Monday Musings

It's finally U.S. Open week, so I hope you'll forgive a single-shingle blogger for taking most of the weekend off to recharge my batteries. 

Before we dive into the accumulated loose threads, let me just note that I'm worried about my evening golf partner Kent St. Charles.  In our first back nine loop after Sectional qualifying, Kent threw a 4-under 33 at me, against which even my inflated handicap was insufficient.  Last night, with Kyle, Theresa and I playing him 3-on-1, he went on a birdie binge to deny us once again.  Most annoyingly, after I drained a 30-foot snake for a deuce on No. 16, he dropped his own 15-footer on top of me.

I'm increasingly worried that this U.S. Open qualifying nonsense has led him to realize how good he is.  Gonna be a long summer if he gives up all those dark thoughts...c'mon Kent, throw an old guy a bone.

Group Therapy - The USGA has announced the pairings for the first two rounds of the U.S. Open, which here.  I'll let you peruse them on your own, though I find it passing strange that they paired countrymen as they did, including putting McIlroy and McDowell together, as well as three Australians in the same group.

U.S. Am Champ Matthew Fitzpatrick is the lucky third in this group.

Shackelford notes the pairings that interest him here, and Luke Kerr-Dineen and Alex Myers do the same here.  There's less overlap between the lists than you'd guess, but there is one pressing issue requiring attention.  My respect for Mr. Shackelford needs no qualification, but what he finds interesting about the Joe Ogilvie, Mark Wilson and Ken Duke group somehow eludes me.  Except perhaps that they, you know, qualified?

I've noted this before, but there used to be a parlor game to identify the a*****e group, which for a while was no more challenging than looking for Rory Sabbatini's name.  Shack says those days are over, and that I need to get on with my life.  But is it wrong for a fellow to cling to the great traditions of our game?

I Was Nowhere Near Bremerton - We're big fans of the crime blotter in our local paper.  And while this is hardly local, you'll get the link:

The Bremerton Police Department is blaming "golf addiction" after a 26-year-old Kirkland man was arrested on suspicion of stealing up to 50 golf clubs and more from the Gold Mountain Golf Course last month. 

According to police, the suspect threw a patio chair through the Pro Shop window sometime overnight between May 25 and May 26 and absconded with $9,200 worth of golf equipment, including dozens of clubs.

Obviously the work of a career criminal, one that undoubtedly knew well how to cover his tracks.  Errr, perhaps not:

Detectives identified the suspect through a listing on eBay for some of the stolen clubs, as well

What the crooks are wearing this season.

as security camera footage and other information, and served a search warrant at his Kirkland apartment Wednesday. 

In addition to some of the stolen equipment, the suspect's apartment included golf paraphernalia, photos of himself playing golf and a hat reading, "Born to Golf, Forced to Work," according to police. Detectives noted the suspect did not appear to be employed and had played at Gold Mountain at least eight times in the past year. 

“Burglaries are often the result of addictions – drugs, alcohol or gambling,” Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a press release. “I think this is the first one we have seen that looks like a golf addiction.”

The criminal is obviously not a rocket scientist, but since when is it the job of the investigating officer to develop the criminal defense strategy?

From the Archives - Cliff Schrock has a compelling story about discovering an old photo in the Golf Digest archives:

Take a look at the photo and here's what you're seeing: It's the 10:32 a.m. group, Round 2, June 17, 1960, off No. 1; Jack Fleck, in a white shirt and one under after Round 1, is in his follow-through, and to his right in a white cap is two-time U.S. Open champion Cary Middlecoff, six over after a 77; and next to "Doc" is Arnold Palmer, in red, wearing the same red visor he will fling in the air after victory the next day. Palmer was one over par starting the second round.

Schrock characterizes it as a "nearly great" shot, which I'll dispute.  It may have been nearly historic, but it's a great shot.

For anyone unfamiliar with the background, Palmer famously drove the first green at Cherry Hills en route to a final round 65 to win his only U.S. Open.  The amazing thing about that Open was that it was a clash of generations, as he held off a young amateur named Nicklaus and a grizzled veteran named Hogan.

There's Fat and Then There's Obese - I always thought the term "Laying the Sod Over It" was, you know figurative...but Luke Kerr-Dineen shows us it can be literal as well:

I think this woman was hitting on our range late yesterday afternoon.

The Duf Abides...Pinehurst - Thoughts on No. 2 from the freshly-coiffed Duf:

I'm sure he'll be Theresa's pick, unless Lumpy is somehow in the field.

Sign O' The Times - Given the real estate crash and state of the golf industry, I'm surprised we don't hear about more of these stories:

Many country clubs have promised “refundable” initiation fees in recent years as a way of attracting members. But when members leave, they often find it’s not so easy getting their money back.

North Jersey Country Club* in Wayne, N.J., is in the midst of a court battle over this issue now. Robert Passeo quit the club two and half years ago and expected the return of his $14,900 bond, as promised. When it became clear the cash was not forthcoming because there were multiple other members ahead of him who also wanted out, Passeo sued.

Rob Harris at GolfDisputeResolution.com explains the rather curious decision (apologies for the long excerpt):

• The court acknowledged that, in a pure contractual scenario, the law requires that, unless the contract provides otherwise, money owed be paid immediately. However, the court found that “those narrow principles of contract law are not controlling” in the context of a club-member relationship. According to the court, “this is not a straight commercial contract between strangers, … but a condition of membership in a private club which granted plaintiff all of the rights and privileges of a Class A member, which he enjoyed for the next twenty years. The rights and obligations of the parties in these circumstances requires a deeper analysis [than contract law].”
• Instead, the court determined that the payment issue would be governed by “the business judgment rule.” As the court explained, “the business judgment rule has its roots in corporate law as a means of shielding internal business decisions from second-guessing guessing by the courts.” According to the court, “we are dealing here with a country club, a private association, and neither the nature of the association, nor the dispute involved in this case, implicate any public interest or concern. Under these circumstances, courts should be extremely reluctant to interfere with internal disputes.”
• At the same time, the court was unwilling to give the Board a blank check not to issue a check: “ The discretion that accompanies the Board’s authority cannot be exercised in a manner that is unfair to a former member, who is now a bona fide creditor.”

Is it me, or is this simply nuts (I know that both can be true)?  The member based his decision to join based upon a contractual commitment as relates to the refund, and who is the Court to amend that contract?  To make matters worse, they do so in a completely vague and arbitrary manner, making their decision subject to a determination of reasonableness.... And this was the decision on appeal, where the judges are alleged to be competent (as opposed to political hacks).

If you're wondering about that asterisk, it's important stuff:

* Note: Yes, this is the same North Jersey Country Club that made headlines a few years ago when the "Real Housewives of New Jersey" visited and engaged in a "hair-pulling showdown."