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.

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.........

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,

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

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

He's all alone...

Quote from: Rick Shefchik on August 23, 2007, 10:11:14 AM

 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.