[Steve_ Shaffer]

Re Firm Greens

Johnny Miller and/or Gary Koch stated that the caddie's job was to give yardage to the front of the green and let the ball roll. Yardages to the pin are meaningless when the greens are firm.

I don't know what Morgan Presell hit to the 18th but JM stated she had an 11 wood in her bag and should have used it to the elevated green.

[Chris Holcombe]

Doug: I was referring to conditions at weekly, non-USGA tournaments and that they were not used to playing firm greens like today.

[Doug Wright]

I worked the 8th hole as a marshal on Wednesday and Friday--got some ESPN air time on 8 tee Friday during "The Annika Show." Caught the final round on TV today. A few thoughts:

--The routing of Cherry Hills is really excellent. The front nine is a clockwise inside loop and the back nine a counterclockwise outside loop, similar to Muirfield (where the front nine is an outside loop and the back 9 is an inside loop). The use of the stream on holes like 5, 13 and 16 is well done. It was good to see the tree removal on 16, which really opened up the hole nicely. The course builds to a great conclusion starting with the superb 14th hole. I totally agree that 17 is ridiculously overtreed. Architecturally, the back nine is far superior to the front, which has several average holes (1,4, eight) and weak holes (3--though it gave the ladies fits as something like the 4th hardest hole at 330 yards--and 7). The bunkering is quite good too.

--The 18th is WAAAY uphill. You have to see it to appreciate it. And the R-L slope in the fairway is really severe, taking the ball sideways and nearly backwards in spots. I think the 2d shot into 18 intimidated the ladies, and they didn't handle the sidehill lies there very well either.  

--Morgan Pressel is a very impressive young lady (see my original post on Wednesday). She showed a lot of guts, making more par saving putts than the rest of the final groups combined. Her caddy was clueless (telling her to "get up and down" after her second shot on 18 when Morgan and everyone else on the planet knew what she needed to do).  If she had had a professional caddy on her bag (or even one of the Cherry Hills regular loopers) she wins by a couple strokes. She needed someone to help her pull clubs --several of the club selections were way off (eg 6, 11, 15, 18)--and to tell her how slow some of the uphill putts were (eg 16).  

--The course/ pressure clearly got into the leaders' heads just like the USGA likes it. The greens and fairways firmed up nicely on the weekend especially today. Otherwise I thought the course was nicely set up--plenty of width off the tee, the greens were never over the top but plenty challenging. Cherry Hills may not ever hold a men's tourney again, but it's just fine for the women.

--Mark Fine--wished I knew you were coming, would have liked to have met you!

--Wayne M/Mark F, I'd very much like to see what you have on Flynn Cherry Hills and to compare notes re Flynn's Denver CC design. I'd have to agree with the comments that the Cherry Hills CC site is better than Denver CC's (it was even more true when Flynn did his work than it is now because as Wayne knows Denver CC added some land post-Flynn that is more interesting architecturally than what Flynn had to work with). I look forward to your visit.

--BillV/Redanman, sorry you think what I've been doing out here the past 24 years isn't golf. I still enjoy it, and it's funny how one appreciates a little help from the altitude with advancing age.

--And what a shot by Young Kim--I mean "Birdie" Kim!

[Mark_Fine]

Doug Wright,
Sorry we didn't meet up.  Your comments are pretty accurate about the course except the front nine is really an inside figure eight routing.  Also, I might beg to differ with you about 1,4 and 8 but so be it.  

As far as the course set up, it was difficult for sure.  I wanted far more fairway width added but this is the U.S. Open and that is how they do things (at least for now with Meeks still on board).  Players clearly struggled as I knew they would when the course firmed up.  The aerial game Dottie Pepper talked about had to be replaced with a run up shot on many of the holes.  Not many of the ladies can play that shot consistently as they don't often need it over here.

Just think when some of the older features return and with the course playing at 7500 yards vs. 6700.  If Annika is 11 over par now, what does she shoot back there?  What would the men shoot back there?  One par five will be 680 yards, two of the par fours will be over 500 yards and one par three over 300 yards.  More importantly, much of the orginal design intent and character of the place will be restored.  You will have to think your way around much like you do at other "short" courses such as Merion  
Mark

[Doug Braunsdorf]

 You will have to think your way around much like you do at other "short" courses such as Merion  
Mark

THINK?  

(Cue thunder and lightning)

WHY SHOULD WE BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT?

 

[mike_malone]

 Maybe Annika should have played Rolling Green when she was in Philadephia. She would have gotten a taste of those Flynn greens. The subtlety of the greens seemed to be the story of the week.
       So often people play these Flynn courses; see all the trouble  in front of them; think they can score; and come away scratching their heads.

    I thought #18 was a great Flynn hole. The water was not parallel. The player could choose how much to cut off.  The left side gave you a flatter lie but was of course closer to the water. The right side left a sidehill lie to an uphill green (this is why I like topographical change---it's the shot! ).

    I wonder if the original called for the fairway to run into that bunker on the right. This may have put Pressel in the bunker.


      I could not tell from TV, but does that up hill to the green have a tilt from left to right for part of it? If so, I think that adds to the interest of the hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Cherry Hills greens are typical of what you'd see on the Philly area Flynn courses.  You would feel right at home on them!

The bunker on the left is not a Flynn bunker and was added prior to the 1960 U.S. Open.  The approach was not designed to kick balls into the right bunker.  Actually, Flynn wanted the left side to look harmless with that huge gaping bunker on the right pushing play away from it.  In reality, balls coming up short on the left side might roll back down the fairway as the hill is quite steep.  This made for many interesting and quite difficult recovery shots.  The added bunker on the left probably makes the hole easier for the better player.  You see this false front feature on many Flynn courses in the Philly area.  Rolling Green has several of them.  He used that design on many courses will hilly terrain.  We would like to restore it.
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

Let's be clear -- the word POTENTIAL is based upon the word POSSIBILITY and its close association with the word IF. I evaluate based on WHAT IS -- NOT WHAT MIGHT BE. If courses were evaluated based on what might be then there would be nothing but great courses. We know that's not the case.

You worked closely with the club and I salute your efforts and those at Cherry Hills in attempting to improve their facility. However, those who work for a club are clearly going to have a conflict of interest and their feelings -- although yours ned to be noted -- have to be considered given the reality I just explained.

My association with Bethpage is purely as an outside observer. I have never been employed by the facility to suggest improvements to their facility.

However, the world of golf has not stopped since Cherry Hills started to make changes to its facility. Indeed, The Centennial State has improved dramatically since the time that Redanman adopted permanent residence in eastern Pennsy.

I am a Flynn fan -- not a zealot like some I know (hint / hint) but I don't see Cherry Hills rising to the level of #21 NOW in the USA by Digest. That's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE overreach and has nothing to do with the architecture but more to the events that have been played there. Another good example would be Baltusrol.

The next time I'm in Colorado I'll be sure to make a visit to the Flynn layout.

Wayne:

Forgive me partner -- I'll just say Philadelphia --sorry to see the Phillies melting as the weather gets a bit warm. Looking forward to playing Rolling Green this year with you and Mayday.

Enjoy the sofa ... it's always good for soft behinds.

[wsmorrison]

I was melting out there as well yesterday...and my seats were in the shade!  Charlie Manuel was wearing a nylon jacket yesterday--what a dope he is.  No wonder he got ejected--the clubhouse is airconditioned.

If Manuel turns his attention to golf course rating after he gets fired by the Phils you will look real good in comparison    

I think it always important to consider the historical perspective so as to be aware of the original architecture and the ability to go back to that.  I guess a readership is interested in visiting in the here and now so they want to know what awaits them.  This is not of interest to me and this is one reason I find rankings of little importance, except as practiced by Tom Doak because I feel he incorporates original intent.

A modern course is what it is and can be judged by that.  A classic course should be judged in an evolution sense if one wishes to properly understand the original architect's ideas and abilities as well as the subsequent work that may have taken place in its context as well.  This is why I can consider Flynn and other architects the way I do--in an informed manner while you scorn my regard without knowing anything other than what you see on the ground in one or a few visits---not knowing the origin of it.  Maybe if you conducted a rigorous study of an architect rather than wanted to know how a course ranks versus another you would see what we see and know what we know, not as zealots but informed analysts.

I may spend a lot of time at the computer, resource centers, archives and the like, but that's what it takes to research a course and a lifetime of work.  If you think all I do is sit around on my ass, well when I see you at RGGC, you can stop by and see my office.  I'll show you some of the information I've gathered over numerous visits to 52 Flynn designs and redesigns and other classic courses and moderns I visit for perspective.  I'm notching any belt, just trying to be informed for the work I do.  You are too, but I don't find that work as intellectually stimulating.  It seems that many do and I'm glad you are doing it as best you can...better than most.

Don't worry, Matt.  I'll sign the book for you next year...if you pay retail

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
I am not defending the set up, I am defending the design.  U.S. Open set ups rarely if ever show off the design so don't judge a course on that.  That said, the rough was only three inches long and the fairways were wider than they set it up for Men's Opens.  The bunkers were firm and the greens were about 11 (earlier in the week, Mike had them at 13 but backed them off).

I very much agree that hard does not equal good.  But too many people critize Cherry Hills for not being tough enough any more.  That will not be the case but again more importantly, the course will be much more interesting and fun to play.  The fairways will be expanded dramatically and angles will be restored.  It will be more interesting and more challenging for the better golfer but more fun and exciting for the higher handicapper as well.  

All in good time,
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

You can't so easily separe the "design" from the "set-up." That's a neat lawlerly distinction but the reality is that what was created for the Women's Open was clearly over-the-top.

I can only imagine the powers-that-be at Cherry Hills must have enjoyed it so that they can demonstrate to the groups that dangle the future major championship sites that the facility is capable in hosting future big time tournaments.

If they seriously believe that then they are clearly delusional.

Bill is 1000% correct (did I just say that?) regarding the Women's Open. You now have such a distinguished winner's list that includes such heavyweights as ...

1979 Jerilyn Britz Brooklawn C.C. *Gritty veteran but again a fluke
1981 Pat Bradley La Grange C.C. La Grange Ill. 434
1982 Janet Alex Del Paso C.C. *Her only win anywhere
1985 Kathy (Baker) Guadagnino Baltusrol / Upper -- *Became a minister because her game had no staying power
1986 Jane Geddes NCR C.C. *Could have been a better player but disappeared quickly
1993 Lauri Merten Crooked Stick *Known more for her off course antics than on
1997 Alison Nicholas Pumpkin Ridge *too bad because Lopez should have won and earned her only Open win
1998 Se Ri Pak Blackwolf Run *she can't even break 80 now --the women's equivalent of David Duval
2003 Hilary Lunke Pumpkin Ridge *completely off the radar screen -- makes Ben Curtis look like a tour superstar
2005 Birdie Kim Cherry Hills *odds are she will disappear in the same fashion

Is this the roster of champions the USGA is identifying as the Women's Open Champion.

Puhleeeeeeeeeze.

How bout allowing the pedigree of the courses themselves to be used as is and let the players simply play. Under that scenarios you will likely get a more deserving list of champions. The same thing holds true for the Men's Open.

Mark --

When you say "all in good time" -- the reality is that if and when all this work gets done -- then the course can be seriously looked at -- not before -- and not with the hope that all will turn out perfectly.

Cherry Hills is not remotely right now -- the 21st best course in the USA as Digest sees it. Like I said -- the course would be hard pressed to make the top ten from the ones I have played in The Centennial State now.

Much of the hype is tied to past events that have taken place there (e.g. '60 Open, etc, etc). It's no different than what Baltusrol gets from the bounce of two Nicklaus wins in the Open ('67 and '80).

Wayne:

Take a chill partner.

The reality is you can do all the aerial studies you want -- field work is where the ruber meets the road. I like plenty of Flynn layouts -- Shinnecock Hills is my #1 course in the USA. But you need to PLAY the courses in question and how they stack up against the likes of Cherry Hills today. Since you don't get out and play that many courses do yourself a huge favor and don't bemoan those who do because it's possible they may have some personal testimonials that trumpet sofa / computer analysis anytime.

I don't play courses simply for the sake of adding courses -- I just believe that physically playing the key courses and then analyzing them against one another is the sure-fire way to see if the hype matches up with the reality.

I'm looking forward to playing RG this year with you Mayday.

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

I disagree with your premise that great courses identify great champions.  Perhaps the winners were actually playing the best that week.  They might not have been able to sustain great play, but who are you to disparage their efforts for a week?  What a huge stretch that is...you must have attended the Bob Beamon leap of logic classes with Tom MacWood  

I do agree that the courses should be left nearly alone.  There's nothing wrong with deep rough if the fairways are wide.  There's nothing wrong with pushing the maintenance practices so that its just on the edge of the right meld with the architecture either.  But you cannot do all the USGA does and narrow the fairways.  That doesn't make sense given the design intent including angles of play.

I didn't say all you do is for the sake of adding courses, I simply said that your endeavor to rank is a waste of time.  Just like you think my efforts to study and record architectural evolution is a waste of time.  You'd rather see what's on the ground rather than taking it further and see what what was and what could be again.  That's fine.  There's not much of an overlap and nobody says there needs to be.  Have fun and appeal to your masses, I certainly don't begrudge you that.  I just don't understand the need.

I may not go out and play the number of courses you do, but I do spend a lot more time studying the ones I do go to.  Try to remember that as you flit from place to place like a butterfly vagabond golf ranker.

I do look forward to seeing you at RGGC.  Sorry you couldn't make it last week.  Please be sure to tell me how it stacks up against the top 10 courses in North Dakota  

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

    Based on your list of Women's Open champions , you will love Rolling Green. In 1976 there was a playoff between the tiny Sandra Palmer and the long hitting Joanne Carner,both among the best players of their era. So, the course enabled two completely different games to rise to the top.
 
    BTW   I have been told that the 72 hole score was the most over par in modern history until Blackwolf Run and the playoff over par scores were not exceeded until Pumpkin Ridge. (I think I will very this.)

     I ran into Judy Rankin at the PGA event nearby a few years ago. I asked her if she remembered the course. She said " the longest short course she ever played".

[George Pazin]

Hey Matt, Se Ri broke 80 in 3 of the 4 days. She shot 74-71-81-74. She is nowhere near Duval status yet.

And Duval beat a lot of excellent golfers at Pinehurst as well.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

You missed the boat partner -- again.

Check the listing of champions the USGA produces -- the high infiltration of fluke type winners in both Open events is clear to me. Maybe you think having such a distinguished listing is OK.

Another point -- The so-called "wasting of time" with ranking occurs because you have too few people who can truly provide the kind of cross comparisons that are needed in order to better understand the merits of such courses when they are analyzed in some sort of consistent fashion.

I have opined plenty of times on the deficiency of the approaches taking by the various publications. Having more raters doesn't bolster the final outcomes -- you need people who are truly national in order to assess what is really noteworthy at the national level.

You see Wayne -- there are some snobs and blue-bloods on GCA (not you of course  ) who hold to the view that nothing of modern vintage could ever meet or exceed the qualities of courses from yesteryear. Now I know someone as learned as you doesn't believe that sort of rubbish but there are some misguided souls here on GCA who cling to their ignorance because it prevents them from having to change their minds.

If you don't care for ratings that's you business -- just don't bark on and on to others who do enjoy the spirit of comparisons and contrasts from actually playing them.

It's no different than the zeal you have for whether Flynn ate a grapefruit before designing such and such a hole. You get into such arcane minutia which is fine -- for you and those of similar bent.

The issue in playing varied courses, which you have created some sort of "101 level excuse book to avoid," is the only sure fire way to see what exists. I don't doubt that knowing the past can be most helpful in seeing what was there previously but I am a bit further along than just the study of aerials approach -- I like to play the game and play the many unique and exciting courses that are out there. If you prefer to veg on the sofa by all means enjoy.

Wayne -- one last thing to consider -- when you have sat for too long on the sofa it's not just your butt that gets soft -- sometimes the cranium follows in the same manner.

See you at RG via North Dakota ...

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Don't rate a course by the champion of the week.  Come on!  If so, I assume Pinehurst #2 is way down on your list now that some guy from New Zealand won    

The USGA set up should not be used to evaluate the quality of a golf course.  How many times do I have to say that.  Would you or Bill or anyone else want to play Pinehurst #2 under those conditions every day.  I don't think so!

I can tell you this for a fact, Cherry Hills is not going after another Men's U.S. Open.  They would have brought in Rees Jones to work on the golf course if that were the case.  They are interested in regaining and then preserving their course heritage.  And what they learned in the process of studying their original design is that they at one time had one hell of a golf course.  That is what is most exciting to everyone.

Mark

[Doug Wright]

As of right now

-The fairways were narrowed to a point of silliness.
-The women don't have the short game to do anything but look foolish with that setup
-That was not a very interesting setup, was not a very interesting tone-a-mint

BillV/Redanman,

--The fairways were plenty wide on every hole. It wasn't the setup's fault that the women missed them.
--The gals did fine from the bunkers; they did fine from the rough when they weren't short-sided; when they were short- sided they paid the price as they should (I thought their course management was suspect).
--Not a very interesting tournament? Bill you are a hard, hard man...

Best,
 

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

My point was on the nature of how the USGA prepares courses for their two primary events. Clearly, just having the course played in the same fashion as they would for a member / guest would have been a sufficient test.

Women can't handle 3 inches of lush rough -- no way jose. Widening the fairways would not demean the nature of what the title is either.

I was not overly thrilled with the set-up for #2 but puhleeeze don't even begin to suggest Cherry Hills is even remotely in the same zip code as Pinehurst.

Mark -- you need to play some of the other recent Colorado courses that I and others have mentioned. The idea that Cherry Hills is still THE premier layout in The Centennial State is a really dated position.

I do, however, wish them well with their Master Plan and clearly your involvement has helped the process.

In so many ways Cherry Hills reminds me of where Baltusrol stands today.

Clearly, the folks at Cherry Hills didn't bother to host the Women's Open without being considered for a future top tier major event down the line.

 

[wsmorrison]

"Clearly, the folks at Cherry Hills didn't bother to host the Women's Open without being considered for a future top tier major event down the line."

Clearly?  What are you talking about?  How many of the folks at Cherry Hills did you discuss this with?  I know eight fellows from there and everyone is glad they are returning to the Flynn roots and men's US Open be damned.  They know they can't have one...it would have to be 8,500 yards long.  

Why can't you believe someone who has spent a lot of time there recently and not inject your uninformed conclusion?  They have a proud history in USGA events beyond the men's Open and they are comfortable with their place in classic golf.  From what you say, there are enough very good new courses being built.  I am very glad they are taking the approach they are.  Yet you look for ulterior motives, shame on you  

Again, your point about great champions have to win on great courses is absurd.  Your view is not supportable by facts on both tours, but let's not let them get in the way of your good story  

"In so many ways Cherry Hills reminds me of where Baltusrol stands today."

At least Cherry Hills is going back to the original designs while Baltusrol is moving in the bunkers and permanently narrowing their fairways all for the sake of tournament play. And you see so many similarities?  

Whatever is in the water in North Jersey that makes them make such boneheaded decisions ought to be filtered out.  At least its pure mountain spring water in Denver because they are moving in the right direction while Baltusrol is screwing up big time!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Interesting article by Mark Kiszla in today's Denver Post re USGA and course setup:


Open turns into hazard of tears
By Mark Kiszla
Denver Post Staff Columnist

Cherry Hills Village

The U.S. Women's Open was a major loss in the battle of the sexes.

This tournament robbed golf of its beauty and made little girls cry.

Who wants to see that?

Sunday was a bad day for pink, unless you were a chauvinist pig.

Here's the problem with a tournament in which 3-over par is rewarded with first-place prize money. There are macho golfers who believe the only great shot a female can make is vodka shaken in a martini at the 19th hole. They must have loved watching the ladies hack it around Cherry Hills Country Club.

During a tediously brutal final round, it came down to this. First good shot won.

After slopping in a chip from a greenside bunker on No. 18 to win the championship, maybe Birdie Kim should change her name to Lucky.

There were so many great stories women could have told at this tourney. Annika Sorenstam taking a mighty swing at the Grand Slam. Michelle Wie wrestling with the legend of Tiger Woods. Morgan Pressel making history as a 17-year-old amateur.

But nothing great this way came, because the USGA stubbornly thinks America would rather watch the torture of an athlete's soul than see a true test of sport.

Here's the full article:

www.denverpost.com/golf/ci_2826126

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Whatever is in the water in North Jersey that makes them make such boneheaded decisions ought to be filtered out.  

Wayne, I'll see you at 7:00.  

[wsmorrison]

BillV,

I was at Pinehurst shortly before the Open with a longtime member.  I'd been there before and it is remarkable how they narrowed the fairways, by 16 yards or so.  It certainly is not set up that way everyday with only the rough being deeper.

I agree that the greens weren't US Open fast, look how many putts were short!

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

I'm starting to morph into a redanman -- sort of like George Romeo's "Dead" series. Is there any cure? We keep on agreeing soooooooooooo much !

Wayne:

I'll help you out since you are enamored with the sofa / computer. I have a number of key media people who were at the Women's Open -- the impression a number of them received was that Cherry Hills is looking to do more via the hosting of big time tournaments -- it might be another Women's Open or other events of national championship caliber.

The Women's Open is just a "coming out" party. Given the nature of today's competitive atmosphere for such events it may be some time before another men's event happens to come through that part of the country -- although I truly wish a mountain time zone site could host such an event if indeed Cherry Hill is unsuitable as I and others believe. This is especially so given the qualities of The International and what they have been able to achieve since its start a number of years ago.

Wayne -- let me enlighten your serious ignorance. Both Cherry Hills and Baltusrol USED to be primary players in the major championship rotary. They are no longer on the short list of preferred sites.

Both are trying to get back into the action and each has their own limitations to overcome.

My comments had nothing to do with simply the architectural aspects. Again -- learn to appreciate that others may have more to offer than you and your Crazy-glued butt to the Philadelphia area.

Wayne, I can only trust your golf game is sharper than your insightful analysis.

[Mark_Fine]

BillV,
I just played #2 in late March and trust me, that was not the normal set up!  Not even close.  We can discuss what the deal was down there over a drink sometime.

Matt,
Cherry Hills loves to host major championships but the Men's Open is not something they are striving for.  If the media wants to speculate, let them.  

Others,
It would have been great to see the course played by the ladies with all the changes made.  Who knows, maybe one day it will be.  As I said earlier, I am not an advocate of US Open setups.  They do not show off the design aspects of the golf course.  This should not be a surprise to anyone on this site unless you guys never watched an Open before.  

However, Cherry Hills did not "narrow" their fairways for the Open.  Believe it or not, that is how they keep them all the time and that is one of the things we intend to change.  On some of the holes, we actually widened them for the championship and brought the fairway lines closer to the hazards.  But unfortunately only so much leaway was given.  

Other than raising the rough an inch and the green speed a foot or so, that was the members set up.  Frankly, the course probably plays tougher for the club championship.  

Birdie Kim might be a no name that won the championship but she played pretty solid golf.  She never once three putted (not sure any other players in the field could say that).  She played smart, recovered when she had to and didn't choke down the stretch.  Yes she got some lucky breaks but most champions do.  No one complained when Palmer won in 1960 or when Mickelson won the Amateur or when Nicklaus won the Senior Open.  USGA set ups can lead to unknowns having a great week and winning.  History has proven that on many great designs.  

Matt, maybe this will show my non bias - I have Cherry Hills as a 6 right now on the Doak scale (I believe Tom had it around 7).  When restored, it will be a solid 8 in my book and I take no credit for that.  It is all Flynn's design, none of mine!
Mark

[wsmorrison]

"Clearly, the folks at Cherry Hills didn't bother to host the Women's Open without being considered for a future top tier major event down the line."

It doesn't seem logical that you were saying Cherry Hills bothered to host a Women's Open just to host another Women's Open.  You implied they wanted more major top tier events and that is just not so, at least not now.  I guess your press sources are more reliable than the members I know (some very influencial over there).  The press never exaggerates.  

"Wayne -- let me enlighten your serious ignorance. Both Cherry Hills and Baltusrol USED to be primary players in the major championship rotary. They are no longer on the short list of preferred sites."

You are dense, Matt.  I know they used to be primary players.  Baltusrol is selling its Tillinghast soul to get back into the rotation while Cherry Hills could care less and is returning to its Flynn architectural roots.  That is a big difference, get it?


"Wayne, I can only trust your golf game is sharper than your insightful analysis"

My golf game has been horrible lately, I've spent too much time writing and researching while helping my son prepare for his first year on the high school golf team.  I'm playing so bad I'll just barely be able to beat you  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()