would've put him the upper golf stratesphere with Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods. Now he'll have to find himself. It's been mentioned Arnold Palmer and Sam Snead also blew US Opens. What you may not know is Snead never won a US Open, and Palmer never won another major after those defeats.
Will Phil be able to shake it off? Maybe, but I'm not sure. His "idiot" comment was progress from 5 years ago (he never would've had that opinion then). I think it will be tough sledding for a while. I like Monty's recovery chances better.
Celebrate how you hung in there Phil. And good luck with the rest of 2006.

Regards,
Steve

Colin All Cars! Monty Missing A Title!

Hello. What a day if you were Colin Montgomerie. You start out 3 back of the leaders. After 17 well-played holes you're tied for the lead. You've just made a brilliant 40 foot birdie putt after driving it in the trees. Now, on the 18th tee, you make a great swing and are in the fairway.
Then things go bad. Rather than take the tough area short of the green out of play, you put back the 6-iron and take out the 7-iron. You then make the same swing you made on 10, and end up short and right, like on 10. Only this time you're in deep rough instead of the sand.
After elilminating the trouble short, you are now 40 feet away. Rather than dead-weight the downhill putt, you go for it, thinking +4 will be needed to get into a playoff. The putt rools by 10 feet, and the next putt also goes by. You card +6, which temporarily makes you co-leader in the clubhouse, but there are two guys still out there who are lower. And unfortunately for you, one finishes lower.
Obviously, it's easy to look at the situation now and say Colin made a strategic mistake. He thought he needed par to at least make a playoff. And most times, he probably would've been right. But the 18th hole was playing so tough bogey was a good score that day. And if Colin would've been playing with Mickelson, he would've known his chances of hitting the fairway were very low. He probably could've concluded par was a winner, bogey a playoff if he had these facts. Unfortunately he didn't.
It's tough to say since I didn't see the hole live, but Colin should've been long worst case on his second shot. He would've probably at worst had a chip with lots of green and a sort of back stop long and right of the hole.
One thing I will say is his par putt was atrocious. Monty's weight was the most important thing on that putt. Even if he had hit the hole, his putt was so hard he couldn't have holed it.
A very unfortunate ending for someone who deserved better. I feel for Monty today more than Mickelson, because it was a chance for Monty to get what he deserves, similar to Michael Campbell last year.
Having said that I think Monty will rebound nicely at the British Open. It would not surprise me if he were in the hunt again. And for reasons I'll describe Thursday, I think Monty will be a favourite to win.
All the best Monty, and congrats on a great tournament.

Regards,
Steve

Forgotten Champions

Hello. Well, what a US Open! There were so many story lines it will take me all week to comment on them. Let's begin.
There are two people's names that are not being mentioned as much as they should be today. The first is Billy Casper, the 1959 US Open champion when it was at Winged Foot. Casper had a bizarre strategy of "laying up" at the par 3 third hole. He would then chip his ball onto the green, and one-putt for par. He parred the hole every day using this method.
If Colin Montgomerie and many others would've used this method, they would've shaved at least 2 valuable shots off their scores, which could've been the difference between winning and losing. In fact, I believe almost every par 4 hole at Winged Foot could've been played this way because of the open fronts to the greens, and no water. Would this strategy have produced a win? Maybe. It probably would've lessened the number of double bogies. Only one person didn't have one all week.
That person is Number 2 on my list, Geoff Ogilvy. Get used to his name. I feel we'll be hearing it a lot. Ogilvy looked solid in all parts of his game. He also did no worse than bogey for 72 holes. It's a stat Ben Curtis had at the 2003 British Open as well.
What did Ogilvy do better than anyone else? He stayed in the present, and focused on making pars. The last 2 holes show how well he was able to do it. The chip-in for par he had on the 17th was such a great shot, reminding me of Tom Watson in the 1982 US Open at Pebble Beach. To make a shot like that when he absolutely had to (at the time he was +5, one behind Mickelson and Montgomerie, so he probably knew +6 was too high) was remarkable.
Then on the 18th he hit a perfect drive, only to find it in a divot. He hit a great shot, only to see it land a couple of feet short, and roll back down the hill. To collect himself and get up and down, again when he knew he had to, was a tremendous achievement.
What happened next? Well, you'd have to be in a TVless cave to not know. However, what somewhat bothers me is reports indicate the media was more interested in covering the losers than this fine player. Apparently Ogilvy's news conference was not well attended.
Let's hope the 29-year-old Ogilvy goes to the same heights as the 29-year-old who won the 1974 US Open at Winged Foot (since called the Massacre), Hale Irwin. I would hate to see Ogilvy end up in the same category as Paul Lawrie, the 1999 British Open who will be forever upstage by Jean Van De Velde.
Congratulations on a great win, Geoff!

Regards,
Steve

Euros Make Their Mark

Hello. What a day at Winged Foot. There is only one player, Colin Montgomerie, at -1. 5 players are at even par. While Phil Mickelson and Jim Furyk are no strangers to the leaderboard, David Howell and Miguel Jimenez may not have been in people's first thoughts. To have 3 of the top 6 be Europeans is something of a surprise, since the last European to win the US Open was Tony Jacklin in 1970. What a drought! That's almost as long as the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Will any of them stay there? Well Montgomerie has challenged in the US Open before, albeit a decade ago. Don't forget he was going shot for shot for a while with Tiger at the British Open last year. Maybe if he thinks this is a Ryder Cup, he'll hang on. Unfortunately that probably won 't be the case.
David Howell was going well when I had to leave the telecast. He had just bogeyed the 15th to go back to -3. I was somewhat surprised to learn he had slipped back to even par. A great round, but he must be disappointed. Here's hoping he can shake off his finish and play well the rest of the way.
Now that Justin Leonard has slipped out of the picture, I'm going with Jimenez. Although I'm very envious of his ponytail, I'm picking him because it may be his time. He's had some success he can go back to, including being around the lead at the Masters this year.
Of course, sitting at +1 are Mike Weir and Vijay Singh, players who have always impressed me with their professionalism. Singh found his game last week, and Weir could be on his way too, as he and Furyk seem to thrive on tough courses.
Stephen Ames is at +2, which is still in the hunt. If he can find the Players Championship magic, he could be a force.
And what of Tiger? Well obviously he had his difficulties shooting 76. Anyone else would be counted out at this point. I'm going to count Tiger out too, because from what I saw he didn't want to be there. If this was any other tourney he probably wouldn't be there. If he shoots a similar score Friday he may not be there.
Go Euros, Fijians and Canadians!

Regards,
Steve

Where Should Wie Play? A Match Made in Heaven

Hello. Well, I'm going to go with Justin Leonard to win the US Open. I was reminded he finished 2nd at Winged Foot at the 1997 PGA. You heard it here first.
Where should Michelle Wie play? I think everyone would benefit if she played mainly on the European men's tour. Then include the ladies' majors, plus the Evian Masters, and all tournaments (LPGA and PGA) she's eligible for in Hawaii.
I believe this is a win-win for everyone. For Michelle, it's a chance to play against men, but at a lower level. It's also a chance to get appearance money. Two events where she would be extremely popular are the BMW Asian Open and the Volvo China Open due to her Asian roots. Wie would still be in the spotlight, but it would be a lower-key, friendlier spotlight. It would give her a better chance to develop than the PGA Tour. And a chance to see the world. Greg Norman and Adam Scott both took this path on their road to success. Also, an opportunity to qualify for the US Open at the European qualifier, which is arguably easier than the New Jersey site.
For Nike, how's this for a one-two punch - Tiger focused on North America, and Michelle Wie the rest of the world? They'd be assured of worldwide coverage with their two biggest stars. They'd also grow their markets worldwide with Wie's exposure.
Sony would also get tremendous coverage in all of Wie's appearances.
For The Golf Channel, there would be increased interest in all their European Tour telecasts. When added to their Thursday-Friday PGA coverage in 2007, The Golf Channel would be the place to go for almost all top-level golf.
Needless to say, the European Tour would be elated. A marque star in almost all their tournaments. Definitely the person to build the tour on. It would be similar to Arnold Palmer breathing life into the British Open.
Go to the European Tour Michelle. It would be great for everyone.

Regards,
Steve

Where Are The Wins?

Hello. I intentionally didn't mention Michelle Wie in yesterday's posting. Wie and Natalie Gulbis are often mentioned as golfer who are at the top of the "best to never win a pro tournament". While Wie posted her 4th top-5 result in the last 5 majors, she's still on the above-mentioned list. Is she under-achieving?
If so, she has plenty of company. Consider the following people who never did win, or haven't won on the PGA Tour:

Steve Melnyk, US Amateur champ
Bobby Wadkins
Colin Montgomerie
Trevor Immelman
Tim Clark

Then there's the list of "best to never win a PGA major", including the above players and:

Adam Scott
Sergio Garcia
Chad Campbell
Rory Sabbatini
Stuart Appleby
Kenny Perry

Bottom line - winning is tough on both tours. Ask Karrie Webb, who shoots 68, then hits a perfect drive, and then finds out she has to birdie to stay alive because Se Ri Pak has hit the shot of her career. Or Lorena Ochoa, who eagled the 72nd hole of the Kraft Nabisco earlier this year to get in a playoff, then lost to Webb.

If we're going to get on Wie and Gulbis for not fulfilling their potential, then how about the others mentioned above? And all the others who haven't finished in the top-10 in their careers?

This week's US Open is being billed as the Tiger-Phil show. I'm sure all the media would like to see this showdown. But is there a Michael Campbell waiting for a breakdown? Is there a Shaun Micheel waiting to hit another great shot to tap-in distance?

I'm thinking there's someone out there who is ready to step up this week. I think it will be - David Duval. Justin Leonard. Or Mark Hensby.

You know what? I obviously have no idea. I just hope it's a fair tournament.

Regards,
Steve

Pak Produces With An All-Timer

Hello. Wasn't that a great McDonald's LPGA Championship? I tried predicting a winer when the last group got on the 10th tee. Needless to say, I was changing my mind throughout, as different ladies looked like they were going to take command, then fell behind.
Se Ri Pak was never on my list. I thought her time away from the winner's circle would hurt her. This opinion seemed to be verified on the 72nd hole. She was smiling a little too much for my liking. I thought she had lost her focus, and her birdie putt seemed to confirm that. A 3-putt put her in a tie with Karrie Webb at -8, with no guarantee of a playoff. A half-hour later, however, proved -8 was good enough.
I still didn't like Pak's chances in the playoff. Webb hit a great drive, and Pak was about 200 yards away from the hole. Given the hole design, with water to the left and behind the green, it was a scary shot to hit from that distance. Both distance and accuracy had to be right on the money just to get within 20 feet. Very few players had gotten that close with short irons, let alone with the utility club Pak was swinging.
What followed was arguably the greatest major playoff shot ever. Pak almost holed it! Unbelievable! For someone who had been out of the spotlight for so long, it was an incredible swing. If someone can think of a better shot in a playoff (the length alone made it my #1, let alone the green and surrounding water), please let me know.
Se Ri Pak now becomes as unlikely a winner as Webb was at the Kraft Nabisco. Yet the two are relatively young (Pak is still in her twenties), and have combined for 12 majors (Webb 7, Pak 5). It's amazing they're both back in the spotlight that's been dominated by Annika Sorenstam the last 5 years. Both are Hall of Famers (Pak will be once she completes 10 years on tour), yet have been so anonymous. It just goes to show how fickle a game golf is.
Hopefully all of us who have not had a career game in a while will be inspired by Webb's and Pak's efforts this year.

Regards,
Steve

Are "Wie" All Being Conned?

Hello. Well, I watched The Golf Channel's Grey Goose 19th Hole last night. I also read George White's column today on thegolfchannel.com about Morgan Pressel and her opinion. In both cases, I wanted to see if two of Michelle Wie's biggest "un-fans", Pressel and Steve Duemig, would be full of "I told you so". I happily did not find that at all, but rather a refreshing perspective from both.

Both people pointed out that the media hype has been so big for Wie that, in Pressel's words, "She (Wie) has got it made". All Wie has to do is show up at an event, and she's the story. Her sponsors are obviously happy, which leads to Duemig's point last night - why did Wie try to qualify in New Jersey Monday? Would it have been better to qualify at Poipu Bay in Kauai, one of my favourite places in the world (my wife and I honeymooned there, and played the course. The pictures we took don't do it justice)? Wie would've been one of 11 players going for one spot, which was won by a teenager. She could've then flown to Maryland late Monday/early Tuesday to play today, which would've been okay since she's already played the course.

Or, as Duemig also pointed out, why didn't Wie try to qualify in Maryland, where there were 50 players going for 4 spots. She would've been even closer to the LPGA Championship course.

Are we being conned by the media, and the Wies? Are they just in it for the money now? Is Michelle being put in situations just to capitalize on exposure, and keep her a hot story, so she cannot fail, or so we will always have an excuse for her when she doesn't succeed? Is her dream only enough for us? Is that the only reason why she played in New Jersey?

Don't get me wrong with the above. I'm still a big Wie fan. I hope she does succeed for years to come, because she's an excellent role model for my children. And I do think her "entourage" is doing the right thing, if the primary goal is to make Michelle a better player.

However, if the primary goal is to make money, then I have issues. As Pressel said, when she was a 12-year old and playing in the US Women's Open (still the youngest to ever do it) the hype was so much she had trouble focusing on her game. And Pressel's hype is nothing compared to what Wie is experiencing.

If the reason for playing in New Jersey was to be better ready for the LPGA Championship, it hasn't worked so far. Wie is +1 after 9 holes, tied for 80th, 8 out of the lead, and 5 behind Lorena Ochoa, my pick to win, who is already finished.

Please, Wie camp, say it isn't so. Please say your primary goal is producing an elite golfer. If so, I will tell you on Monday where I think Wie should play which would make everyone happy.

Regards,
Steve

What Will Be #1 In The Future

Hello. FYI I've corresponded with John Rolfe of si.com a few times now. We both have the same favourite hockey team, the New York Islanders from 1972-1993. John is from the Long Island area, so he saw some of the greatest games in Islanders history live. I'm quite envious.
John's last column was about the NHL in the USA. He pondered how ABC/ESPN could drop the NHL for poker and the National Spelling Bee. At last check on the si.com website, a poll asking which you would watch on TV tonight showed Suns-Mavs NBA playoff game (50%), Game 7 Buffalo Sabres-Carolina Hurricanes NHL Eastern Conference game (30%) and National Spelling Bee (20%). I replied to him in passing what I'm about to share with you in detail. He was in shock. Hopefully this will be a persuasive argument.

Hello John. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you earlier, but I've been swept away in Wie-mania. Yes, believe it or not, I think curling is ahead of hockey in popularity in Canada. While many, including Gary Bettman, would disagree, here are my reasons for thinking curling will be Canada's #1 winter sport in the future:

1. Demographics - Canada, like the US, is getting older. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement age. They are still active however, and want to try new things. Curling is something a person can start at any age relatively easily, and play for many decades. I know people in their 80s who still go out. Since the boomers are the largest demographic, greater numbers will curl as opposed to play hockey. This will translate into more viewers (top Canadian curling events draw more consistent audience numbers than Hockey Night in Canada. If you don't believe it, "Movie Night in Canada" (top box-office movies played during the lockout) got higher ratings than Hockey Night in Canada). There are over 1 million curlers of all ages in Canada.
2. Bureaucracy - There are less politics involved in curling than hockey. You can set up your own team of 4, instead of trying to impress a coaching staff to make a team of 20. No more "Johnny's dad is a GM VP, so he has to play". If you have someone on your curling team that's dragging you down, you can do the "Mutiny on the Bounty" thing, and go in another direction.
3. Simplicity - The rules are simple in curling. It's similar to bocci, which is why the Italians loved it in Torino. Also similar to darts and shuffleboard. I can explain them to you in 2 minutes. Try doing icing only in that time. Similar to baseball too, with a lot of second-guessing between shots.
4. Small-town appeal - Many small Canadian towns have curling rinks. My town of 50,000 has two rinks. Because of this, people feel they know the game, because they've experienced it. Any many top curlers have played in these small towns.
5. Expense (or lack thereof) - I could get completed outfitted pretty well in curling for $200 (shoes, broom, turtleneck, sweater, pants), and they would last me for years. Much less than hockey, needless to say. Also, a curling membership can be as low as $200/year, for unlimited ice-time.
6. The Olympics - Now that curling is a full-medal sport, many youngsters are choosing curling as their road to fame and fortune. The Canadian men's curling team, Olympic champions, averaged 25 years old (excluding an "import", 50-year old Russ Howard). As you can see by the age range on this team, even someone like me could conceivably represent Canada in 2010.
7. Fan connection - Because the curlers have day jobs, fans can relate to them. They are not out-of-touch demi-gods.
8. Development - the Little Rocks program in Canada is phenomenal. My daughter, age 7, participated for the first time this year. It's already producing Canadian, Olympic and world champions. The future is in good hands.

In summary, curling has a very bright future in many countries around the world. I believe it will be #1 in Canada.

Regards,

Steve

Some More Wie Afterthoughts

Hello. I watched the wrapup of "The Michelle Wie Show" on The Golf Channel last night, then read some writeups on the Internet. Here's what I think after absorbing it all:

1) Mercer Baggs had two columns, one before, one after, on thegolfchannel.com. In the before, he mentioned how many negative comments he got. The most common was along the line of "Why does Wie want to play against men? Why doesn't she play against women?" What struck me about this was if you substituted the phrase 'work with' for 'play against', it would sound like 40 years ago, when women were trying to get a foot into the workplace. How amazing that sports in general, and golf in particular, are 40 years behind the 'Sexual Revolution'. I commend everyone who is giving Wie the chance to live her dream. We should all remember Michelle Wie's generation has only known an 'equal' society, and realize what she wants to do is the ideal way.

2) Kay Cotterill was asked by Steve Sands on Golf Central on The Golf Channel if Wie's desire to play with the men will make the LPGA seem like the equivalent of Triple A baseball, one notch below the majors. She said no, even though I could tell she struggled with the question. NEWS FLASH - the LPGA is Triple A!! We were told that 3 years ago by Annika and Vijay when women competing in PGA Tour events became a modern reality.

3) Mercer Baggs in his "after" column wonders why the Wies aren't marching into LPGA headquarters demanding to at least qualify for the LPGA, if not ask for Tour exemption. Can you imagine what an uproar this would cause, since Wie already gets a lot of flack for accepting sponsors exemptions? The two questions that come to mind are a) why isn't the LPGA running to Wie, and b) why does Wie need an exemption for the US Women's Open when she tied for 3rd at the Kraft Nabisco Championship (how "Open" can the US Women's Open be)?

4) Mark Brooks was quoted as saying it was probably a good thing Wie didn't qualify, because Winged Foot Golf Club may be too tough for her. Hello? The whole point was to try to get into the US Open, to experience a men's major. No one would expect her to make the cut, or play particularly well. If these US Open courses are too tough for those that qualified, then make the qualifying courses tougher to prepare them for it.

To wrap things up, I'll say again - Michelle Wie is on a journey to her personal goal. She wanted to play with the men, and she's done so. She's being paid very well to do so, unlike before when Charles Davis of The Golf Channel's Grey Goose 19th Hole accurately stated she was playing a pro schedule as an amateur. She's not a known terrorist threat. She's very polite. She seems well-grounded even under the brightest of spotlights. And her parents are supporting her. If my daughter were in her circumstances, I would probably use the Wie's plan as a model.

All the best in the future Michelle. Next week I'll say where I think you may spend next year.

Regards,
Steve

Wie Did Well

Hello. Well, unless something miraculous happens the last 4 holes, Michelle Wie is not going to qualify for the men's US Open. Wie currently sits at +1 for 32 holes. It looks like -3 or better is going to make it.
Wie shot 68 on the South course this morning (par 70). She is currently +3 on the North course (par 72). Although she will have a higher score relative to par on the North course, she may look back at the South course score as a point where she didn't take advantage. By accounts from The Golf Channel staff, Wie could've been 3 or 4 shots lower on what seems to be the easier course. If so, she could've had less pressure on her North course score, maybe even shooting +3 and still getting in.
I'm sure all the naysayers are getting ready to say "I told you so", and "She should stick to the LPGA". I won't be one of them. Wie's performances today and in her PGA events have proved to me she could get her PGA card some day. Whether she tries to do that at Q-School this fall remains to be seen. I strongly encourage her to do so. On the other hand, maybe the European Men's Tour is the way to go for next year. Not only would Wie have a slightly lower level of competition to deal with, but she would also command enormous appearance fees.
If Michelle Wie continues on this path, I feel she could become the most influential athlete of this generation. That includes Tiger, by the way. Wie is going to do something Tiger never could, which is break the sex barrier. As someone who has competed in two sports, golf and curling, where the top women athletes are more than capable of beating very good players, I applaud Wie for pursuing this dream. What she is doing is removing the asterisk that always seems to appear next to a woman athlete's accomplishments. No longer can someone say "Well, she did it against women. How would she do against the men?", or "men are always better at sports than women". The fact Wie is going to beat several of her competitors today, including current and former PGA Tour pros, is quite a powerful statement.
All the best at the McDonald's LPGA Championship this week, Michelle. And thanks for making this day very special for all of us, especially me. It was a pleasure following your progress today.

Regards,
Steve

Win or Lose, "This IS History"

Hello. In case you've been living in a cave that doesn't get golf news, Michelle Wie is going to try to qualify on Monday for the men's US Open. No matter what happens:

1) To quote Belloq, Indiana Jones' foe in Raiders of the Lost Ark, "Most of us are passing through history, but this, this IS history". While Belloq was referring to the Ark of the Covenant, it applies to Monday as well. Michelle Wie will make history Monday. Here's hoping it's for the right reasons.

2) Contrary to what Mercer Baggs said on thegolfchannel.com, Michelle Wie "should not" qualify. She is capable of qualifying, she might qualify, and I hope she does. But no one is saying her playing partner, David Gossett, a former PGA Tour winner and US Amateur champ, should qualify. If Wie doesn't qualify, let's still celebrate her achivement.

3) I've been converted to the Wie Plan. At first I wasn't, but then I remembered my hockey days playing with older players. Once you get a taste of a higher level, it's tough to focus on the lower level again. I do think Wie has come a long way, even if she's lacking in trophies. And I do think she'll break through some time this year, hopefully on Monday.

4) I will use Michelle Wie as an example to my daughter (and my son) of what you can do if you love something and you're focused on it. Here's hoping other parents do too.

5) I can hardly wait for Monday. I'll be very interested to see how Wie does. Good luck Michelle! Focus for 36 holes, treat it as a learning experience, and enjoy the moment. You'll do fine.

Regards,
Steve