Quick Hits

-I just realized something about Lebron James bringing his talent to South Beach. It took me a few weeks to see this, but I think it's quite obvious. Lebron brought the Cavaliers gameplan along with him.

Lebron has never been a guy that has played with a pointguard. It's always been him and get the hell out of my way. The Cleveland Cavaliers were built specifically for Lebron's game. They had a bunch of role players who could hit spot-up jumpers. The Lebron Cavs always had one guy, and one guy only, who could create shots on his own. The Miami Heat aren't built that way. The have three Alpha Dogs who can create at anytime on their own. The problem is that the three of them haven't compromised and found a way to play together. Lebron is trying to get them to adapt to his style. The quicker the Heat get these guys playing to complement each other then the quicker they can get thru those growing pains and play the way we think they can.

They're heading down the wrong path right now and they need to reverse this trend and start to head down the right path. Lebron needs to learn to play with his new teammates and stop treating them like they're the Cavs.

-I'm convinced that Marvin Lewis would have been fired this week if they weren't playing Thanksgiving night. Marvin has had long enough to imprint his style on this team and organization, but it just isn't working. I'm tired of Marvin. This hurts to say this but the Bengals need to start over. Bring in Holmgren and let's rebuild this thing. I love Chad but he has to go. I hope the owner cares enough to see that this is going nowhere fast and his team has given up on a once promising head-coach.

-The Pats-Colts played another great regular season game. This turned into one of the great rivalries in the history of the game. We'll miss this matchup in five years when these QB's are gone or are no longer at the top of their games. The only other rivalry that might be close is New England-Pittsburgh. There's really nothing in the NFC that comes close.

-I think Melo gets traded in the next month or so. In fact, I think that whole team gets blown up. Chauncey might end up with a possible contender. As far as Melo, just put the guy out of his misery and trade him to New York. He wants to go play Amare and have a coach that doesn't care if he shows up on the defensive end.

-I think Coach Rick has convinced his team that they aren't good enough to win on talent alone. This team is playing harder than they have in quite some time. Tyson Chandler is a beast in the middle. I saw him get in Marion's grill on a defensive lapse. That's exactly what this team needs.

Tiger's new swing

I checked out a bit of the King Bhumibol (that might be right) Skins game the other nite. Let me just say that I haven't seen Tiger swing the club since the Ryder Cup over a month ago. Wow. His power is back.

Tiger seems to be gaining a huge amount of confidence in his new swing. There are some who will classify the Sean Foley swing as Stack & Tilt. There are certainly some similarities. This is what I think is the difference. Traditional Stack & Tilt gives your swing a certain style. Almost all Stack & Tilt players swing a certain way. It's very recognizable. I think Sean Foley allows his players to add their style to Stack & Tilt. None of the Foley players swing the same way, but they all have characteristics in their swings that are similar.

But back to Tiger. I saw some changes in his swing that were impressive. He seems to be much more on top of the ball going back. This leads to a stronger position at the top. His shift to his left side and release thru the ball are nite and day from four months ago. There wasn't a semblance of him getting stuck on they way down and thru. He was hitting driver on holes where he didn't need driver and he looked confident. He made a bad swing and the ball was about three yards off the fairway.

Tiger was always dominate when he could hit it out there with the long hitters. He toned it down the last few years and tried to become a control player with numerous shots in his bag. What if Tiger can become a hybrid of the two players he used to be? What if he can combine his raw power with a bit more accuracy and the ability to shape shots?

I don't know what 2011 holds for Tiger. A lot of it will depend on his putting. He'll play one more time this year at Chevron and then we won't see him until probably February. I wonder what that swing will look like then.

It's time for this to go

Well, it finally happened. Tiger lost his world number one ranking this past week. The new number one is Lee Westwood. It got me thinking about these rankings. Do we really need them?

Who do the world rankings benefit? I guess the players feel some sense of pride by being a highly ranked player. Maybe sponsors can gloat that they have ten of the top thirty players in the world at their tournament. But, seriously, does anyone know who the 30th ranked player in the world is. Does anyone care? Westwood proved that you don't even have to win that frequently to overtake the spot. Just be in contention a lot and that's good enough.

Golf is all about name recognition. There are certain names that you just know. Tiger, Phil, Ernie, and Vijay to name a few. These guys are noticed because of who they are and what they've done. We don't need a ranking system to verify that. We didn't have a world ranking system before 1985 and things got along just fine.

Also, I think the rankings might affect a guys play. Fred Couples never looked comfortable when he was tabbed as the worlds #1. David Duval carries around the distinction of a player who has fallen so far from his #1 ranking. Does he really need to answer questions about that? Phil Mickelson has fallen flat on his face in weeks where he could have overtaken the spot had he played slightly above average.

The best players in the game are always judged by how many majors they win. It's that simple.

I know we need some sort of ranking system in order to know who to invite to these big tournaments. It just seems that these rankings adds more of a drama than their really needs to be.

A new #1?

I like Lee Westwood. He's a great player and by all accounts he's a nice guy. He's had five top 3 finishes in his last eleven majors. He was sidelined at the PGA for a calf injury but came back for the Ryder Cup and played well. I read today that he will more than likely become the #1 player in the world on October 31st.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Couples and Duval are the only other players to be #1 without having a major championship. Couples won his next major at the '92 Masters. Duval didn't get his major for almost two full years after becoming #1. But Duval was clearly the best player in the world in late '98 and early '99. Duval won two tournaments late in '98 and won four tournaments before the Masters in '99. He was on fire. Is Westwood on fire?

Westwood is essentially going to be #1 in the world due to being in the hunt so much lately. He won at St. Jude earlier this year, but he doesn't have a career defining win. No Players, Memorial, Bay Hill, WGC or any other big event. He lost the 54-hole lead at the Masters and hasn't played for two months before this week. But he will somehow be #1 in the world in a few weeks because he's been in contention lately. I think you need to win big in order to be #1. I hope Lee can justify this ranking or he won't have it long.

Other thoughts

I think this event means something to the Americans. I'm tired of hearing it doesn't. Steve Stricker almost cried on t.v. in front of Roger Maltbie. That guy cares. Hunter Mahan had a hard time in front of the press afterward. Tiger's record is 6-2-1 in his last two Ryder Cups. These guys care. Now, they may not care as much as the Euro's.

Here's a question I'd like to propose to the every member of the European tour. You can win five majors and be one of the best players in the world and lose every Ryder Cup for the next twenty years or you can have an average career and win every Ryder Cup for the next twenty years. I'm betting at least 90% will take the Ryder Cup wins. I bet the number is around 50% if you ask the American players the same question. Maybe even less than that.

A Ryder Cup win makes a European tour players career complete. A Ryder Cup win is a nice footnote for an American player. It's been the biggest tournament on the European tour schedule for thirty years. It's been about the tenth biggest tournament on the PGA Tour schedule for twenty years.

I also think that's part of the reason Monty didn't take Casey and Rose as picks. They play the U.S. tour and not the European tour. That makes qualifying for the Ryder Cup more difficult for those players and maybe that means it doesn't mean as much to them.

This tournament is the European tours Superbowl. It might be our NFC Wildcard game. It's hard to blame our players. There are so many big tournaments.

Maybe that's why we have success in the President's Cup. Those players on the international squad play the PGA Tour. They are exposed to the same conditions as the American players.

I guarantee you that the European papers will be talking about captaincy for 2012 in the next few weeks. That's something that won't cross the American minds for quite some time.

I hope this isn't true but I think it might be. This might be the last Ryder Cup that Seve Ballesteros sees. I keep reading that he is gravely ill. The man epitomizes European golf and the Ryder Cup. The event may not be what it is today without him and what he did in the 80's to fuel this event.

Two years until Medinah.

They made it really exciting.

If you told Corey Pavin, after the format change, that his team will win three of the four sessions, I think he'd that that. He just wouldn't think that he would lose the other session by five points. If we've learned anything about the Ryder Cup is that it's a big putting contest.

On Sunday, the U.S. team lipped out putts while the Euro's lipped in putts. The Euro's hit crucial putts when they needed and the U.S. didn't. It really is that simple.

Steve Stricker: Stricker's game got better as the week went on. He carried Tiger for two days and played a near flawless singles match against Europe's #1. A-(3-1)

Tiger Woods: He seemed to fill in the blanks on holes where Stricker didn't have it. Woods wasn't great but he didn't play poorly by any means. He played like Tiger in singles. B+(3-1)

Hunter Mahan: Played a solid foursome match in session two but leaked some oil in session three. He was put in an impossible position in singles and just couldn't pull it off. This was not his fault. B-(1-2)

Jeff Overton: What a surprise this was. Overton played with more emotion than anyone else on the team. You can tell he thrives in this environment. He carried Bubba around for two days and often played holes two against his one. A (2-2)

Phil Mickelson: Phil didn't have his long game or his putter for the first three sessions. He really played poorly and cost this team. He played well in singles but it wasn't good enough. He needs to take a lot of the blame for this one. C-(1-3)

Dustin Johnson: DJ hit the ball good all four sessions but couldn't buy a putt until singles. He was clearly outmatched on the greens. This should be the first of many Ryder Cups for Johnson and hopefully he remembers this feeling. C (1-3)

Jim Furyk: Furyk does not have a great Ryder Cup record but that is not entirely all on him. He looked tired this week. He didn't play well in session three with Johnson and got behind early in singles. He looked like he had Donald on more than a few occasions only to see Donald hole a twenty-footer. Going for the pin on 18 in singles, he pushed his third shot into the bunker. C (0-2-1)

Rickie Fowler: He made a horrible mistake in session two, only to battle back and get a halve in the end. He and Mickelson played poorly together in session three but his singles comeback will go down in history. His four birdie finish to tie Molinari was brilliant. That's why Pavin chose him and this is probably the first of many Cups to come. B-(0-1-2)

Matt Kuchar: Kuchar paired well with Stewart Cink but really didn't get going until session two. He looked tired from a long season trying to win the FedEx Cup. He started to hole a few putts and played some brilliant iron shots at times. B-(1-1-2)

Stewart Cink: Cink holed a crucial putt at the end of session two to give the U.S. a feeling that this might actually happen. He and Kuchar managed a half-point in session three for the U.S. but he didn't have the magic in singles. A three-putt on 15 cost him as well as a five-foot miss on 17. He managed a halve in singles but he will think what could have been. A deserved captains pick. B+(1-0-3)

Bubba Watson: By far the worst U.S. player. Watson was carried by Overton in session one. He constantly left crucial putts short and contributed little. He played Jimenez in singles and got waxed for Jimenez first career singles win. This is where the format change hurt the Americans. Pavin may have sat Watson if it wasn't for the rain. A disappointing effort. F (1-3)

Zack Johnson: Zack was tough. He had a tough session three but he isn't afraid to hole crucial putts. He drives it in the fairway, hits a ton of greens, and makes the putts when they count. He has the perfect game for Ryder Cup competition. B+ (2-1)

It was really nice to see the U.S. rally and make the Euro's sweat. In the end, it was the best Ryder Cup since Kiawah Island in 1991. The U.S. should be proud of how they played. I felt disgusted in '02, '04, and '06. It came down to the last singles match. You can't ask for anything more.

Who's going to run through that wall?

I remember when Ben Crenshaw chose Steve Pate as a captains pick in the 1999 Ryder Cup. His reasoning is that Pate would run through a brick wall for the team. That team was full of brick wall guys: Pate, Sutton, Lehman, Stewart. I always liked guys like that. Lanny Wadkins was the ultimate run through a brick wall guy. What's the definition of a brick wall guy? He's a guy who will go out and get a point no matter what the circumstances. He's the type of guy that will scratch and claw his way to a point and the kind of guy the other team hates seeing on the first tee.

Every good Ryder Cup team has those guys. I'm looking at this roster and thinking "is Rickie Fowler this teams brick wall guy?" Damn, but lets look at the team.

Tiger Woods: I guess Tiger can be a brick wall guy but it seems like he might ask what his appearance fee on the other side of the wall is.

Phil Mickelson: I've never thought of Phil that way. It seems like he would ask what his insurance policy would cover just in case.

Stewart Cink, Matt Kuchar, Steve Stricker: Seems like they wouldn't want to hurt the wall.

Hunter Mahan: Strikes me as the guy who wouldn't want to mess his shoes up.

Jeff Overton: I think Overton would run through the wall but I think it might be an accident.

Bubba Watson, Dustin Johnson: Like everything else, they might ask if they can go over it.

Zack Johnson, Jim Furyk: They would go through the wall but they might feel bad and put the wall back together.

And that leaves Rickie Fowler. Who knows what he'll bring but he looks like a young Sergio Garcia to me. Sergio had more emotion and game at that '99 Ryder Cup than anyone out there. Corey Pavin was a brick wall player. He knew how to get that ball in the hole when it mattered most. I think Pavin sees a bit of himself in Fowler. I hope I'm wrong about these guys. I take a Ryder Cup loss as hard as anyone. Nothing would be better than going across the pond and getting this one.

Redemption.....well sort of

It's been a bittersweet summer for Dustin Johnson. First, the final round at Pebble which saw him take triple bogey on the second hole followed by a lost ball on his tee shot on three. His tee shot was found seconds after the five minutes had lapsed. Turns out, that wasn't the worst break he would get this summer.

But Dustin never gave up. We saw his character as he faced the media just minutes after the PGA heartbreak. Dustin only blamed himself for not knowing the ridiculous local rule that was in place that week. Maybe it's because Dustin knows it's just a matter of time before he hoists a major championship trophy. Only 26, Dustin has already won four times on the PGA tour. That pales in comparison to Tiger's pace, but we may never see a Tiger like pace again. Dustin is the best player under 30 in the game today.

Dustin Johnson is a new breed of golfer. Dustin is, first and foremost, an athlete. He could palm a basketball in seventh grade and was dunking with ease in high school. These types of athletes didn't choose to play golf 15-20 years ago. But Tiger made golf cool and a whole generation of athletes picked up a club. Dustin probably could have easily played any of the major sports and done quite well.

Tiger was once one of the longest hitters in the game. Augusta National even changed their course setup to combat the crazy spots that Tiger could drive the ball to. Well, now that guy is Dustin Johnson. Tiger calls him "stupid long". He drives the ball on driving lines that other players didn't know existed. And, he's got the game after that as well. At the urging of Phil Mickelson, he's now paired with Butch Harmon who's honing his game from 150 yards and in. Dustin has serious game and that showed up on Sunday.

Tied for the lead on 17 on Sunday, Dustin lofted a wedge to within a few feet for a birdie and a one shot lead. He then striped his drive on 18 and played a picture perfect iron shot to the center of the green. After a lag putt, Dustin had the best feeling in golf, a tap-in for the win. It came about a month later than he wanted but he'll take it. Off to the Tour Championship with some serious confidence, Dustin has a real shot at the ten million dollar payday that comes with capturing the FedEx cup.

Look for Dustin to play well at the Tour Championship and then take his game to Wales for the Ryder Cup. I'm betting Captain Pavin has had more than one player in his ear saying he and Dustin will make a great team. It wouldn't surprise me to see Dustin play all five sessions. Dustin moved up to 12th in the world rankings with his win. Look for that ranking to only go up.

Quick Hits

-Yani Tseng is the #1 player on the LPGA tour. She's incredibly long and if she putts then it's lights out on the field. She only needs the U.S. Open for the career Gland Slam and she's only 21. That's the new star but once again she's not American

-Fred Couples has this really cool trick. Fred, in my opinion, had talent on the Mickelson and Woods level but did the least amount with it. For some reason we think that Fred could have won 5-7 majors if he really wanted to. Here's my conclusion: Fred Couples wanted it more than almost anyone out there but managed to choke at the worst times. Sunday was a prime example. He took an 8 on the second hole and essentially lost the tournament right there. If Fred plays well, we say he's focused and healthy. If he doesn't, we say he's got his mind on other things and his back isn't right. We give him the benefit of the doubt more than any golfer. Fred Couples wanted it just as bad as anyone and don't let his calm on-course demeanor fool you.

-I love the Texas Rangers but I don't want to see Tom Hicks get the easy way out on this sale. His whole deal with Greenberg-Ryan reeks of friends in high places. His original sale didn't pay all the debt he owed and he was setup to make money off a separate land sale. So a billionaire borrows $500 million, defaults on the loan, doesn't have to pay it all back, and somehow stands to make money?

-I couldn't have agreed more about what John Feinstein said on Golf Central. Shooting 59 is a result of these courses becoming too easy. Rocco Mediate said before the tournament that a 59 watch was out. Ryo Ishokawa shot 58 a few months ago and an Alabama amateur shot 57 a few days ago. Courses are setup too easy, especially on the PGA tour. A 59 watch started when someone was -8 under thru ten, not at the beginning of the week. It seems like every week is turning into the Bob Hope. I know these guys are good but this is ridiculous. The new groove rule doesn't make a difference if you cut the rough to almost nothing. Make these players play from some deep stuff. With these course setups, it's only a matter of time before we see someone shoot sub 59 on the PGA Tour.

-I don't like the Ryder Cup team so far. I know this point system is designed to find out who is playing best but this roster creeps me out. I know Overton and Kuchar are top eight but we're on the road this year and this doesn't seem like the best time to get experience. The European team is so stacked that they're going to have to leave off some heavyweights. I'm also not a fan of using a captain's pick for someone who hasn't played on a previous Ryder Cup team. I know I bagged on him earlier but Couples might get serious consideration as a captain's pick. I hope Zack Johnson and Sean O'Hair have a good few weeks. They could help this team.

In defense of Sarah Brown

I was blown away by this story. Sarah Brown, a rookie on the Duramed Futures Tour, was disqualified from the final round of the recent Futures Tour event. On the tenth hole of her final round, she was notified that here Ping wedges were not conforming to the new rules. Sarah was disqualified mid-play. I have so many problems with this. First, you should never be disqualified mid-round for anything. The only way a player doesn't finish his/her round is by her own decision. Second, play was held up for twenty minutes while the rules officials looked at a laptop to find out if her wedges were conforming. You never hold up play that long unless it's for a rule decision that is required to finish the hole. Third, players should never be able to voice their concerns about another players clubs to an official during the round. It either needs to happen before the round or after the round. Here's the main problem. Her clubs were effin conforming to the rules of play!

The rules officials in this case messed up. They messed up on so many levels. It's so laughable. What you should know is that Sarah Brown is an eighteen year old trying to make living playing golf. In case you haven't noticed, making a living playing women's golf is neither easy or lucrative. Purse money and tournaments aren't what they were a few years ago so any money these players earn is big for their psyche. Brown was also having her best tournament of the year. She was looking at a possible top ten and maybe even top five. She would have earned a check of at least $1000. Brown was denied that chance. Lets look at how this went down.

-A rules official is notified around the 9th hole that Brown might possibly have illegal clubs in her bag. The rules official then examines her clubs on the next tee to see if that is the case.

Problems: No player should be allowed to report this during the round of play. It should only be reported before or after a round. A player can be disqualified up to two hours after the round of play. That is more than enough time to research any problems. The rules official should also not be allowed to look inside a players bag during the round. Before and after the round is the only proper time to do such a thing.

-Tenth tee: Brown tees off and is notified by rules officials of a possible equipment violation. Brown can't believe it. She was sure she had proper equipment. Most golfers are honest people on the course. If Brown found her clubs to be illegal then she would DQ herself before anyone else would. Rules officials then halt play to inspect her clubs. They consult the USGA website to look to see if it conforms. They hold up play for twenty minutes.

Problems: Rules officials have a full two hours after a player completes his/her round to DQ this person if necessary. Rules officials decided then and there to DQ Brown. Brown and her caddy (her dad) plead with officials to let them finish the round. Officials say no. At this point is when it turns into the officials wanting the spotlight on them and not letting this player finish the round. They wanted to be the ones who caught a player not following the rules. All the did was put an awful spotlight on a tour that doesn't need bad publicity.

These rules officials should flat out lose their jobs. It turns out this was just a case of these two officials not reading the USGA website correctly. These officials also had testing equipment on-site they could have used to see if her clubs were illegal. They never used it. They were arrogant enough not to use the equipment available to them to avoid such a situation. I would file suit against the tour if I was this girl. From all reports, this girl cried her eyes out right there on the golf course. I also hear that her and her family have handled the situation very well.

I hope the tour does the right thing here. I'm not sure what that is but it needs to go overboard. Nothing is worse in golf than being called a cheater. That's the last thing a golfer wants to be branded as.

Final Prediction

Saw some practice footage of Tiger today. For the first time in a long time it looked like Tiger was finally swinging the club. It didn't look like he was positioning the club but was actually swinging the club. His rhythm looked better than at any time so for this year. If he putts well he really could be tough. Past winners of this event tell us the long hitters have the advantage on this golf course. I'm not saying Bubba Watson or JB Holmes will pop and contend but look for the big dogs to show up and play well.

Pick: Tiger
Dark Horse: David Duval
Best Story: David Duval

Quick Hits

-Really nice to see Paula Creamer win. She's the biggest star on the LPGA and it's good for her to win a major. She seems the most likable of any star out there on that tour since Lorena walked away. It would be nice if her and Kerr could develop some sort of rivalry that the American fans can get excited about. I'm not saying it could be Tiger-Phil but it could be as good as that tour can get.

-I understand Lebron thinks he made the right choice as far as winning championships goes but I'm not so sure. First, please don't call Bosh a superstar who plays with his back to the basket. Second, you still need a center who can play with his back to the basket and at least play Dwight Howard reasonably well. Third, this is two alpha dogs in Wade and Lebron who say they'll play nice but we'll see how that works out in May and June. You still need role players to play championship basketball and Miami has too much of one thing and not enough of another.

-I'm slightly disappointed in Dirk's comments that the Mavs don't have to go for it this year as far as free agency goes. I think the west is wide open this year. First, I know the Lakers are the odds on favorite to win west. Kobe, Gasol, Odom, and coach Phil but they are getting older. At some point that catches up with you. The Spurs are done as far as championships go. They're just too old unless they come up with something out of nowhere. The Nuggets were in a free fall without George Karl. Chauncey Billups looked like he was getting old for the first time in his career last year and he's their second best player. You can't count on Kenyon as your PF this year if you're a serious contender. Phoenix's window might just be closed. Nash will have a new cast but he'll be 37 at seasons end and I think he knew that last season was their last great chance. OKC is going to be much improved this year. They may not a championship type team for a few years but they're going to be a tough out for years to come. Portland might get their act together (why can't that franchise ever keep a center healthy?) and be a force. That team is Pippen like athletic and they might have a center. But I think this year is wide open in the west. The Mavs have to take advantage of this.

-I think the British Open has a chance to be great this year. It feels like a lot of good players are playing well going in. Mickelson is in form. Westwood has been playing good for two years now. Ernie Els has two wins this year. Justin Rose is playing the best golf of his career. Steve Stricker is obviously playing well and then there's Tiger. He just plays St. Andrews well. He can two-way miss here and it won't hurt him. If Tiger has his short game in order, he could be very very tough to beat. I'm hoping for some wind. If it's benign conditions then St. Andrews is the most defenseless course. But I do love the fact that the R&A doesn't trick up the golf course like the USGA does. The winning score could be anything from even to twenty under. One last sleeper pick. Don't be surprised if Duval pops up and plays well. The guy only seems to play well when it's a great golf course. He hasn't forgotten 2000 and the guy seriously believes he's got another major in him.

The last girl at the bar

I was reading Bill Simmons 'Book of Basketball' and I've stolen his theory and applied it to the LPGA tour. The story goes something like this. Six girls walk into a bar and there all varying degrees of hot. The hottest one leaves and then the next hottest etc etc. By the time you get down to the last few girls the options aren't as good so you hitch your wagon onto what's left. I'm applying the same theory to the LPGA tour.

First, I really like Cristie Kerr. I get the feeling she's the only American who has the work ethic to be number one in the world. She just wants it when you watch her play. Nineteen under and winning by twelve really is crazy. I'm just afraid that Cristie is one of the last girls at the bar. The LPGA tour is going thru a period it would like to forget right now. Two of your biggest stars retired in the past few years. These players were the clear number ones when they played. Your young stars like Creamer and Wie haven't quite figured out how to win just yet. Natalie Gulbis is great from a marketing aspect on tour but she's not a star. Some of the young Asian players are very good but they aren't quite ready to win multiple majors just yet. Cristie just happens to be the last one left. Lorena stopped taking the game serious long before she retired and Sorenstam went thru the same. But Kerr is taking advantage of this period and she has to be given credit for it. I like Cristie a lot, but I wish the competition around her was a little better.

A lost year

I'm a big fan of players going out and winning golf tournaments. I'm not a fan of carnage and the last player standing is just the guy who didn't have another tough hole to play. Let us look back on some great shots over the years that won the U.S. Open. Corey Pavin hit his famous 4-wood to six feet on the 72nd hole to seal his first and only major in '95. Steve Jones almost holes his 7-iron on the 72nd hole on the fly in holding off Tom Lehman in a great duel in '96. Ernie Els hits a brilliant 4-iron on the 71st hole at Congressional to help win second U.S. Open in '97. My point is that usually the winner of our great national championship plays a great final round and proudly hoists that trophy as having outplayed the field. Now don't get me wrong about one thing. Graeme Mcdowell played very well on the weekend to win the U.S. Open. But he didn't have a great round or a signature shot that will define this Open. Unfortunately, this Open will be defined by the course which is not always a good thing.

I've never seen a par 5 in which tour pros would gladly take par without any hesitation. The 14th hole was an outright embarrassment. Ernie Els hit a shot that landed one step short of pin high but on the wrong section of the green and it ended up thirty yards off the front of green. The USGA eff'd up but they'll never admit it. They also had the audacity to trick up the seventeenth hole to the point that par played like a birdie. My point is that good shots were not rewarded on 14 and 17 today and that is not fun for the player or the fan. Graeme McDowell didn't win this tournament any more than a handful of players lost it. Yes, McDowell will go down as the U.S. Open champion. But this tournament wasn't won in major fashion and Mike Davis and the USGA are to blame.

Why I'm just not a fan of Pebble....

I get really giddy during this week. For once, I like seeing tour pros actually struggle. How many times have you chipped a ball and seen it come right back to your feet? Seeing a tour pro do that makes the game so much more enjoyable when I'm out duffing around. But enough about the U.S. Open test. This is why I don't like Pebble for an Open.

In my book, the U.S. Open should test every facet of your game on the course and between your ears. Under normal conditions, the guy who plays and thinks the best wins this golf tournament. I'm a big fan of certain golf courses hosting the Open. Shinnecock, Oakmont, and Winged Foot are a few that come to mind. But I just don't think Pebble should be considered a great Open venue. The greens are small and rarely in good condition. It's often cold and windy and scores can get way out of hand so damn fast. It almost resembles a British Open to some degree. And here's my biggest beef. It's not a driver golf course. These players can get around this place with two iron all day if they had to and still put up a score. The point is that this is the U.S. Open and not the British. I like my Opens to have hot and humid weather with driver in your hand the majority of the round. It's the ultimate test of golf and Pebble just doesn't render that test unless the USGA tricks it up.

The only thing Pebble has is three very historic wins and one they try to dramatize by showing Tom Kite's chip-in (that goes off the green if it doesn't SLAM into the pin). The Nicklaus two iron to an inch, Watson's brilliant chip, and Tiger actually reenacting his video game on the course are part of U.S. Open lore. But lets not keep going back to Pebble just because is has breathtaking views. Put this course in Nebraska and you're walking up paying $40 on Saturday morning.

The Lebron dilemma

It dawned on me watching the Cavs that Lebron has the same problem as Dirk. He can't do it alone but he gets criticized as tho he should. Paul Pierce was having a very average game six but KG and Rondo found ways to make up for it. Pierce won't get criticized because he buried a few late buckets but he was afforded a horrible first half by his teammates. It just reinforces the theory that you have to have two superstars on your team in order to win a championship.

Jordan was a superstar on a good Bulls team but wasn't close to championship level until Pippen came along. Yes, great players make other players around them better but he can't make them a superstar. Just look at every championship team and you'll find players who would still be great on their own but collectively they make a championship team. Lebron did not have a championship cast around him. Shaq is still a decent center but he gets in foul trouble and can't be counted on. Jamison is a shell of the guy who was so crafty around the basket a few years ago. Jamison has never ever been able to play any defense but his defense against the Celtics hit an all time low. He can't stay in front of anyone and doesn't have the size to guard down low. Now the question. Where does Lebron go?

I find it hard to believe that Lebron will stay in Cleveland if they can't bring in another superstar. Cleveland is just not a place that people want to be. Bosh and Wade are the names out there that people assume Lebron wants to hook up with. If he somehow ends up in Miami then you can bet that will be followed by Pat Riley saying he has the desire to coach again. I think the best bet is meeting up with Bosh in New York. I mean, why not? You play in the most famous arena in the world with another top ten player in Bosh. I don't think Chicago is the right move. You want to be compared to Jordan but you'll never live it down if you don't win multiple championships. Let me give you my sleeper pick.

No one but me reads this so I can say this. I really think the Mavericks have a decent chance at landing him. They have the cap room and they wouldn't have to give up Dirk so you're playing with another superstar. You're in Dallas and not Cleveland. You have one of the best owners in sports who will do anything to make you happy. You'll have a suite at Cowboys stadium with the chance of playing games there on occasion. Plus, you're out of the eastern conference. You're going to have to deal with Dwight Howard for the remainder of your career in the east. Kobe is in the twilight of his career. Duncan is no longer on a championship team. Yes, Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony are still young and on the rise but I don't find them nearly as intimidating as Howard. I just think that if Lebron wants a chance to win a title next year then the Mavs are his best option.

The new Tiger needs his old swing back

SportsbyBrooks.com is reporting that Tiger Woods is parting ways with Hank Haney after six years. I think this is a good move for Woods. Tiger has struggled with his game off the tee since he left Butch Harmon in the summer of '02. He has rarely had stretches where he drove the ball like he did for a lot of 2000-2001. But why did Tiger leave Harmon in the first place?

When Tiger rebuilt his swing after the '97 Masters, he undertook a process that didn't fully come together for almost two years. Tiger's game at that time was built on power and timing. If his timing was on then he was unbeatable. But he didn't want to rely solely on his timing because he knew that it wouldn't consistently hold-up under pressure. The changes that Harmon suggested were tailored to Tiger. After all, no one in the world knew how Tiger's swing worked better than Butch Harmon. Harmon knew that Woods had incredibly fast hips thru the hitting area so designed an address position to to combat "getting stuck" on the downswing. "Getting stuck" is a term players use when their arms are not out ahead of their body but instead behind your hip on your downswing. Harmon had Tiger's hands farther away from his body at the address position. This caused Woods to bend more from his hips at address. His address position now dictated that he become a two-plane swinger of the club. This worked brilliantly for Tiger for a few years. Tiger eventually got to the point where he no longer needed to see Harmon on a consistent basis. His swing was essentially on autopilot. But somewhere around 2002, Tiger's swing started to have some inconsistency.

Tiger won the 2002 Masters with one of the most boring finals rounds in recent memory. I'll always remember that round as the day when absolutely no one played well in the final round. He then went on to win the U.S. Open at Bethpage. Tiger played awesome on Sunday to win by a couple of shots. If it wasn't for his third round 81 at The Open, Tiger could have been staring at a grandslam at the PGA in August. But a few weeks before the PGA, Woods informed Harmon that he no longer needed his services. Why? There could be several reasons. Maybe Woods didn't like Harmon taking on so many other students. Some say he didn't like how much Harmon was profiting from being associated with Woods' success. My theory is that Tiger kept wanting to change his swing. He kept wanting to find ways to get better. But as Harmon saw it, how much better can he really get? He won four majors in a row and five of six at one point. Harmon thought he just needed to stick with was he was doing and he would find all the success he wanted. But Tiger saw it a different way and thus the exit of the teacher that led Woods to six USGA amateur titles and eight majors. Tiger thought his main swing problem was his swing-plane. He thought that he was too far under-plane going into the ball. He went all of 2003 without a formal teacher. Then in 2004 he asked Hank Haney what he thought.

It became official in early 2004 that Hank Haney was Tiger's new teacher. Hank Haney's main focus of his teaching was the one-plane theory. Haney believed the correct way to swing the club was to swing on a plane that was parallel to the shaft angle at address throughout the entire swing. This was drastically different from how Woods swung the club from the previous few years. Woods had to change his address position to where he stood much taller than he had with Harmon. This also brought his hands in closer to his body at address. The changes in his swing started to come together in late 2004. By 2005, he started playing better than he had in a few years. He won the Masters in a playoff and placed 2,1,4 in the majors the rest of the year. Tiger looked to be back. Some started to note that although he won two of four majors, he seemed to struggle off the tee with his driver. This continued into 2006. His swing looked great except when he had the driver in his hands. He only hit his driver once during the 2006 British Open. He missed the fairway badly and the never came close to hitting his driver again. There were patches where Tiger did drive the ball well. There was even a stretch where he won 9 of 12 tournaments he played in. But at the 2007 Masters, Tiger briefly held the lead in the final round only to give up that lead. Tiger played very poorly that day and finished a few shots back of Zach Johnson. It was odd to see Tiger struggle with his swing so much on the final day of a major. The 2007 U.S. Open also finished a similar way on Sunday. Tiger just didn't have his swing when he needed it finishing second to Cabrera. Tiger managed to win the PGA that year and in 2008 he won his third U.S. Open title. Then came the knee surgery. Tiger came back to the game ready to dominate because he felt his knee could now withstand the rigors of hard practice. But the major season didn't go the way Tiger thought it would. He even lost his first 54-hole lead at the PGA. Then came the scandal and Tiger was away from the game until The Masters. Even though Tiger finished fourth, he hit some of the worst shots off the tee that anyone can recall. I guess that was when Tiger knew he couldn't make it work. But, why?

I've read and seen just about every Hank Haney teaching guide out there. I think Hank Haney's knows the golf swing very well. Haney is a disciple of Jim Hardy and Hardy believed that your body determined if you were a one or two-plane swinger of the club. I just simply believe Tiger was built to swing the club on two planes. I also think Tiger didn't fully buy into everything Haney said. I think Haney gave his input and if Tiger didn't like it he would disregard it. Woods didn't fully buy into his theory the way O'meara did twenty years earlier. That was a disadvantage to Haney. I also think Haney shares Woods' desire to try to constantly improve and he wasn't afraid to suggest changes to Woods' game. Tiger and Hank knew this day would be coming if he couldn't turn his game around. Tiger is at the point in his career when players usually peak and not go the other way. It was time for him to make this change. So who will now take over?

Unless he has someone in mind, I think Tiger will take his time in selecting a new teacher. For starters, I think Butch Harmon is not a candidate because I don't think he wants to be. Dale Lynch, Geoff Ogilvy's teacher, was a rumor that was going around last year when some thought Haney was on the way out. Tiger, incidentally, does not pay his teacher a crazy amount of money as some think he would. Harmon was on salary for $50,000 a year. Woods also had a rule that Harmon could not work with any other players at a tournament if Woods was still on site. He could only work with other players after Woods left the course. There are several great teachers out there to choose from. I think Peter Kostis would be a great choice. He threw out a couple of theories as to why Woods is struggling with his game and they make the most sense. But with his CBS schedule, he may not be able to be at Tiger's beck and call. Whoever it is will realize how thankless that job is soon enough.

Don't get fooled into this when you see Iron Man 2

A few years ago I was very excited to see that my local IMAX theater was showing 'Batman Begins'. It was a movie that had already been out for a few years but I never had the chance to see it in the IMAX setting. I was so eager to see this movie. What I left with was disappointment and a curiousity of IMAX features.

I love watching IMAX features. The sheer size of the screen and the detail it provided always made for a good time when I went. So why did 'Batman Begins' look absolutely terrible when I went to see it? The answer I found out was in the camera they used to film the feature. Most movies of today are shot using 35mm cameras or the new hi-def cameras that are available. These pictures are meant to be displayed in one of two aspect ratios at your local theater. These two aspect ratios are either 2.35 to 1 or 1.85 to 1. What this means is that the feature is shown on a screen that is 2.35 times wider than it is tall or 1.85 times wider than it is tall. A hi-def television is of the aspect ratio of 1.78 to 1. When you play a movie that is 2.35 to 1 on your hi-def tv you will get an image that has black bars on the top and bottom of your screen. These aspect ratios have been used for movies for over fifty years. But what is the difference in an IMAX feature?

A true IMAX feature is shot with a 65mm camera on 65mm film. The images are massive and the detail is second to none. But very few feature length movies have ever been shot with 65mm film. Only parts of movies have been shot with this technology. There were a few scenes in 'The Dark Knight' as well as 'Transformers 2' that were shot with 65mm cameras. If you saw those movies in a real IMAX theater then you saw the screen change from a normal picture to one that takes up the entire screen during scenes that were shot with 65mm cameras. The shots are awesome and make the price of the ticket worth it. The success of 'The Dark Knight' made seeing movies on an IMAX screen the choice for movie-goers. Last year, 'Star Trek' was shown on IMAX screens but fans were disappointed in what they saw. Why was that? It's because not one scene in 'Star Trek' was shot using an 65mm camera. They took a movie shot on 35mm and basically zoomed it in so it would be large enough to take up the entire screen. Now that is not exactly what they did but the technique they used distorts the picture and the actual resolution of the picture suffers. One way to avoid seeing movies that are not shot with 65mm cameras on IMAX screens is to check the aspect ratio on IMDB. Movies shot with scenes in 65mm will show an aspect ration of 1.44 to 1. This represents the resolution when the scene switches to 65mm and the picture expands to take up the entire screen. If you look on IMDB for the aspect ratio for 'Iron Man 2', you will see it as 2.35 to 1. This means that if you see this on an IMAX screen you will not be seeing a true IMAX movie. My advice is to stick with seeing it the way it was shot. 'Iron Man 2' was shot using 35mm cameras. Try to find a 35mm showing in your area with the largest screen in the aspect ratio of 2.35 to 1. I think that will be more than pleasing for 'Iron Man' fans.

On another note, Christopher Nolan has stated the he is seeking a way to shoot the third installment of the Batman series completely in 65mm. This will be the first feature length movie to be completely shot in 65mm if he can pull it off. My guess is that he will shoot it in a similar style as 'The Dark Knight'. He may just use the 65mm camera in more scenes. Shooting in 65mm is extremely expensive but my guess is that Nolan will have an open budget considering the success of 'The Dark Knight'.

Another one bites the dust...

Well another year of promising Mavericks basketball has come to an end before the 1st of May. Remember how spoiled we got for a few years? Now it feels like the end of an era. The only problem is that this era never paid off they way we thought it would. As heartbreaking as 2006 was, I think we all thought that we would eventually get back and win it all. And it looked like we might during the '06-'07 season. But that came to a pitiful end and they really haven't stopped since.

Tonight was such a microcosm of the entire season. Slow first half (October thru February), an impressive rally (13 game win streak), and a flat finish to once again bounce this team way too early during one of the last few years of Dirk's prime. There were several reasons why we lost this series but I think you have to look back to the entire season to find out why. Why did such a talented team struggle so much on its home floor? Why did they often start slow and have to rally late in the 4th quarter to such inferior teams? Why did Carlisle say time and again that this team didn't have the energy it needed? I'm sure there are many answers to these questions. Let me make my observations on this position by position.

PG-Without a doubt, Jason Kidd is one of the greatest point-guards in the history of the game. Jason Kidd is 37 years old. His game is not built around scoring. He needed to become a scorer in order for this team to become successful. He went and made himself into a very respectable 3-point shooter and this team benefited from it a great deal. The problem with his 3-point shooting is that it relied on him being wide-open for him to hit these shots. Jason is not at the point of his career where he can create a shot on his own. His drives to the baskets rarely result in points and he often turns the ball over in those situations. Jason Kidd is not a scorer. Look at the great point-guards in the league like Williams, Paul, Billups, and Parker. They are all very good scorers and good defenders. Jason Kidd is still a good defender but not the scorer the Mavs need from that position. Poppovich essentially took Kidd out of the series by not leaving him at the three-point line. Roddy B is the point-guard of the future for the Mavs. He is exactly what Devin Harris was a few years ago. Roddy can get his shot off when he needs to and can drive to the basket. He will be the backup point-guard for this team in the coming year and will eventually take the starting job away from Kidd. JJ Barea is one of the gutsiest players the Mavs have had in some time and I can see why Carlisle stuck with him. At 5'10", he was more fearless in going to the basket than almost anyone on this team. I don't think Barea is back for the '10-'11 season but will definitely find a job in the NBA.

SG-It's tough to write about this position since the Mavs haven't had a true off-guard since Michael Finley left several years ago. Caron Butler is the closest player we have to that position. Caron is a player that this team can use for the next few years. His toughness is something that this team sorely needs. But Caron can't be this team second option if it wants to find success in the next few years. If he is your second best option then you don't have the team that you want to have. I see Caron sliding over and playing his natural small-forward position next year. Jason Terry might be my second favorite Maverick. Jet has given us all some great memories over the years and no one appreciates a crowd like Jason Terry. There have been plenty of times in Jet's career when he took over games. Game seven in San Antonio in 2006 comes to mind. Jet came out in that game and hit his first six or seven shots and helped Dallas win that game. But I think Jet's time here is up. Jet is not the players he was a few years ago. He had less and less games where he would take over and dominate. His defensive lapses were killer to this team. If Jet is to stay with this team I think he can no longer be this teams first option of the bench. I can only see Jet as this teams seventh or eighth option going forward.

SF-Shawn Marion came to this team with great potential. The Matrix was a scorer in Phoenix who never needed a play called for him but still managed to score 18 points a nite. The pairing with him and Jason Kidd seemed like it was exactly what this team needed, if only it was 2004. But this is 2010 and The Matrix can no longer jump and be a threat around the basket that he could in the Phoenix days. Marion had several shots blocked at the basket and that was a sign that he has lost a step or two. His three-point shooting was gone and his overall offensive game lacked what we thought it had. He was still this teams best on the ball defender. But he often had lapses and showed a lack of interest at times. Marion's contract makes him a tough player to trade but some team might see some use out of him. I just don't think Marion is a starter on a team that contends for a title. Now Marion can be a useful weapon off the bench. If he was to accept a role similar to Bruce Bowen then I think this team can use him. I just don't see Marion as the answer at the small-forward going forward and I hope that Caron Butler holds this position starting next year.

PF-Undoubtedly, there will be several who point out Dirk's foul trouble in game six and that he lost control of him emotions. It really bugs me to hear Dirk get criticized. Dirk has never had superstar play along side him in his career. Look at every team that was won an NBA title and tell me that that team didn't have two of the twenty best players in the NBA on their roster. Dirk has never had a player like that on his team. Dirk has done more with less than any player in the NBA. Dwayne Wade gets bounced in the first round and people say he doesn't have enough help. Kobe loses in the first round without Shaq a few years ago and people say Kobe can't do it all alone. Kevin Garnett couldn't get out of the first round for years because he didn't have help around him. For some reason tho, Dirk can have very little help but he will take more criticism than any superstar in this league. The guy has been as tough as any player in the league for the better part of a decade. No one plays thru more pain and no one has done more with less than Dirk Nowitzki. His prime is nearly up. He turns 32 in June. He might have one or two more years of a very high level of play before he starts to go south. Eventually, those injuries are going to catch up with him. He won't be able to return from a severe high ankle sprain in a few days. I really want to see Dirk Nowitzki win a title. If not here then somewhere else. If Mark Cuban can't bring in the proper help then he owes it to Dirk to give him that chance elsewhere. I don't see Dirk as someone who plays well into his late 30's. I think Dirk plays until 36 or maybe 37 and then calls it quits, title or not.

C-Every team who wins the NBA title has had a guy who can play with his back to the basket. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett are just a few that come to mind. Some might say the Bulls teams never had a great post player but Jordon and Pippen could post up almost anyone up and find success. The Mavericks don't have a player like that. Erick Dampier came here with a lot of promise. For a few years Dampier had the reputation of a good defender with the ability to set picks on the offensive end to free up the shooters. But the reality of Dampier has set in. His defensive skills have diminished and he never had a great offensive package to begin with. His hands are awful as he finds difficulty in catching easy passes. He can't finish around the basket and and he gets into foul trouble easily. Dampier should not be a Maverick next year. His contract makes him a valuable trade piece and he is someone Mav fans will not miss. Brendan Heywood may be the best center this team has to offer. His offensive skills are a upgrade from Dampier and he is extremely active on the defensive end. He is someone who the Mavs can feed inside. He usually has a high fieldgoal percentage and can almost be counted on for a double-double if given the minutes. Brendan Heywood is a center that this team can work around for the next few years.

Coach-Rick Carlisle came here after the 2008 season and promised to give this team back to the players. He was a players coach. But many questions loom over Rick Carlisle as Poppovich got the better of him in these playoffs. Why didn't Heywood keep the starting role after Dampier got back? Why did this team lack energy on so many nights? Why wasn't Roddy B given more minutes that Barea seemed to get? Why did Butler and Marion sit out almost the entire second half of game 3? Calisle seemed to preach all the right things but he rarely got his team to do them. This team never played the consistent defense that it needed to play despite having some decent on the ball defenders. I'm really wondering if Rick Carlisle lost this team. This team just did not look ready to play on too many nights. You can't have the biggest game of the year and score eight points in the first quarter without looking at the coach and wondering what's going on. I think Carlisle needs to look at himself and maybe take the blame for how this season ended. I think he had the talent to make a run in the west, maybe not win the west, but at least scare some teams. This team did not respond the way it needed in crucial situations and the coach needs to take some blame for that.



So where does that leave us? The summer of 2010 has officially begun for the Mavs. What does this team need to do to become successful? Lets look at the 2006 team and try to find out why they were the best Mavs team in history.



PG-Jason Terry and Devin Harris held this spot during 2006. What you notice here is two guards who can shoot the ball well as well as penetrate to the basket. The point-guard of today is a superior passer but does not have the ability to create his own shot. I think this position is crucial going forward. The Mavs have to have a point-guard who can breakdown a defense off the dribble.


SG-This position consisted of Adrian Griffin and Jerry Stackhouse. These are two tough minded guards who play physical defense but are not heavily relied on for their scoring. This has always been a position of need for the Mavs since Michael Finley left. I know Joe Johnson will be someone the Mavs will look at if he is available this offseason. Caron Butler filled this position after the trade but I believe he suits this team better as the starting small-forward.


SF-Josh Howard was a very serviceable small-forward before the injuries to his ankles. Since then he has become a shell of his former self. Caron Butler can fill the need for this position nicely. I don't think Shawn Marion is this teams starter at this position next season. He would be great coming off the bench as his days of being an effective starter appear to be coming to an end.


PF-Dirk entered the best patch of his career starting in 2006. He has since played to that level and beyond but those days may be coming to an end. Most players peak years end at about 32-33 years of age. Dirk has to have superstar help or this team will continue to flounder around the first or second round.


C-Damp and Diop occupied this role in 2006 and things weren't much better for this team until the trade this year that brought Heywood in. I think that Heywood is this teams starter next year or is at least involved in a trade to bring in the starter (Bosh). Either way I think this position is improved over the previous few years.

So another pathetic end to a season that looked so promising just a few months ago. It's hard to watch the playoffs knowing the Mavs are out but this doesn't sting like '05, and '06 seasons. The earlier you go out the less it stings and in the end only one team ends up happy. I like to see teams that play the game the right way do well. I hope Utah can make a run. I think Jerry Sloan deserves a title and his team looks good. Only eight franchises have won the title since 1980. The Lakers have a legit chance at repeating but I think I want to see a new team get it done. The Cavs or the Jazz would satisfy my basketball appetite.

Ben Hogan's secret

I ran across this book at Barnes & Noble the other day. It claimed to know the secret to Ben Hogan's golf swing. A lot has been written on this subject over the years. I think the astute follower may have some idea as to what the secret was. I am going to put forth my theory as to what it was.

Hogan was a very hard worker on his golf swing. He was tireless. I think some of that stemmed
from the fact that he never quite trusted his action. Maybe it's because he could make the same motion from swing to swing and hit perfectly straight shots followed by a violent duck hook. Hogan had incredible hand action thru the impact area of his swing. He hit the ball as hard with his right hand as he did his left. He had incredible power in his swing but often times lost control with the hook. He also had incredible lateral movement in his swing that was supported by a wide stance that put every ounce of power thru the hitting area. Hogan took the fundamentals of the swing and adapted them beautifully to his game. His secret, in my opinion, came only after Hogan had grooved a very repeatable swing. The secret could only be applied to his game. Hogan said that the secret was "in the dirt." What does this mean?

Millions of golfers subscribe to golf magazine and take countless lessons. There is no problem with this. This helps the game grow. Everyone looks for a quick lesson or piece of advice that might help their game. I have played the game for more than twenty years. In those twenty years I realized that the best advice is when I practice diligently by myself. It's in those times that you discover your swing and feel the way the clubhead moves. You feel it in your hands and no one out there can tell you what your swing feels like better than you. Your best ideas come from practice. Many tour players keep detailed notes of every practice session. They write down thoughts and ideas they might have. They revert back to these when the pressure is the highest. What did Hogan discover one day that made claim he found the secret?

When Ben Hogan was growing he often ran chores for his mother. One chore he often had was to go to the store to pick something up for dinner that evening. But Hogan didn't walk to the store. He played to the store. He played from yard to yard until he got to the market. One tip that Hogan worked was to stabilize his right knee to the point where it didn't move at all in his swing. This was one of the great power sources in Hogan's swing. Players of that day and for another generation used to let the right leg straighten on the backswing. This created a larger hip turn. It was believed that you needed to turn your body as much as possible in order to create large amounts of power. Hogan believed that turning your shoulders as much as possible and restraining your hip turn was the key to power. Hogan was so far ahead of his time on this subject. Jim Mclean came along decades later and introduced the X-factor. This essentially was what Hogan practiced in his swing. The wider the gap in the turn of your shoulders and hips would produce more power. In fact, Hogan eluded to this in his fundamentals book. He expressed turning your hips 40-45 degrees and your shoulders 90+. This key, unbeknownst to Hogan, was an integral part in realizing his secret.

Hogan fought a bad hook throughout his pro career. In landed him at the doorstep of bankruptcy more that once. Hogan knew that he needed to change his ballflight but a overhaul of his swing was not something Hogan could afford. Hogan hit the ball as well as anyone in the game at times. It just didn't hold up under the highest of pressure. Hogan desperately wanted to learn to fade the ball. Hogan would often stay up late at nite trying to figure out how to change his swing to fade the ball. Then one nite it finally came to him. He went to work on the new move that he saw in his head. The first swing was away.....a fade. A second swing...another fade. Hogan had found a way to fade the ball. But what did Hogan do to fade the ball?

Hogan never quite told the public what it was he did. I believe Hogan did that to protect a nation from doing exactly what they didn't want to do. Every golfer since the beginning has fought the dreaded slice. Millions of golfers struggle with this very shot today. The reason a players slices the ball are high too count. Hogan wanted to slice the ball. The sight of a ball fading to someone who has fought a hook for years is a welcome sight. I believe Hogan thought long and hard about how to achieve that fade. If you look at Hogan's swing before the secret you will notice a very strong postion at the top. His wrist is flat and in line with his forearm. The club is very square to the target. After the secret is when you begin to see a difference in his technique. No longer is his wrist flat but is now cupped. A cupped left wrist promotes an open clubface at the top of the swing. Hogan now had the ability to swing as hard as he needed and he no longer feared hooking the ball. How did he achieve this? By rolling the clubface open at the start of his swing. By rollling the clubface open Hogan no longer had a square clubface. He, in essence, had to fight to get the club square thru impact. This was just fine by Hogan. And the stable right leg? This helps in cupping the left wrist, combined with rolling the clubface open, and maintaining an open clubface throughout his swing. Look at so many of the power hitters of today. Many of them prefer to have the face open at the top of the swing.

So did Ben Hogan have a secret? Absolutely. But his secret only worked for him. The swing always has and always will be built on fundamentals. But it is how you adapt the fundamentals to fit your swing that will possibly determine your secret.

What really makes a Superbowl team?

I am reminded of what the great football philosopher, Michael Irvin, said years ago. Offense, not defense, wins championships. Huh? For as long as I've watched the game it's always been defense wins championships. The Steel Curtain, Doomsday, Purple People Eaters are a few that come to mind. I don't know the names of many great offenses. The Greatest Show on Turf....not sure after that. Let me explain what I think Mike meant by his statement. Unless you have the 2000 Ravens defense, you need a strong offense to win the Superbowl. I also think that teams that base their play around good offense are good year after year. The Colts are a perfect example. They've had a strong offense for 12 years now and they are consistently in the playoffs. The Steelers on the other hand base it all on strong defense and ball control offense. They have won two Superbowls this decade but also missed the playoffs the following year each time. Why is that? Much like a bullpen in baseball you never know what you'll get on defense from year to year. You can have the exact same players and coach but it doesn't come together they way it did the previous year. My formula for a Superbowl team: a great offense and an opportunistic defense.

I believe this philosophy was followed perfectly in 2006 by the Colts. Let me explain. The Colts had their usual unbelievable offense again in 2006. Manning's qb rating for the year was 101. The Colts were third in total offense. But this was the same Colts team that we had seen for years. The difference this year is that their defense started to play well toward the end of the season. Bob Sanders returned and gave this team a swagger that it had not had in the Manning era. While they outlasted the Patriots 38-34 in the AFC championship, their defense played good enough in the rest of the playoff games and Superbowl to allow the offense to win games.

The following year the Giants followed the same philosophy. The Giants point differential in 2007 was a plus 22 points. It was a nice offensive year but a very shaky defensive year in New York. But the defense came together at playoff time. Strahan and Umenyiora played as well in that stretch than any point in their careers. They eventually held down the highest scoring offense in NFL history in the Patriots to just 14 points. The following year had the Cardinals playoff run highlighted by a defense that played well enough to land them a Superbowl appearance.

This years Superbowl features two top ten offenses but two less than average defenses. The Saints rank 1/25 on offense and defense, respectively. The Colts rank 9/18. I expect this game to go over (56) but it just might come down to which defense rises up and plays above themselves at crunch time.

When did this start?

When did it become cool to let go of the golf club after a bad shot? Has anyone else noticed this? Tiger is probably the biggest offender of this. It just annoys me to see the club go flying away off an errant drive. Anthony Kim has picked up this habit. I'll have to admit it was kinda cool when Fred Couples would let go with one hand when he didn't care for a drive. But letting go of the club completely to where it flies into the crowd (Australian Masters) just seems childish. No one knows the feeling of a bad swing more than I do but I don't let go of the club. Maybe if I had a caddie who would go run after it then it might be different.

I think all of this is going to change. I think anyone who saw Tiger do that really didn't care because hey "it's Tiger". I don't think Tiger can be the old Tiger anymore. This Tiger needs to go out of his way to win back his fans that he did lose. Most hardcore fans really don't care about the events of the past few months. But some fans do care and will watch and be more critical of his every move. I think he needs to embrace the fans like Mickelson does even if it is phony. He can't get caught dropping an f-bomb or a GD on tv anymore. Tiger will be facing a new audience when he plays again. He'll have most of everyone who was watching before and now everyone who is curious about him now. I'm sure the golf will be the same or even better but the person who is displayed on the course now must be different than he was before.