Thursday, July 30, 2009

Tom Watson, continued

The stuff you can find on the Internet. Another Tom Watson story in the Alameda Sun (CA) by Ron Salsig.


Reflections on Tom Watson


The first time I met him, I was a sophomore on the Cal golf team. I was playing in a match against Stanford at Mira Vista Country Club, walking onto the first green, when something hit the heel of my shoe. It was a golf ball, a drive off the first tee, nearly reaching the green on this par 4.

"What was that?" I asked.

"Oh, that's our new freshman from Kansas City," said my opponent. That was Tom Watson. He hit the ball a long, long ways.

I played with him and against him quite a few times in the next few years. Watson was a bit hyper back then — his waggle before he began his backswing was a very quick up-and-down motion of the club, so quick it resembled a piston engine. Later he would change that waggle to a looser back-and-forth motion.

That was the only significant change I have ever seen Watson make in his swing.

But Tom Watson played a different game on the course than I had ever seen. He was very aggressive, but his face never changed expression, no matter where the ball went. His philosophy of the game was very simple — hit it, find it, hit it again. Count it up at the end of the day, and let's see what we've got.

Watching him play, I knew something was missing in my game. I played hard, but I took it personally when something went wrong. Not Tom. Tom had Acceptance. I lacked it.

He played the game the way it was meant to be played. He acted as if his swing was a machine, and he would simply stand back to see what it could do. If it didn't work to his satisfaction, he would simply go to the range to work on it. Nobody hit as many balls as Tom Watson, and he hit them like a machine — quickly, in rapid fire, like a machine gun. Off the course, he was steady and clear-headed. Good Midwestern stock. Honest and hard-working. A good listener.

At the Trans-Miss Championship, at Spyglass Hill in 1971, just Tom and I remained on the range as dusk fell. Finally, exhausted, I sat down on a bench. And he sat down next to me. You never knew what Tom shot, because his face gave no hint. It was always the same. Ascetic. That day he shot 86, I shot 81. But there was no commiseration in our discussion; there never was with Tom. Rather, we talked about what a wonderful golf course this was.

He would occasionally talk about the golf swing. He believed he had found Hogan's secret. He would set the angle on top of the swing, then slam the butt end of the club into the ball. This created an extremely delayed hit, a key to power. The common thinking at the time was that Hogan hit the ball with the back of his left hand, not the butt end of the club.

Recently, Tiger Woods has gone to this kind of release. I introduced Tiger to Watson at the 1998 US Open, at Olympic. Ironically, they were paired together later in the tournament.

Before, they had never met.

Watson made it through Q-School his first try. His first event on the PGA Tour was at Silverado CC in Napa, the old Kaiser Open.

And he shot 66-65 the first two rounds. I believe that turned his life around.

In 1982 I was privileged to be in the Tap Room at Pebble Beach after Watson sank that impossible chip on the 17th hole to win the US Open. Well into the night we got some flashlights, walked out to that green, and tried the shot. Not even Watson came close.

Five British Open titles later, there was Tom Watson, this past week, shooting 65 at Turnberry to grab the lead, six weeks from his 60th birthday. Nobody in their 50s had ever won a major.

"There is a spirituality out there," Watson said.

There is a spirit to this game that Watson could always tap into.

That was what I sensed back in the sixties, when I realized he had something that I lacked. I fought it; he always went with it — whatever "it" was.

I was not surprised to see him with a one-stroke lead, standing in the final fairway. I was very surprised he picked the wrong club for his approach shot. He flew the green, and lost in a playoff.

What a story that would have been. What a story it was. But Tom Watson remained true to the spirit of the game to the end. "Hey, this ain't no funeral, you know," he told the press. He also told Stewart Cink quietly at the awards ceremony, "This win will change your life. Congratulations. It would not have changed my life if I had won." And he smiled.

We could all learn a thing or two about life from Tom Watson.

National award-winning golf writer Ron Salsig can be reached atrsalsig@pacbell.net.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Grace under pressure

We can all learn a little about life from Tom Watson's performance at the British Open. First, you never give up and second, if you come up short, even if it's tearing at your gut, have the presence of mind not to make an ass out of yourself. Be respectful.

----

59 Is the New 30

Published: July 28, 2009

Last April I took a break to caddy for the former U.S. Open champion Andy North when he teamed up with Tom Watson to defend their title in the two-man Liberty Mutual Legends of Golf tournament in Savannah, Ga. So it was with more than a casual spectator’s interest that I watched in awe on Armed Forces television from Afghanistan as Watson made his amazing run at winning the British Open at age 59. Watson likes to talk about foreign affairs more than golf. So to let him know just how many people wanted him to win, I e-mailed him before the final round: “Even theTaliban are rooting for you.”

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

Related

Times Topics: Tom Watson

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Indeed, I have been struck at how many golfers and non-golfers got caught up in Watson’s historic performance — tying for the lead after four rounds at Turnberry, but losing in a playoff to the 36-year-old Stewart Cink. I was not alone in being devastated that Watson was not able to par the last hole and clinch the win. Like millions of others, I shouted at the TV as his ball ran across the 18th green — heading for trouble — “STOP! STOP! STOP!” as if I personally had something at stake. Why was that?

Many reasons. For starters, Watson’s run was freaky unusual — a 59-year-old man who had played his opening two rounds in this tournament with a 16-year-old Italian amateur — was able to best the greatest golfers in the world at least a decade after anyone would have dreamt it possible. Watching this happen actually widened our sense of what any of us is capable of. That is, when Kobe Bryant scores 70 points, we are in awe. WhenTiger Woods wins by 15 strokes, we are in awe. But when a man our own age and size whips the world’s best — who are half his age — we identify.

Of course, Watson has unique golfing skills, but if you are a baby boomer you could not help but look at him and say something you would never say about Tiger or Kobe: “He’s my age; he’s my build; he’s my height; and he even had his hip replaced like me. If he can do that, maybe I can do something like that, too.”

Neil Oxman, Watson’s caddy, who is a top Democratic political consultant in his real life, told me: “After Thursday’s round with Tom, when we left the scoring tent I said to him, ‘You know, this is a thing.’ He understood what I meant. On Sunday morning, the two of us were in the corner of the locker room without another human being around, sitting in these two easy chairs facing each other behind a partition. We were chatting about stuff, and I said to him, ‘For a lot of people, what you’re doing is life-affirming.’ I took it from a story about when Betty Comden and Adolph Green — the writers of “Singin’ in the Rain” — showed Leonard Bernstein the famous scene ofGene Kelly. Bernstein said to them, ‘That scene is an affirmation of life.’ What Tom did last week was an affirmation of life.”

Also, as Watson himself appreciates, the way he lost the tournament underscored why golf is the sport most like life. He hit two perfect shots on the 18th hole in the final round, and the second one bounced just a little too hard and ran through the green, leaving him a difficult chip back, which he was unable to get up and down. Had his ball stopped a foot shorter, he would have had an easy two-putt and a win.

That’s the point. Baseball, basketball and football are played on flat surfaces designed to give true bounces. Golf is played on an uneven terrain designed to surprise. Good and bad bounces are built into the essence of the game. And the reason golf is so much like life is that the game — like life — is all about how you react to those good and bad bounces. Do you blame your caddy? Do you cheat? Do you throw your clubs? Or do you accept it all with dignity and grace and move on, as Watson always has. Hence the saying: Play one round of golf with someone and you will learn everything you need to know about his character.

Golf is all about individual character. The ball is fixed. No one throws it to you. You initiate the swing, and you alone have to live with the results. There are no teammates to blame or commiserate with. Also, pro golfers, unlike baseball, football or basketball players, have no fixed salaries. They eat what they kill. If they score well, they make money. If they don’t, they don’t make money. I wonder what the average N.B.A. player’s free-throw shooting percentage would be if he had to make free throws to get paid the way golfers have to make three-foot putts?

This wonderful but cruel game never stops testing or teaching you. “The only comment I can make,” Watson told me after, “is one that the immortal Bobby Jones related: ‘One learns from defeat, not from victory.’ I may never have the chance again to beat the kids, but I took one thing from the last hole: hitting both the tee shot and the approach shots exactly the way I meant to wasn’t good enough. ... I had to finish.”

So Tom Watson got a brutal lesson in golf that he’ll never forget, but he gave us all an incredible lesson in possibilities — one we’ll never forget.

Preachy, Screechy and Angry

Maureen Dowd got this one right.

Sarah Grabs the Grievance Grab Bag From Hillary

Published: July 28, 2009

WASHINGTON

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Maureen Dowd

Related

Times Topics: Sarah Palin |Hillary Rodham Clinton

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

The woman who was prematurely counted in is out. And the woman who was prematurely counted out is in.

Goodbye, Sarah. Hello, Hillary.

In their vivid twin performances Sunday — Hillary on “Meet the Press” in Washington and Sarah at her farewell picnic in Fairbanks — two of the most celebrated and polarizing women in American political history offered a fascinating contrast.

Hillary, who so often in the past came across as aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing, was confident and comfortable in her role as top diplomat, discussing the world with mastery and shrugging off suggestions that she has been disappeared by her former rival, the president.

Sarah, who was once a blazingly confident media darling, came across as aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing in her new role as bizarre babe-at-large, a Nixon with hair extensions ranting about “American apologetics,” which sounds like a cross between apologists and Dianetics.

Sarah once criticized Hillary for being a whiny presidential contender, arguing that women who want “to progress this country” should not complain about being under a “sharper microscope,” but instead should just work harder to prove themselves capable. Now Sarah is a whiny presidential contender, complaining about the sharper microscope that women wanting to progress this country are under and rejecting advice to work harder to prove herself capable.

The Alaskan who shot to stardom a year ago as the tough embodiment of Diana the Huntress has now stepped down as governor and morphed into what the Republicans always caricatured Hillary as — preachy, screechy and angry.

And Hillary, who is at long last in a job that she earned on her own merits, has lost that irritating question mark she used to carry around above her head like a thunder cloud: What is Hillary owed because of what she gave up, and went through, for Bill?

During the campaign, Hillary got in trouble for pretending to be more than she was, for bragging about dodging bullets in Bosnia and making peace in Northern Ireland. Just so, Sarah got in trouble for pretending to be knowledgeable about foreign affairs just because she lived across the Bering Strait from Russia.

But now Hillary does not have to tell stretchers. She’s fully qualified for her job and doesn’t sound defensive. Now Sarah has taken up Hillary’s old habit of keeping grudges and playing the victim and blaming the press for her own mistakes in judgment and gaffes.

If Sarah’s problem on the trail was that she knew too little, Hillary’s was that she knew too much. Before her misty turn in New Hampshire, Hillary’s wonkiness got in the way of her ability to make people comfortable.

Sarah, lacking Hillary’s cerebral side, has decided to wing it, Quayle-style, and go only for the visceral. That’s why she now sounds like a demagogue, embodying grievances and playing to people’s worst impulses.

Hillary’s radiant robustness, on the other hand, even with a sore elbow, makes the dictators in Iran and North Korea we’re so worried about seem like frail, little creatures.

Obama advisers say privately that the president truly respects the woman he ran against, and that they have a good relationship, so good it has even surprised Hillary. Certainly, she doesn’t have to worry that this president’s gaze is going to drift over her shoulder to some pretty thing behind her. In this White House, Barack Obama is the pretty thing who is taken with Hillary’s serious, smartest-girl-at-Wellesley aura. In a funny way, he’s the man of her dreams.

His support of her has allowed her to keep her paranoia in check — even with Richard Holbrooke and Joe Biden biting off parts of her portfolio.

Just to make sure it stays that way, Obama advisers told Hillary that she could not bring on board Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide de camp nicknamed G.K., “Grassy Knoll,” for his tendency to stoke her grievances.

In her cuckoo speech in Fairbanks, Sarah warned Alaskans to “be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn’t come free.” Funny coming from a woman who charged the Alaskan taxpayers every time she worked from Wasilla.

She also went after that old conservative villain Hollywood, saying, “They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets” for “their anti-Second Amendment causes.”

Sarah seems happily oblivious that she benefited from Hollywood casting techniques. Just as movie directors have beautiful young actresses playing nuclear physicists and Harvard professors, knowing the fusion of sex appeal and a heavyweight profession will excite, the novelty of a beautiful former beauty queen and TV reporter cast in a powerful role that has featured dour, gray old men like Dick Cheney was thrilling. At first.

As McCain pal and Republican strategist Mike Murphy so sagely observed recently: “If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?”

Sarah should follow her own advice to Hillary and work harder to be capable. Until then, she’s all cage, no bird.