Clarke fitness worry for Masters
Darren Clarke is facing a race against time to be fit for the Masters after suffering a groin injury at the Houston Open.
BBC Sport – Golf
Entries Tagged as ''
Tseng takes lead at Kraft Nabisco
Taiwan’s Yani Tseng cards a four-under 68 to head the Kraft Nabisco Championship after the second round by one shot.
BBC Sport – Golf
Davis & Oosthuizen lead in Texas
England’s Brian Davis and Louis Oosthuizen share the lead after two rounds at the Houston Open as thunderstorms plays havoc with the schedules.
BBC Sport – Golf
PGA TOUR Confidential: 2012 Masters Preview
Will this year's Masters be the best ever? Which major would you most want to win? Which hole at Augusta would make the best finisher? Why doesn't Charl Schwartzel get any respect? And who will win the 76th Masters?
SI convened a panel of experts-senior writer Michael Bamberger, Damon Hack, Alan Shipnuck and Gary Van Sickle as well as special contributor John Garrity-and a PGA Tour pro (who participated on the condition of anonymity) to take up these and other questions.
GREEN MONSTER
Van Sickle: Is it just me or does this feel like the most important Masters ever?
Shipnuck: It does seem potentially monumental. Tiger is entering the twilight of his career; Phil is still a threat but his days as a contender may be ending; and Rory McIlroy is establishing himself as the game’s dominant force. We have a new Big Three.
Van Sickle: So Phil and Tiger are costarring in Twilight?
Garrity: You’re wrong, Alan. The 1942 Masters was the most important ever. Augusta National was on the brink of bankruptcy and shutting down for the duration of the war. If that Masters hadn’t been settled by a playoff between Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson, they may not have started it up again.
Hack: You should write that up for some magazine.
Garrity: I really should. Here’s why Alan is excited— you’re looking at a potential replay of the 1960 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills, where you had Arnold Palmer at his peak, a young Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan contending in a major for the last time. If we have something like that this year, maybe someday we’ll look back and say, This was the Masters to top all Masters.
Bamberger: Why wouldn’t this Masters be great? There are so many excellent players. If we made a list, we’re talking about 15 players we think can really win, and that’s more than we’ve talked about in a long time.
Anonymous Pro: This Masters is big because it marks a changing of the guard. The young guys are trying to stake their claim. They’re taking over, and they’re not scared of Tiger or any of the veterans. They have the edge.
Hack: What’s so intriguing is the collision of stories— Rorygoing back to the place of his lowest moment in golf, Tiger and Phil, plus Lee Westwood and Luke Donald trying to win their first majors.
Garrity: Maybe we should simply say that so far, this has been the best run-up to the Masters in history. It’s human nature to think, with all this stuff brewing, that this could be an unforgettable Masters. But if Robert Karlsson wins, is this the greatest Masters of all time? I’d still say yes, but I’m biased.
Shipnuck: The big question was, Is there life in golf after Tiger? The answer looks like yes, because if Rory wins this Masters, he goes to absolute superstar level. He’ll be ahead of Tiger’s pace and Jack’s pace. We’ll stop the Tiger countdown and start a Rory countdown.
Bamberger: Alan, the Number 1 question in golf is still whether Tiger can get to 18 or 19 majors. The Masters annually represents his best chance. So with the years slipping away, we’ll be watching Tiger more intensely than ever, if that’s possible.
AN OPEN QUESTION
Van Sickle: If you could win only one major, which one would you pick?
Anonymous Pro: l’d want to win the Masters. It’s the same great course, and they get the setup right every year. You seldom hear guys complain. What a great feeling to go back there every year for life. Plus, they treat you like a champion.
Bamberger: That would be pretty cool.
Anonymous Pro: You win the U.S. Open, you get only 10 more years. How many guys even want to go back to the Open 15 years later? It’s not fun. It’s root canal.
Shipnuck: That’s true, but I’d take the U.S. Open—at Pebble Beach.
Bamberger: You’re simply looking for free golf at Pebble, Alan.
Shipnuck: I think it’s the greatest Open venue. It’s so macho.
Van Sickle: Macho? Maybe you’ve heard of Oakmont, which is actually macho.
Shipnuck: Well, I’m admittedly biased toward Pebble, but Oakmont is a great Open site too.
Bamberger: I’m going with the British Open at St. Andrews. I don’t know what could be better than that.
Hack: I’m going old school. I’d love to win an Open Championship at Prestwick. I love the movement of the land and the fact that shots must be struck with the right weight, as Old Tom Watson might say. To celebrate I would sip black tea and wear the Challenge Belt with great pride.
Garrity: I’d want to win the British Open too, and I wouldn’t care which venue. I love the history; I love meat pies; and most of all, I love links courses. The only part I don’t like is the claret jug.
Shipnuck: Well, next to the Wanamaker Trophy and its sheer grandeur, the tiny jug has to feel a little inadequate.
Van Sickle: You know, size does matter.
DESIGNING MEN
Van Sickle: If you could magically rearrange the holes at Augusta National, which one would you swap out with the current 18th?
Hack: How about number 11? It has water left of the green and is 500 yards of terror.
Shipnuck: That would be brutal.
Anonymous Pro: I like the current 18th, but if you want a tougher finish, it has to be number 11. You bail out right, it’s no guaranteed up and down, unless you’re Larry Mize. The 11th would be a little like Congressional’s 18th, a downhill finishing hole where the ball is in the air longer, which means a lot more can go wrong.
Shipnuck: I’d take the 15th. There isn’t a prettier hole in the world than 13, but if you hit a good drive, you’re hitting six-iron into a par-5 green with a backstop. The 15th is do or die, you can make a 3 or a 7.
Van Sickle: Three or 7? You can make 2 or 9. Just ask Gene Sarazen, Vijay Singh or Geoff Ogilvy. The 15th is what the 18th hole at Torrey Pines wishes it was. Even a fourshot lead wouldn’t be truly safe.
Shipnuck: That’s so true. If you lay up at 15, the third shot is from a downhill lie and really hard. Chipping from behind the green is downright scary too. The potential for disaster is high.
Garrity: The 11th is out. I’m not going to break up Amen Corner to create a new 18th.
Anonymous Pro: Good point.
Garrity: I’ll pick number 2, a par-5. The tee is way up high; the green is way down low. It’s a much better spectator hole than 18, plus it’s a semiamphitheater setting that holds thousands of people, the perfect spot for lasthole drama. Best of all, the green is out in the open, so it’s bathed in sunlight when the rest of the course is in deep shadow. That’s important for television.
Van Sickle: Well, TV is certainly all that matters.
Garrity: Plus the 2nd has trouble off the tee. You remember the old line about the Delta ticket office being in the left trees there?
Bamberger: That’s right. I’ll offer number 10 for the same reason—I love any downhill finishing hole. You have to hit a draw if you’re a righty, and that’s harder to do under pressure. It’s easy to hit a snapper, like Rory did last year. The second shot has to be so precise, and the chipping is difficult. Ten would set up beautifully as the finishing hole.
Van Sickle: What would be the worst finishing hole?
Anonymous Pro: None. They’re all good.
SI convened a panel of experts-senior writer Michael Bamberger, Damon Hack, Alan Shipnuck and Gary Van Sickle as well as special contributor John Garrity-and a PGA Tour pro (who participated on the condition of anonymity) to take up these and other questions.
GREEN MONSTER
Van Sickle: Is it just me or does this feel like the most important Masters ever?
Shipnuck: It does seem potentially monumental. Tiger is entering the twilight of his career; Phil is still a threat but his days as a contender may be ending; and Rory McIlroy is establishing himself as the game’s dominant force. We have a new Big Three.
Van Sickle: So Phil and Tiger are costarring in Twilight?
Garrity: You’re wrong, Alan. The 1942 Masters was the most important ever. Augusta National was on the brink of bankruptcy and shutting down for the duration of the war. If that Masters hadn’t been settled by a playoff between Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson, they may not have started it up again.
Hack: You should write that up for some magazine.
Garrity: I really should. Here’s why Alan is excited— you’re looking at a potential replay of the 1960 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills, where you had Arnold Palmer at his peak, a young Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan contending in a major for the last time. If we have something like that this year, maybe someday we’ll look back and say, This was the Masters to top all Masters.
Bamberger: Why wouldn’t this Masters be great? There are so many excellent players. If we made a list, we’re talking about 15 players we think can really win, and that’s more than we’ve talked about in a long time.
Anonymous Pro: This Masters is big because it marks a changing of the guard. The young guys are trying to stake their claim. They’re taking over, and they’re not scared of Tiger or any of the veterans. They have the edge.
Hack: What’s so intriguing is the collision of stories— Rorygoing back to the place of his lowest moment in golf, Tiger and Phil, plus Lee Westwood and Luke Donald trying to win their first majors.
Garrity: Maybe we should simply say that so far, this has been the best run-up to the Masters in history. It’s human nature to think, with all this stuff brewing, that this could be an unforgettable Masters. But if Robert Karlsson wins, is this the greatest Masters of all time? I’d still say yes, but I’m biased.
Shipnuck: The big question was, Is there life in golf after Tiger? The answer looks like yes, because if Rory wins this Masters, he goes to absolute superstar level. He’ll be ahead of Tiger’s pace and Jack’s pace. We’ll stop the Tiger countdown and start a Rory countdown.
Bamberger: Alan, the Number 1 question in golf is still whether Tiger can get to 18 or 19 majors. The Masters annually represents his best chance. So with the years slipping away, we’ll be watching Tiger more intensely than ever, if that’s possible.
AN OPEN QUESTION
Van Sickle: If you could win only one major, which one would you pick?
Anonymous Pro: l’d want to win the Masters. It’s the same great course, and they get the setup right every year. You seldom hear guys complain. What a great feeling to go back there every year for life. Plus, they treat you like a champion.
Bamberger: That would be pretty cool.
Anonymous Pro: You win the U.S. Open, you get only 10 more years. How many guys even want to go back to the Open 15 years later? It’s not fun. It’s root canal.
Shipnuck: That’s true, but I’d take the U.S. Open—at Pebble Beach.
Bamberger: You’re simply looking for free golf at Pebble, Alan.
Shipnuck: I think it’s the greatest Open venue. It’s so macho.
Van Sickle: Macho? Maybe you’ve heard of Oakmont, which is actually macho.
Shipnuck: Well, I’m admittedly biased toward Pebble, but Oakmont is a great Open site too.
Bamberger: I’m going with the British Open at St. Andrews. I don’t know what could be better than that.
Hack: I’m going old school. I’d love to win an Open Championship at Prestwick. I love the movement of the land and the fact that shots must be struck with the right weight, as Old Tom Watson might say. To celebrate I would sip black tea and wear the Challenge Belt with great pride.
Garrity: I’d want to win the British Open too, and I wouldn’t care which venue. I love the history; I love meat pies; and most of all, I love links courses. The only part I don’t like is the claret jug.
Shipnuck: Well, next to the Wanamaker Trophy and its sheer grandeur, the tiny jug has to feel a little inadequate.
Van Sickle: You know, size does matter.
DESIGNING MEN
Van Sickle: If you could magically rearrange the holes at Augusta National, which one would you swap out with the current 18th?
Hack: How about number 11? It has water left of the green and is 500 yards of terror.
Shipnuck: That would be brutal.
Anonymous Pro: I like the current 18th, but if you want a tougher finish, it has to be number 11. You bail out right, it’s no guaranteed up and down, unless you’re Larry Mize. The 11th would be a little like Congressional’s 18th, a downhill finishing hole where the ball is in the air longer, which means a lot more can go wrong.
Shipnuck: I’d take the 15th. There isn’t a prettier hole in the world than 13, but if you hit a good drive, you’re hitting six-iron into a par-5 green with a backstop. The 15th is do or die, you can make a 3 or a 7.
Van Sickle: Three or 7? You can make 2 or 9. Just ask Gene Sarazen, Vijay Singh or Geoff Ogilvy. The 15th is what the 18th hole at Torrey Pines wishes it was. Even a fourshot lead wouldn’t be truly safe.
Shipnuck: That’s so true. If you lay up at 15, the third shot is from a downhill lie and really hard. Chipping from behind the green is downright scary too. The potential for disaster is high.
Garrity: The 11th is out. I’m not going to break up Amen Corner to create a new 18th.
Anonymous Pro: Good point.
Garrity: I’ll pick number 2, a par-5. The tee is way up high; the green is way down low. It’s a much better spectator hole than 18, plus it’s a semiamphitheater setting that holds thousands of people, the perfect spot for lasthole drama. Best of all, the green is out in the open, so it’s bathed in sunlight when the rest of the course is in deep shadow. That’s important for television.
Van Sickle: Well, TV is certainly all that matters.
Garrity: Plus the 2nd has trouble off the tee. You remember the old line about the Delta ticket office being in the left trees there?
Bamberger: That’s right. I’ll offer number 10 for the same reason—I love any downhill finishing hole. You have to hit a draw if you’re a righty, and that’s harder to do under pressure. It’s easy to hit a snapper, like Rory did last year. The second shot has to be so precise, and the chipping is difficult. Ten would set up beautifully as the finishing hole.
Van Sickle: What would be the worst finishing hole?
Anonymous Pro: None. They’re all good.
Robert Beck/SI
Charl Schwartzel birdied his last four holes to win the 2011 Masters.
THE ENCORE
Van Sickle: No Masters champion since Trevor Immelman has generated less buzz than Charl Schwartzel. Let’s give the man his due.
Shipnuck: He has the great swing and the putter. He also has a lot of Retief Goosen in him, in that he seems unaffected by what’s going on. I think he’ll make a stout defense.
Garrity: I can’t think of much to say about him. It’s not how well you play, it’s how compelling your backstory is. Until we know more about Charl, there’s not enough for us to be as excited about him as we could.
Bamberger: You have to win over time—if you simply emerge at 5:30 on Sunday afternoon, it’s too late to enter our imaginations. That’s not his fault; that’s reality.
Hack: Still, can you imagine if Tiger or Phil made four birdies at the end to win? It would be huge. It’s so unfair.
Shipnuck: It was his first major, the first time he contended and his first win in the U.S. He had no body of work here.
Garrity: Even when John Daly won the ’91 PGA, he burst onto the scene on Saturday, and halfway through his final round he was already a legend— the borrowed caddie, the ninth alternate. His story was told for two full days. We didn’t notice Schwartzel until the last two holes.
Anonymous Pro: Charl isn’t a flashy player. He’s more like Zach Johnson or Mike Weir—a surprise winner. Augusta loves the popular winner, the great players of history like Phil and Tiger. Charl is Ben Curtis or Shaun Micheel. They won majors because they were the last men standing, but people didn’t know who they were. The pressure of validating a Masters victory is going to be the tough part. That’s why I don’t see him repeating.
Van Sickle: Even though he played great, there was luck involved. Those shots he holed at 1 and 3 amounted to a four-shot swing, and even then he had to birdie the last four. Was it one of the best Masters since Jack in ’86?
Hack: I don’t know if it was one of the best. How do you put it next to 1997 or 2001 or ’04?
Shipnuck: Maybe I’ve watched the video too often, but to me it was an amazing day of golf. The drama was unbelievable. Don’t forget, Rory McIlroy was a huge story, and even though he was still leading at the turn, he was completely forgotten by the 13th hole.
Anonymous Pro: It had everything except a winner with marquee value.
Bamberger: Exactly. That’s why, for me, last year’s Masters was only very good. At the end of the day, it’s who won, and the guy who won isn’t somebody we were invested in.
Hack: It was a great couple of hours on Sunday, but was it better than Faldo versus Norman? Better than Tiger going for the Tiger Slam with Mickelson and David Duval nipping at his heels? Better than the social significance of Tiger’s win in ’97?
Shipnuck: What was the best shot Tiger hit on Sunday in ’97? That was a really boring day of golf. It was dreadful.
Garrity: It’s not always about how they won. That was history in ’97, and it was important. Tiger blew everyone away and upset the golf firmament. Based on how the winner won, Schwartzel would rank Number 1. That was the most dramatic finish in 30 years, other than Mize’s chipping in. But what was the story? What was the drama? The most dramatic stuff happened to the golfers who didn’t win.
Anonymous Pro: Starting in 1986, you had five years in a row of ridiculous Masters finishes— Nicklaus and Mize and Sandy Lyle and Faldo in two playoffs. I don’t know if anything beats that.
ANALYZE THIS!
Van Sickle: Name the non-CBS announcer you would like to see on a Masters telecast.
Garrity: Well, Johnny Miller would smash a few stained-glass windows, for starters. It’s a shame that Miller, the top TV analyst of our era, has never had a chance to do the Masters.
Anonymous Pro: Johnny is the easy choice, absolutely. I’d love to hear him call the back nine on Sunday. I wonder how many times he’d say choke. I’d love to hear what he says when guys are trying to finish off winning a green jacket. He’s painfully honest and painfully accurate. He isn’t wrong very often. That’s why I enjoy him.
Van Sickle: Every time Johnny would say choke, a bunch of green jackets in the clubhouse would choke on their peach cobblers. I’d suggest Paul Azinger, the best analyst who isn’t working regularly, which is a crime.
Garrity: My second choice would be Brandel Chamblee. He has the freshest and most compelling takes on anything that happens in golf these days.
Hack: I’d go with Brandel too. His analysis is right on. He seems very adept at delivering really sharp observations about what guys go through, from stars to journeymen to young players.
Van Sickle: Chamblee knows the game, the swing and even the history of the swing. He can talk just as easily about the swings of Arnie and Snead and Hogan as he can about Rory, Lee Westwood or Nick Watney. Plus, Chamblee’s not afraid to take on Tiger when pretty much everyone else is.
Shipnuck: It would be fascinating to watch Gary McCord, who’s been left out for years, sprain a muscle trying not to say the wrong thing yet still be the irreverent Gary McCord. It would be a hilarious show within a show.
Bamberger: I’ll see your McCord, Alan, and raise you a Ben Wright.
Shipnuck: I thought you had to still be alive.
Bamberger: Ouch. You know who would be a fantastic Masters analyst? Mr. Colin Montgomerie.
Anonymous Pro: He would be an improvement over Nick Faldo. I can’t understand what he says half the time. It’s like Sir Nick has marbles in his mouth.
THE WINNER IS…
Bamberger: Rory McIlroy is my pick. My sleeper pick is Fred Couples, who’s feeling great. One thing about Rory, he’s very bright in golfing terms. He learned so much from last year’s Masters, and he’ll capitalize on it.
Shipnuck: I’m picking Phil to win, and my sleeper pick is a golfer who hasn’t won a major since 2008—Tiger Woods.
Van Sickle: Tiger as a sleeper pick? That’s serious role reversal.
Shipnuck: I like Phil because his ball striking has been superb, and his putter has gotten hot. He could shoot some low numbers.
Hack: I picked Rory before, and I’m picking him now. I love what Bamberger said about how smart Rory is. Look how quickly he learned after the Masters, how he won the U.S. Open. He’s in contention every time he tees it up. It’s Rory’s time. My sleeper pick is Mark Wilson, a good putter who knows how to win.
Shipnuck: Rory is the obvious pick, but my concern is, he’s taking three weeks off. He may want it too much and shoot 74 on Thursday because he’s trying to shoot 61. He’s grown up tremendously, but he’s still a frisky young lad. Thursday is going to be the hardest day for him. He has to remain composed and take his bogeys and not shoot himself out of the tournament.
Van Sickle: Too much can go wrong on the greens, and Rory still has to prove he can handle Augusta’s greens. Lee Westwood is slimmer, fitter and stronger than he has ever been. He looks as if he’s in now-or-nevermode, and if he can finally handle the greens, then this will be his year. My sleeper pick is Kyle Stanley, who combines unbelievable talent with Vijay Singh’s work ethic. I think he may be the next big thing.
Anonymous Pro: My long shot is Stanley too. He has the length to dominate. My pick to win it all is Peter Hanson. He’s a damn good player, I’m telling you. I’ve been watching him for the last six months. He’s long, he’s really straight, and he putts well. Plus, I’m tired of picking the usual suspects.
Van Sickle: Yeah, I always prefer the unusual suspects.
Gary Van Sickle’s Mailbag: Masters fever, Tiger versus Jack, Hank Haney
Have a question for Gary Van Sickle's mailbag? E-mail editor@golf.com or ask it on Facebook.
It's official, we've got a pandemic of Masters fever spreading faster than a thing that spreads really fast. (From Great Bad Analogies, Volume 2.) So in honor of next week's Masters Tournament, I've donned my green sweatshirt to answer your sometimes kooky questions for the Van Cynical Mailbag. We have liftoff:
Why do commentators refuse to admit the obvious, that Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time? He plays a different game than anyone, ever. Why the refusal to admit it?
– Joe G., Thomasville, Ga.
I don't know why someone wouldn't admit that Tiger is the greatest ever. Gee, unless is had to do with him not surpassing Jack's record for 18 major championships. Hello, Tiger is still four behind. Let's check the scoreboard. Masters: Jack 6, Tiger 4. U.S. Open: Jack 4, Tiger 3. PGA: Jack 5, Tiger 4. British Open: Jack 3, Tiger 3. Jack's record is better. Tiger is the best player of his generation, no doubt about it, and if you've read anything about golf in the last four years (and I'm pretty sure you haven't), some gushing hyperbolists have, in fact, proclaimed Tiger the best ever. But he hasn't beaten Jack's record. Even if you include the U.S. Amateur titles, Jack still leads Tiger, 20-17.
Tiger plays a different game than anyone, ever? Not exactly, since the way he brought Augusta to its knees in '97 was exactly the same thing Jack did to Augusta in 1965 when he set the scoring record at 17 under par and won by a whopping nine. Here's a little more food for thought. In his era, Nicklaus ran into a bushel of Hall of Famers. He immediately faced off with Arnold Palmer in his prime. Plus Gary Player, Billy Casper, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Gene Littler, Tom Watson, Julius Boros and Tony Lema. Phil Mickelson and maybe Ernie Els are the only players in Tiger's era that I'd put in the same sentence with the aforementioned. Jack didn't face the depth of competition that Tiger has but at the top, he faced better competition. You must not be watching the same TV I watch, Joe. The TV commentators fall all over themselves to worship Tiger.
Hello Mr. Van Sickle,
Don't you think that Joe LaCava looks a lot smarter now than last September?
– Meo, Quebec City
I thought Joey looked pretty smart last September when he signed on to caddie for the richest golfer in history. If you can handle the heat and the spotlight, caddying for Tiger is a gig that pays well, obviously.
APB for Mike Weir! With the Masters on deck, any word as to what was the cause for the dramatic drop off in his game? In 2011, two made cuts. In 2012, Golden Sombrero, oh-for-four. What in the name of Trevor Immelman is going on here?
– Darren Evans
Your favorite Canadian Masters champion had a bad right elbow. He tried to play through the pain unsuccessfully in 2010, eventually needed surgery last year and is still having trouble getting back to his old swing because of the elbow. Also, he's not getting any younger. Weir turns 42 in May.
Gary, Now that "The Big Miss" is out, I am the only one curious to know why TW was smart enough to have Elin sign a confidentiality agreement for the divorce but not have his "paid" employees Hank, Butch and Stevie sign one? Could he possibly be that arrogant to think they might not pen some memoirs some day? Would love to see Butch have a chapter on Tiger's supposed amateur career as Earl was being paid by IMG.
– Tim Delaney
Come on, Tim, nobody thinks of everything. Elin probably got the confidentiality agreement along with the prenup. It was a sign-one, get-one-free deal. Also, my lawyering pals say it's pretty difficult to create an ironclad, permanent non-disclosure deal. And as you may have noted from Tiger's entire scandal, his handlers have dropped the ball many other times, too.
Bonjour Gary, I was listening to Jack Nicklaus during the Honda and I'm always amazed by his great class. What is the best biography on him on the market, and it is as interesting as Andre Agassi Open?
– Eric P., Val-d'Or, Québec, Canada
I'll forgive the tennis reference, Eric, since you speak the beautiful language of the gods and you also have figured out how to get that little apostrophe above the 'e' in Quebec. I bow to your genius. I haven't gone near Agassi's book, or even a tennis telecast since the days of Evert-Navratilova but for Jack, I'd go with Golden Twilight by Dave Shedloski, which follows Jack around the senior tour for a year and paints a pretty insightful picture of the real Jack. No current writer knows Jack better than Shed.
Does Tiger's Bay Hill win count, considering that Rory/Luke were not in the field? Similar to talk back in the day, when players won without TW in the field.
– Sanjay Iyer, via Facebook
Two Van Cynical merit badges for you, Sanjay. Clever point. Bay Hill had a representative field of 120 players, so we'll count it. I think it's less about who's in the field than how many. Tiger's Target World Championship win in a field of 18 players was unofficial and less than a decent golf outing. I'd question the old Mercedes Championships, the winners-only event in Hawaii with only 30 to 35 players teeing it up. Is that really a tournament that should get you in the Masters? And the World Golf Championships with no cuts and half-fields of only 70 or so players is a question mark. Sure, the WGC events have the top-ranked players but a field of 144 or 156 is tougher to beat due to the sheer numbers. Which makes the Masters, with fewer than 100 contestants, including some non-competitive geezers, the easiest major to win by far.
How's is Tiger looking this year heading into the Masters compared to last year? And who do you think will be the players to watch at the Masters other then Tiger.
– Alvin Nunez via Facebook
It's a real shame the Internet broke and nobody televised that little tournament at Bay Hill. I don't know how to break this to you, Big Al, but Tiger decimated the field last week at Bay Hill. Graeme McDowell was the only player within a touchdown of Tiger, whose swing looked the best it's looked in seven years. Tiger was in full shot-making command. He's the favorite at the Masters now. THE favorite. He'll be blocking out the sun, he's so big. You won't be able to watch anyone else. If you had to, though, you'd want to check out Rory McIlroy, Phil Mickelson, Lee Westwood, Luke Donald and Kyle Stanley.
Have a question for Gary Van Sickle's mailbag? E-mail editor@golf.com or ask it on Facebook.
It's official, we've got a pandemic of Masters fever spreading faster than a thing that spreads really fast. (From Great Bad Analogies, Volume 2.) So in honor of next week's Masters Tournament, I've donned my green sweatshirt to answer your sometimes kooky questions for the Van Cynical Mailbag. We have liftoff:
Why do commentators refuse to admit the obvious, that Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time? He plays a different game than anyone, ever. Why the refusal to admit it?
– Joe G., Thomasville, Ga.
I don't know why someone wouldn't admit that Tiger is the greatest ever. Gee, unless is had to do with him not surpassing Jack's record for 18 major championships. Hello, Tiger is still four behind. Let's check the scoreboard. Masters: Jack 6, Tiger 4. U.S. Open: Jack 4, Tiger 3. PGA: Jack 5, Tiger 4. British Open: Jack 3, Tiger 3. Jack's record is better. Tiger is the best player of his generation, no doubt about it, and if you've read anything about golf in the last four years (and I'm pretty sure you haven't), some gushing hyperbolists have, in fact, proclaimed Tiger the best ever. But he hasn't beaten Jack's record. Even if you include the U.S. Amateur titles, Jack still leads Tiger, 20-17.
Tiger plays a different game than anyone, ever? Not exactly, since the way he brought Augusta to its knees in '97 was exactly the same thing Jack did to Augusta in 1965 when he set the scoring record at 17 under par and won by a whopping nine. Here's a little more food for thought. In his era, Nicklaus ran into a bushel of Hall of Famers. He immediately faced off with Arnold Palmer in his prime. Plus Gary Player, Billy Casper, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Gene Littler, Tom Watson, Julius Boros and Tony Lema. Phil Mickelson and maybe Ernie Els are the only players in Tiger's era that I'd put in the same sentence with the aforementioned. Jack didn't face the depth of competition that Tiger has but at the top, he faced better competition. You must not be watching the same TV I watch, Joe. The TV commentators fall all over themselves to worship Tiger.
Hello Mr. Van Sickle,
Don't you think that Joe LaCava looks a lot smarter now than last September?
– Meo, Quebec City
I thought Joey looked pretty smart last September when he signed on to caddie for the richest golfer in history. If you can handle the heat and the spotlight, caddying for Tiger is a gig that pays well, obviously.
APB for Mike Weir! With the Masters on deck, any word as to what was the cause for the dramatic drop off in his game? In 2011, two made cuts. In 2012, Golden Sombrero, oh-for-four. What in the name of Trevor Immelman is going on here?
– Darren Evans
Your favorite Canadian Masters champion had a bad right elbow. He tried to play through the pain unsuccessfully in 2010, eventually needed surgery last year and is still having trouble getting back to his old swing because of the elbow. Also, he's not getting any younger. Weir turns 42 in May.
Gary, Now that "The Big Miss" is out, I am the only one curious to know why TW was smart enough to have Elin sign a confidentiality agreement for the divorce but not have his "paid" employees Hank, Butch and Stevie sign one? Could he possibly be that arrogant to think they might not pen some memoirs some day? Would love to see Butch have a chapter on Tiger's supposed amateur career as Earl was being paid by IMG.
– Tim Delaney
Come on, Tim, nobody thinks of everything. Elin probably got the confidentiality agreement along with the prenup. It was a sign-one, get-one-free deal. Also, my lawyering pals say it's pretty difficult to create an ironclad, permanent non-disclosure deal. And as you may have noted from Tiger's entire scandal, his handlers have dropped the ball many other times, too.
Bonjour Gary, I was listening to Jack Nicklaus during the Honda and I'm always amazed by his great class. What is the best biography on him on the market, and it is as interesting as Andre Agassi Open?
– Eric P., Val-d'Or, Québec, Canada
I'll forgive the tennis reference, Eric, since you speak the beautiful language of the gods and you also have figured out how to get that little apostrophe above the 'e' in Quebec. I bow to your genius. I haven't gone near Agassi's book, or even a tennis telecast since the days of Evert-Navratilova but for Jack, I'd go with Golden Twilight by Dave Shedloski, which follows Jack around the senior tour for a year and paints a pretty insightful picture of the real Jack. No current writer knows Jack better than Shed.
Does Tiger's Bay Hill win count, considering that Rory/Luke were not in the field? Similar to talk back in the day, when players won without TW in the field.
– Sanjay Iyer, via Facebook
Two Van Cynical merit badges for you, Sanjay. Clever point. Bay Hill had a representative field of 120 players, so we'll count it. I think it's less about who's in the field than how many. Tiger's Target World Championship win in a field of 18 players was unofficial and less than a decent golf outing. I'd question the old Mercedes Championships, the winners-only event in Hawaii with only 30 to 35 players teeing it up. Is that really a tournament that should get you in the Masters? And the World Golf Championships with no cuts and half-fields of only 70 or so players is a question mark. Sure, the WGC events have the top-ranked players but a field of 144 or 156 is tougher to beat due to the sheer numbers. Which makes the Masters, with fewer than 100 contestants, including some non-competitive geezers, the easiest major to win by far.
How's is Tiger looking this year heading into the Masters compared to last year? And who do you think will be the players to watch at the Masters other then Tiger.
– Alvin Nunez via Facebook
It's a real shame the Internet broke and nobody televised that little tournament at Bay Hill. I don't know how to break this to you, Big Al, but Tiger decimated the field last week at Bay Hill. Graeme McDowell was the only player within a touchdown of Tiger, whose swing looked the best it's looked in seven years. Tiger was in full shot-making command. He's the favorite at the Masters now. THE favorite. He'll be blocking out the sun, he's so big. You won't be able to watch anyone else. If you had to, though, you'd want to check out Rory McIlroy, Phil Mickelson, Lee Westwood, Luke Donald and Kyle Stanley.
Have a question for Gary Van Sickle's mailbag? E-mail editor@golf.com or ask it on Facebook.
Hank Haney and radio host spar over Tiger book
Look out "Mike and Mike in the Morning." Tiger Woods might have a new favorite radio show after Craig Carton from WFAN-New York's "Boomer and Carton" radio show called Hank Haney a "snake in the grass" — among other things — for writing a book about his former student Tiger Woods. The full interview is online here.
Haney appeared on the morning sports show to promote his Tiger Woods book, "The Big Miss," which was released this week. Haney has spoken of the book as a testament to Woods's greatness, but Carton said it was a violation of Woods's trust.
Haney responded that he has received mostly positive responses from people who have read the book, and that he did not cross any line in writing about Woods's personal life. He mentioned that he left out many personal details about Woods. Haney wouldn't answer questions about how much he was paid to write the book.
Here are some highlights from Carton and Haney's exchanges, which grow increasingly heated and end with Haney hanging up after 23 minutes.
CARTON: You talk about his wife in the book.
HANEY: I talk about his wife only in areas where it pertains to his golf. The first time I talk about his wife is when she asked Tiger, "What are we going to do to celebrate?" And Tiger said, "We don't celebrate victories like this because…"
CARTON: Hank, you talked about the icy stares between the two of them after the accident when you saw him on the range outside of his house. What's that got to do with golf?
HANEY: Because Tiger was preparing for his first tournament back, which was the Masters. I was there preparing with him.
CARTON: Right.
HANEY: It was pertinent to his mindset at the time. When you're a golfer, obviously, it's a very mental game, and I thought that was pertinent to his…
CARTON: Let me ask you this: Do you not…
HANEY: His preparation. So when I'm saying something like that in the book, one little comment about an icy stare, I don't think that's getting terribly personal.
CARTON: But it goes beyond golf. It goes beyond what happens inside the ropes.
HANEY: People have different opinions and I'm very aware that's going to be the case, but I'm not the first coach who's ever written a book…
CARTON: But it doesn't matter. Don't you think it's a violation?
HANEY: I don't feel like it was.
CARTON: You don't see that Tiger Woods allowed you into his world, obviously paid you I assume a decent amount of money to be his coach. Without Tiger Woods, you're not getting TV shows, you're not writing books. And you don't view it as a basic violation of the man's trust?
HANEY: Listen, I view it as my memories too. These weren't just his memories. He didn't have an exclusive on those memories. I wanted to share my observations, my thoughts, about his greatness, the complexities that make him up as a golfer, as a person. If I had all positive things in the book, it wouldn't have been an honest book. I wanted to write an honest book about working with Tiger Woods and the observations I made about his greatness and what it was like to coach him. And I realize people are going to have different opinions, but I'm not the first coach who's ever written a book. Phil Jackson wrote a book…
CARTON: It doesn't make it right though.
Then Carton says the book is egotistical.
CARTON: You come across a couple times in the book, in my opinion, almost like you want to be a martyr. "I did so much for Tiger. I was there for Tiger. I wanted to quit so many times but I didn't for Tiger." And the other thing you do, which is fascinating to me and shows me insight into you having never met you, is that you spend a chapter in the book when it's so important to you to compare Tiger Woods' win-loss percentage with you as his coach versus Butch Harmon as his coach. Which is such an egotistical play, I'm trying to figure that one out for myself.
HANEY: Well, like you said, you've never met me.
Later, Carton asks Haney how he would feel if a student wrote a "warts and all" book about him.
CARTON: Would you feel violated if someone did it to you?
HANEY: Would I feel violated if someone did it to me? I didn't do that. I kept everything in the book that was personal.
CARTON: It's a simple question: would you feel violated if someone did it to you?
HANEY: There are so many things I left out of this book that would have been going way beyond the line that I…
CARTON: Well, that's a cheap threat right there, c'mon.
HANEY: I felt like I did not cross the line.
CARTON: Why won't you answer my question then? We're men. I asked you a simple question
HANEY: I felt like I did not… No, I wouldn't. I feel like I did not cross the line because the book has to do with golf.
CARTON: So if a guy talked about your former wife and talked about the way you talked about it and a relationship with her and the kids and everything else, you wouldn't feel violated by that?
HANEY: I talked about that Tiger was a good father.
CARTON: You talk about their relationship.
HANEY: I did not.
CARTON: You talk about when they first got married things were great to the point where when Elin decides there's no TV at dinnertime it was a very icy, cold relationship, but no talking. You told secrets about a family man's life.
HANEY: That's a secret?
CARTON: Sure. I never knew that you couldn't watch TV in the Tiger Woods house. Nor do I give a damn. What's that got to do with golf?
HANEY: It pertained to his mental state
CARTON: So the fact that the Woods can't watch TV at dinnertime. So in other words, Tiger Woods going along with his wife — and listen, we have the same policy but no one gives a damn — the fact that they can't watch TV at dinnertime has what to do with winning the Masters?
HANEY: (silence)
CARTON: Nothing. It's a salacious book to make money.
HANEY: No, it's not a salacious book.
CARTON: What was your advance? How much?
HANEY: Guys, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
CARTON: How much money were you paid to write the book?
HANEY: That's totally irrelevant.
Then Carton's attacks on Haney get even more personal.
CARTON: Let's agree on one thing: That even now, how many years later since you've no longer been Tiger Woods' coach, you are still milking off the teat that is the Tiger Woods cow.
HANEY: That is not correct.
CARTON: No?
HANEY: But you just go ahead and have whatever opinion you want to have, OK? I wrote a book on my coaching Tiger Woods that detailed his greatness and the events that I partook in and you have your opinion and that's OK, but I think when people read the book, they will have a different opinion. The majority have. That's a fact. But you are entitled to your opinion.
CARTON: What do you think the general opinion is? Overall, outside of the guys who will kiss your ass like the guys who will kiss my ass and Boomer's ass and Tiger's ass, what do you think overall the perception of your book is, Hank?
HANEY: It's perception into the greatness that is Tiger Woods. That's the feedback that I am hearing
CARTON: Am I the first guy to give you a hard time about breaking that trust?
HANEY: You're definitely the most vocal and you're the only one who yelled and screamed and called me a coward.
And we're only at the 17-minute mark. Amazingly, Haney stays on for a full 23 minutes, signing off while Carton called him "scum of the earth."
CARTON: You probably got half a million up front to write the book and you probably pitched it as a tell-all book about the one guy who knew Tiger almost better than anybody, and it's guys like you, the scum of the earth, that abrogate a relationship and say things about men that only they know, which is so patently offensive to the trust that public figures on the level of Tiger Woods have to be careful about. It's disgusting.
I hope that every golfer in America is fearful of allowing you to be their swing coach because here's the reality of Hank Haney: Hank Haney's going to get to know you, and like a snake in the grass if he can make money off you one day in the future, he's going to do it. And I can't stand guys like you.