Tuesday Thoughts

I'm on the clock so I do hope that this doesn't seem as though I'm just mailing it in...

GimmeGate, Day 2 - Those titanium-reinforced positions are starting to soften, and I've reached to point of comfort with the fact that Suzann Pettersen is being allowed to live and consume scarce oxygen.  But it did take me 24 hours to get here...

All joking aside, well perhaps not all, the story is inevitably moving in exactly the wrong direction.  It is not nor should it be about whether or not a given putt is conceded.  It is about the abject rudeness of Ms. Pettersen and Charley Hull in storming off the green while their opponents had not yet holed out, a practice that the former continued in her singles match.  And secondly, their apparent belief that the concession of putts is only to be done in committee, presumably after a motion to open thje proceeding has been made and seconded.  

I shared Pettersen's apology with you yesterday and to her credit it was better than the far more typical non-apology apology...you know that kind, the "I'm sorry if my oh so reasonable statement was misinterpreted."   It would have been far better had she seen the light on Sunday and didn't need the Twitter mob to push her in this direction, and I was far from amused to see her pulling the same nonsense on Angela Stanford in her singles match as noted above.

Shack had an interesting conversation on the subject with Gary Williams in his Morning Drive

appearance, making the fair but off-topic point about the prevalence of begging for concessions.  I do agree that that's become a bit much, but in broken record mode, what was Allison supposed to think as she saw Charley Hull marching to the 18th tee?  That she wanted to "See the putt made?"  Most people that want to "See" something don't voluntarily move to a worse seat... And again, Ms. Pettersen is conspicuous in her absence...

Mike Stachura, who is most often seen on the equipment beat, takes a stab at the issue and has some fun with it:

The conceded putt is a mystery to me. And I am more certain of this uncertainty after Sunday’s display of gamesmanship/poor sportsmanship by Suzann Pettersen at the Solheim Cup. What Pettersen did seemed on one hand so obviously wrong, so incongruent with golf’s very essence that the outrage might have been less if she flipped the bird at Juli Inkster or made the Gangsta Rap throat-slash gesture at Brittany Lincicome. (Privately, there are some who suggest golf could use some of this, that the game needs less garden party and more Fight Club. But I digress.)

Yes you do, but at least amusingly so.  And he continues to digress:

On the one hand, I wonder if it is some vestigial tail reminder of our baser instincts, all vaguely couched in condescension or disgust. The thought bubble that surrounds every concession goes something like this: “Yeah, I’m giving this to you, but we both know that I don’t really think you’re good enough to make it if it really mattered. Moreover, I’m giving it to you because I’m better or holier or somehow more virtuous than you or any of your kind will ever be. And I need to remind you of that very fact at this very instant.”

That's why my typical rejoinder to a conceded putt is to remind my opponent that "I don't need your pity."  But while we all know and expect the circle of friendship to tighten in the latter stages of a match, this one is new to me:

Golf Digest’s instruction editor Peter Morrice reminded me that noted sports psychologist Dr. Richard Coop once suggested that early in a match, give the putt to your opponent when she leaves it short and make her putt it when she rolls it past. Subconsciously, she’ll think if it’s left short, she’ll be granted the next putt. Late in a tight match, she'll never reach the hole. Coop’s tactic seems at once as ingenious and laudable as it is a kind of cartoonish Simon Bar Sinister scurvy trick. How can conceding a putt be wrong and right at the same time?

Gotta store that one away for future use...and of course there's an appeal to the better angels of our nature, which I'm guessing is my first Lincoln reference ever in these pages:

Adler: “I've definitely played with golfers who give putts when it feels like the hole deserves to be halved; as in both players reached the green with the same quality of shots and it doesn't seem right that just because one lagged to one foot and the other to 30 inches that anyone should win.” 

Carney: "I have come to think that gentility is a virtue and what the sport is about. Sounds corny, but expecting or hoping to win based on someone else's misplay is less satisfying and also engenders weakness in oneself. Err on the side of the gimme. Gimme when you'd want someone to do the same for you.”

Err on the side of the gimme, Suzann...though that's not necessarily a unanimous opinion, as Mike informs:

Of course, the most notable example of that kind of gentility writ large in golf’s history is Jack Nicklaus’s gesture at the 1969 Ryder Cup (pictured above). Nicklaus conceded a putt of relatively inconsequential length to Tony Jacklin to end the 1969 matches in a draw. It was noble and ultimately immaterial in that the tied matches meant the U.S. retained the Cup, but it spoke volumes about Nicklaus’ class. 

Or did it? Many still argue whether Nicklaus should have done it, and U.S. captain Sam Snead disagreed with it ‘til the day he died. It makes you wonder whether there ever is a right time to not concede a putt. The Pettersen incident turns the whole idea of conceding a putt on its head, leaving us further confused.

Not so much, Mike, because it's not about whether or not Allison's putt was conceded.  I like Jack's gesture because the Ryder Cup was at that point a lopsided exhibition, but I also understand that Captain Snead didn't want to be the first to lose it.  

Shack helpfully reminds us of this wonderful, previously-linked item on the history of the concession, which arose as a reaction to the stymie.  

The phrase itself, “concede putts,” was first mentioned in the Rules of Golf in 1909. Interestingly, the USGA was strongly against it. The section Special Rules for Match Play Competitions reads, “The Rules of Golf Committee recommends that players should not concede putts to their opponents.” This was mentioned in each subsequent Rules book until 1933. 

At one point, conceding a putt was used as a way to play around the “stymie rule,” which was in existence until 1952. On September 1, 1920, the USGA added a provision that allowed the stymied player to concede his opponent’s next putt...

The Nicklaus-Jacklin putt above is golf's most famous concession, but can anyone tell me the most consequential putt in golf history that was not conceded?  Anyone?  Bueller?

I can find no reference to it online, so I'll need to operate from memory.  In 1913 in the finals of Massachusetts Amateur a golfer was about to concede the winning putt to his opponent.  Remembering advice to the extent that you never concede the winning putt he refrained, and the very short putt was missed.  The lucky winner that day was Francis Ouimet, the win got him into the U.S. Amateur at Garden City and resulted in the USGA inviting him to play in that year's U.S. Open across the street from his modest home, and the rest is history.

So Suzann, you're on your own in deciding what to conceded.  Just stick around until your opponents hole out, OK?

Ink-Stained Wretches - Not a fan of tats...never will be.  Just don't know why you'd do something so painful and permanent....but this Twitter compilation of golf-themed tattoos is just freaky.

Ummmm, wouldn't a logo'd golf shirt be a better call?

This is apparently a tribute to Dr. Mackenzie:

Ummmm...has anyone told him that the good Dr. is, you know, deceased....This was Shack's fave, the coordinates for Muirfield Village Golf Club:

Your Laugh of the Day - I gotta run but I'll leave you with a smile on your face.  In response to that bit about the Presidents Cup captaincy, the Tour Confidential gang was asked what the worst job in golf is, and this was the best response:

PASSOV: How about being Haas's assistant captain? I think back to the 1997 Ryder Cup, when Miguel Angel Jimenez served as non-playing assistant captain to Seve Ballesteros at Valderrama. One of his tasks was to carry and distribute bananas to European team members. On another occasion, Seve summoned him to a 4:30 a.m. pairings meeting. After several mostly mute minutes, Seve said, "Now you can go to bed again. I have done the pairings."

Who doesn't miss Seve?