[Glenn Spencer]

The youngest to likely advance to match play will be 15-year-old Cory Whitsett of Dallas, who shot an even-par 70 at the Lake Course Monday. He is the 2007 U.S. Junior Amateur champion


This story was on the USGA website by Craig Smith director of Media Relations.

The story was written on Tuesday night, BEFORE Whitsett (reigning US Junior Champion) finished his second 18. He had 9 holes to go. Seems unnecessary for a 15-year old to have to read this last night or this morning before he finishes up. BTW., Whitsett shot 43 on the back for 70-79 and missed the cut. Whitsett tripled his last hole to miss playoff by 2.

[JESII]

Insane, and a shame.

I hate this kind of stuff because I typically would say "how could it possibly matter?" But it does...

[Mike Wagner]

It's part of what you have to deal with to compete.

[Mike Benham]

What part, the age of the golfer, the pre-posting of the article or ? is insane?  

There was a qualifier "likely advance" and he tripled bogeyed his final score to miss match-play.

[JESII]

It's part of what you have to deal with to compete.

I would add the word "might" in between your "you" and "have" to agree with that statement.

I still can only think a person that writes a piece with that sort of timing is either ignorant of the realities of the golf gods or he was rooting against the kid...

[JohnV]

He didn't have 9 holes to play.  They were only getting scores after 9 and 18.  Since there were only about 52 players total left on the 4 9's of the courses over night, he probably had somewhere between 1 and 4 holes to play.

[JESII]

What part, the age of the golfer, the pre-posting of the article[/color] or ? is insane?  

There was a qualifier "likely advance" and he tripled bogeyed his final score to miss match-play.

[JohnV]

Did the triple happen because of the article or because he knew he needed to make par to avoid a playoff and made a mess of the hole?

[JESII]

100% without question it was because of the article...

[Glenn Spencer]

He didn't have 9 holes to play.  They were only getting scores after 9 and 18.  Since there were only about 52 players total left on the 4 9's of the courses over night, he probably had somewhere between 1 and 4 holes to play.

I figured that was the case and I was giving the guy the BOD, but if you look at his card, it never should have been written, with 4 or 9 or whatever holes left to play.

[Glenn Spencer]

Insane, and a shame.

I hate this kind of stuff because I typically would say "how could it possibly matter?" But it does...

It has an incredibly funny way of working itself out that way doesn't it? The real shame is that I wanted to see what this kid could do. he was dominant at the Junior in the Final and really impressed me with his poise, not that you could get a quarter for that.

[Phil McDade]

Glenn:

Would you think differently if the golfer in question was 18? 21? 25?

The GCA set seems not terribly interested in age-related concerns when it comes to golfing.........

[Matt_Cohn]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous!

Should the media just stop covering golf tournaments until they're over?

Besides, do you think Whitsett was oblivious about his position until he saw (or didn't see) this article?

Come on.

What about during the US Junior when TGC asked him what it would mean to win the tournament. Was that insane, too?

He *was* likely to make match play. What is so wrong about that?

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn:

Would you think differently if the golfer in question was 18? 21? 25?

The GCA set seems not terribly interested in age-related concerns when it comes to golfing.........

No. To be honest, Phil. I haven't ever seen anything like this in PRINT about an amateur tournament before.

[Glenn Spencer]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous!

Should the media just stop covering golf tournaments until they're over?

Besides, do you think Whitsett was oblivious about his position until he saw (or didn't see) this article?

Come on.

What about during the US Junior when TGC asked him what it would mean to win the tournament. Was that insane, too?

He *was* likely to make match play. What is so wrong about that?

Matt,

What would it mean to be invited to Augusta to play in the Masters?

Matt, if you roll out of bed tomorrow, you will likely be invited to The Masters to play?

See the difference??

I just checked, the article was written Tuesday night. So check Whitsett's scorecard and tell me when this should have been written. Was it when he was +2 with 8 holes left that he needed to play +4 over. Was it when he was +2 with 5 holes left and he needed to do the same thing? How about +4 with four holes left and needing to play them in 2 over? How about +5 with 3 holes left and needing to come home in 1 over? Maybe when he was +6 and needing to play the last 2 even???

Since my post was so rediculous Matt, let's hear it. When was he so likely to make the cut that you would PRINT it on the USGA website for the world to read? When?

[Glenn Spencer]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous!

Should the media just stop covering golf tournaments until they're over?

Besides, do you think Whitsett was oblivious about his position until he saw (or didn't see) this article?

Come on.

What about during the US Junior when TGC asked him what it would mean to win the tournament. Was that insane, too?

He *was* likely to make match play. What is so wrong about that?

Ever hear of someone not watching the scoreboard on Sunday or Friday, Matt? Ever? BTW, since there was nothing wrong with it as you claim. Do you think Smith will do something like this again?

[Matt_Cohn]

Glenn,

My point is not about the accuracy of the information. As far as I'm concerned, the guy could claim whenever he wanted to that Whitsett was likely to make match play.

If we're going to debate it as a matter of fact, though, I would say that Whitsett was "likely" to make match play in all of the situations you just mentioned. (Do you think he'd play those last 4 holes in more than +2 the majority of the time? I don't....)

Your statement was that it "Seems unnecessary for a 15-year old to have to read this last night or this morning before he finishes up."

I disagree with this statement very much.

"Unnecessary" implies that it's too much for the player to handle. However, even without the article, he certainly knew he was likely to match play if he could just keep it together. The article told him exactly what he already knew, and nothing more.

"15-year old": implies that his youth renders him less able to deal with pressure. Maybe or maybe not, but this is a national championship, and its competitors should not be treated with kid gloves. The night before the second round of stroke play, the USGA published an article about Randy Haag overcoming the yips, and asked him about his chances of making match play. Randy is 48. Does that make it different?

"Have to": Have to? I doubt he even read the article in the first place. And if he did, wouldn't he have done so assuming he'd see his own name, given that he's a reigning USGA champion and that he played exceptionally well during the first round?

You imply that this article somehow caused Whitsett to collapse and miss match play. That is the part that I find ridiculous. How can a factual sentence that restates already-known information cause a national champion golfer to make a triple bogey? It can't!

If Whitsett was nervous and collapsed, frankly, that's his own fault. However I do feel badly for him because it's a nightmare kind of scenario.

Finally, I don't understand what standards you think we should set for covering this sort of event. Should we only write about events after they happen? Should we completely eliminate tournament previews, the annointing of "favorites", and all potentially forward-looking statements about a player's possible success down the road?

Or only for 15-year-old's?

Respectfully,
Matt

[Rich Goodale]

As the USGA website is complete c**p, I'd be surprised that any 15-years old with an IQ in triple figures would even bother to look at it.

[JESII]

Matt,


What happens in the dugout when a pitcher has a no-hitter going?

He's all alone...


You just don't mess with the golf gods...ever...

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn,

My point is not about the accuracy of the information. As far as I'm concerned, the guy could claim whenever he wanted to that Whitsett was likely to make match play.

If we're going to debate it as a matter of fact, though, I would say that Whitsett was "likely" to make match play in all of the situations you just mentioned. (Do you think he'd play those last 4 holes in more than +2 the majority of the time? I don't....)

Your statement was that it "Seems unnecessary for a 15-year old to have to read this last night or this morning before he finishes up."

I disagree with this statement very much.

"Unnecessary" implies that it's too much for the player to handle. However, even without the article, he certainly knew he was likely to match play if he could just keep it together. The article told him exactly what he already knew, and nothing more.

"15-year old": implies that his youth renders him less able to deal with pressure. Maybe or maybe not, but this is a national championship, and its competitors should not be treated with kid gloves. The night before the second round of stroke play, the USGA published an article about Randy Haag overcoming the yips, and asked him about his chances of making match play. Randy is 48. Does that make it different?

"Have to": Have to? I doubt he even read the article in the first place. And if he did, wouldn't he have done so assuming he'd see his own name, given that he's a reigning USGA champion and that he played exceptionally well during the first round?

You imply that this article somehow caused Whitsett to collapse and miss match play. That is the part that I find ridiculous. How can a factual sentence that restates already-known information cause a national champion golfer to make a triple bogey? It can't!

If Whitsett was nervous and collapsed, frankly, that's his own fault. However I do feel badly for him because it's a nightmare kind of scenario.

Finally, I don't understand what standards you think we should set for covering this sort of event. Should we only write about events after they happen? Should we completely eliminate tournament previews, the annointing of "favorites", and all potentially forward-looking statements about a player's possible success down the road?

Or only for 15-year-old's?

Respectfully,
Matt

Matt,

I don't know the golf course at all. I have only seen it from the road. I will say that as good as these kids are, I am not going to put anything in print with golf left to be played. I don't know if you think that I implied it or just 15-year old implies it, but if I was implying anything by his age, it was that he, in his youth, probably hadn't seen anything so stupid before and might be more subject to get into his head just a slight bit.  I certainly could see that being the case with a lot of 15-year olds, not all, but some. Haag and Zahringer may have come across something like this. There is my point, it is not fair to screw up in one AMATEUR golfer, even if it only gets in his head for a little bit or changes his thoughts. It is not NECESSARY.

So, is there a distinct difference between the two Masters questions or isn't there? I don't think I implied that it caused him to miss the cut, I implied and will outright state that it was extremely poor judgment to include that "information" in the article.

[Rick Shefchik]

"Likely" is a dangerous word in journalism.

It covers your ass if the event does not in fact take place, but it certainly implies that the reader can expect it to become reality.

Most good editors would take it out of the story. Most competent reporters wouldn't put it in.

Having said that, Whitsett's failure had absolutely nothing to do with anything printed on the USGA web site. Even the golf gods don't read it.

[Rich Goodale]

What happens in the dugout when a pitcher has a no-hitter going?

He's all alone...

Jim

Having been there more than once, I can tell you that what you say is not true.

Rich

PS--I've also been where Cory was (at a much lower level) and know what the pressure can be trying to make a number on the 36th hole in a tournament you are not expected to qualify for.  As Rick says below (and I implied above) the USGA website had nothing to do with the Cory's implosion

[Mike Benham]

 Even the golf gods don't read it.

Much ado about nothing.  As Richard says, the USGA website for this event has been pathetic, lack of coverage of any storyline or interesting comments about the golfers or courses.  312 golfers during stroke play qualifying and 1 article a day!!!

Surprisingly lack of local coverage too which is unfortunate.

I doubt many, if any actually saw or ready the story for which Glenn is so upset by.

[Glenn Spencer]

 Even the golf gods don't read it.

Much ado about nothing.  As Richard says, the USGA website for this event has been pathetic, lack of coverage of any storyline or interesting comments about the golfers or courses.  312 golfers during stroke play qualifying and 1 article a day!!!

Surprisingly lack of local coverage too which is unfortunate.

I doubt many, if any actually saw or ready the story for which Glenn is so upset by.

Mike,

Where do you think the players in their hotel rooms go to get the scores or see who they will play the next day? On the other thread about Olympic, somebody supplied a link to a blog from one of the competitors. Ricky Jones, an older guy from Maine. mesga.org or mesga.com, I don't remember. In the blog, it specifically says that he was on the computer seeing what the cut was. How could you or anybody else not think that most of these players are reading this?

[Mike Benham]

Ok Glenn, you are right, everybody read the article ...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()