After the 'Big Easy,' Ernie Els, had his -5 par round of 68 posted at the opening event of the 2009 PGA Tour season, he found time to speak with an on-site announcer about some of the 'young guns' rallying huge crowds and creating major fervor in Tiger's absence. Guys like Camillo Villegas, Anthony Kim, Sergio Garcia and Trevor Immelman held the spotlight in the conversation, considering each player remains under 30 with at least one big win last year. Though Villegas had won three tournaments, Garcia winning the Players Championship, and Immelman taking home the magnificent Masters, the announcer believed Anthony Kim was without a doubt the shining star of the group, considering his two on tour victories and his integral role in the sensational Ryder Cup rally to win. This idea is in no way unheard of. Throughout the golf world, between announcers at events to conversations at muni courses, Anthony Kim has found his niche as the TOC (topic of discussion). Whether its his ball-striking, simple, but pure putting stroke, or his confidence in pressure situations, Kim has without a doubt made himself a key contender in every tournament he enters, which sounds a lot like a guy I've heard of...

Although, while the excitement of the 'young guns' remains centered around AK, Els believes Trevor Immelman will without a doubt lead the way in the 2009 season among the upcoming PGA Tour players. His contention: Immelman has captured one of the toughest feats on the tour--a major. Els chose his words cautiously, not forgetting to mention how talented these young players are. However, the 'Big Easy' found Immelman to be the easy and most realistic answer, thus the catalyst for a question: if a young guy wins a Major, does that qualify him for the status of the 'next up and comer,' the 'next Tiger', or possibly even the 'next legend'?

Though I have nothing against Immelman, from my point of view, the fact that he hasn't done much of anything worth mentioning since the Master's makes him unworthy of such a glorified reputation that Els was so quick to label him with. Players like Kim and Villegas played consistently well throughout the year; note the root word 'consistent.' Top tens, leading stats in GIR or least putts per round, and especially multiple wins, are the kinds of actions and events that make truly great players warrant great reputations. I just can't honestly say Immelman has captured my respect like the way other young players on the tour have and until he does, he will remain in the category where guys like Ben Curtis and Chad Campell are--the "Who knows how they won a major?" category.

harsh truth up to interpretation?

It was just another day. I opened up my Macbook, logged into ESPN.com, the golf section that is, and saw displayed across the page Justin Rose as a 17-year old amateur at the British Open in '98. The article didn't grab me because, well, even though Rose has been in contention a variety of times in the last ten years, I feel like he hasn't done anything of true value to affect his status on the tour.

I have no desire to discuss my pet peeves with Mr. Rose, but instead to simply mention an observation I came to as I viewed the day's top stories. "Creamer shoots 60..." Now, lets just be honest, whether its the PGA's biggest name like Tiger Woods or a never heard of like Garrett Willis, when a man shoots anything under 65 (6 or 7 under par) they're picture is flaunted about the site. Below their picture is often a story about now just their round, but about their modest upbringing and how lucky they feel just to be playing the game, as if a monument should be erected for them. Sometimes they just make a mountain out of a molehill.

However, other times, some stories just don't get their due.

Of course Paula Creamer got a story written about her, and she even got a minute long video showing her make a mockery the par-71 Highland Meadows layout Thursday in the opening round of the Jamie Farr Owens Corning Classic. She set a course record, shot 11-under, and did it all with a pink ball.

Is there a sexist attitude embedded in golf that finds its way above the surface occasionally?

The way I see it, the wide and diverse aspects that make up American lifestyle are male dominated, which has ultimately created a patriarchy. Sports is one of those sections within our society that preaches equality and fair press for each gender within the sport, but realistically, we all know the truth. I'm not trying to start a controversy or expose some tremendous flaw in the golf section of ESPN.com. However, I think it is important to be fair and in this particular case, I don't think fairness is subjective or up to interpretation. Creamer performed beautifully and yet is only receiving second class coverage of what would be hailed as an unbelievable feat among the males on the PGA Tour.

Truth: There are multiple perspectives through which one could view this issue. Truth: Ochoa and/or Sorenstam have received considerable coverage on not only the golf site of ESPN.com, but on the worldwide golf scene, comparing their abilities and successes with great male performers like Tiger and Phil. Bitter Truth: The lack of attention being paid to Creamer's remarkable round exposed the harsh, sexist attitudes rooted in 'the greatest game ever played.'

its been a while...

Lets get away from the pros for a moment and discuss what's going on with our game specifically.

Tonight, as I stood over my ball, eight-iron in hand, with the lights from the driving range post sending my left-handed shadow straight over my ball, I wondered what 'the range' means for the different people there, and what it meant to me as well. Maybe for some a refuge that allowed them to stash their worries about the miserable economy and rising gas prices at the bottom of their bags. For others it could provide a sense of seriousness, in which they tested their abilities; hitting to 100, then 125, then 150 yards. Then of course there are those who spend their time as they would at the church, temple, mosque...They're praying. Praying their ball goes straight. Praying they don't lose their balance. Praying they don't let go of the club after swinging and being the idiot that threw his club into the range.

For me: a test, a safe haven, and a temple all in one. Praying that I can hit my target, I take a sigh of relief (that I am away from sibling rivalry, yelling kids at work, girl drama, money issues) and then view my target and test myself . I hit pretty well tonight to be honest. Good wedges, long irons mostly straight with good distance. Long, controlled drives. However, with one last ball left, I stepped up to my favorite shot: 125 yards away, a slight breeze in my face, middle pin. I was no longer at the range. In my mind, I told myself I was at the Masters about to hit my approach shot onto 18. I was the 'out-of-nowhere' kid, a fairytale story about to win my first Masters. I could hear the commentators in mind. "All Leivenberg needs here is to hit it safe into the middle of the green and he will have secured his win."

I did my normal pre-shot routine. Stood behind the ball for a moment, looking from my ball to my target a few times. I stepped up, spread each foot apart, checking my aim meticulously. I took my final waggle, and then time stopped: It was slow motion. One final look at the pin, then back to my ball. I was ready.

I pulled it. Pure contact, however, definitely right. I may have been on the right most portion of the green, but most likely I am off. What does that mean? Maybe that I can't take the pressure? Maybe that it was just a mishit one night at the range? Maybe that I am blowing one shot out of proportion. For me, and I believe most golfers who believe that they have potential, it was so disappointing that there really feels like there is not cure. No food, TV show, or song would bring me out of this funk.

However, the only hope that I have after that disgusting attempt at winning the Masters is to get back out there and show myself that I CAN...such is golf...such is life.

Tiger: king of the jungle

As I picked my fantasy team this week on the Best Ball Golf Challenge on ESPN.com, all I was hoping for were a few a good picks that would help to escape my perpetual rank of 22,984. However, it figures that my team (Kim, Harrington, Mahan, and Romero) is probably going to see one, and maybe two, of its four make the cut. As I looked at the scores today, I wondered to myself, 'why is that when I choose the young guns with potential like Adam Scott and Bubba Watson, or even Steve Stricker, to face up against Tiger, they crash and burn, yet when Tiger isn't in the field, they shine?'

I'm at a crossroads. No longer does my fantasy team concern me, even though it is a bit disheartening to put so much thought into a team that has successfully sank to the depths of failure every time Thursday comes around. The truth is, for every blog I have written, I have felt compelled to mention Tiger, whether commenting on his individual dominance or unique affect he has on other players. I've discussed his persistent efforts to improve his putting, which have paid off; his mixture of mechanics and feel that make for pin-point iron shots and drives that are pounded 300+ yards consistently. And then of course is his mental game, which no longer needs to be discussed because his mental confidence has ultimately pummeled all others' into oblivion.

However, that is only the case when he is in the field.

This week will be another story. Adam Scott and some guy named Johnson Wagner started their rounds off with 9-under 63. I don't know what to say other than 'woopty doo.' Being an avid golfer, I am aware of how difficult it is to shoot under par, let alone how much more difficult the courses these pros are playing as opposed to say the muni course around the block; so hopefully Scott and Wagner will feel no animosity. But at the same time, just as I have felt compelled to mention Tiger, so too do I feel compelled to approach Scott after his 63, Stricker after his 66 and Watson after his 68 and say, if it isn't too bold of me, 'Where the hell was that when Tiger was playing against you?' The way I see it, the only reason Ogilvy has been getting so much press lately is not because he played miraculously against Tiger, but simply because at the end of a tournament that Tiger Woods was involved in, his name was not atop the leader board, but instead a somewhat familiar aussie who clinched a US Open a couple years back. More than anything, I think I just hate knowing that guys who are leading this week will not play like this the next time Tiger is in the field.

But then again, I wonder to myself, am I being too harsh? Should I sympathize/empathize with these pros who are working their butts off to play the best golf they can week in and week out and understand that each week produces different results? I want to be as sympathetic as I can, but I can't help but think back to how Tiger plays consistently spectacular. What is the difference? Preparation? Desire? Natural ability?

I love golf and all aspects of the game. I consistently look forward to watching any tournament that is on t.v., but I'd be lying if I said there wasn't more appeal to watch when Tiger is playing. I wish guys like Luke Donald or Adam Scott captivated me the way Tiger did, and maybe at some point in the future they will, but as of right now, Tiger remains the king of the jungle.

Cinking when it counts

I've always admired Stewart Cink for his consistency on the greens. The guy is just a great putter. As an aspiring golfer, I used to live for big drives and wedges into tucked pins, even though my instructor and the adult golfers I knew always told me 'the money is won on the green.' In the last couple weeks, between the loss to Tiger at the Accenture and today letting O'Hair sneak by at the PODS, the fact is that Cink's losses are mainly due to everything he did off the green. I'm not insinuating that the short game is losing its significance as the key to winning tournaments. However--I have no trouble reminding those who missed Cink's last few rounds that his mistakes came off the tee and from his second shots.

What might this mean in the larger picture?

Maybe it just reinforces what makes golf one of the hardest, if not the hardest, sport there is: every shot counts. You can hit a great tee shot and then thin your next shot over the green. You can have a horrible tee shot and then recover with a great iron shot. Or for many of us out there who can relate to what I've already mentioned--you may have a horrible tee shot, horrible second shot, and once you finally reach the green and the hole seems like a mile away and in utter depression you wonder why your not at home lounging on the couch in front of the tube, somehow: you sink your putt. It doesn't matter if your a 15 or 2 handicap. One stroke can revitalize your whole round.

The thing is that I just don't see that fight in many players anymore. Obviously Tiger has it. He can be struggling and we won't know it, until he makes that one putt where his fist pump and tiger growl shows the intensity that has boiled to the surface and now finally been unleashed. Young guys today aren't showing that they want to be there. I don't see the fight. I don't see the desire to win. Maybe they're just being overshadowed by Tiger's dominance, but I guess I am just in what seems like an endless period of waiting for some player to come along and shake the dust out this crumby old game that has become Tiger's playground.

I thought Cink could do it because of his experience and natural strengths around the green. But let down once again, I guess I'll just continue to wait.

I'm a little upset about something. It's one of those fleeting thoughts that enters my mind for a half a second and then I move on. However, today its lasted a bit longer than half a second. There may be a poetic or sophisticated way to say it, but I don't really care for that, so here it goes. I don't get why PGA players, like our famed Tiger Woods, are allowed to have huge gaps of time between their tournaments. I guess what I mean is that when I think about a sport like baseball or basketball, their a set schedule like in golf, however the players are required to not only be at the game, but play. That's how they earn their salaries. That's how they make their living. And more than anything, I think their commitment to their sport of choice is how they earn the respect of fans.

I'm sad to say I'm losing respect for some golfers. Why is it that they can have three weeks between one tournament and the next? Of course I am specifically speaking to Tiger Woods, who tends to play in tournaments once a month, unless their happens to be a major that month. Why can he do this and not other players? Well I guess one of the obvious answers is that, well, he can. The guy made around 12 million bucks last year from golf alone and then around 80 million off of endorsements. So we get it, he has money and thus winning tournaments isn't about the money for him, its about the glory. That may be an admirable quality, but it can be disputed.

Here's all I'm saying--if I had 2 or 3 weeks to practice everyday with my trainer and instructor, I think I could do pretty well at a tournament too. This goes especially for other PGA players, who have to play in many tournaments whether for the money, for exemptions, for status, or possibly, maybe, ummm, for fun. I just don't feel like Tiger is even part of the PGA anymore. I feel like he has his own professional golf association that reigns above all.

I think its unfair. A guy like Vijay Singh (who I have personal vendetta against because he bashed Annika when she wanted to play with the men) practices hard consistently, and must play in 75% to 85% of all PGA events. He wins sometimes, and other times doesn't. Sometimes he's in the top ten, sometimes he's not. But guess what, at least I know he's human. Tiger on the other hand enters into tournaments rarely, which does a variety of things. It allows him his own personal preparation, which is longer than most other players. Also, it sparks something int the minds of other players, something to the degree of "uh oh, tiger's playing." And why do they fear him? We've been over this. He dominates every aspect of the game. But maybe that has something to do with the fact that he is well rested and confident because he's HAD TIME to practice and work out any kinks in his game. The list of reasons for his victorious streak goes on.

It just upsets me. The game should be equal and the man that is sanctified and praised for reviving the game may have an unfair advantage.

this decline in golf is real: just don't let it be real for too long

Recently, an article was published in the New York Times regarding 'the decline of golf.' From economic issues to changes in family values, this 'decline' is the real deal based on numerous stats from golf companies, courses and now veteran players.

The truth is, golf is an expensive sport. When I got serious about golf in high school, I didn't see any problem with going to the driving range to practice every day, but that was only because I wasn't the one supplying the money that paid for my range balls, let alone the clubs, and other little enticing golf accessories. The driving range around the corner from my house, which is definitely very 'homey' and welcoming, isn't very welcoming in price. It's $10.75 for a large bucket of balls. Compare that number with what you will in terms of how many meals you could buy, or other things you could do with that money, but seriously, that's just a lot to pay to hit 120 balls. The funny thing is, that's just the driving range. The costs of playing courses has become obscene. I have been truly lucky in the last few years because I was always considered a 'junior golfer,' which essentially meant that I received the 'junior rate.' I was living it up, playing 18 holes for $2-5. However, my junior card is no longer allowed and I have to come to terms with the reality of golf, which is if you don't have money, you may not be playing.

Another dilemma, other than money, is time. One of the reasons listed for the decline in golf in the NY article was that people aren't willing to put forth 4-5 hours on the golf course anymore. My grandma tells me stories about how my grandpa would wake up at 6 am and play golf all day and not come back until it was dark outside. However, if my dad did that today, my mom wouldn't let him back in the house. Newsflash--things are different. Family values have changed enough to make golfers conscious of the amount of time, let alone money, they spend on the golf course. It's a salient issue for parents who genuinely want to spend time with their families, while simultaneously genuinely wanting to enjoy their passion for golf.

Patience. Golf is a slow game. That doesn't mean it can't be played fast (just ask Rori Sabbatini--I can't stand that guy). But, you can ask the majority of avid golfers and they will say their best or favorite rounds came when they didn't rush and just enjoyed the round, whether with friends or by themselves. Most people who enter the game of golf assume they will catch on fast, like basketball or baseball. In these sports, with a day or two of practice you will develop some sort of comfort shooting a free throw or throwing the ball straight. However with golf--its just a tad bit different. You can top, shank, hook, draw, fade, look up, chunk, rush, or totally miss the ball FOR YEARS. But there is hope. There's that one shot that makes you keep coming back. There's that one moment where you are so tense from having shanked in front of everyone on the range or all your buddies on the course that you take the club back and 'pure' it. It's an almost indescribable feeling, but what it really does is provide motivation. The mentality is simple--if you did it once, you can do it again. People know that Tiger Woods has been playing since he was 3 years-old and so they attribute his 'time' with the game to his dominance. Now while I don't rule that out, its his motivation to get better that separates him from the pack. Motivation is what feeds the fire of mental power, physical power, and every other facet of the game. Too few are willing to keep working at the game long enough to experience that one swing that makes all others worth it.

With a possible recession coming, money is an issue. With families wanting to maintain closeness, familial bonding is an issue. In a society that perpetuates fast-pace everything, patience is an issue. But the truth in my mind is that the real issue is persistence and motivation. All of these other factors are real, and although I am young and without an income or family, I think this decline in golf can become a thing of the past if people let themselves give in to the possibility of getting better by giving the game more of their attention. I used to be very conscious of the way I ate, and when I looked to my parents to help they told me to 'eat in moderation.' Well, in this case, not to be too philosophical, I think Americans need to internalize the idea of 'LIVE in moderation.' Have balance. It may take more effort or more time, but when you hit that one shot, or if you have already hit that one shot, you will understand how necessary being persistent with this game is. It's your own personal reward that will bring you back to the course, possibly with a client or family member or simply by yourself, searching to repeat that one swing. The one that makes all other worth it.