Tiger Images

Question:

Yes, he ditched his wife and married his (much younger) mistress. Remsleep

:Not to mention that the President of South Africa could show the resident of the United States a few things about the meaning of :integrity, dignity and self-control.

Response:

While the intent of Randy’s original statement was also clear to me, the above is one of the most ignorant and hurtfull statements I have heard yet in r.s.g. You sir, just bashed a whole country because of some personal rebukes to yourself. Perhaps Eddie was closer to judging you than you would like to admit. "Just crawled into the twentieth century"?!? You’ve probably never been to South Africa….never met any of the population – Dutch, English, Zulu, Xhosa. Do you know the politics other than what you saw on the World News Tonight?

Not to mention that the President of South Africa could show the President of the United States a few things about the meaning of integrity, dignity and self-control. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

What I should have said is: Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know what he meant. As far as arrogance is concerned…where you happen to come from has just crawled into the twentieth century in the past few years and arrogance has been a way of life there. <clip

Scott

Response:

Scott wrote Much strong stuff snipped Sorry, Scott, I owe you an apology. You sounded real upset in your post. And in fact I’d like to extend that apology to anyone else out there that may have been caught in the cyberspace version of crossfire. To be honest, I provoked Bobby, and I knew what I was doing. The one thing I never wanted was for other people to be really upset, like emotionally, just because I was stuffing around with words. You know, if they kinda shake their heads occasionally, once in while chuckle, maybe wonder if I haven’t gone too far this time, etc. That’s the worst I ever want to happen. Also we don’t know anything about Bobby. There may be personal reasons why white South Africans piss him off. It wouldn’t surprise me, we’re pretty good at pissing people off. I can’t say I won’t do it again – but I’ll try and be more careful … although, I gotta tell you, that ain’t easy for a born stirrer! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

Unfortunately this thread has become horribly polluted with all sorts of garbage, personal and otherwise. No excuses, what’s done is done. I am, no doubt, just as much to blame as anyone else. The result though is boring, I should imagine as much for everyone else as for myself. I would like to move right along. However, I am still very interested in the initial topic, ie, the effects, good or bad, of bodybuilding/weightlifting on one’s golf game. If anyone else is interested in that topic I’m starting a new unpolluted thread under the heading "Bodybuilding/weightlifting and your golf game". Alternately, if you are concerned that you may get caught up in corny crapola by posting to the new thread on rsg please feel free to e-mail me direct. I must be one of the most available, least anonymous of all the rsg’ers — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

(OO) WOW!! It gets scary in here sometimes, doesn`t it? For awhile I qualified as a "golfer" , then as fast as a skull, I was a hacker…then, finally I was a golfer of questionable talent (I can live with that)..all by their corny crappola definitions.<s Fay, kneedeepintherough

Response:

Bobby Knight wrote but the fact is that you are boring. Kill file to follow.

Thank God for that! No more stupid responding posts. Filters are a wonderful thing. OGC: I’ve also just added "realize.com" to my rsg filter, I wonder if the absence of their spam will improve my game by improving my composure. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

"R&B" wrote in A liberty, Eddie, which you afforded yourself without hesitation in your response to me, wherein you presumed to know what I think of others

Nonsense! The words "you know" as used by Bobby are definitive as to what he literally and categorically states I know, as to the actual thoughts floating around my brain, such as there are. Whilst the words "you appear" and "you give the impression of" and "I have over time gained the impression that" etc etc are merely indicating what I think you *may* be thinking, but are in no way definitive as to what you were, actually and quite literally, thinking. I would accept from some posters that they cannot tell the difference between the two, but not from you. As a result of the standard of previous posts by yourself you have, in my book, been hoist with your own petard. I am convinced you should be able to tell the difference. You may, of course, say I’m splitting hairs, But I would respond that that is much like saying "we’ll use these rules of golf but we won’t bother using those rules because they just don’t happen to suit us right now". — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

: :[snip] :I play with "golfers" every week — some good, some bad… some :with picture-perfect swings, some with "don’t try this at home" swings<<< Wait a second, Randy. As far as I know, we’ve never played 18 together… Remsleep

Response:

Bobby Knight wrote Come on Eddie…you know exactly what he means. Bit of a liberty, surely, you telling me what I "know". Indeed, where I come from we would consider your comments not only somewhat rude but a touch arrogant to boot. I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone else what they "know" or "don’t know". The Internet is cross cultural and because we happen to be using almost the same language doesn’t mean we share the same mores. (If, of course, your form of arrogance is the norm in the United States! Perhaps a countryman of yours could enlighten us in this regard.)

I’m sorry Eddie. You take everything very literally. In your previous posts I thought there was a modicum of humor. What I should have said is: Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know what he meant. As far as arrogance is concerned…where you happen to come from has just crawled into the twentieth century in the past few years and arrogance has been a way of life there. <clip I am glad you feel able to say exactly what Randy’s underlying thought was when he wrote what he wrote.

<clip As stated above…most would know. Was I correct Randy? Hmmmm! I wonder if you would be surprised to hear that I find much of your response to my post gratuitously rude. Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose you could have deliberately decided to be offensive. Unfortunately I can only judge you by your own words. So far, you do not make a good case to be adjudged a very nice person.

That really hurts. Your judgement is so very important. However, I am sure time will reveal all. Whenever you are prepared to put forward reasoned argument I will be only too happy to give proper thought to what you say and will respond as best I can.

That REALLY hurts. Surely you don’t think that now I’m interested in your "proper thought" to what I say. Speaking of arrogance! <clip Would it have been clearer to you if he had said "…just being long does not a golfer make"? (sic) At last you grow closer to the nub. Well done! And the answer to your query is – yes, if that is all he had said it would have been clearer.

<clip Again…it was clear to me…and I would hope most others. <clip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -If flexibility is the issue then, logically I believe, we would be talking about the full swing and, as a result thereof, the long game. But that is the very golfing area in which weightlifting and bodybuilding has proved most fruitful. Note that all the specialist long drivers do serious weight training and muscle building in order to be successful in their chosen area of interest as golfers. A number of them have excellent handicaps, too. They jolly well should have. If you can virtually drive every par 4 you come to, and hit in two nearly every par 5 you come across, it doesn’t take much of a short game to be close to a scratch player. Hell, you can virtually 3-putt everything and still play close to scratch or thereabouts. The fact that these self-same golfers are not "the leading money winners on any tour" is, in fact, irrelevant, it is given to only the very few to be *that* good. Randy has himself inumerated the characteristics of those at the pinnacle of the sport extremely well in the past and he will find no argument from me on that score. Suffice it to say that the vast majority (like 99.99999%, recurring to the nth degree) of golfers will never win anything on any tour anywhere. But would they improve their handicaps if they were to seriously improve their short games? Sure. Would they improve their handicaps if they were to seriously improve their long games? Sure. Would weight training and muscle building help improve their long games? On the available evidence of the long driving competitions – sure! It suddenly occurs to me that, other than the last two paragraphs above, anything else that has been written on this thread by any of us is just corny crapola (still loooove that expression!).

I note that the last two paragraphs were laborously written by you. Am I wrong in assuming that arrogance is saying that this is the only thing NOT corny crapola. Nice try Eddie, but the bottom line is that you make something of nothing with many, many words. I could say pedantic, or supercilious, but the fact is that you are boring. Kill file to follow. — Someone likes every shot! BK… —

Response:

Bobby Knight wrote Come on Eddie…you know exactly what he means.

To which, Eddie Haynes-Smart responded: Bit of a liberty, surely, you telling me what I "know".

[snip] A liberty, Eddie, which you afforded yourself without hesitation in your response to me, wherein you presumed to know what I think of others. Randy

Response:

Bobby Knight wrote Come on Eddie…you know exactly what he means.

Bit of a liberty, surely, you telling me what I "know". Indeed, where I come from we would consider your comments not only somewhat rude but a touch arrogant to boot. I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone else what they "know" or "don’t know". The Internet is cross cultural and because we happen to be using almost the same language doesn’t mean we share the same mores. (If, of course, your form of arrogance is the norm in the United States! Perhaps a countryman of yours could enlighten us in this regard.) The underlying thought here is that it takes mastery of all parts of the game to be what Randy considers a REAL golfer.

I am glad you feel able to say exactly what Randy’s underlying thought was when he wrote what he wrote. Again I must wonder if this is a cultural norm in your society or whether it is merely you being personally arrogant. I find it impossible to know with any certainty what anyone else is thinking and, as a result, am always very careful to try and fairly judge others on what they say – and not on what I assume they might be meaning when they say things. To do the latter would be, for me, not only rude, but presumptuous. Because of the high regard I have for Randy’s posts generally I was also very careful to say: "Sometimes it’s hard to figure from the words alone (especially operating across cultural barriers etc) why someone posts a deliberately contradictory response to another post."

However, and interestingly enough, you chose to ignore the fact that I’d, with some care as to the words used, qualified my comments. And you went on to say, rather crudely: There is an American saying that goes; "you’re picking fly shit out of pepper".

Hmmmm! I wonder if you would be surprised to hear that I find much of your response to my post gratuitously rude. Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose you could have deliberately decided to be offensive. Unfortunately I can only judge you by your own words. So far, you do not make a good case to be adjudged a very nice person. However, I am sure time will reveal all. Whenever you are prepared to put forward reasoned argument I will be only too happy to give proper thought to what you say and will respond as best I can. Now if you want to argue semantics as to what a REAL golfer is, go ahead and waste the bandwidth. Definitions like this are very subjective.

This is but a cheap language trick to make any reply seem superfluous. Having conjured up an *unpleasant* argument out of thin air, you’re trying to win it without giving me an opportunity to reply. Although it is not a very clever trick I suppose it might on occasion work. However, as with the rest of what you wrote up to this stage, it entirely misses the gist of my original post, and therefore adds to the first true waste of bandwidth in this thread. Would it have been clearer to you if he had said "…just being long does not a golfer make"?

(sic) At last you grow closer to the nub. Well done! And the answer to your query is – yes, if that is all he had said it would have been clearer. And I would probably still have posted what I did, although the wording may have been slightly different, because I wouldn’t have been peeved at my original post being brushed off with glib comments. Essentially I don’t see how anyone can be, or not be, adjudged a "golfer" based on whether his short game is good or his long game is long or short or both good or, indeed, both bad. Essentially, as I see it, and I am obviously open to correction (by Randy, not by some rather self-satisfied, smug, self-appointed surrogate) (Hope you at least appreciate, if not like, the alliteration – I couldn’t resist!) Randy was again – he has voiced this opinion before – saying that, as a general rule, bodybuilding is inimical to being a good golfer. This time, however, he specifically linked it to the long game. And as a result, for the first time, I wanted to take issue with him in this regard. It would seem to me that if bodybuilding was bad for your golf it certainly wouldn’t be specifically harmful to the short game. I can’t see how it can be. The short game is more a question of feel and touch, much of which comes with practice and experience, and big or small muscles would be irrelevant. I should imagine, generally speaking, that the complaint about bodybuilding and golf would have to concern the issue of flexibility (Randy, correct me if I am wrong and this is not the rationale behind your position). If flexibility is the issue then, logically I believe, we would be talking about the full swing and, as a result thereof, the long game. But that is the very golfing area in which weightlifting and bodybuilding has proved most fruitful. Note that all the specialist long drivers do serious weight training and muscle building in order to be successful in their chosen area of interest as golfers. A number of them have excellent handicaps, too. They jolly well should have. If you can virtually drive every par 4 you come to, and hit in two nearly every par 5 you come across, it doesn’t take much of a short game to be close to a scratch player. Hell, you can virtually 3-putt everything and still play close to scratch or thereabouts. The fact that these self-same golfers are not "the leading money winners on any tour" is, in fact, irrelevant, it is given to only the very few to be *that* good. Randy has himself inumerated the characteristics of those at the pinnacle of the sport extremely well in the past and he will find no argument from me on that score. Suffice it to say that the vast majority (like 99.99999%, recurring to the nth degree) of golfers will never win anything on any tour anywhere. But would they improve their handicaps if they were to seriously improve their short games? Sure. Would they improve their handicaps if they were to seriously improve their long games? Sure. Would weight training and muscle building help improve their long games? On the available evidence of the long driving competitions – sure! It suddenly occurs to me that, other than the last two paragraphs above, anything else that has been written on this thread by any of us is just corny crapola (still loooove that expression!). — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

But of course, being "long" does not a golfer make. It’s a pity you didn’t put a smiley in there. Sometimes it’s hard to figure from the words alone (especially operating across cultural barriers etc) why someone posts a deliberately contradictory response to another post. If you are merely making a joke that’s fine, ha ha, good one, and don’t bother reading any further.

Come on Eddie…you know exactly what he means. Would it have been clearer to you if he had said "…just being long does not a golfer make"? The underlying thought here is that it takes mastery of all parts of the game to be what Randy considers a REAL golfer. There is an American saying that goes; "you’re picking fly shit out of pepper". Now if you want to argue semantics as to what a REAL golfer is, go ahead and waste the bandwidth. Definitions like this are very subjective. — Someone likes every shot! BK… —

Response:

Thank you so much, Eddie, for your eloquent rebuttal. But what, exactly, are you rebutting? Let me be clear on this: Never in my post did I indicate that *my game* is, should, or will ever be, the measuring stick for what is "good" at golf (whatever "good" is). I was merely pointing out what is obvious to most of us, which is that length alone does not a golfer make. No smiley, ’cause I’m dead serious. (But, as I will explain later, my choice of the word "golfer" may have been a poor choice.) Never did I intend to infer that length is not an *advantage*. Clearly, it is. I would gladly give up a few fairways hit each round for another 50 yards off the tee. Who in their right mind wouldn’t? But as the old saying goes, "the woods are full of long hitters." And as John Daly and Tiger Woods can attest, being long isn’t enough to overcome the many challenges that the game offers. I appreciate your thoughtful response, and you make many good points (as is your norm). I think we’re splitting hairs here. But methinks you’re a little off-base with a couple of your comments. So unless you can "clean up on the tour" you are not a golfer.

You’re putting words in my mouth here. However, I will admit that my original comment may have left too much for interpretation. I was merely responding to the earlier post which suggested that *strength* was one of the primary reasons why the long-drive champions hit it so far. I was pointing out that none of the long-drive champions that I know of have ever won a golf tournament where you actually count strokes. I speak from some personal knowledge. Art Sellinger, who runs the Long Drive tournament each year (and is a former champion), and I once co-hosted a radio program in Dallas. He admitted to me that he and most of the other long drivers can hit the ball a country mile, but when it comes to *playing golf*, they can’t keep up with the TOURing pros. It’s a different ballgame. My comment to which you’ve responded was only meant to point out that there’s a difference between being a strong-armed long hitter and being a *complete player*. (Insert smiley if you wanna, but most folks know what I mean, I think.) Alternately, it would appear as though you are saying being "short" makes a golfer.

Again, you’re putting words in my mouth, and in this case, it’s a bit of a stretch. Nowhere in my post did I say anything of the kind. Nor would I. Being short is, without question, a disadvantage. And you’ll never catch me saying otherwise. However, on average, most short hitters also tend to hit more fairways, and THAT is *not* a disadvantage. Still, I’d choose being LONG and crooked over being SHORT and crooked any day of the week. Fortunately, I’m pretty straight, so I don’t have to make that choice. You went on… Or are you saying unless people play the game exactly the way YOU play it they are not golfers?

Eddie, there’s no reason to make this personal. I didn’t say that, and I am surprised that someone as reasonable as you would make that leap. There are many things golf teaches us — one of them is that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. I know that, and I’ll bet you do, too. Zuback turned professional a few years back and gives demos etc. Now the rules consider him to be a professional GOLFER and in terms of that he is not allowed to play as an amateur. His speciality as a GOLFER is long driving. Another’s speciality may be teaching the game and virtually never playing it, a third could just be an amateur who plays for enjoyment, someone else may be a hustler still operating as an amateur but making his living at the game. These are all golfers.

Touche. Point made. But as a *player* (perhaps there’s a distinction in syntax here), my money’s on an "average" TOUR pro, say a Neal Lancaster-type, to clean Zurback’s clock 99 times out of 100 if they played 18 holes for score. Zurback would be hitting 9-irons, and Lancaster would be hitting 5-irons. And Lancaster would still win. That was my only point. There’s a heckuva lot more money in winning professional golf tournaments than there is in winning long drive competitions. And if you think the guys who are the long drive champs wouldn’t give their eye teeth to be able to play golf on TOUR for a living, you’re wrong. Some have tried to qualify. None have made it. I think in life it probably isn’t a good idea to take too narrow a view of things, more especially one should be a even more cautious when that narrow view might just happen to fit one’s own prejudices, for whatever personal reasons.

I’m not sure exactly what you’re implying here. If it’s that I look down my nose at someone like Zurback simply because he can’t keep up with a TOURing pro in a heads-up match, you’re mistaken. Anybody who can blow the ball 150 yards past me gets my attention every time. I’m merely drawing the distinction between strong-armed long-ball hitters and *complete players*. In rare instances, an individual possesses both qualities, and when they’re on, nobody can touch ‘em. But when they’re not on (do the names Daly and Woods come to mind?), they’re left scrambling with the rest of the crooked-hitters. The game has never been about how far you hit the ball. It’s about how many TIMES you hit the ball.

To which you fired back… Hmmm again! Actually this is the comment that convinced me you were being serious and explained why there had been no smileys before. How many hits per round does it take then to disqualify one as a REAL GOLFER, I wonder? Just enough to keep you in, and everyone else not quite up to your standard, out?

Tisk, tisk, Eddie. I’m surprised at you reducing this to a personal matter. What have I said to you (or *about* you) to piss you off? Perhaps my choice of words was inappropriate. Sue me. But in the end, I stand by my statement. And I’ll write it again so it’s clear: The game has never been about how far you hit the ball. It’s about how many TIMES you hit the ball. If you disagree with that, then we have little else to discuss. I wish I could remember the name of the TOURing pro I heard say this a year ago — the name escapes me — but he pointed out that many amateurs make the mistake of getting caught in the trap of believing that the game is about how far they hit it, or how good their swing looks, or how well they putt, or how their sand technique is. He said, "it’s none of that, and it’s ALL of that." He summed up by saying, "the only measure of how well you play golf is the score you post — period." Teacher after teacher (and we all know how you feel about "gurus" ) say the same thing. Learn technique. But when you PLAY golf, PLAY GOLF. For many, learning how to swing the club seems only a distant cousin to learning how to play the game. That’s unfortunate. Furthermore, you’d still be wrong in saying that you have to exclude the muscular types.

Once again, you’re putting words in my mouth. (I hate that.) I’ve never said that strong-armed muscular types CAN’T BE *players*. My contention (maybe if I say it again, it’ll be clearer this time) is this — being strong-armed and a long hitter ALONE does not fulfill all the requirements a student of the game must learn in order to be a COMPLETE PLAYER. It helps. But it’s only a part of the package. As for whatever "prejudice" (your word) you think I have, let me clarify — I have no prejudice against strong-armed big guys. (I want ‘em on my side in a barroom brawl.) The fact that I’m not one is something I’ve long ago come to accept (and don’t really think about), just like I’ve come to accept the fact that I’m never going to be 6-feet tall. So what? You’ve made this sound as if I have something against people who aren’t like me, and that’s simply ridiculous. Furthermore, I marvel at the ability of golfers who can rocket the ball out there 280+ yards time after time. I’d like to join them. But I’m not intimidated by them, because eventually, they have putt. Because you are biased against this physical stereotype, which is also obvious from many of your posts over time, doesn’t make Adriaan van Rensburg a non-golfer.

Thank you once again for telling me what I think. You are wrong, and I would appreciate it in the future that you keep your presumptions about what I think of others to yourself. (You’re welcome to call me to task in private e-mail if you wish — I don’t keep my e-mail address a secret, so I’m easy to find — that way, we won’t waste the ng’s time on such pettiness.) I am not biased against anyone. At least I try not to be. Don’t get your panties in a wad, man! Although I do not know your handicap I would lay odds it’s not quite as good as +1, however please feel free to correct me on this. I suspect you don’t even belong to a club and don’t have an official handicap, but am obviously open to correction on this.

My handicap has never approached a +1, though it briefly hovered in the single digits at a very short, very easy course for a while. I’m playing like absolute crap right now, so my hunch is it’s probably around a 14 or 15 (maybe). This summer, I imagine it’ll get back to around a 12 which is about my norm. I do not presently belong to a club (though I have belonged to a few over the years). Truthfully, for the most part, my feelings on the subject are best reflected by the words of Groucho Marx, who once said, "I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member." In recent years, I haven’t *had to* belong to a club, since my employer provided that as a benefit. But what, exactly, is your point??????? I think you should keep on being open-minded, the way you normally are with regard to most subjects, and relax a little when it comes to big guys or long drivers etc.

Thank you for noticing that I *try* to be open-minded most of the time. … read more »

Response:

But of course, being "long" does not a golfer make. Otherwise all those long-drive champions would be cleaning up on the PGA (or any other) TOUR. But, alas, they can’t keep up with the REAL golfers. The game has never been about how far you hit the ball. It’s about how many TIMES you hit the ball. Randy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – since bodybuilders generally make horrible golfers Except for the long driving boys – Zuback and the others do serious bodybuilding/weightlifting training. The guy who came third (I think) was/is a WWF contestant. Most of them are well over 6′ and really built to match. One of the final ten, I belive, was almost, 7′ and also built to match. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

Body building is not bad for golf, lack of flexibility is. Contrary to popular belief lifting weights does not require a loss of flexibility. A routine of regular stretching will maintain flexibility [and increase distance] for any golfer body builder or not. BTW stretching on a daily basis, especially the shoulders, back and abs will add years to a golfers game. "Strength is not so

much of an issue, since bodybuilders generally make horrible golfers, " – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

But of course, being "long" does not a golfer make.

It’s a pity you didn’t put a smiley in there. Sometimes it’s hard to figure from the words alone (especially operating across cultural barriers etc) why someone posts a deliberately contradictory response to another post. If you are merely making a joke that’s fine, ha ha, good one, and don’t bother reading any further. But if you’re not joking you’re being dead limited in your thinking. If you’re not joking it would appear that what you would be saying is that an 8 handicapper with a great short game and a, relatively speaking, lousy long game is more of a REAL golfer than a scratch player with a great long game and a, relatively speaking, lousy short game. Otherwise all those long-drive champions would be cleaning up on the PGA

(or any other) TOUR. But, alas, they can’t keep up with the REAL golfers.

And still no smiley. Hmmmm! So unless you can "clean up on the tour" you are not a golfer. Alas alack-a-day: you are not a golfer; I am not a golfer. In fact, I far as I know, no-one on rsg is a REAL golfer. Alternately, it would appear as though you are saying being "short" makes a golfer. Or are you saying unless people play the game exactly the way YOU play it they are not golfers? Because strangely enough the rule book disagrees with you. Zuback turned professional a few years back and gives demos etc. Now the rules consider him to be a professional GOLFER and in terms of that he is not allowed to play as an amateur. His speciality as a GOLFER is long driving. Another’s speciality may be teaching the game and virtually never playing it, a third could just be an amateur who plays for enjoyment, someone else may be a hustler still operating as an amateur but making his living at the game. These are all golfers. I think in life it probably isn’t a good idea to take too narrow a view of things, more especially one should be a even more cautious when that narrow view might just happen to fit one’s own prejudices, for whatever personal reasons. The game has never been about how far you hit the ball. It’s about how many TIMES you hit the ball.

Hmmm again! Actually this is the comment that convinced me you were being serious and explained why there had been no smileys before. How many hits per round does it take then to disqualify one as a REAL GOLFER, I wonder? Just enough to keep you in, and everyone else not quite up to your standard, out? Furthermore, you’d still be wrong in saying that you have to exclude the muscular types. The chap who came second in the world long driving champonship is a South African tour pro with, I believe, a +1 handicap. He is 6′ 4" and 230 lbs and it is all muscle. He makes a living at the game as a local tour pro. Because you are biased against this physical stereotype, which is also obvious from many of your posts over time, doesn’t make Adriaan van Rensburg a non-golfer. Although I do not know your handicap I would lay odds it’s not quite as good as +1, however please feel free to correct me on this. I suspect you don’t even belong to a club and don’t have an official handicap, but am obviously open to correction on this. I think you should keep on being open-minded, the way you normally are with regard to most subjects, and relax a little when it comes to big guys or long drivers etc. You can be way cool about black ladies playing badly and insist they are golfers, too. Indeed, you have waxed quite lyrical on the subject. I think you could extend the same courtesy to big guys who may or may not have better handicaps than yourself, ie, some of them actually hit the ball far fewer TIMES than you do over 18 holes. It takes all types, Randy, ain’t any one type any better or any worse than any other type. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

Visit Nikeposters.com for exclusive images of Tiger at work. http:/www.nikeposters.com

I can’t believe I just went and had a look at this site. On it, they describe Tiger as: "the first African-American to win a major" and "the first Asian-American to win a major" Covering all bases, huh? — Richard "The way I see things is that we are scratching our heads when our bums are itchy." – Mike Amm, rsru, 8/5/98 replace "leadtogold" with "alchemist" for email

Response:

since bodybuilders generally make horrible golfers

Except for the long driving boys – Zuback and the others do serious bodybuilding/weightlifting training. The guy who came third (I think) was/is a WWF contestant. Most of them are well over 6′ and really built to match. One of the final ten, I belive, was almost, 7′ and also built to match. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

snip Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson all had power, strength, talent, and grace in quantities much more abundant than Tiger can Golf has been real where I come from since the days of Allan Robertson and Tom Morris

Allan, sometimes these guys look so wonderful because we see them through he kind nostalgia of history. Hogan was taciturn to the point of rudeness, Show on golf last week showed Hagan as being less than perfection. His normal comment upon arriving at the Tournament site: "Well, I’m here, now who do you pick to come in second place?" Can you imagine the outrage if Woods said that today? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

<clip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Golf has *always* been about power, talent and grace. Strength is not so much of an issue, since bodybuilders generally make horrible golfers, and women can play at an exceptionally high level without being particularly muscular. What Tiger has done is make golf *accessible* to certain segments of society — the young and the minorities — who otherwise viewed the game as a haven for middle-aged white guys with extraordinarily bad fashion sense. <clip Tiger has also brought a fire to the game that many of the game’s traditionalists find offensive. I do not. I think his approach is refreshing and makes the game exciting to watch. I find nothing more boring than to see a bunch of faceless, personalityless, machine-like automotons playing the game without emotion. It may be effective, but for me, it’s not terribly entertaining. As we say in show biz, "it’s not good theatre." <clip Either way, it’s more fun to watch if you have an appreciation of the champions that came before, and it will certainly give you a better gauge of Tiger’s achievements.

Well said, as usual, Randy. Expect strong posts to follow. Myopia exists on both sides of any Tiger post. — Someone likes every shot! BK… —

Response:

Golf is not about middle-aged white guys in plaid pants. Not any more — golf is power, strength, talent, and grace. Tiger Woods took golf and made it real. Visit Nikeposters.com for exclusive images of Tiger at work. http:/www.nikeposters.com

Response:

Rubbish!!!!! Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson all had power, strength, talent, and grace in quantities much more abundant than Tiger can Golf has been real where I come from since the days of Allan Robertson and Tom Morris Allan

Response:

lost me – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Golf is not about middle-aged white guys in plaid pants. Not any more — golf is power, strength, talent, and grace. Tiger Woods took golf and made it real. Visit Nikeposters.com for exclusive images of Tiger at work. http:/www.nikeposters.com Rubbish!!!!! Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson all had power, strength, talent, and grace in quantities much more abundant than Tiger can Golf has been real where I come from since the days of Allan Robertson and Tom Morris Allan

Response:

Kim Brooks wrote … Golf is not about middle-aged white guys in plaid pants. Not any more — golf is power, strength, talent, and grace. Tiger Woods took golf and made it real.

Speaking as a middle-aged white guy who’s been one of Tiger’s biggest supporters in this newsgroup, let me say this: Golf has *always* been about power, talent and grace. Strength is not so much of an issue, since bodybuilders generally make horrible golfers, and women can play at an exceptionally high level without being particularly muscular. What Tiger has done is make golf *accessible* to certain segments of society — the young and the minorities — who otherwise viewed the game as a haven for middle-aged white guys with extraordinarily bad fashion sense. It’s never really been that, but that’s been its image, and after all, perception *is* reality. Tiger has also brought a fire to the game that many of the game’s traditionalists find offensive. I do not. I think his approach is refreshing and makes the game exciting to watch. I find nothing more boring than to see a bunch of faceless, personalityless, machine-like automotons playing the game without emotion. It may be effective, but for me, it’s not terribly entertaining. As we say in show biz, "it’s not good theatre." But to assert that Tiger has the only franchise on power, talent or grace merely demonstrates your ignorance of the many other fine young players who exhibit these characteristics each week on the PGA TOUR — or, for that matter, many of the legendary players of the game’s rich past. Tiger himself is respectful of the game’s traditions and of its heroes. His fans would do themselves a favor by taking a cue from *their* hero and boning up on the game’s many powerful, talented and graceful champions of generations past. As Tiger grows into the champion I expect he will be, you will have a much greater appreciation of his accomplishments after you come to know whose footsteps he’s following, and recognize the standards they set for power, talent and grace. He may exceed them all. Or he may not. Tiger’s contributions to the game of golf may, in the end, be measured in ways we have not yet considered. Either way, it’s more fun to watch if you have an appreciation of the champions that came before, and it will certainly give you a better gauge of Tiger’s achievements. Randy

Response:

Jack Nicklaus and Sam Snead both said that Tiger Woods swing was the best they had ever seen. I’m sure they find stewarts swing acceptable too. TZ

Response:

load of corny crapola snipped Sheeesh, when these guys spam, they don’t mess about, they really spam! Where the hell is RSG Spam Control when you need him most?

Relax Eddie…I’ve already sent a copy of the heading to realize.com. I hope they can find the guy. — Someone likes every shot! BK… —

Response:

Dr Jag wrote re spam Eddie, Take two filters and call me in the morning.

That earns the "best laugh this year to date award" OGC: When I’m happier I play better golf. I didn’t understand that guy who said he played better when angry. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

load of corny crapola snipped Sheeesh, when these guys spam, they don’t mess about, they really spam! Where the hell is RSG Spam Control when you need him most? — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

All of these posts came from realize.com, but the email address is bogus. Skip them. — Someone likes every shot! BK… —

Response:

crapola snipped Sheeesh, when these guys spam, they don’t mess about, they really spam! Where the hell is RSG Spam Control when you need him most?

Calling Doctor JAG. Calling Doctor JAG. You’re needed in RSG… there’s been another outbreak of SPAM! Randy

Response:

Stop…..oh please stop…..I..cant take any more. This ongoing spam is killing me. Oh…. when will it ever end. boo-hoo Eddie, Take two filters and call me in the morning. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – corny crapola snipped Sheeesh, when these guys spam, they don’t mess about, they really spam! Where the hell is RSG Spam Control when you need him most? Calling Doctor JAG. Calling Doctor JAG. You’re needed in RSG… there’s been another outbreak of SPAM! Randy

Response:

I’ll take Sam Sneads swing over ANY golfers.

Eighty + wins weren’t bad either. I’ll take Payne Stewart’s swing over Tiger’s any day. Now THAT’S beautiful.