Bleacher Report - Articles by Kyle Beakley

2009: The Most Disappointing Year In Major Championship Golf

Kyle Beakley — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:06:49 -0400

Over the past few months, we could have seen some of the most unbelievable, satisfying, and heartwarming victories in golf history.

Kenny Perry donning the green jacket at age 48.

David Duval coming out of absolute oblivion to win the U.S. Open.

Phil Mickelson finally bringing the U.S. Open trophy back to his ailing wife.

And today, Tom Watson capping off the most improbable moment in sports history—a major championship at age 59.

Instead, we've been granted three of the most lackluster winners in major championship history: Angel Cabrera, Lucas Glover, and Stewart Cink. Nothing against these three gentlemen, mind you—their wins were hard-earned and well-deserved.

But, never before have I walked away from the three greatest days of the sporting year with three more empty feelings in my stomach.

To watch Kenny Perry, the nicest guy in sports, hit some of the worst iron shots of his life when it mattered most, while Angel Cabrera made par from the middle of a forest—that hurt.

To watch the beleaguered David Duval, the laughing stock of golf for years, mount a valiant charge for the title, then rim out a few short putts to lose—that hurt.

To see another one of the nicest guys in sports, Phil Mickelson, miss a couple of four-footers, while some guy named Lucas Glover strolled down the 18th worry-free, the title in his pocket—that hurt even more.

But watching Tom Watson hang his head and seemingly fight back tears walking up to the 18th green, knowing that he gave up the chance of a century—that hurt most of all.

The 59-year-old legend couldn't capture one title, just one title, for the old guys.

A Watson win would have been undoubtedly the most improbable moment in sports history—more so than Kirk Gibson's home run, or Chaminade's historic upset, or dare I say, the Miracle on Ice.

Instead, Stewart Cink takes the Claret Jug—a very deserving champion indeed, but one of the biggest letdowns in golf history.

With each major this year getting more and more disappointing, who knows what cruelness we're in store for at the PGA in August.

Maybe John Daly will birdie the 71st hole for the lead, stirring up memories of his heyday, only to double-bogey the final hole, sending the PGA into a playoff between Arjun Atwal and Brian Vranesh.

Maybe some local PGA pro, who was once homeless and fought his way back, will lead by two strokes on the 72nd hole, his gorgeous wife and four beautiful kids watching by the green. Then, he'll shank the ball into the gallery four consecutive times, triple-bogeying the hole, and handing the championship to Paul Stankowski.

Or, maybe Tiger Woods will trail by 10 strokes on Sunday, then go out that afternoon and shoot a 59, achieving the greatest comeback in major championship history.

The crowd will go ballistic, Jim Nantz will sob like a baby, David Feherty will do a few shots of Guinness to celebrate—and then Peter Kostis will report that Tiger signed an incorrect scorecard and is disqualified. The Wanamaker trophy will be presented to Colt Knost.

Here's hoping that the PGA makes up for the disappointment we've experienced this past year. May we experience the most satisfying win in golf history.

And, once again, well done Tom Watson.

Can Tom Watson Pull Off the Most Improbable Moment in Sports History?

Kyle Beakley — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:54:08 -0400

Don't get me wrong, I expected to see Tom Watson plenty of times this weekend— in grainy film footage from 1977, with long red hair, rainbow-plaid pants, and an extra small green shirt.

Yet, here he is in 2009, just your typical 59-year-old leader of the Open Championship.

A Watson Victory Just Might Be the Most Improbable Moment in Sports History

.Watson winning a major at 59 would not be your typical sappy "awww, the old guy won!" story— like Jack Nicklaus' 1986 Masters, or Ray Bourque finally hoisting the Stanley Cup at age 40 with the Colorado Avalanche.

Those moments were all within some realm of human rationality.

Tom Watson's final round tomorrow is literally the stuff of our wildest dreams. It would be like Nolan Ryan rejoining the Astros at age 62 to start Game 7 of the 2009 World Series.

Or, imagine seeing a 60-year-old Terry Bradshaw leading Santonio Holmes and Hines Ward down the field for a chance to win Super Bowl XLIIII.

Maybe picture jockey Kent Desormeaux riding Mine That Bird down the homestretch at Churchill Downs—then looking over his shoulder to see the legendary Secretariat being turned loose by the rail.

Those sorts of moments are only imagined while you're sleeping, or maybe after a heavy dose of mind-altering substances.

Now, believe it or not, it's reality.

Can He Do It?

Sure, Tom Watson is leading now, but Greg Norman was leading at the same point in last year's open—and his fate wasn't exactly what we'd hoped.

Truth be told, we've seen plenty of older players turn back the clock, but fail to capitalize.

At the 1967 Masters, a 54-year-old Ben Hogan shot a 66 in the third round, putting him just a few shots off the lead. Mind you, this was the same Ben Hogan who wasn't sure if he would walk again 17 years earlier, and who needed to wrap his entire legs in Ace bandages before every round.

Hogan couldn't get it done. He finished in 10th place.

A 53-year-old Julius Boros led part of the final round during the 1973 U.S. Open at Oakmont. That was until a blond-haired Johnny Miller shot 63, and Boros wound up finishing in a tie for seventh.

Then, on a April afternoon in 1998, I switched my TV to CBS and saw Jack Nicklaus' name atop the leaderboard at the Masters. Nicklaus was a ripe-old 58. He seemed capable of winning a seventh green jacket at the turn, but he faltered on the back, and wound up tying for sixth.

Remember, this was all prior to the Tiger era. This was before practically every course was lengthened to 7,500 yards, before players pumped iron after rounds, before it became necessary to wear either a red shirt or a white belt to win a major.

In my expert oddsmaking opinion (cough), I'd put Watson's chances at about 20 percent.

Sure, the British Open is his masterpiece, but the Masters was Nicklaus' forte too, and he wouldn't have won the 1986 Masters without a lot of help from Seve, Greg, Tom, and Corey, not to mention his falter in 1998.

Tomorrow, there will be too many young guns within reach, and Watson's putter is destined to falter at some point (as it has throughout his career).

I'd love to see him win it—but I have to be realistic and say 20 percent.

Then again, this week has defied all realism.

The Saga of Ross Fisher

Tom Watson will have it tough tomorrow, but I think Ross Fisher will have it even tougher.

Fisher's wife is expected to give birth to their first child any moment now. When that happens, Fisher says he'll abandon the tournament immediately and hop on a private jet to witness the birth, no matter where he is or where he stands on the leaderboard.

How's that for a predicament? Not only do you have to battle a harsh course and a roster of world-class players, but you might be fighting through it all for nothing.

I'm curious, dear reader—what would you do in that situation?

Me, I'd keep playing. First of all, I'm gonna have to put up with the kid for at least 18 years, so who cares if I miss the first three hours? Also, there's no guarantee that you'll ever get the chance to win or even contend in a major again (remember that guy David Duval?).

So, sorry honey, you'll have to push on your own for now.

Although, on second thought, walking away from the Open would be a great way to keep the kid obedient for life. Nothing works better to control a child than shame and guilt.

Example (and we'll say for the sake of argument that Ross Fisher named his son Bobby):

Ross: "Bobby, I want you to clean the dishes."

Bobby: "No, Daddy. I don't feel like it."

Ross: "You don't feel like it? Well, you know what Bobby, I didn't feel like walking away from the British Open when I was leading by three strokes—I didn't exactly feel like turning down a million dollars, and endorsement deals, and worldwide fame to stand in an ugly hospital room and hold Mommy's hand for three hours. But I did anyway. So, Bobby, do you feel like washing those dishes now?"

Bobby: (sobs uncontrollably and begins washing dishes)

Other Notes and Tidbits

ABC doesn't cover golf regularly—and it shows.

Their graphics are bland, their theme music is awful (I could have written a better theme song on my Fisher Price xylophone when I was five), and they've hired probably the worst announce team in golf history.

Mike Tirico is one of TV's most overrated sportscasters, Terry Gannon sounds like a pre-programmed robot, Paul Azinger goes on tangents which have nothing to do with the major championship we all tuned in to watch, Curtis Strange needs to constantly complain even when there's nothing to complain about, and Tom Weiskopf sounds like your grumpy old uncle after a few whiskeys.

Please, R&A, give the TV rights to CBS or NBC next year. You can even give the rights to QVC for all I care, just get it off of ABC.

By the way, before you tune in to the British Open tomorrow, why not get into the British spirit by cooking up a full English Breakfast—sausage, bacon, eggs, beans, toast, tomato, potatoes, tea, and more if you so desire?

Here's a little more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast

Get up early and cook while you're watching the early morning coverage on TNT. Then, set your plate down on the coffee table and prepare to watch Watson tee off for history.

It's probably a little too much food, but just think of it as a celebration for Tom.

If he can pull off the victory tomorrow, you'll have plenty of excuses to celebrate.

Notes On The 2009 U.S. Open: The Front 9

Kyle Beakley — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:48:05 -0400

Time goes by so fast nowadays doesn't it? It seems like only yesterday that Angel Cabrera, Kenny Perry, and Chad Campbell were battling it out for the green jacket, their 44-inch waists seriously bringing into question golf's validity as a "sport."

But in just a few short days, an opening tee shot just before 8 A.M. will mark the beginning of our national championship.

I'll be providing some analysis and opinions throughout the week, but until then, here are 18 notes about the upcoming week, beginning with the front nine.

1. It's good to see the Open back at Bethpage Black

The 2002 U.S. Open remains one of the most memorable because, finally, the words after the host course's name weren't "country club" or "golf club" or "golf links"— but rather "state park".

Theoretically, you could walk on to Bethpage the day after the Open and play a $2 nassau on the same ground that Tiger, Phil, and Vijay just walked on less than 24 hours before (don't seriously try that, though, it takes a while to bring the course back to playable conditions).

Of course, let's not forget Bethpage Black's infamous all-night camp-outs for tee times, not to mention the fact that you'll probably be hacking it around the course so much that you won't have the sanity to appreciate your surroundings.

But isn't it nice to see world class players take on a course that you can play too?

2. That being said, Bethpage is a tad overrated

The ultimate test of a golf course, for traditional enthusiasts, is not how high the tournament's winning score goes, or how good Golf Digest's world-caliber-course-playing-bureaucrats think it is (lucky bastards).

Instead, the best judgment of a course is how many holes we can actually remember once the tournament ends.

In other words, think of a course, and see how many holes you can describe with some degree of detail.

Under this ranking system, a few courses quickly come to mind: Augusta, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, TPC at Sawgrass, and even Torrey Pines (fresh in the mind).

At Bethpage Black, the only holes I can describe are the par-three 17th, and the finishing 18th.

OK, so perhaps my ranking system isn't all that scientific, but let's see if Bethpage can pass my character test this time around.

3. Previewing the USGA's inevitable so-corny-they-make-you-cry pairings

In case you weren't aware, the USGA doesn't make first and second round U.S. Open pairings through a random process. In fact, USGA doesn't even make pairings through a logical process.

Instead, the USGA finds a group of players that share some cutesy personality trait or common plight/accomplishment and put them all together in one group.

For example: last year's infamous 1-2-3 pairing of Woods, Mickelson, and Adam Scott—which naturally about 90% of the spectators at Torrey Pines were pushing and shoving each other to follow, a brilliant strategy for major events crowd management.

Other times, the common bond is more subtle. Take the pairing a few years back of Kevin Stadler, Chad Campbell, and Jason Gore—three big guys.

Oh, how adorable (sarcasm).

This year, the USGA has really outdone themselves.

In 2009, the common bond will be—same name. Yes friends, the USGA is pairing together players with the same or similar last name, like a bad Wheel of Fortune puzzle.

For example, both Vijay and Jeev Milkha Singh are together. Also together are Andres and Eduardo Romero.

Also together are—wait for it—Soren Hansen and Peter Hanson.

Is someone seriously being paid to do this? Any way I can grab a piece of this lucrative labor market?

4. A few other interesting pairings

Again, remembering that USGA pairings are NOT a random process:

I don't know what sick, demented individual put this group together, but at 1:47 PM on Thursday we've got three aging players who'll forever lay awake at night due to heartbreaking major championship losses:

Rocco Mediate (blew the 2008 US Open),

Kenny Perry (blew the 1996 PGA and 2009 Masters),

Tom Lehman (won the 1996 British, but blew the 1994 Masters and 1997 U.S. Open).

Now, that's just cruel.

And, by the way, here's a little advice: if you're going to Bethpage on Thursday afternoon and are interested in meeting some twenty-something women, then be sure you're on the first tee at 1:25 PM.

Why, you ask? Because that's when the stud-boy group of Sergio Garcia, Camilo Villegas, and Adam Scott will be teeing off.

Don't expect good results, though.

You'll be competing for time with millionaire professional golfers—who are probably better looking than you and won't be riding a big yellow school bus back to the parking lot to drive home in a 1994 Ford Taurus. Sorry to kill your hopes, but let's be realistic.

5. Who to Watch This Week

Yes, it's time for prognostication. Here's a few players I'm expecting to go low:

Well, we might as well start by going out on on a limb with Tiger Woods. He's the defending champ, won the last open played at Bethpage, and is fresh off a great win at the Memorial. He's the odds-on favorite by far.

Also, let's give some respect to Angel Cabrera. The two-time major winner pounds the ball a mile and seems to have a knack for getting out of trouble and rising to the occasion on big stages.

Another guy to watch is European PGA Champion Paul Casey. He's been solid this season and has a pretty decent record in majors.

Let's not forget about the frustrated Sergio Garcia, either. Remember, it was Sergio who played in Sunday's final pairing with Tiger Woods at Bethpage in 2002. Last year, after winning the Players, but losing by a hair at the PGA, Sergio is primed for a breakthrough victory.

And, as a little upset pick, if Robert Allenby can get his putter working, he'll be a force to be reckoned with. Allenby is solid in every conceivable stat except putting.

6. Keys to Victory

Bethpage is a brutally harsh course. I'd expect the gnarly rough of 2002 to be thinned out a bit, but besides that, the course will give the players just as miserable a time.

Distance is crucial. Look down the list of PGA Tour driving average leaders and eliminate the bottom 60% from contention this week. Short hitters may hang around for a while, but they won't be able to close the deal.

Experience will be another key factor. Using imagination and local knowledge is an important skill for conquering a course full of twists, turns, hills, and waste areas abound.

Someone who's been in contention before and knows how to capitalize on their previous success, or learn from their previous mistakes, will be the winner.

Finally, the raucous New York crowd will probably become a hazard in their own right, so it'll take a player who can capture the gallery's energy and become a fan favorite to survive the week.

7. So, who wins? And what will be the winning score?

There's only one semi-confident answer that any person of reasonable sanity can give: Tiger Woods, as everything seems to be aligned for his 15th major.

If I had to pick the winning foursome, I'd go with: Woods (-1), Casey (+2), Garcia (+3), and Allenby (+4).

There's a 99% chance that I'll be completely wrong, it is the strange and cruel game of golf after all, but that's what my gut says for the moment.

8. Going to the Open

I'll be fortunate enough to attend two practice rounds of the U.S. Open this week. I always enjoy practice rounds more than competitive rounds since the players are looser and more friendly, tickets are cheaper, the crowds are a tad smaller, pictures are allowed, and most importantly, I can go autograph hounding.

A few years ago I used to scoff at the idiots who would line up and wait for hours to get a little scribble from a player.

Then, during a 2006 Winged Foot practice round, I found myself running a wind sprint from the clubhouse, trespassing through a catering area, and almost tackling Ernie Els' caddy to get his signature on my 2006 U.S. Open embroidered flag.

I have my usual rituals: for the flag to be any good, it must achieve the "autograph grand slam" by having winners of each of the four majors on the four corners of the flag (thank god for fluke winners like Ben Curtis and Michael Campbell).

I try to get Masters winners, and only Masters winners, to sign with a green pen. Green Jacket=Green Pen. Get it? How creative am I?

You know what, after writing this paragraph I think I may have autograph OCD.

Anyway, another great thing about going to the Open is that you get to see how elevated and tricky the course is. You can't see 75% of a golf course's texture by watching on TV. Winged Foot's 18th green looked like something plucked midway from a mogul run in-person, yet it looked like just another bumpy hole at Jimbo's Mini-Putt on TV.

If you're in the New York area, it's worth a gander on one of those internet auction sites (no free ads in my articles) where you can probably get tickets for just a bit above face value.

9. Watching the Open on TV

Ah yes, if you thought that Golf Channel's coverage of tournament golf was awful, get ready to vomit when you see what ESPN does to ruin a major championship.

First off, get the mute button ready. NBC's personalities don't carry over to ESPN's coverage, so you won't be hearing intelligent commentary from Gary Koch and Bob Murphy, or the overly caustic Johnny Miller getting the obligatory chip off his shoulder ("I was ranked higher than Jack Nicklaus for a while!" That's great, Johnny, but we really don't care. It's not 1971.)

Instead, get ready to hear the babbling Chris Berman spurt out whatever incoherent thoughts come to his mind.

Prepare for Curtis Strange's I-wanna-be-Johnny-Miller shtick where he forces biting criticism for every shot except a hole-out.

And, of course, Judy Rankin will provide her usual blatantly obvious on-course reporting to further insult your intelligence ("That ball went off the back of the green, Chris". Thanks, Judy. I wondered what was happening when that little white circle rolled off the big bright green circle. Golf looks like fun!).

ESPN really knows how to ruin every sport it touches. And golf is no exception.

From the previously mentioned bad talent, to the irritating constantly-scrolling leaderboard which randomly switches to stats that no one cares about, to the endless promos for World Series of Poker and World's Strongest Man, ESPN is by far the worst network to cover golf. (Please, R&A, no ESPN/ABC. Give the British Open rights to NBC or CBS, or even QVC if you need to.)

On the brighter side, NBC has every hour of weekend coverage. I'll trade Chris Berman for Johnny Miller in a second, he's slightly more bearable.

Recapping Kenny Perry's Painful Masters Finish

Kyle Beakley — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:57:44 -0400

With its blooming azaleas, gorgeous fairways, and charming theme music—not to mention Jim Nantz's soothing voice—I never thought it was possible for the Masters to leave me feeling sick.

Today it did, as Kenny Perry fell victim to one of the cruelest twists of fate in recent memory.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a bit of a soft spot for Kenny Perry. I've attended many golf tournaments, and I dare anyone to find a nicer guy in all of sports. He'll chat with you, he'll give you a smile, he'll give you an autograph that you can actually read instead of scribbling his initials.

In other words, he's pure class.

I've been rooting for Perry all week, and his prospects for a major title looked pretty good this afternoon. He churned out consistent pars and sank a long birdie putt on the notoriously nerve-wracking 12th hole.

Kenny's chances looked even better after stiffing his tee shot inside the leather at the 16th. But, as afternoon turned to evening, it all came unglued.

As so often happens to golfers who are unfamiliar with major championship pressure, especially those who know in the back of their head that this is their final opportunity of a lifetime, mental errors and plain old jittery nerves took over.

Approach on 17: Airmail.

Chip on 17: Skulled.

Putt on 17: Simply decent.

Drive on 18: Dumb (how many times did Nick Faldo say to take three-wood?).

Approach on 18: Yanked.

Chip on 18: Best he could do from that position.

Putt on 18: Heartbreakingly close.

Throughout this entire procession, you had to feel Perry's hopes for a green jacket withering away into oblivion. Yes, he had a shot to win in sudden death. But with his momentum sucked away and the difficult 18th and 10th holes designated for the playoff, the advantage clearly swung to Angel Cabrera and Chad Campbell.

If only Kenny would have put one more bit of "oomph" into his chip on the first playoff hole, he'd be sitting in Butler Cabin, one of the most deserving champions in recent memory. Instead, he tied with Cabrera and consoled Campbell as he exited the stage.

Then, as Perry looked over his approach on the 10th, one thought went through my mind: "Please don't pull a Len Mattiace." I was referring to the first playoff hole of the 2003 Masters, when underdog Mattiace yanked his approach way left, and his ball became trapped behind a Georgia pine.

Sure enough, in my eerily prophetic ways, Kenny yanked his shot on a similar line. Thankfully, it didn't land behind a tree, but by then the damage had been done. A simple two-putt was all it took for Cabrera to win.

Mind you, this is no disrespect to the newly green-jacketed Cabrera. Sometimes you're just destined to win. His putt on 16 kept the momentum on his side after Perry's stiff tee shot. He made a few knee-knockers on the 18th to stay alive.

Cabrera even earned himself a rarely seen "Seve" (saving par after hitting a tree) on the first playoff hole. (So, Kenny Perry and Chad Campbell each owe him $2).

Still, it's hard not to feel for Kenny Perry. When Bill Macatee interviewed Perry after the final putt, he was clearly holding back tears (a frequent occurrence for Masters runner-ups who come heartbreakingly close, but to no avail).

Kenny said it took him three years to get over his infamous 1996 PGA Championship loss to Mark Brooks at Valhalla.

No matter what he says, how positively he tries to spin it, or how high he keeps his chin up as he looks to the rest of this year's majors, it'll probably take Kenny just as long, maybe even longer, to get over this one.

Which is an awful shame. After playing so solid, so consistent, so impressively good despite the roars emanating all around the course, he bogeys three of his last four holes.

After grazing the cup on both a putt and chip on the 18th, he walks away with a pat on the back.

It's an injustice.

There's not a more deserving winner on tour. Kenny Perry may not be the best player never to win a major, but he certainly is the kindest never to win one.

Thankfully, Perry is still young at heart and ready to take over Bethpage in June.

If you have the opportunity to get out to Farmingdale this summer, make sure you stop by a practice round to tell Kenny "hi."

Other golfers (cough—Tiger, Vijay, Sergio) will ignore you and breeze right by—forgetting the fact that you paid $55 to stand in the sun and watch them hit a ball around.

But Kenny will greet you back just as warmly, chat about the course, and take the time to autograph anything you want with his full name, in clear handwriting.

Unfortunately, those kind and classy gestures are rarely seen in athletes anymore.

Well done this week, Kenny—and here's hoping that nice guys never finish last.

Super Bowl XLIII: The Greatest Ever?

Kyle Beakley — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:43:16 -0500

A lovable underdog. A powerful dynasty.

Amazing plays. A dose of controversy.

Constant lead changes. A last-minute comeback.

That's the perfect recipe for an amazing Super Bowl.

Super Bowl XLIII has no doubt earned a berth on bloggers' lists of the greatest Super Bowls of all-time.

But was tonight's game the greatest of all?

Is the longest play in Super Bowl history, the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history, and a stunning last-minute drive enough?

Let's review.

Going chronologically, the first Super Bowl that could arguably be on the list is SuperBowl III, a.k.a. Joe Namath's guarantee. Important game? Absolutely. Huge upset? You betcha.

Exciting, drama-filled game? Not so much. Gimme a seat in Tampa any day.

Then, we go to two Steeler-Cowboy matchups: Super Bowl X was filled with circus catches by Lynn Swann and a decent back-and-forth battle. But it lacked any last-second drama. Another point for Ben and Santonio.

Super Bowl XIII saw a hard-fought game between two bitter rivals, ending with the Cowboys trying to erase a 17-point deficit in the final few minutes—which they nearly did.

Now children, let's take a second to reflect and remember that the Steelers and Cowboys dominated their respective conferences in the 70s. This was Goliath vs. Goliath. While tonight's game was much more dramatically pleasing, Super Bowl XIII featured much better teams and was much more historically significant.

Slight edge to Cards-Steelers.

The next Super Bowl that can enter comparison is Super Bowl XXIII, featuring Joe Montana's last-minute drive to beat the Bengals. Cute moment. But the first three and a half quarters were just as pleasant to watch as a Lions-Raiders game. Next.

Super Bowl XXV made Scott Norwood the goat of Buffalo (unfairly, I might add, since the real blame lies on Marv Levy for running the ball every single play in the last three minutes, destroying the clock and leaving Norwood a 47-yarder on grass).

Another underdog story, the Giants, led by a dopey backup quarterback and a seemingly octogenarian running back, beat the dominating Bills in a game of constant lead changes.

The problem: the game's most memorable moments are a missed field goal and a safety. While a back-and-forth battle, it was one of the most conservatively called Super Bowls. I'll take Cards-Steelers.

Jump ahead to Super Bowl XXXII and Elway's triumph. An exciting game. Elway leading a late drive to finally get the monkey off his back after nearly two decades against the defending champion Packers.

Yes, while this year's game had more flash-and-dash, XXXII's historical significance trumps tonight's (at least at this moment). I'd take a seat in the end zone to watch Elway get spun around like the wheel from Hi-Ho Cherry-O.

Super Bowl XXXIV saw the Titans come one yard short of tying the Rams. An exciting few final minutes—but a snoozer the rest of the way. No thanks.

In Super Bowl XXXVI, the Patriots toppled the Rams' Greatest Show on Turf, favored by 14 points. Not only was it a huge upset capped by a few exciting final-minute lead changes, but it paved the way for New England to become an evil empire in the 2000s.

A conference-dominating team against a futile underdog who would later blossom into a powerhouse? Seems pretty important to me. I'd rather see Vinatieri as the clock expires.

Super Bowl XXXVIII featured the Patriots and Panthers in my personal favorite Super Bowl of all. It was the most exciting fourth quarter in NFL history, complete with a last-second field goal, but a horrible game from the first to third quarter. Being fair and objective, I'd have to take XLIII.

Finally, we come to last year's Super Bowl XLII. Perfection versus mediocrity. The cocky Patriots take the lead, and then watch Eli Manning and David Tyree make the greatest play in NFL history.

Then, in Joe Buck's words, "Manning throws, Burress alone, touchdown New York."

Overrated Tom Brady finally tastes ultimate defeat. Belichick walks off the field before the game ends and cries during the post-game interview. The second-biggest upset in Super Bowl history denies the Spygating dynasty perfection.

How can you beat that?

So, my revised list of greatest Super Bowls:

1. Super Bowl XLII- Giants def. Patriots

2. Super Bowl XXXVI- Patriots def. Rams

3. Super Bowl XXXII- Broncos def. Packers

4. Super Bowl XLIII- Steelers def. Cardinals

5. Super Bowl XXXVIII- Patriots def. Panthers

6. Super Bowl XIII- Steelers def. Cowboys

7. Super Bowl XXV- Giants def. Bills

Live From The Barclays

Kyle Beakley — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:13:41 -0400

Earlier this week, I traveled up the Garden State Parkway to take a peek around gorgeous Ridgewood Country Club in Paramus, N.J.

Here are some notes and observations I collected from Tuesday's practice round.

A quick disclaimer: while I will give some quotes, due to ethical standards (thanks, SPJ) I can't attribute them to specific players, since I wasn't wearing any type of press credential.

Ridgewood should be a top contender to host a major championship soon. There seems to be a huge consensus among players that Ridgewood is one of the best courses they've seen on tour this year. Even a former British Open champion said it was, "absolutely beautiful, one of the greatest courses I've ever played."
In a previous article, I asked if anyone cared that Padraig Harrington made history by becoming only the ninth player in PGA history to win back-to-back majors. Well, at least in New Jersey, the answer is an emphatic "yes." Harrington was the biggest attraction on Tuesday, and the screams from kids and adults alike as they begged for his autograph rivaled that of Tiger Woods. (On an amusing note, one child desperate for Harrington's signature screamed in a New York accent, "Please, Padraig! I'm Irish too!")
A better name for Ridgewood Country Club would be "Winged Foot South." Ridgewood has very similar tall tree-lined fairways and complex bunkers to the classic Winged Foot layout in Mamaroneck. However, Ridgewood has a lot more personality than Winged Foot: tiny greens, greens with four tiers, natural hazards, crazy twisting doglegs, and huge elevation changes. Nonetheless, it's a fair setup— much fairer than last week's, according to an Australian player who went on a humorous five-minute profanity-laden tirade to a PGA Tour official about the Wyndham Championship.
The PGA Tour will be boasting about their playoff format all week long, but the "Playoffs" actually became a tongue-in-cheek joke among some groups on Tuesday. One top American player said sarcastically to his playing partner, "Man, I'm pumped up for these playoffs! I gotta start grinding!"
While some players might treat the FedEx Cup as a joke, Kenny Perry certainly isn't. He finished a long practice round with Tom Lehman, Corey Pavin, and J.B. Holmes, then headed off to the range and hit balls until the sun went down, accompanied by six individuals who all appeared to be coaches. His practice habit on Tuesday seemed to rival that of Vijay Singh, or dare I say the immortal Ben Hogan.
You might hear some commentators talk about the "drivable" par-4 5th hole this week. Don't believe them. With how high the green is elevated, and how unbelievably tiny the green is, not to mention the stiff penalty incurred by missing short and getting a ball lodged in one of the 5th's gnarly bunkers, only the most desperate of players will pull their driver out (or possibly the long bombers like Bubba Watson and J.B. Holmes).
I'd hate to go back and harp on the "Playoffs," but The Barclays sure doesn't have the feel of a playoff event. Only a few of the Top 20 players were out practicing on Tuesday (in majors, usually every single player is out practicing). A scant amount of patrons came out to watch Tuesday's practice round. Okay, so it is a practice round after all, but there should still have been at least triple the crowd there was, as is usually seen for practice rounds in major championships and top-tier tournaments like The Memorial and The Players.
So, who's the favorite? I'd point to Phil Mickelson, as he's had tons of success in the New York metro area, and especially on Tillinghast courses. However, Ridgewood has such a diverse selection of holes, it's tough to say that the course favors any one style of player. Perhaps it'll take hard work and dedication like Kenny Perry shows. Maybe it'll take the momentum of a hot streak, like Padraig Harrington is currently on. Or, maybe someone can come from nowhere to steal the spotlight.

After all, it's anyone's game in the Playoffs! (Ugh.)

Five Sports Conspiracy Theories

Kyle Beakley — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:02:33 -0400

While browsing through Barnes and Noble yesterday, I picked up an $8.00 copy of “Reclaiming History”, Vincent Pugilosi’s ridiculously long book (over 1,600 pages) which attempts to refute conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

So last night, while thumbing through that book and keeping an eye on the Olympics, I thought of a way to combine the fascinating worlds of sports and conspiracy theorization into one fun-filled article.

Below are some sports conspiracy theories I’ve heard from fellow fans over the past year or so, and my responses to them.

Some are downright ridiculous. Others might make you think a little bit.

Again, just to clarify, these aren’t my personal conspiracy theories. I don’t really believe in conspiracies.

And, this isn’t a “best of” list. If you know of any other interesting theories, then feel free to share them below.

Finally, this is not a journalistic article. Much of the evidence theorists use to defend these conspiracies are based on hearsay, rumor, or even downright lies. I’m just compiling people’s speculations into one article.

Anyway, let’s get on with it…

1) The USSR took a dive in their 1980 Olympic Hockey Medal game (a.k.a. the “Miracle on Ice”) against the U.S.

The Theory: U.S.-Soviet tensions were running high in 1980, and rumors began to circulate that President Jimmy Carter was seriously considering an American boycott of the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow.

Concerned that a lack of U.S. participation would lower interest in the Moscow games, the USSR hockey team was told to throw their medal round game against the U.S., hoping that America’s thrill from the victory would lessen their hatred of the USSR and stop the boycott.

What the Theorists Say: The USSR was the world’s greatest hockey team. They proved their worth by winning the Challenge Cup in 1979 where they defeated a Canadian All-Star team— not a bunch of inexperienced college kids.

While the U.S. just squeaked by with a 4-3 victory in the Olympics, the young American team didn’t show that level of talent against the Russians just days earlier. The U.S. was routed 10-3 by the world-dominating USSR team in an exhibition match at Madison Square Garden, just two weeks before their Olympic showdown.

Some very questionable coaching decisions during the “Miracle on Ice” game also cast doubt on the Russian team’s authenticity. After the first period, USSR head coach Victor Tikhonov removed the world’s greatest goaltender, Vladislav Tretiak, from the game—a completely unexpected decision which shocked both teams.

Also, the Russians violated fundamental hockey strategy by not pulling their goaltender in the final minutes. Down one goal with only a few minutes to play, the USSR chose to leave goaltender Tretiak in the game instead of substituting him for another attacker, which would have given the Russians a much greater chance to tie the game.

My Verdict: Very, very unlikely. If there’s two things we knew about the Russians in 1980, it’s that they loved hockey, and they loved to embarrass the U.S.

This was the Cold War, folks.

I find it highly implausible that the USSR would sacrifice a gold medal and their reign of world dominance just to add another nation to their Olympic games.

While the Russian coach’s moves were quite suspect and pretty moronic as well, a lot of coaches have the habit of over-strategizing in big games. Tikhonov probably pulled Tretiak as punishment for giving up a soft goal with seconds left in the first.

And, Tikhonov was probably worried about goal differential when he chose not to pull the goalie at the end. Remember, in 1980 the medal round was not an elimination tournament— it was a four team round-robin playoff. Pulling the goaltender was more likely to give the U.S. a free goal, which could have hurt the USSR in case of a tiebreaker.

But, the biggest piece of evidence against this theory is actually watching the game! Anyone who watched the entire match knows the USSR certainly wasn’t playing to lose. U.S. goaltender Jim Craig had to make an awful lot of ridiculously amazing saves to keep the miracle alive.

2) Bobby Riggs threw his 1973 Battle of the Sexes tennis match against Billie Jean King.

The Theory: Bobby Riggs, a noted hustler and prosperous gambler, placed a sizable sum on Billie Jean King to win the 1973 Battle of the Sexes tennis tournament. He threw the match, and in the process, collected a nice chunk of change.

What the Theorists Say: In the first Battle match played in early 1973, Riggs handily defeated Margaret Court in straight sets: 6-2, 6-1. Then, just months later, he somehow suffered an embarrassing defeat to Billie Jean King.

Bobby Riggs made no effort to hide the fact that he was playing to lose against King.

He literally made no effort to return some of King’s shots to the baseline. When King volleyed up at the net, Riggs gave a halfhearted jog and just watched the ball bounce away.

Riggs made an uncharacteristic amount of errors, allowing King to win by just laying back instead of playing her usual aggressive game.

My Verdict: Although it’s very possible that Riggs threw the match, there is plenty of counter evidence.

First of all, Riggs was a wrinkly 55 years old. He was out of shape and lacked energy. That explains his unwillingness to charge across the court.

Also, in a match of this sort, where Riggs was representing the entire male population, money couldn’t have been only thing that mattered. He must have known that losing the match would make him the laughing stock of the nation.

One of Riggs’ friends stated as much, saying that Riggs was “depressed for six months” after losing the match.

I would put this theory at a coin toss. I could see this happening if Riggs was desperate for money and placed the bet on Billie Jean, not realizing that losing the match would mean a legacy of humiliation. Because after he placed the bet, it would be too late to come to his senses.

That harsh reality check would certainly cause six months of depression.

But it’s just too close to call.

3) The Patriots’ miracle championship season of 2001 was hand-crafted by the NFL

The Theory: After September 11^th, the NFL saw an opportunity to cash

in on American patriotism by pushing a Cinderella team named the “Patriots” to the Super Bowl. Along the way, the NFL fixed games and turned a blind eye to team violations to ensure that the Patriots would be champions.

What the Theorists Say: The Patriots reaped the benefits of extremely loose officiating throughout their regular season run, allowing them to magically improve from a 5-11 record in 2000, to an 11-5 record in 2001. That success earned the Pats a second-place conference finish and a bye from the wild-card playoffs.

In their divisional playoff game, the Patriots were behind late in the fourth quarter when Tom Brady fumbled, presumably sealing the game for the Oakland Raiders. However, the referees continued their streak of generosity by using the extinct “tuck rule” to overturn the fumble and allow the Patriots to win the game in overtime.

The NFL knew that games would be close and that field goals could be the difference. So, the NFL replaced their traditional K-balls with special helium-filled footballs for Adam Vinatieri. This allows him to make a 50+ yard field goal in blinding snow, and easily smash a 48-yard game winner in the Super Bowl.

And, as one final insult, Vinatieri kicks the ball through the uprights with only seconds remaining in Super Bowl XXXVIII to put the Patriots up 20-17. But, instead of stopping the clock at two seconds (the amount of time left when the ball went through the posts), the NFL decides to let the clock run out. The St. Louis Rams’ notoriously explosive offense never get their rightful chance to return the final kickoff.

While the Patriots’ defense was the key to their championship, the NFL instead gives the MVP award to overrated pretty boy QB Tom Brady, establishing his future status as an NFL marketing token.

My Verdict: To say that the Patriots won solely because of help from the NFL is a far catch. This theory is mostly a bunch of lies from bitter Patriot-haters.

The NFL wouldn't risk harming the integrity of their highly lucrative game by using helium footballs and bribing players just to ensure that a team with a desirable nickname would win the Super Bowl.

However, favorable officiating is always a realistic possibility.

First off, the helium-filled football idea is completely ludicrous. Adam Vinatieri is the greatest placekicker of all time and has consistently made clutch kicks throughout his many years in the NFL (and anyway, an episode of the show Mythbusters showed that helium-filled footballs don’t travel any farther than air-filled ones).

While the “tuck rule” was quite suspicious, Adam Vinatieri still had to make an almost impossible kick to send the game into overtime, and then another one to win the game. The Raiders had plenty of opportunities to prevent that from happening. The Raiders' loss can’t be blamed solely on the officials.

I did notice many Patriot-friendly calls in Super Bowl XXXVIII. But, none that could have seriously changed the complexion of the game, especially in the Patriots’ final breathtaking drive.

It was ridiculous to let the clock run out after Vinatieri's kick, though. I believe the NFL has since established a rule that only five seconds can run off on a field goal attempt.

Did Spygate help? Maybe. We can't say for sure.

But, all things considered, the Patriots needed to pull off a lot more than some friendly officials could have given them.

How about the AFC Championship game against Pittsburgh, when Drew Bledsoe was called in to save the season for the Pats? I don’t see how any officiating gifts could have helped that situation (only if we find out down the road that Kordell Stewart was paid off to throw some of the worst passes in NFL history).

The Pats earned their stripes in 2001-02, regardless of the fortunate bounces that went their way.

4) Tiger Woods is sitting out the 2008 season to avoid being tested positive for steroids.

The Theory: Tiger has been taking steroids to bulk up over the past few years, and is faking his ACL injury to avoid being tested positive by the PGA.

What the Theorists Say: Tiger has gotten bigger in recent years, hard for a golfer to do, so he must be taking steroids. What a coincidence that Tiger would hide away just when the PGA Tour begins randomly testing golfers for performance enhancing drugs!

In an effort to avoid being suspended and put his illustrious career in doubt, Tiger is faking an ACL injury. He sold the world on this fake injury with forced grimaces and groans at the highly-watched U.S. Open. He is now resting this 2008 season to allow the steroids to pass through his body.

Besides, why else wouldn’t he have shown up on the public radar since the U.S. Open? Wouldn’t he want to do some kind of charity work or even some TV announcing to keep busy? And, why didn’t he show up at the AT&T National, the PGA tournament that he hosts just outside Washington, DC?

My Verdict: Give me a break. This has got to be the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard.

Tiger wasn’t declared the fittest guy in America by Men’s Fitness magazine by accident. He is one of the most dedicated fitness gurus alive, pounding out a steady workout regimen.

Believe it or not folks, golf is a sport.

If you’re just Joe Six Pack who hacks the ball around on weekends, you’d never know it. But, anyone who plays the game at a high level will tell you the havoc that swinging a club hundreds of thousands of times has on your joints and muscles.

Tiger has carefully calculated his swing to get the maximum use of every muscle in his body. Due to his unorthodox swing style, styled to gain power in a quick burst, his ACL definitely suffers a great amount of strain.

And Tiger hasn’t shown up on TV because he wants some rest! It’s tough to be in the spotlight 24/7. Tiger is probably enjoying some much needed downtime.

This rumor was probably started by testosterone-packed bloggers who hate golf and like to create controversy.

5) The NBA rigged the 1985 Draft Lottery to ensure that Patrick Ewing landed in New York City

The Theory: With the NBA’s popularity sulking in the Big Apple, the league sees an opportunity to revive the New York Knicks by guaranteeing them the NCAA’s brightest star—Patrick Ewing of Georgetown.

So, the NBA fixes the draft lottery to ensure that David Stern will choose the envelope with the Knicks’ logo first.

What the Theorists Say: Below is the Zapruder film of the 1985 Draft Lottery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TgJE7C5wiU

Notice how at 5:30, David Stern pulls out the first envelope, which just happens to have a bent corner? That of course is the Knicks’ envelope, and how ironic that it got chosen first!

Watch Stern’s hand. It goes in the hopper, and toward the bent envelope. In, and toward the bent envelope. In, and toward the bent envelope.

The envelope could have easily been creased by an NBA official before the drawing as a signal for Stern to select that team first.

Others say that the Knicks’ envelope was placed in a freezer before the drawing, making it easy for Stern to locate the desired card (which would feel cold to the touch) without looking.

My Verdict: While the frozen envelope theory is somewhat plausible, the bent corner theory is ridiculous. Any envelope could have gotten bent when the assistant began to violently spin that hopper. And, I seriously doubt that NBA officials would make a distinct crease when they knew that CBS television cameras would be zooming in as tight as possible on the hopper.

More likely than not, the Knicks got lucky.

Conclusion

Yes, some age-old sports conspiracies really did turn out to be true. NBA officials did help to fix games. MLB did turn a blind eye to steroid use. Bobby Thompson was tipped off by a sign stealer when he hit the Shot Heard ‘Round the World.

But, most sports conspiracy theories are started by bored bloggers who want to gain attention for themselves, or grumpy fans who want another excuse for why their team lost.

So, if someone tells you that Michael Phelps is really a cyborg created by the Bush administration to raise the world's opinion of America, remember not to believe everything you hear.

Revamping the Fed Ex Cup, Part 2: Too Many Invitations

Kyle Beakley — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:39:38 -0400

The purpose of a playoff system is to determine one true champion by allowing only the best teams and players to compete against each other.

So in golf, the FedEx Cup "playoffs" should be, in essence, a special tour where only the most proven players are invited to compete.

Unfortunately, the PGA Tour doesn't understand that.

It seems like almost the entire PGA Tour is invited to the FedEx Cup.

Every week, golf fans are bombarded with endless commercials promoting the "race for the FedEx Cup." They tell us about the immense pressure that PGA players feel week-to-week, struggling hard to make it into the FedEx Cup's $10 million showdown.

But, those commercials are a complete farce. For a sizable portion of the PGA Tour, qualifying for the FedEx Cup is little more than an afterthought.

Next week at the FedEx Cup's first playoff tournament (The Barclays), a massive field of 144 players will be invited.

That's more than half of the 262 PGA Tour players who have earned FedEx Cup points this year!

So, for PGA Tour players, all things being equal, it's actually harder not to make the playoffs!

There's no drama to see who will make the playoffs, and who will be left out.

Shut your eyes for a moment and think about the final days of the NFL and MLB seasons.

There's tons of excitement about teams on the playoff "bubble."

We tune in to see which teams will emerge victorious, elated that they'll have a chance to achieve glory.

We also tune in to see which teams will sulk in defeat, knowing that their hopes to pursue a championship were so close, but extinguished in the blink of an eye.

The FedEx Cup has absolutely none of that drama.

Have a gander at the less-than-mediocre golfers who will be fighting it out for the last spots in the playoffs.

As of today, the players just above the 144-player cut line are: Roland Thatcher, Glen Day, Jeff Overton, and Gavin Coles.

The players just short of the cut line are: Tag Ridings, Todd Hamilton, Justin Bolli, and Brett Rumford.

Boy, excitement will be all around this week at the Wyndham Championship, huh? I bet you'll be glued to your TV to see if Justin Bolli can squeak up the standings to knock out poor Gavin Coles.

Or, on second thought, there's always archery and javelin throwing over on NBC's Olympic coverage.

Over the past few weeks, CBS and the Golf Channel have displayed each players' FedEx Cup point standing in a huge font beside their score graphic.

That would be great if anyone cared. But, quite honestly, I don't tune in to golf to learn that Jon Mills is ranked 138th in FedEx Cup points.

Is it just a bit contradictory that players who consistently miss cuts are invited to what is supposed to be the PGA Tour's grand jewel?

All that being said, the FedEx Cup would be a terrific event if the field were cut down.

Let's say instead of 144 players, the PGA Tour invites only 30 to the FedEx Cup.

Well, now we've got an extraordinary event.

A smaller field ensures that only the season's brightest stars make the playoffs, and adds a tinge of drama to the regular season's final tournaments.

Just hovering above the cut line are Andres Romero, Ben Curtis, Ernie Els, Stephen Ames, and Hunter Mahan.

Just below are Bart Bryant, Rod Pampling, Jerry Kelly, and Woody Austin.

Those are all names that golf fans know and care about.

Therefore, fans will surely be keeping a close eye on those final few tournaments to see who continues to play for enormous sums of cash in the playoffs, and who is off to spend the next month on the range with Butch Harmon and Dave Pelz.

And how about this, PGA: want to add a little spice to the PGA Championship? Make it the final tournament for players to earn FedEx Cup points.

Then, every year the PGA Championship would be important in three different respects: a major championship, the last chance to earn Ryder/President's Cup points, and the last chance to make the FedEx Cup.

How's that for drama?

Gymnastics: A Cruel, Cruel Sport

Kyle Beakley — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:36:33 -0400

You might think gymnastics isn't a sport.

And you'd be right to say so.

Gymnastics seems to me like much more than a mere sport.

It's an all-out persecution.

After watching last night's gold medal final, I can't think of another sport that expects so much perfection from its athletes, yet gives them such little opportunity to prove it.

The Line Between Failure and Success is Almost Incomprehensible Due to Judging

We usually like sports to be simple to understand.

We know how a football team scores six points: Quarterback throws ball. Receiver catches ball. Receiver lands in the end zone. Scoreboard operator adds six.

That's it. The guy caught the ball in the end zone. It doesn't matter how it was done or whether it looked pretty or any other subjective matter.

Can you imagine if traditional sports were subject to such malarkey?

Can you picture hearing Phil Simms break down a touchdown like gymnastics commentators criticize routines: "Well, Randy Moss does indeed catch the ball, but look down there at his right foot! He never gets that foot completely flat on the ground! Oh boy, referee Bill Carrollo isn't gonna like that! That's going to be a half-point deduction at least! So the Patriots will take only take a 4.750 point lead over the Raiders."

Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Where other athletes know exactly how they're doing throughout the competition, gymnasts are subject to the scrutiny of grumpy judges more than happy to whip out the red pen and subtract away.

How comforting must it be to know that if a judge was in a little better mood that day, you could have been the world champion? Damn, why did that French judge have to stub his toe today? Oh why did the IRS have to audit the American judge at a time like this?

Yes, while performing a good routine will undoubtedly score high points, you can never be sure of just how high.

All you can do is sit and wait, and hope.

There's No Room For Error

Other sports give some margin of error to their players. Give up a long touchdown pass, and you've got a few quarters to redeem yourself. Make a bogey, you've still got a few holes to erase it by making a birdie.

In gymnastics, one malfunction all but ends your hopes for gold.

There's only four (or for men, six) events—each lasting a few minutes, at most. That means there's virtually no time to catch up after a mistake.

Forget about coming from behind. It doesn't seem like gymnastics judges give out any rewards, but they sure love do hand out penalties in droves.

While attempting a brave stunt might score a few mere brownie points with the judges, the points a competitor can earn pale in comparison to the massive amount of points they can lose by missing.

To win, you've got to get in the lead quick, and grasp on to that lead for dear life.

Anything less means failure.

It's An Unfair Test

Golfers compete over four rounds. Football players go through at least a 16-game season. Baseball players get a seemingly endless schedule of 162 games.

But gymnasts have only about ten minutes every four years to prove they're the best in the world.

One misstep in one-half of a second voids years of grueling training.

You could undeniably be the best the world has to offer, performing your routine flawlessly hundreds of times in a row. But miss during the one specified opportunity the Olympics gives you, and you can kiss glory goodbye.

So, what's to separate a great gymnast who made a miscue with an average gymnast who just happened to not fall on his/her back?

Maybe skill and talent. Maybe controlling one's nerves. Maybe luck.

"Maybe" is the key word there.

It would be nice to have competitors do more than just a one-and-done routine on each apparatus. A series of two or three rounds could establish some sort of consistency and reward those daring enough to take huge risks.

Talk About Pressure?

You need to be perfect.

You have no room for error.

It's most likely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

You've trained for years; and that training probably includes working through painful injuries, sacrificing a piece of your childhood, and practically starving yourself to boot.

And after all that, you get just a few precious minutes to validate everything you've ever worked and dreamed for.

Again, I'm no gymnastics expert. In fact, last night was the first time I ever watched more than 15 minutes.

But, it seems like there needs to be a streamlined scoring system (no hundredths and thousandths of points please), and more forgiving judging criteria which rewards perfection as much as it punishes failure.

Most importantly, the IOC should provide an opportunity for gymnasts to prove their status by competing in multiple competitions over multiple days, not just packing the team finals into two hours to capitalize NBC's prime-time TV ratings.

Some might call Olympic gymnastics the ultimate championship atmosphere, where everything is on the line in one ultimate moment.

But, I can't help but call it a bit cruel.

Does Anyone Care that Padraig Harrington Made History?

Kyle Beakley — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:45:48 -0400

"If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is around to hear it—does it make a sound?"

We've struggled for generations to make sense of that perplexing question. But, this week's PGA Championship is a great landscape to analyze what it really means.

The tree falling down is the burden that's fallen off of Padraig Harrington's shoulders. He's now a three-time major champion, and only the ninth golfer to win consecutive majors.

Yet, no one was around. Did anyone else notice how barren the course was for Padraig's British Open and PGA wins?

So, the question is this: did Padraig's amazing feat resonate in the golf world? In other words, did it make a sound?

Unfortunately, it seems, the answer is no.

And, quite ironically, the reason no one seems to notice is all because of woods—Tiger Woods, that is.

Without Tiger in the mix, a golf tournament ceases to be an event.

Some might claim that the resurgence of Greg Norman in the British Open, plus the Garcia-Curtis-Harrington battle down the stretch at the PGA were enough to compensate for Tiger's absence.

But those optimists are sadly mistaken.

Even with Greg Norman's Cinderella story, 2008 British Open ratings fell 15 percent compared to 2007.

And, did anyone notice how sparse the crowds were at this week's PGA Championship?

The galleries following Harrington and Garcia looked to be two or three people deep, compared to Tiger-esque galleries which usually stand 10 or more deep.

Plus, Ian Baker-Finch and David Feherty estimated on the CBS telecast that there were only about 150 people following the final pairing! The stands were barely even half full for an American, Ben Curtis, as he fought his way through the grueling back nine.

Let's grasp what happened yesterday. Padraig Harrington won back-to-back majors—an extraordinary accomplishment only achieved by the true greats of the game.

Which other golfers have won consecutive majors?

Jack Nicklaus.

Ben Hogan.

Arnold Palmer.

Seve Ballesteros.

Craig Wood.

Phil Mickelson.

Gene Sarazen.

Oh, and of course, Tiger Woods.

Now, we can add Padraig Harrington to that select club. Getting his name on that list alone cements Padraig's place in history as one of the game's greatest players.

Yet, what are the top stories on SportsCenter and in your local paper today? Updates on Brett Favre. Preseason football recaps. Someone won a silver medal in fencing, and someone else won a bronze medal in team handball.

Today at work, ask someone if they saw Padraig Harrington win yesterday, and I'd bet their response will be, "Who?"

At the very least, Tiger's name will get a sly response of "I don't watch golf" or "Golf is for wimps."

But Padraig Harrington? Who's that?

Such is usually the case for international players. But Harrington clearly isn't just any old International player. He's won 50 percent of the major championships played in the past year and a half.

Okay, so that's an engineered statistic. But it's an important one when you consider the company he's in: again— Nicklaus, Woods... you catch my drift.

So why isn't anyone talking about it? Where's the buzz over Padraig?

Oh, that's right—no one was watching.

Switch Greg Norman and Ben Curtis for Tiger Woods in both of the last two majors and Padraig hits the top of the sports pages and the lead on SportsCenter.

But, put Tiger in a hyperbaric chamber recovering from knee surgery the past few months, and the entire golf world slowly drifts away from mainstream America.

For Harrington, this is extremely unfair. His passionate fist pumps on the 18th hole weren't quite as dramatic as Tiger's back in June, but Paddy's celebration still marked a tremendous feat.

Yet, while the fans at Torrey Pines threw their hands in the air, jumped up, and screamed like they just saw Plaxico Burress catch a last-second touchdown pass from Eli Manning in the Super Bowl, Harrington got a much different reaction.

Most of the PGA "fans" who watched Padraig sink the championship winning putt on the 18th just sat still and gave a polite golf clap.

Others merely stood there dumbfounded with their arms crossed. A few knowledgeable (but probably Irish/European) patrons gave the proper jump-up-and-go-wild reaction.

What should have been an amazing PGA Championship victory by a new breakthrough star morphed into a lackluster yawner without Tiger on the prowl.

Think we'll see Padraig on a Gillette or Gatorade commercial anytime soon? Probably not. His deserved glory was denied, ironically, by the ACL of Tiger Woods.

It's unfair, impertinent, and cruel.

But such is the world of professional sports.

PGA Championship: I Retract My Compliments

Kyle Beakley — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:17:34 -0400

I take back the compliments I gave to the PGA Championship in my previous article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/44130-give-the-pga-championship-some-respect

This year, the PGA Championship deserves no respect.

After the second round, it's safe to declare that USGA Syndrome has become an epidemic.

The PGA is trying to turn itself into the U.S. Open, but doesn't quite understand that golf fans want to see something different in a major championship.

We've already watched golfers pray to make pars and struggle to make birdies. We've already seen world-class golfers like Vijay Singh and Ernie Els walk off with scores over par by double digits. We've already laughed as pros kick their putters and grimace in pain as they walk off each green.

The U.S. Open works in and of itself.

But, the U.S. Open can't be topped this year. After Tiger and Rocco put on the greatest U.S. Open in history, golf fans don't want to see a rip-off of an already perfect concept.

This year, the U.S. Open is Pepsi, while the PGA Championship is Super-Mart Cola.

This year, the U.S. Open is a diamond buried in the rough of Torrey Pines, while the PGA Championship is cubic zirconium stuffed in the styrofoam peanuts of a QVC box.

It usually wasn't this bad, though. Recently, we've seen exciting PGA Championships at Whistling Straits, Baltusrol, Medinah, and Southern Hills. Under-par scores won all four tournaments.

And, the four most recent winners weren't bad either: Vijay, Phil, Tiger, and Tiger again.

But, we might not be in for quite a treat this time around, because Oakland Hills has been an absolutely ridiculous course thus far.

The level of unfairness is what we're used to seeing in U.S. Opens, not the player-friendly PGA Championship.

First, there are the ridiculously hard greens which bring a huge element of luck into play.

A shot which nestles up close to the hole, but just happens to roll a centimeter too far and catch a slight slope, may roll right off the green. Meanwhile, an approach that's 25 yards off line but manages to catch a hill might very well roll within a few feet, or even into the hole.

Then, there's the rough. And if six-inch deep ungraduated grass wasn't enough to rattle a player's nerves, the PGA decides to rake the rough toward the fairway, instantly gobbling up every little white golf ball it sees. That'll teach those pesky golfers.

Well, it's not very fun to watch golf when players are constantly whipping out sand wedges and 9-irons to pitch out into the fairway.

And, how about this situation: Sergio Garcia's ball heads down the fairway but gets an unlucky bounce and rolls two inches off-line into the rough, while John Daly completely shanks his drive and watches it venture into the trees—but both players have the same lie.

The PGA Championship should be a fun major—where players are greeted by receptive greens and friendly course conditions. Birdie roars should echo throughout the course. Players should be pumping their fists and giving radiant smiles to the gallery.

That fun and friendliness is the only thing that can separate the PGA from the U.S. Open.

Instead, it appears that the PGA has decided to be USGA Junior. I guess after the Tiger/Rocco showdown, the PGA thinks it can pump up ratings and strip its stigma as the worst major (i.e. easiest major) by emulating the U.S. Open.

The only thing is: the PGA doesn't have the drama, or the passion, or the prestige, or the history, or the tagline of being "our national championship" to pull that feat off.

Oh, and I almost forgot: they also don't have Tiger Woods.

This course better soften up fast, or you'll be seeing many fans switch from CBS golf coverage to NBC Olympic swimming coverage.

Good luck, PGA Championship. I'd hate to be in the room when you see this year's Nielsen ratings.

Give the PGA Championship Some Respect!

Kyle Beakley — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:55:20 -0400

If you asked Rodney Dangerfield what his favorite major championship was, he’d definitely pick the PGA Championship.

After all, it gets no respect.

It’s not the oldest, or the toughest, or the one with the prettiest flowers.

However, the PGA does have one very important distinguishing feature: it’s the most fun.

The PGA has gotten a very bad rap over the years, and rightfully so. From its inception back in the early 1920's all the way until the Tiger boom in the mid 90's, the PGA was a crappy tournament.

It was played at courses that resemble your local muni, it produced weak leaderboards full of no-name players, and it suffered from an extreme lack of personality.

In fact, there wasn’t much to distinguish the PGA Championship from the Greater Greensboro Open, let alone a prestigious major championship.

But, in recent years, the PGA has gotten its act together.

Instead of visiting lackluster tracks like Kemper Lakes and Crooked Stick, the PGA now travels both to classic courses such as Oakland Hills, and new gems like Whistling Straits.

Over the past four years, the PGA has produced stronger champions than any of the other three majors: Vijay, Phil, Tiger, Tiger.

And, best of all, the PGA understands how to run a championship golf tournament.

The British Open (it’s not the Open Championship) relies on history for its prestige—but sometimes history isn’t all that entertaining. The British is plagued by boring courses and often unfair playing conditions.

The U.S. Open tricks up their courses beyond repair, leaving a huge element of luck in the tournament (although this has gotten better in recent years).

The USGA doesn’t understand that golf fans want to see top golfers make amazing shots—not top golfers shanking the ball around like your drunken buddy Louie during twilight hours at Bushwood.

The Masters used to hold top status as the indisputable No. 1 major. However, the Lords of Augusta are beginning to slowly ruin the tournament by contracting USGA-syndrome.

Now, instead of watching Greg Norman, Tom Kite and Jack Nicklaus trade birdies on the back nine—we’re more likely to see Tiger Woods and Woody Austin hoping to hack it out of the rough and avoid Rae’s Creek for safe pars.

Rather than fall into any of these traps, the PGA ignores the battle with its colleagues and throws away the history books.

The PGA pays attention to the most important part of a golf tournament—fan enjoyment.

The result: a top-notch major championship.

The PGA realizes that it’s OK for professional world-class golfers to make birdies. Their courses reward great shots and punish mis-hits.

Golfers can be sure that if they hit the green, the ball will stay there. Phil Mickelson won’t have to worry about hitting the ball a half inch long and watching his Callaway roll into oblivion.

On the other hand, a drive that strays off the course will be gobbled up by rough. But, not six-inch rough like you’d find at Winged Foot. Golfers will at least have an opportunity to challenge the green, not instantly grab the 7-iron and punch the ball 100 yards into the fairway.

Plus, the PGA brings us a constant rotation of fun and challenging courses. Case in point: the PGA will be heading to Kiawah Island in 2012.

Kiawah Island is the amazingly beautiful seaside course made famous by the 1991 Ryder Cup (aka "War by the Shore") not to mention its status as Golf Digest's No. 1 toughest course in America.

Meanwhile, the USGA has to be dragged kicking and screaming to any course that doesn't reside in the Northeast.

The R&A gives us courses resembling cow pastures with a few bunkers thrown in. And, the Masters ruins the charm of its perfect golf course by lengthening it to USGA proportions.

It’s interesting to see how much more entertaining a tournament is to watch when a player's objective is to make a few birdies and catch the leader, rather than to play for pars and avoid a double bogey.

It’s also amazing how the quality of champions improves when this balanced risk/reward course setup is used.

If the PGA continues its current pace, this poor ugly duckling of a tournament may lose its status as the least-liked major a lot sooner than expected.

Think Tiger Woods cherishes his Claret Jugs or green jackets more than his Wanamaker Trophies?

I'd seriously doubt that— considering his passionate fist pumps in the 2000 PGA Championship which preserved the Tiger Slam, not to mention the four Wanamaker Trophies sitting in his trophy case.

And, don't forget this: the PGA Championship could very well end up as Tiger's 19th major win.

So, this week, put your negativity aside and give the PGA Championship a fair judgment.

It's fun, it's intriguing, and it's a true test of golf.

And, it's the last major you'll see for eight months.

NFL: An Ode to the Preseason

Kyle Beakley — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:15:42 -0400

Preseason, preseason,

We've waited half a year,

For your meaningless games

And unvetted no-names

Remind us the playoffs are near.

Glorious preseason,

We know these games don't count,

But spring and summer through

We always long for you

To cease our football drought.

Tonight, this night, preseason,

Is the evening you'll begin.

A Sunday night game

At the Hall of Fame,

We just can't help but grin.

To finally hear the pads smack together.

To hear John Madden yell, "Boom!"

To see a long pass,

And the field of painted grass

Releases us from our gloom.

The stars will face just one quarter.

Others won't even play.

But the mere apparition

Of intense competition

Makes us live for another day.

We need you, preseason.

We're sick of baseball.

We don't care about bunts.

We want to see punts

In the cold chills of Fall.

Those glory days of September

Are so near,

Yet so far away.

That's why we cherish the preseason

And savor every play.

So rejoice, my fellow sports fans,

Because joy is finally here.

The NFL has arrived.

We're no longer deprived.

Feel free to shed a tear. (Really, it's okay. Let your emotions go.)

Preseason, preseason,

We've waited half a year,

For your meaningless games

And unvetted no-names

Remind us the playoffs are near.

Revamping the FedEx Cup: Points are Pointless

Kyle Beakley — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:02:22 -0400

This week’s Bridgestone Invitational at Firestone is worth 26,250 FedEx Cup points.

Yeah, um… that’s great. And I’m supposed to care why?

Does the PGA Tour really expect to arouse average sports fans with the FedEx Cup race—which ranks its top competitors based on intangible “points”?

What is a point really worth? What does it signify? What does it mean?

Who decided that each event would be worth a base of 25,000 points? Why 25,000— why not 100, or a million, or ten billion?

And, what I really want to know is—what’s the exchange rate on these FedEx Cup points? Can they be traded for Pesos? Are they stronger than the American dollar? Should overseas investors start adding FedEx Cup points to their portfolios?

I’m really irked that the PGA Tour expects golf fans to become enthralled in the season-long race for the championship by using “points”, instead of more sensible ranking methods.

You might have noticed that in recent weeks, CBS and the Golf Channel have been adding little green and red numbers to the corners of each player’s score graphic.

That number represents the player’s standings in PGA Tour playoff points.

Like anyone really cares.

I’m sure that’s why people are tuning in to golf this Sunday afternoon: for the fabulous opportunity to comprehend a bunch of exorbitant and seemingly detached numbers.

I bet you’ve got your graphing calculator and scrap paper handy by the sofa.

Seriously, PGA. Let’s get real with this playoff system.

If you want to rank golfers, the best way to do it is by money: cash, dinero, that crinkly green stuff.

Saying that this week’s tournament is worth one million dollars makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying it’s worth 25,000 “points”.

Telling us that Phil Mickelson leads Sergio Garcia by $1,325,000 makes us gasp in awe.

Telling us that Phil Mickelson holds a 2,565 “point” lead on Sergio Garcia doesn’t have quite a dramatic ring to it.

Or, if we still want to use points, a better way to allocate them would be to give points for Top 10 finishes: 10th place gets one point, ninth place gets two points, and so on up to 10 points for a win. And, we can even add some drama by doubling up the points for majors.

If the PGA wants to use points, they must at least make the method for scoring points simple to understand. A point has to represent something.

We know that in football, three points are scored by kicking a field goal. We can see it. It's easy to comprehend.

In golf, we really have no clue how 1,450 points are scored by coming in sixteenth place. We probably never see that player all week to begin with.

Personally, I think the only way to really determine a true champion is by wins. Any player who wins a tournament gets a spot in the playoffs. Any player who hasn't won a tournament is out. But, that's my plan: which would involve changing the entire current FedEx Cup setup.

The PGA Tour thinks this new chase for the championship will make casual sports fans a bit more interested in the rather mundane world of golf.

But, does the hype to declare a single champion have any purpose when the FedEx Cup uses a playoff and ranking system that even a Dartmouth Engineering grad can’t comprehend the meaning of?

It's time to rank players by the money list, or at least a new scoring method, instead of using the current perplexing point system.

I'll continue with my other gripes about the FedEx Cup in future articles...

Apparently, I'm Big News in Arkansas...

Kyle Beakley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:36:00 -0400

Note to future journalists: take the forthcoming example as a lesson in how not to write and report. Especially, NEVER EVER write an article based around things you've cut-and-pasted from Google News.

Apparently, some sportswriter at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette either had a little too much time on his hands, or was running close to deadline and became extremely desperate for material.

So, the writer featured a portion of my quite controversial article "The Ten Most Overrated Things in Sports" as the top-billed item in their "Second Thoughts" segment.

Particularly, he features my snippet stating that SEC Football is the eighth most overrated thing in sports.

I couldn't help but laugh out loud as soon as I saw this:

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/jul/23/second-thoughts-20080723/?print

I love the headline: "His Ratings are Really Overrated". So clever!

The sad thing is that this professional sportswriter doesn't understand the definition of the word "overrated". See, for something to be overrated, it has to be rated in the first place. My rankings, posted on an open source blog site, only netting about 500 hits before I had to delete it due to obnoxious and profane responses, isn't exactly what I'd call pertinent sports news.

Even better, the writer completely misses the point of his own article, as he doesn't even try to address any reasons why my rankings are overrated. Column space isn't an issue here —he could have taken key snippets from my post and retorted them, instead of being lazy and copying-and-pasting my entire item.

But, although he apparently didn't have space to rebutt my arguments, this skimpy writer did have plenty of room to launch a little personal attack! He continues:

"Of course, it appears Beakley doesn’t like anything about sports that is supposed to be the best of the best, also including the Super Bowl and Olympics in his top 10. Maybe John Madden, who is also on the list, can “scribble” him some directions to something that can’t be overrated - like Denver’s cup stacking championships."

What's really hilarious is that this cocky advice about cup stacking comes from a newspaper with a writer dedicated to covering— bowling. Yes, that's right— the Democrat-Gazette has a beat writer whose assignment is to report on overweight hillbillies rolling a ball at ten pins. What nerve.

Also, it might have been a good idea for this professional journalist to actually read the article and notice that I never said I hated the Super Bowl or the Olympics —I said that they're overrated —as in they don't live up to the hype created by ESPN, Madison Avenue, and corporate sponsors.

The Super Bowl is undoubtedly the biggest sporting event of the year, but it doesn't live up to the luster and hype that surrounds it: two weeks of wall-to-wall media coverage, six hours of pregame, three different concerts throughout the game, etc.

There have been many good games, especially recently. But overall, most Super Bowl games are lackluster in hindsight.

And, the Olympics consist of boring sporting events like running in straight lines and riding horses. Their appeal is commercial: deriving from American jingoism, and ballyhoo by multinational corporations.

Some people would have been offended by this pathetic Democrat-Gazette article, but I'm not. My article was intended to be an outside-the-box look at major sports from a realist's/cynicist's perspective. A lot of people were up in arms about it— and that's okay, because my views of sports are quite different than most sports fans'.

But, my article had no place being trashed in a supposedly reputable journalistic publication. The Democrat-Gazette's criticism of me is yet another piece of evidence to show why print journalism is dying a slow and steady death.

Besides, going by the poor news judgment skills of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sports staff, they may very well send a reporter to Denver for comprehensive coverage of this year's World Cup Stacking Championships! Right alongside their award-winning bowling reports! Now that's front page news, Arkansians!

Philadelphia Phillies Begin a Prophetic Series in New York

Kyle Beakley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:58:22 -0400

Over the next three days, we'll learn what the Phillies are really made of.

Is their newly updated pitching staff deep and strong enough to stifle opposing sluggers?

Can their star hitters provide day-to-day run support without getting drained?

And, most importantly, can they deliver in the clutch— when all the chips are down, and everything, maybe even the season, is on the line?

We'll get some semblance of an answer beginning Tuesday night. The Phillies will face off against their first-place rival New York Mets for three games at Shea Stadium.

If the Phils sweep, then Philly faithful can sigh knowing that a division title is at worst a coin flip away.

But, if the Mets take the series, it's time to enter panic mode in the City of Brotherly Love.

Are three games really that important, you ask?

These three sure are— especially with how tight the Phillies-Mets race is. Oh, not to mention those other guys from Florida breathing down the Phillies' necks.

Come September, we'll probably look back on this series as the ultimate momentum shifter in deciding the division champion.

If you haven't gotten serious about the Phillies 2008 season yet, now is definitely the time to do so. Whether you're a devoted Phanatic or just a Fair-Weather Fred, pull up a chair and grab a cheesesteak.

Over the next three days, you're going to see a microcosm of the Phils' 2008 season.

Tuesday night, we get a first look at the Phillies' brand new (yet questionable) pitcher Joe Blanton. Fresh from Oakland, his first National League outing will earn him either the adoration or contempt of a frustrated city. First impressions are indeed very important.

The degree of Blanton's success may very well decide the Phillies' playoff fate. It's pitching that has killed the Phillies championship hopes in recent years. Blanton, the team's new No.2 starter, must carry a mighty burden through September, and hopefully October.

Then, Wednesday night features the return of the Phillies' most volatile pitcher since Mitch Williams (a.k.a "Wild Thing"-- also a.k.a. "F***ing a**hole" in the 1993 World Series).

Of course, we're talking about Brett Myers. He has spent the past few weeks in the minors. That demotion was a quasi-timeout in the corner from Papa Charlie to think about all the bad things he's done: namely a 3-9 record, a 5.84 ERA, and giving up 24 long-balls.

If Myers has truly rehabilitated himself, and if his new teammate Joe Blanton steps up, then the Atlantic Ocean has parted for the Phillies. A solid starting rotation will be a gigantic relief on a starting lineup which is constantly pressured to churn out gigantic amounts of run support.

The series concludes on Thursday in a 12 Noon day game, with Jamie Moyer on the mound. It'll be the last time these two clubs meet for nearly a month. It'll also be the game which decides the series (I'm predicting a split of the first two games).

Considering how close the NL East is at the mid-way point, this innocent Thursday afternoon pleasantry could very well decide which team plays in October and which team goes home.

The Phillies have done well at Shea in recent years. Last season, they faced the division-leading Mets in a very similar situation and won all three games.

But, that was then. A year is a lifetime in sports. And, if you'll allow me to use one more cliche in this paragraph, whoever gives 110% during this series will win the division come September.

Greg Norman Leads the British Open Today, but Will He Choke Tomorrow?

Kyle Beakley — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:41:09 -0400

If you're going to root for Greg Norman to win tomorrow's British Open, may I give a small suggestion: keep a bottle of Maalox and maybe a mild sedative nearby.

Because, chances are, your stomach will be churning and quivering by the 18th hole.

If you followed golf at all before the Tiger Woods boom, you know the perils of Greg Norman in major championships. Norman is so good, so talented, such a pure striker of the ball. But, his sheer power and skill aren't enough to compensate for his one major flaw: he chokes.

It's painful to even write the word "choke." In fact, sometimes Norman's failures haven't been caused purely by choking, but rather a mixture of choking and falling victim to lucky shots by his opponents. No matter how they happen, though, Norman's losses are always painful.

1986 PGA. Norman's driver gets wild on the back nine, and his once solid lead slowly withers away. Norman then watches as Bob Tway holes out from the 18th bunker for a one-stroke victory.

1987 Masters. Norman misses a 10-footer on the 18th green for the win. Minutes later, Larry Mize chips in for a birdie on the second playoff hole to take the green jacket.

1989 British Open. Norman sprays his drive into a bunker beside the 18th fairway in a four-hole playoff and never even finishes the hole. Mark Calcavecchia birdies the last and claims the Claret Jug.

And, of course, we have to bring it up: the 1996 Masters. Norman walks to the first tee with a six-stroke lead, and four hours later on the 18th green, finds himself in Nick Faldo's consoling arms.

If you've never watched a Norman final round, let me give you a quick play-by-play of what usually happens.

Norman, at or near the lead, plays the first few holes well. This gives the impression that he'll continue his momentum and have the juice to win the tournament.
Then, late on the back nine, Norman begins to show signs of faltering. He starts to hit sloppy shots; maybe a sloppy drive or a short missed putt, and his lead begins to shrink. The pit begins to form in your stomach.
As the back nine begins, the inevitable moment happens when you realize that Norman is in full meltdown mode. Sometimes, he'll hit a water hazard, or bogey consecutive holes, or absolutely spray a shot well clear of the stands. That pit in your stomach grows even bigger.
Norman then gives a lull of false hope, by birdying a hole or making a miraculously good shot. You breathe a sigh of relief.
Then, the coup de gras happens. This final ounce of pain usually comes in one of two forms: either a complete disaster (like his shot into the water at Augusta's 16th), or a painfully unexpected blow to the heart (a la Mize's chip).

Will Norman follow this script tomorrow, at age 53, probably his last real chance to win a major championship and stun the golf world?

I can't predict for sure. Although he is playing so solidly, bombing drives of almost 400 yards and demonstrating a killer short game, I can't help but be extremely concerned about his tendency to break down in pressure situations.

A few months ago, I was writing an article about the perils of choking in key sports situations. While researching for the column, I had the pleasure of interviewing a person who was very close to Norman during the 1996 Masters (I can't reveal who for sake of anonymity).

He described what he saw in Norman on the morning of that final round: Norman was leading the tournament he loved so much and wanted so badly to win, yet didn't seem to show a care in the world. Norman was too loose, too nonchalant, and too unfocused.

Norman's friend knew that he was going to lose before he even stepped onto the golf course.

From my studies of the mechanics behind chokes, my theory is this: Norman begins the round by just focusing on playing golf and not about what's at stake. He tries to utilize the old cliche, "take it one shot at a time."

But inevitably, Norman is shell shocked during the round by the reality of his circumstances.

Norman either realizes that he's letting a major slip through his fingers by not focusing hard enough, or plays well and then suddenly awakens to the fact that a major championship is within grasp.

This sudden change of emotion is disaster for athletes.

On the other hand, though, Norman is a changed man. He has a new wife who can sympathize with his former perils, and is probably the driving force behind this middle-aged surge. Will Chris Evert force Norman to kick his game into overdrive?

And, will that overdrive help Norman to settle down and play consistently, or will it encourage the same erratic swings that have constantly denied him golf immortality?

It's a crapshoot to predict what will happen. Norman knows full well that this is his last chance to achieve glory. He knows that his loving wife has never experienced a major win. And, he knows that virtually the entire world will be rooting for the old Shark to pull through one more time.

Will tomorrow's final round resemble the heartbreaking trainwreck of Norman's 1996 Masters collapse? Or, will it stir the same emotions as Jack Nicklaus' tear-inducing 1986 Masters triumph? Here's hoping we see the latter.

Oh, by the way, while we're talking about the 1986 Masters, do you remember who came in second that year?

Yep, none other than Greg Norman. Everyone gets so wrapped up in Nicklaus' comeback that we forget how Norman was tied for the lead standing on the 18th tee.

What happened, you ask? Norman hit a good drive down the middle. Then, staring down the flagstick and trying to make birdie for the win, Norman yanked a long iron well right of the gallery. He walked off with bogey and the first of his painful major losses a few moments later.

Wouldn't it be fitting for the player who fell victim to the greatest golf moment of our generation to close out his career with one spectacular payback?

Philadelphia Phillies: Joe Blanton Joins the Squad, But Will He Deliver?

Kyle Beakley — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:44:44 -0400

For the Phillies to contend through October, Joe Blanton must turn his game around— quick.

Pitching has been the Phillies' Achilles heel over the past six years. And pitching will continue to cost the Phils their chances at a World Series— unless Blanton can reverse his 2008 slide and contribute in September.

Here's hoping that this conservative trade— three minor leaguers for an unproven starter— will pay off.

Because, in the end, it's that fifth spot that will make or break the Phils as they watch the Mets and Marlins surge into the NL East limelight.

In a tight division with a young and powerful Marlins club (who have a penchant for slapping pitchers around) and an impressive Mets lineup (deep talent at the plate and on the mound), each individual game will be the difference between heading to the playoffs or heading to the golf course.

Is Joe Blanton, sporting a record of 5-12 with a 4.96 ERA, the answer?

From the outset, it seems unlikely. Blanton is your typical Phillies trade deadline pickup: either a washed-up former star, or in Blanton's case, an unvetted youngling.

Phillies fans probably groaned upon reading his name and wondering, "who's that?" However, after closer inspection, Blanton actually sports a few characteristics that could help him to blend in and succeed with the Phillies.

He often throws six or seven innings, which is considered deep for a Phillies pitcher.

Blanton favors a plain and simple pitching strategy: almost all fastballs and changeups. That's a good thing considering that many Phillies hurlers have been hammered on hanging curveballs and sloppy sliders in big situations (I'm looking at you, Mitch Williams).

And, best of all, he doesn't give up a ton of home runs. Statistically, Blanton only gave up one home run every two starts.

A's fans at the cavernous Alameda Coliseum (I don't care what they've renamed it, it's still the Alameda Coliseum) might shrug at that stat. But for patrons at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, who can easily confuse baseballs with helium balloons judging by the way they seem to float ever-so-gently beyond the foul poles, Blanton could quickly become a favorite.

The home run has killed every Phillies season for the past six years. The Phils' bats will work fine, as they always have, in big games. It's that one pesky long ball by Dan Uggla or David Wright that could unravel yet another championship hope.

Yes, he brings some questionable stats from Oakland. But, Blanton should be able to improve his win record and ERA in Philly. He was facing tougher competitors in the American League, especially in the AL West where he pitched against the domineering Angels.

It would have been nice to get CC Sabathia or Roy Oswalt in red pinstripes. Still, Joe Blanton is a decent acquisition. I like this pick-up a lot better than some of the alternatives that were floating around (namely: trading for Bedard from the Mariners, bringing Brett Myers back from the Iron Pigs).

And, I trust his A's pedigree. For some reason, pitchers seem to thrive after donning the green and gold.

So, while I'm still a bit skeptical and think the Phils probably could have made a better move, I'll withhold my negativity and hope that Blanton was indeed the right choice to stop the Phillies' losing skid.

Welcome to Philadelphia, Joe Blanton! Don't worry— if it doesn't work out, you'll get used to the boos in due time.

Phillies Need Pitching Help Immediately

Kyle Beakley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:16:33 -0400

CC Sabathia will be making his first start for the Brewers tonight. Just a few moments ago, the Cubs annouced their acquisitions of righties Rich Harden and Chad Gaudin.

Meanwhile, the Phillies called up J.A. Happ and R.J. Swindle from the minors.

If that's the best the Phills can do, then use a permanent marker to check off the 28th year without a World Series.

The Phillies have never been serious enough about pitching. While studs like Ryan Howard, Pat Burrell, and Chase Utley line the field; decrepit has-beens and unvetted never-weres like Freddy Garcia, Paul Abbott, Roberto Hernandez, Tom Gordon, Brandon Duckworth, Jose Mesa, and Brett Myers have graced the mound and blown countless games.

Yes, so right now the Phillies are leading NL East. Big deal. When the pennant race heats up in September, and (hopefully) the playoffs begin in October, this Phils pitching staff will get eaten alive by the likes of Chicago and Milwaukee.

The Phillies don't seem to understand that pitching has been the team's Achilles heel over the past six years. During the Jim Thome era, bats were swinging and balls were floating out of the park, yet consistent blown saves from Jose Mesa and downright disgusting relief efforts by Roberto Hernandez killed the team's playoff chances much more than not having a solid eighth-spot hitter.

So, it's time to get serious about pitching. The Phillies line-up is fine as it stands; power hitters, finesse hitters, speed players, and good depth.

The starting rotation is bearable but needs some work. Obviously, Cole Hamels headlines the bunch, and Phillies fans can take a sigh of relief when he trots out to the mound. Jamie Moyer and Kyle Kendrick are solid starters who, while they can't be relied on for a lights-out game, can be counted on for at least five good innings.

Then, we move down the rotation to find trouble; big trouble. Adam Eaton is unproven, untested, and unbearable to watch. And, of course, don't forget about the newly vacated fifth spot formerly held by Brett Myers. It seems that minor leaguers will be filling this gap for the time being (hopefully temporarily).

It's a lot to ask for a perfect rotation of five solid starters in today's era of free agency. Sabathia would have been nice, but the Indians probably weren't too interested the Phillies return offer.

But, a pitching move needs to be made, at least fill the empty fifth spot. Adam Eaton won't single-handedly kill the Phils' championship hopes.

But this equation is a fact: Eaton + Happ/Swindle = Disaster

If it takes a parting with Pat Burrell (who must waive his no-trade clause), then so be it. Jayson Werth will fill-in just fine.

If it takes trading several minor league prospects and a bench player, then so be it. This team is deep enough as it stands.

If it takes trading Ryan Howard in exchange for a proven #1 starter, then so be it. Howard's bat goes stone cold when he's needed most, and with his contract up for renewal soon, it may be wise to avoid an ugly re-negotiation.

Imagine what this team could have done had Curt Schilling stayed on board? A #1 pitcher will pay off amazing dividends.

So, who's available? One solid pitcher reportedly on the trading block is former Phillie Vicente Padilla of Texas. Padilla actually pitched quite decently at the Vet, and since his fastball apparently still has some juice, he'd be a nice addition to the Phils staff. The question is: what would Texas want from the Phils in return? That could be the proverbial deal breaker.

According to other reports, Seattle's lefty Erik Bedard is open for negotiations. Again, this is continuing the Phillies trend of unvetted prospects, but at least it's a start.

While Bedard pitched superbly with Baltimore last year, he has struggled with the Mariners. Bedard has steadied in the past few weeks, posting a 3.67 ERA, but remember this fact --he gave up an alarming amount of home runs in spring training. Will the homers begin to fly out of the park again in tiny Citizens Bank Park?

Then, the bullpen. I'm actually quite pleased with this year's relief staff. However, there are some weak links-- namely Ryan Madson and Tom Gordon. In fact, Gordon is starting to look like this year's "silencer" --the pitcher who, when his name is announced over the PA, makes the entire stadium go silent as the fans slowly anticipate the carnage that's about to occur.

One decent possibility, and in fact the only true proven prospect in my mind, is Brian Fuentes of Colorado. The Phils got a nice look at Fuentes in last year's NL Divisional Series when the Rockies smoked the Phils in three straight games.

Although he has lost the closer spot this year for Colorado, Fuentes would be a great late reliever. The Phils can rely on J.C. Romero and Chad Durbin for mid-relief. Fuentes could quickly become a formidable force on the Phils staff as a set-up man for the most reliable Phillies player in years, closer Brad Lidge.

Again, these are only rumors, and only a partial list of the many players who may be out on the trading floor.

The one thing to remember is this: the Phils must make a move before August to contend in October.

The bats will be there. The speed and intensity will be there. The only missing piece to end Philadelphia's 25-year championship drought is a pitcher that can stand on the mound and not make the city's collective blood pressure shoot up to 170/100.

Pat Gillick, let's get shoppin'!

Rafael Nadal Wins Wimbledon 2008: Changing of the Guard

Kyle Beakley — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:08:35 -0400

The greatest Wimbledon of all time. Period.

Not only was today's Wimbledon Final a textbook demonstration of the way tennis should be played, it also had that extra rare bonus of drama and unpredictablity.

In fact, I had to rewrite this story three times while watching the amazing match.

I started my first draft once Nadal won the first two sets. Surely, Nadal would sweep the third set just like he did in the French Open. So, I began my account of how Nadal had flat out embarrassed Roger Federer.

Indeed, in the early sets, Nadal played ferociously, giving every ounce of power he had. But, did anyone else notice that across the court, Federer sometimes looked a little...well...bored?

Has anyone else ever seen Roger make so many mental errors in such a short period of time: dumping easy forehands into the net, sloppy fluttering serves, uncommitted overhits. Had the thrill of winning slowly withered away over the past six years for Roger?

But then, as soon as I put the final period on my draft, Nadal's victory march was put on delay. He began to seriously falter in the third set. It seemed like the prospect of finally defeating his archrival Federer on the invincible champion's stomping grounds rattled Rafa's nerves a bit.

While Federer stepped up his game in hopes of living another day, Nadal started to get shaky, losing control of his serve and getting a little too tense and jumpy-- rather than staying cool and consistent like he had the entire match.

The two foes traded breaks, and after he took quick care of the tiebreak, Federer finally had a set under his belt.

Still, I thought, Federer was just waiting passively for his sixth championship to magically appear, while Nadal's eyes showed a constant ferocity. Once Nadal got a little more comfortable in the fourth set, he'd surely put Roger away.

So, I continued my championship salute to Nadal, but just changed some words around to reflect Federer's efforts: "embarrassed Federer" became "handily defeated Federer"; "obliterated the champ" changed to "overpowered the champ."

Suddenly, in the fourth set, Federer began to look like the champion we've come to know.

He regained his prowess, steadily firing off rocket-powered serves, delivering perfect forehands, craftily shaping gorgeous backhands that would make other pros weep, finally getting the urge to charge the net and challenge Nadal's fiery determination.

The fourth set went to a tiebreak, and although Nadal got a taste of victory with a shot at a championship point, Federer fired two beautiful forehands over Nadal's head to send the match to a fifth deciding set.

At that point, I had to delete my original draft. Suddenly, the formerly-unbeatable champ who had seemed so feeble and powerless at the mercy of a young Spaniard rose up to his usual dominance. That set the stage for a mano-a-mano battle not seen since the days of Ali-Frazier.

My description alone can't capture the drama and intensity of that fifth set. If you get a chance to see a replay (which you can Monday night at 7PM on ESPN Classic), grab a beverage and a bowl of popcorn and enjoy what can be safely described as perfection.

While I'm on the Ali-Frazier comparison, for those of us too young to have witnessed the halcyon days of boxing, this mere tennis game sure seemed like watching a heavyweight championship bout between the two greatest fighters of their time, in their heyday, in the biggest event possible.

While the state of tennis has declined steadily since the 80's, this year's Wimbledon was a tournament the likes of which haven't been seen since Borg-McEnroe in 1980. And, we may not see another tournament of this quality for another 25 years.

Most importantly, when history looks back on Wimbledon 2008, we'll remember this tournament as Nadal's greatest win. We'll also keep this magical match in our minds as the bold statement which vaulted Rafael Nadal to the world's No. 1 position.

Nadal played with the raw, fiery tenacity we expect to see from a true champion. While Federer's expression was glum and nonchalant for most of the final, Nadal played with a perpetual intensely fixed stare. Nadal hustled across the court, charged the net, gave every ounce of power he had on each shot, so many of his serves blazing into oblivion.

And, on the other side of the court, Federer killed his chances early by playing passively, almost expecting a sixth straight championship as his birthright. Although Federer leveled the score in the fifth set, Nadal had more left in the tank-- and he just plain wanted it more.

Today, Federer met a player who is truly at (and after today, above) his level. Four French Opens and now a Wimbledon title have paved the way for Nadal to embrace his destiny.

Prior to this match, Nadal's success was dependent on the domination of his comfortable clay-laden confines.

Now, he has passed the ultimate test: defeating the world's greatest player in his own lair.

The rankings might not show it on paper for another few weeks, but the message is clear—there is a new world No. 1.