NFL fans know Jimmy Garappolo. He was Tom Brady's back-up in New England for a few years, and recently has caught on with the San Fran 49ers. Not only caught on, but signed a very lucrative long term contract. And BTW, in the seven games he's started -- two for the Pats and 5 for the Niners -- he's undefeated. A perfect 7-0.
What many don't know is Jimmy G came out of Eastern Illinois, not exactly a "power" school. But EI has the distinction of also churning out one Tony Romo, of former Dallas Cowboys fame. Along the way, JG shattered all of TR's passing records.
Alas, Garappolo made the news a while back in what many people would consider an unflattering way. He was caught -- CAUGHT -- red-handed out on a date with a porn star. The video has been widely shown.
But wait a second. Why should this be a big deal -- or any deal at all? Last time I looked, there were no laws on the books forbidding two adults from having dinner together.
Porn star? Who cares? Would the multitude of puritans out there feel better if JG's date had been a lawyer? Nurse? Teacher? Political operative? A super-sizer working a McJob at a drive-thru window somewhere?
Besides, Garappolo is a young, quite single man. He can go out with anybody he damn well feels like. And it's nobody's business but his. Hey, if he and the actress decided to share the pleasures of the flesh in a variety of position afterwards -- more power to them. Unlike the stick girls that continue to rise in popularity elsewhere -- they're evidently breeding the mammaries right off of them in recent times -- this woman had some serious attention getters for a virile red-blooded male. Trust me -- most men like those. A lot.
If this is such a big deal, where was the outrage when one Irvin "Magic" Johnson was supposedly sleeping with over 1000 women -- while MARRIED? Unbelievably, his wife is still there. Well, OK, there's the money thing. Maybe not so unbelievable.
Eldrick "Tiger" Woods got busted for being a serial wife-cheater a few years back. At least Elin had the self-dignity to dump him. But his faithful lemmings still adore Tiger, even though he hasn't won anything in years.
Wilt Chamberlain and the 20,000 different women claim? Do the math. He'd have had to been doing 5-6 different women a day -- every day -- 365 -- from the time he was old enough to have a driver's license until the day he died. Nope, never did buy that. No way.
Thing is, the video mentioned above was shot by one Johnny Manzeil. This was a horrible mistake on his part.
We all know he bombed out of the NFL, even with the woeful Cleveland Browns. CLEVELAND!! And lately he's been bouncing around the Canadian Football League.
Yep, Johnny got another 15 minutes of fame for posting the video, but at what cost? No professional player on any team wants their private life to be spied on, much less be made public. Even management frowns on that sort of thing. In effect, Manzeil just drove the last nail in his coffin regarding any hopes of returning to the NFL. I mean, who's going to trust him after this debacle?
In closing, here's wishing Jimmy Garappolo the best. By any standards, he's a handsome rascal, and hey -- 7-0 is 7-0. The Niners did well do enlist his services for the next several years.
Idle thought. Why did Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots let him go? Brady's 41 years old. He may think he can play forever, but he can't. And the end is likely to come crashing down on him soon.
Nevertheless, all the hoopla that went along with the Jimmy G video having dinner/drinks with a "porn" star can likely be chalked up to one thing.
Jealousy. Many women would dearly love to take Jimmy G home for a go-round in the sack. And many men wished THEY could be in that position, no pun intended, with whatever happened after that date with an adult film star. Talk about knowing the ropes and every which way but loose.......
Who's kidding who?
I say, if you get the chance -- go for it. It doesn't come around every day for most people.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Dustin Johnson and Tiger Woods, quite the contrast
Dustin Johnson is currently the #1 ranked golfer in the world. Eldrick (Tiger) Woods used to be.
While watching a bit of the Canadian Open, which DJ would go on to win by three shots, something jumped out at yours truly.
When walking among the fans on both sides, Johnson made it a point to slap all the hands he could.
This is something Woods never did, or does. Eldrick routinely ignores them, even the adoring kids. He walks straight ahead, often mumbling to himself, as if he's in a world of his own.
Now I ask you -- is it really asking too much of a professional athlete to give a little love back to those that have ponied up big bucks just to be on the premises when he plays?
Seems simple enough.
Guys like Dustin Johnson and Mike Trout of Major League Baseball get it. Besides their obvious skills, that's why they're loved by so many.
Guys like Tiger Woods and Barry Bonds just couldn't seem to be bothered with it.
It was/is evidently beneath them to associate with the "peasants" in any way, shape, or form.
Even something so easily done as slapping a few hands along the way. Merely a common courtesy.
It really is shameful.
While watching a bit of the Canadian Open, which DJ would go on to win by three shots, something jumped out at yours truly.
When walking among the fans on both sides, Johnson made it a point to slap all the hands he could.
This is something Woods never did, or does. Eldrick routinely ignores them, even the adoring kids. He walks straight ahead, often mumbling to himself, as if he's in a world of his own.
Now I ask you -- is it really asking too much of a professional athlete to give a little love back to those that have ponied up big bucks just to be on the premises when he plays?
Seems simple enough.
Guys like Dustin Johnson and Mike Trout of Major League Baseball get it. Besides their obvious skills, that's why they're loved by so many.
Guys like Tiger Woods and Barry Bonds just couldn't seem to be bothered with it.
It was/is evidently beneath them to associate with the "peasants" in any way, shape, or form.
Even something so easily done as slapping a few hands along the way. Merely a common courtesy.
It really is shameful.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Todd Gurley contract. Righteous or nuts?
NFL fans certainly know that Todd Gurley, running back for the LA Rams, just got a whopper of a new contract. A four year deal worth $60 million, $45 million of which is guaranteed money. Todd's happy. So are others around the league, particularly running backs, but I'll get back to that.
Few would doubt Gurley, merely 24 years old, is of the "premium" variety. He's fast, shifty, can block (a little) on occasion, can shed would-be tacklers, and has great hands when it comes to receiving. A multiple offensive threat to be sure. It can likely safely be said Gurley is among the top 3-4 running backs in the NFL.
And it would appear he's earned a hefty raise from his rookie contract. Over his three years in the league, he's averaged over 1300 rushing yards a season, seems to keep his nose relatively clean off the field, and has only missed one game due to injury (durable). Plus, he added 6 receiving touchdowns last season. All in all, pretty impressive stuff.
So yeah, this contract could be considered righteous.
That's the up-side.
Now for the down.
Though it's difficult to nail down, the average career of an NFL running back is generally assumed to be somewhere between 3 and 5 years. They get banged around -- a lot. So injuries often happen. True, many have gone on to play for 8, 10, even a dozen or more years.
Gurley has already played three years. Signing him on for guaranteed money for an additional four more years is mighty risky business. As they say, every play could be his last. Ya never know.
In that respect, the Rams could be considered nuts for tying up so much money on one player, which will crimp their salary cap regarding signing other quality players to bolster the team elsewhere.
Alas, it appears the price of doing business these days in the NFL if a team wishes to even contend for the ultimate prize -- the Super Bowl.
Now to the "other" players mentioned above. They're mighty happy too, because Gurley's contract almost assures many of them will get a hefty raise as well.
Add it all up and that cha-ching you hear in the background is the price of tickets going up -- again. The players will get wealthier and the fans will be bled for even more dough to pay for it.
So is this righteous or nuts?
Depends on how one looks at it.
Few would doubt Gurley, merely 24 years old, is of the "premium" variety. He's fast, shifty, can block (a little) on occasion, can shed would-be tacklers, and has great hands when it comes to receiving. A multiple offensive threat to be sure. It can likely safely be said Gurley is among the top 3-4 running backs in the NFL.
And it would appear he's earned a hefty raise from his rookie contract. Over his three years in the league, he's averaged over 1300 rushing yards a season, seems to keep his nose relatively clean off the field, and has only missed one game due to injury (durable). Plus, he added 6 receiving touchdowns last season. All in all, pretty impressive stuff.
So yeah, this contract could be considered righteous.
That's the up-side.
Now for the down.
Though it's difficult to nail down, the average career of an NFL running back is generally assumed to be somewhere between 3 and 5 years. They get banged around -- a lot. So injuries often happen. True, many have gone on to play for 8, 10, even a dozen or more years.
Gurley has already played three years. Signing him on for guaranteed money for an additional four more years is mighty risky business. As they say, every play could be his last. Ya never know.
In that respect, the Rams could be considered nuts for tying up so much money on one player, which will crimp their salary cap regarding signing other quality players to bolster the team elsewhere.
Alas, it appears the price of doing business these days in the NFL if a team wishes to even contend for the ultimate prize -- the Super Bowl.
Now to the "other" players mentioned above. They're mighty happy too, because Gurley's contract almost assures many of them will get a hefty raise as well.
Add it all up and that cha-ching you hear in the background is the price of tickets going up -- again. The players will get wealthier and the fans will be bled for even more dough to pay for it.
So is this righteous or nuts?
Depends on how one looks at it.
Monday, July 23, 2018
The case for fan noise in golf
I'd never much thought about it before, but it's been there all along and most of of have just taken it for granted. To wit -- why crowd noise is acceptable in some sports, but not in others.
This was brought to my attention by an on-line article that described the horror -- HORROR!! -- felt when some fan dared to yell during the back swing of one Tiger Woods at this year's (British) Open. Eldrick glowered. The crowd booed the spectator heartily. Of course, had this happened to most any other player, we likely wouldn't have heard about it at all. But Tiger is "special". Right.
Thing is, the whole premise has always been hypocritical. Why should fans that pay big bucks to attend an event in one sport have to be quiet, when those that attend an event in another routinely make maximum noise?
In baseball, even starting out in little league, the players themselves jabber at the opponents. "Pitcher's got a rubber arm". Or "Hey, batter, swing". It's always been accepted as just part of the game.
In football, crowds are encouraged to make noise -- the more the better to support their team and disrupt the concentration of the opponents.
Who hasn't seen basketball fans behind the backboard waving their arms, signs, and anything else they can get their hands on trying to mess up the concentration of an opponent shooting free throws?
It seems only in golf and tennis are fans expected to be mute while certain plays go on. In tennis, it's the serve. After that, they are free to scream away. Are we to believe only THAT stroke can be influenced by sound, and not the ensuing others on any given point? Does that make sense?
Bowling used to be a hush-hush affair. Yet somewhere along the line, the fans, typically right on top of the action, became free to holler and scream all they wanted. The players adapted. It gave none of them an advantage over the other.
So what gives with the iron clad rule that thou shalt remain silent when any pro golfer is in the process of his/her swing?
To be sure, oftentimes there are roars from elsewhere on the course due to great shots at exactly the same time said pampered players are in the middle of their back swing. It would be mighty difficult to silence everybody on the course, all the time, during a tournament, which is what it would take. No, forget difficult. Undoable and a preposterous notion.
Let's not forget another aspect peculiar to golf. The players only have to do one thing. Hit a golf ball. In all other sports, many skills are required. Hitting, running, fielding, throwing, playing defense, even skating and kicking, to name but a few.
Good grief, golfers even have caddies to lug their bags and clubs around. They're fed the exact yardage on any given shot, but still sometimes take a ridiculous amount of time to hit....the.... damn... ball. While we're young, or at least alive, please. Is that asking too much? How often have you seen a golfer line up his shot, take a few practice swings (as if the hundreds they did on the range warming up weren't enough), throw grass in the air to check the wind, line up their shot yet again, a few more practice swings, and then hit it into a sand trap, water, or the woods? You and I can do that in far less time. Did I mention hit the damn ball already?
This is all the more reason people should be free to make noise whenever they feel like it at a golf tournament. Waiting on some of these prima donnas is just about enough to make anybody want to scream.
So I say to hell with the gag rule. Turn em loose. They paid to get in, just like fans in the other sports mentioned above.
They players will get used to it.
And if they don't -- tough. Go get a real job.
This was brought to my attention by an on-line article that described the horror -- HORROR!! -- felt when some fan dared to yell during the back swing of one Tiger Woods at this year's (British) Open. Eldrick glowered. The crowd booed the spectator heartily. Of course, had this happened to most any other player, we likely wouldn't have heard about it at all. But Tiger is "special". Right.
Thing is, the whole premise has always been hypocritical. Why should fans that pay big bucks to attend an event in one sport have to be quiet, when those that attend an event in another routinely make maximum noise?
In baseball, even starting out in little league, the players themselves jabber at the opponents. "Pitcher's got a rubber arm". Or "Hey, batter, swing". It's always been accepted as just part of the game.
In football, crowds are encouraged to make noise -- the more the better to support their team and disrupt the concentration of the opponents.
Who hasn't seen basketball fans behind the backboard waving their arms, signs, and anything else they can get their hands on trying to mess up the concentration of an opponent shooting free throws?
It seems only in golf and tennis are fans expected to be mute while certain plays go on. In tennis, it's the serve. After that, they are free to scream away. Are we to believe only THAT stroke can be influenced by sound, and not the ensuing others on any given point? Does that make sense?
Bowling used to be a hush-hush affair. Yet somewhere along the line, the fans, typically right on top of the action, became free to holler and scream all they wanted. The players adapted. It gave none of them an advantage over the other.
So what gives with the iron clad rule that thou shalt remain silent when any pro golfer is in the process of his/her swing?
To be sure, oftentimes there are roars from elsewhere on the course due to great shots at exactly the same time said pampered players are in the middle of their back swing. It would be mighty difficult to silence everybody on the course, all the time, during a tournament, which is what it would take. No, forget difficult. Undoable and a preposterous notion.
Let's not forget another aspect peculiar to golf. The players only have to do one thing. Hit a golf ball. In all other sports, many skills are required. Hitting, running, fielding, throwing, playing defense, even skating and kicking, to name but a few.
Good grief, golfers even have caddies to lug their bags and clubs around. They're fed the exact yardage on any given shot, but still sometimes take a ridiculous amount of time to hit....the.... damn... ball. While we're young, or at least alive, please. Is that asking too much? How often have you seen a golfer line up his shot, take a few practice swings (as if the hundreds they did on the range warming up weren't enough), throw grass in the air to check the wind, line up their shot yet again, a few more practice swings, and then hit it into a sand trap, water, or the woods? You and I can do that in far less time. Did I mention hit the damn ball already?
This is all the more reason people should be free to make noise whenever they feel like it at a golf tournament. Waiting on some of these prima donnas is just about enough to make anybody want to scream.
So I say to hell with the gag rule. Turn em loose. They paid to get in, just like fans in the other sports mentioned above.
They players will get used to it.
And if they don't -- tough. Go get a real job.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
The Tiger Woods respect/fear issue
It was a remark easy to overlook and let pass. Though I'm not sure if I caught the original or one of the many replays, it's certainly been repeated often enough.
One of the talking heads commenting on this year's (British) Open said the many players still ahead of Tiger Woods on the leaderboard "respected but did not fear him".
An interesting take, but wait a second. How did he know that for sure? Did he poll those players and ask them outright? If so, no mention came of it, so can likely assume not. In other words, he was trying to put a positive spin on things, though speaking from a position of ignorance.
First -- the fear factor. Though Eldrick Tont Woods no doubt possessed it back in his heyday, it would be ludicrous so suggest any of the top players currently on tour shake in their boots when Tiger shows up for a tournament. His history over the last several years is hardly a cause for alarm among the young guns. They KNOW they can beat him. And have, repeatedly. Nowadays the question isn't whether Woods will a tournament, but rather if he'll make the cut.
Far more relevant is the respect factor yon announcer took for granted. Do the other players, most all of which are ranked higher than Eldrick, truly respect him?
Let's remember most of these guys didn't even have their PGA cards when Tiger was tearing it up during the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. But they no doubt heard about some things and saw yet others on TV.
Are we to believe all these guys harbor respect for, to date, the only serial wife-cheater ever on the PGA tour?
The same guy that has uttered countless obscenities while on the course, thrown and pounded clubs, and otherwise displayed boorish behavior in what is supposed to be a gentlemen's game?
The very same that thinks gently slapping the outstretched hands of fans is somehow beneath him as he walks by?
The same dude that has always routinely ignored children that idolized him before and after his rounds of golf by refusing to autograph various paraphernalia? Or even acknowledge them?
Years back, yours truly (and several friends) had the occasion to cross paths with Woods and his then caddy Steve Williams at the Buick Open. We had anted up to be there and were behind the ropes in the gallery where be belonged. Yet as golfer and caddy approached, Williams barked at us to get out of the way. Make a hole, so to speak. Evidently, he thought the President, the Pope, the Queen of England, or maybe God himself was coming through. It was just Eldrick, a mere golfer. I never forgot that. Who do these people think they are? But this is the sort of arrogant stuff viewers at home never got to see.
Don't think for a second this has gone unnoticed by his competitors over the years.
So do/did they truly respect Eldrick Tont Woods, or is/was that just politically correct hype?
We'll likely never know. The other players are too "gentlemanly" to ever say anything bad about another, regardless of how egregious his behavior might have been.
But I have my doubts as to whether they hold/held Tiger in high esteem indeed.
True, he's always been able to turn on the charm when he's doing a pre or post round interview for the media and the masses in TV land.
But a lot of history's great villains possessed that attribute as well.
It didn't make them nice guys in the end. Far from it.
Another thing no current PGA player will say is what a nightmare it must be to play in the same group as Tiger. The epitome of a travelling circus. It's gotta be tough to keep one's composure and concentration when throngs of mindless rowdy groupies are following your playing partner, hence you, all around the course. And that's just the media. The Tiger lemming fans are even worse.
So in the end, we can certainly conclude fear is not a factor whatsoever.
But the same can likely be said for respect as well.
One of the talking heads commenting on this year's (British) Open said the many players still ahead of Tiger Woods on the leaderboard "respected but did not fear him".
An interesting take, but wait a second. How did he know that for sure? Did he poll those players and ask them outright? If so, no mention came of it, so can likely assume not. In other words, he was trying to put a positive spin on things, though speaking from a position of ignorance.
First -- the fear factor. Though Eldrick Tont Woods no doubt possessed it back in his heyday, it would be ludicrous so suggest any of the top players currently on tour shake in their boots when Tiger shows up for a tournament. His history over the last several years is hardly a cause for alarm among the young guns. They KNOW they can beat him. And have, repeatedly. Nowadays the question isn't whether Woods will a tournament, but rather if he'll make the cut.
Far more relevant is the respect factor yon announcer took for granted. Do the other players, most all of which are ranked higher than Eldrick, truly respect him?
Let's remember most of these guys didn't even have their PGA cards when Tiger was tearing it up during the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. But they no doubt heard about some things and saw yet others on TV.
Are we to believe all these guys harbor respect for, to date, the only serial wife-cheater ever on the PGA tour?
The same guy that has uttered countless obscenities while on the course, thrown and pounded clubs, and otherwise displayed boorish behavior in what is supposed to be a gentlemen's game?
The very same that thinks gently slapping the outstretched hands of fans is somehow beneath him as he walks by?
The same dude that has always routinely ignored children that idolized him before and after his rounds of golf by refusing to autograph various paraphernalia? Or even acknowledge them?
Years back, yours truly (and several friends) had the occasion to cross paths with Woods and his then caddy Steve Williams at the Buick Open. We had anted up to be there and were behind the ropes in the gallery where be belonged. Yet as golfer and caddy approached, Williams barked at us to get out of the way. Make a hole, so to speak. Evidently, he thought the President, the Pope, the Queen of England, or maybe God himself was coming through. It was just Eldrick, a mere golfer. I never forgot that. Who do these people think they are? But this is the sort of arrogant stuff viewers at home never got to see.
Don't think for a second this has gone unnoticed by his competitors over the years.
So do/did they truly respect Eldrick Tont Woods, or is/was that just politically correct hype?
We'll likely never know. The other players are too "gentlemanly" to ever say anything bad about another, regardless of how egregious his behavior might have been.
But I have my doubts as to whether they hold/held Tiger in high esteem indeed.
True, he's always been able to turn on the charm when he's doing a pre or post round interview for the media and the masses in TV land.
But a lot of history's great villains possessed that attribute as well.
It didn't make them nice guys in the end. Far from it.
Another thing no current PGA player will say is what a nightmare it must be to play in the same group as Tiger. The epitome of a travelling circus. It's gotta be tough to keep one's composure and concentration when throngs of mindless rowdy groupies are following your playing partner, hence you, all around the course. And that's just the media. The Tiger lemming fans are even worse.
So in the end, we can certainly conclude fear is not a factor whatsoever.
But the same can likely be said for respect as well.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Tiger Woods and the (British) Open.
The never-say-diers, sometimes known as Tiger Woods' groupies, are at it again. This time fueled by Eldrick himself. Both claim this is the best chance dear Tiger has had to win a major tournament in some time.
True enough, seeing as how he hasn't played in many if them over the last several years. And after all, as Eldrick himself said, this is the NEXT one. Brilliant. A regular genius, that Tiger. Who else would have thought of that pearl of wisdom?
But something appears horribly wrong. Namely, the pre-tournament odds handed out by the wizards of wagering -- also sometimes known as Vegas wise guys.
They have Dustin Johnson as the favorite to win the tournament, and well they should, given he's far and away the #1 player in the world these days. Still, even DJ checks in a 12:1 odds. Hardly a lock.
Going down the list after that gets interesting. Here are the names and the odds they supposedly have at winning the Open.
Rory McIlroy. 16:1. That seems odd seeing as how Rory hasn't been faring so well of late.
Rickey Fowler: 16:1. Also odd, given he's never won a major before. And never been particularly good on links courses over his career to boot.
Justin Rose: 16:1. Well, the Brit is playing in his own back yard so to speak.
Jordan Spieth: 20:1. Like Rory, Jordy has been in a slump lately. Why is he ranked so high here?
Justin Thomas: 20:1. Given he's the #2 golfer in the world, shouldn't he be ranked even higher?
Tommy Fleetwood: 20:1. A quiet sort of guy that doesn't attract much attention, but he's definitely got game. But ranking him on the same level as Justin Thomas is quite a stretch.
Brooks Koepka: 20:1. Another low profile guy, but he IS the back-to-back US Open winner. How will this translate to Carnoustie? Probably not very well.
Jon Rahm: 20:1. A solid choice, given the Spaniard's only 23 years old and already ranked #3 in the world. Look out for him in the future.
Jason Day, Tiger Woods, and Henrik Stenson: 25:1.
This is where it gets ridiculous. Both Aussie Day and Swede Stenson have been much more accomplished in recent years than Woods -- which isn't saying much.
Patrick Reed: 30:1. Want truly ridiculous? The reigning Masters champion supposedly has a lesser shot at this major than Eldrick? The same guy that hasn't won a major in over a decade? Say WHAT?
Well OK. Time for some personal wagering. Normally, I'm not much of a betting man anymore, though I used to be. And I hung with some folks, guys and gals both, that were quite astute in such matters. No fools, they. We used to wager internally all the time. Ya win some, ya lose some, and though I never added it all up over the years, I'm pretty sure they collectively (no pun intended) got the best of me.
I sought a few of them out earlier today and made them an offer. I had a C-note that said Eldrick Tont Woods wouldn't even make the cut at this year's Open.
Figured I'd get a few takers.
But quite to my surprise -- not a one of them bit. They all think Tiger's washed up as well. According to them, only his legions of hard-core lemmings, and of course the ever-fawning media, still think he's a force, or ever will be one in golfing again.
So either I missed out on a windfall, or avoided getting taken to the cleaners one more time.
They'll be teeing it up in Scotland just a few hours from now.
We shall see indeed.
I'll be paying particular attention to the cut on Friday.
Eldrick actually winning the thing? Not a chance. Get outta here.
I'm still trying to figure out how the oddsmakers have a guy not ranked in the top 100 in the world as a better shot to win this tournament than all those that actually are?
Even Phil Mickelson. He comes in at 50:1 odds.
They're trying to tell us Tiger is twice as likely to win this Open as Lefty?
Not buying that either.
So here's the deal. Dear Tiger has definitely been "cherry-picking" his tournaments of late. And he's taken the last month off just to prepare for the year's Open.
Now's his big chance to shine again.
And I think he's going to crash and burn. The young guns are going to eat this dude alive, if the course itself doesn't.
True enough, seeing as how he hasn't played in many if them over the last several years. And after all, as Eldrick himself said, this is the NEXT one. Brilliant. A regular genius, that Tiger. Who else would have thought of that pearl of wisdom?
But something appears horribly wrong. Namely, the pre-tournament odds handed out by the wizards of wagering -- also sometimes known as Vegas wise guys.
They have Dustin Johnson as the favorite to win the tournament, and well they should, given he's far and away the #1 player in the world these days. Still, even DJ checks in a 12:1 odds. Hardly a lock.
Going down the list after that gets interesting. Here are the names and the odds they supposedly have at winning the Open.
Rory McIlroy. 16:1. That seems odd seeing as how Rory hasn't been faring so well of late.
Rickey Fowler: 16:1. Also odd, given he's never won a major before. And never been particularly good on links courses over his career to boot.
Justin Rose: 16:1. Well, the Brit is playing in his own back yard so to speak.
Jordan Spieth: 20:1. Like Rory, Jordy has been in a slump lately. Why is he ranked so high here?
Justin Thomas: 20:1. Given he's the #2 golfer in the world, shouldn't he be ranked even higher?
Tommy Fleetwood: 20:1. A quiet sort of guy that doesn't attract much attention, but he's definitely got game. But ranking him on the same level as Justin Thomas is quite a stretch.
Brooks Koepka: 20:1. Another low profile guy, but he IS the back-to-back US Open winner. How will this translate to Carnoustie? Probably not very well.
Jon Rahm: 20:1. A solid choice, given the Spaniard's only 23 years old and already ranked #3 in the world. Look out for him in the future.
Jason Day, Tiger Woods, and Henrik Stenson: 25:1.
This is where it gets ridiculous. Both Aussie Day and Swede Stenson have been much more accomplished in recent years than Woods -- which isn't saying much.
Patrick Reed: 30:1. Want truly ridiculous? The reigning Masters champion supposedly has a lesser shot at this major than Eldrick? The same guy that hasn't won a major in over a decade? Say WHAT?
Well OK. Time for some personal wagering. Normally, I'm not much of a betting man anymore, though I used to be. And I hung with some folks, guys and gals both, that were quite astute in such matters. No fools, they. We used to wager internally all the time. Ya win some, ya lose some, and though I never added it all up over the years, I'm pretty sure they collectively (no pun intended) got the best of me.
I sought a few of them out earlier today and made them an offer. I had a C-note that said Eldrick Tont Woods wouldn't even make the cut at this year's Open.
Figured I'd get a few takers.
But quite to my surprise -- not a one of them bit. They all think Tiger's washed up as well. According to them, only his legions of hard-core lemmings, and of course the ever-fawning media, still think he's a force, or ever will be one in golfing again.
So either I missed out on a windfall, or avoided getting taken to the cleaners one more time.
They'll be teeing it up in Scotland just a few hours from now.
We shall see indeed.
I'll be paying particular attention to the cut on Friday.
Eldrick actually winning the thing? Not a chance. Get outta here.
I'm still trying to figure out how the oddsmakers have a guy not ranked in the top 100 in the world as a better shot to win this tournament than all those that actually are?
Even Phil Mickelson. He comes in at 50:1 odds.
They're trying to tell us Tiger is twice as likely to win this Open as Lefty?
Not buying that either.
So here's the deal. Dear Tiger has definitely been "cherry-picking" his tournaments of late. And he's taken the last month off just to prepare for the year's Open.
Now's his big chance to shine again.
And I think he's going to crash and burn. The young guns are going to eat this dude alive, if the course itself doesn't.
Monday, July 16, 2018
The great home run deception
If you've just about had your fill of politicians lying to you on various fronts, it probably won't come as good news that Major League Baseball has been pulling the wool over your eyes for decades as well. In other words, you been conned.
Right now the annual Home Run Derby is taking place on the eve of the All-Star Game. That's great. See the sluggers hitting ball after ball of batting practice pitches into the seats. Quite the show for those so inclined.
But also see the deception that continues to be perpetrated upon you.
These days, the announcers will come up with all sorts of superlatives. "Moon" or "monster" shot for any ball traveling over 400 feet. Over 440 will get them hyperventilating. What comes after moon or monster? It simply isn't so. Never has been.
In days of old, Tiger stadium's center field wall was 440 feet from home plate. A fly ball hit, say, 420, wasn't a moon shot. Not even a home run. Just a long out.
The old Yankee Stadium featured a whopping distance of 465 feet from home plate. The longest home run hit to date this year wouldn't been a home run if hit in that direction back in the day. Maybe an out, or maybe a double, if the left or center fielder couldn't catch up to it. But definitely not a home run.
Here's a question. How come no Major League player in recent years seems capable of hitting a ball 500 feet or more? What would the announcers call that? A deep space probe?
After all, back in the 1960s, a chubby little first baseman named Norm Cash of the Detroit Tigers supposedly hit several balls well over 500 feet. Clean out of Tiger Stadium over the right field wall. And he wasn't the only one. Several other players around the league did the same in those times.
Nowadays, players have custom made bats, the balls themselves are supposedly "juiced", the pitchers are throwing as hard as ever, maybe harder, and still no 500 foot home runs. How can that be?
Back in 1971, Reggie Jackson hit a ball high into the light tower in right center field of the same Tiger Stadium. If Cash's homers were somewhere around 500-525 feet, as advertised at the time, surely that one had to be at least 550, or more.
Legend has it that the longer homer ever hit belonged to one Mickey Mantle. Some 585 feet. If that were done today, the same announcers would faint dead away. But that's not going to happen.
Why? Because nowadays sophisticated technology exists to determine, within a foot or so, exactly how long any home run actually is. Much like the yardage on any PGA golf hole is lasered and computed from all angles and distances.
Bottom line? Either the pudgy, partying players of old -- with their comparatively primitive equipment (bats) -- were a whole lot stronger than the modern day players, or we were fed a bunch of grossly exaggerated hogwash back in the day -- and bought it.
Chubby little Norm Cash hit balls more further than Bryce Harper, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, even Barry Bonds?
It made for great fairy tales once upon a time, and was fun to believe. So was Sleeping Beauty, Jack and his beanstalk, and why do you think Don Quixote is the best-selling novel of all time? The masses ate up the idea of tilting at windmills.
Yet it can safely be said they were just that -- fairy tales -- as in pure fiction.
And so were the "monster" home run lengths in days of old.
They were nothing but grabbing an arbitrary (outrageous) number out of the air and declaring it to be true.
Nice stories, but in the end, lies.
Right now the annual Home Run Derby is taking place on the eve of the All-Star Game. That's great. See the sluggers hitting ball after ball of batting practice pitches into the seats. Quite the show for those so inclined.
But also see the deception that continues to be perpetrated upon you.
These days, the announcers will come up with all sorts of superlatives. "Moon" or "monster" shot for any ball traveling over 400 feet. Over 440 will get them hyperventilating. What comes after moon or monster? It simply isn't so. Never has been.
In days of old, Tiger stadium's center field wall was 440 feet from home plate. A fly ball hit, say, 420, wasn't a moon shot. Not even a home run. Just a long out.
The old Yankee Stadium featured a whopping distance of 465 feet from home plate. The longest home run hit to date this year wouldn't been a home run if hit in that direction back in the day. Maybe an out, or maybe a double, if the left or center fielder couldn't catch up to it. But definitely not a home run.
Here's a question. How come no Major League player in recent years seems capable of hitting a ball 500 feet or more? What would the announcers call that? A deep space probe?
After all, back in the 1960s, a chubby little first baseman named Norm Cash of the Detroit Tigers supposedly hit several balls well over 500 feet. Clean out of Tiger Stadium over the right field wall. And he wasn't the only one. Several other players around the league did the same in those times.
Nowadays, players have custom made bats, the balls themselves are supposedly "juiced", the pitchers are throwing as hard as ever, maybe harder, and still no 500 foot home runs. How can that be?
Back in 1971, Reggie Jackson hit a ball high into the light tower in right center field of the same Tiger Stadium. If Cash's homers were somewhere around 500-525 feet, as advertised at the time, surely that one had to be at least 550, or more.
Legend has it that the longer homer ever hit belonged to one Mickey Mantle. Some 585 feet. If that were done today, the same announcers would faint dead away. But that's not going to happen.
Why? Because nowadays sophisticated technology exists to determine, within a foot or so, exactly how long any home run actually is. Much like the yardage on any PGA golf hole is lasered and computed from all angles and distances.
Bottom line? Either the pudgy, partying players of old -- with their comparatively primitive equipment (bats) -- were a whole lot stronger than the modern day players, or we were fed a bunch of grossly exaggerated hogwash back in the day -- and bought it.
Chubby little Norm Cash hit balls more further than Bryce Harper, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, even Barry Bonds?
It made for great fairy tales once upon a time, and was fun to believe. So was Sleeping Beauty, Jack and his beanstalk, and why do you think Don Quixote is the best-selling novel of all time? The masses ate up the idea of tilting at windmills.
Yet it can safely be said they were just that -- fairy tales -- as in pure fiction.
And so were the "monster" home run lengths in days of old.
They were nothing but grabbing an arbitrary (outrageous) number out of the air and declaring it to be true.
Nice stories, but in the end, lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)