Nicklaus' First Masters Championship

---

---

When I was growing up, three names dominated the PGA Tour — Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. They weren't the only golfers who won tournaments in the 1960s and 1970s, just the most frequent and prominent winners.

On this day 50 years ago, Player and Palmer had both won the Masters at least once. Palmer had won it three times, the most recent being the year before. Nicklaus, by far the youngest of the three, had not yet won it.

But he was about to.

Nicklaus became a professional golfer in late 1961, and he won his first major tournament (the U.S. Open) the next year. That was a pretty dramatic victory. Nicklaus prevailed over Palmer by three strokes in a playoff. At 22, he was the youngest U.S. Open winner since Bobby Jones nearly 40 years earlier; no one who is any younger has won the Open since.

On this day in 1963, Nicklaus became the youngest golfer to win the Masters. Tiger Woods became the youngest winner in 1997 when, at the age of 21, he won by 12 strokes.

In the buildup to this year's Masters, which begins on Thursday, there has been considerable speculation concerning whether Woods will win his first Masters since 2005.

But even if he does, it will be Woods' fifth triumph at the Augusta Golf Club; he will still trail Nicklaus, who has won a green jacket a record six times, by one title.

Tiger's first Masters title was a dramatic one because, initially, it looked as if he wouldn't make the cut, but he roared back to finish the four–day tourney at 18 under par, beating runnerup Tom Kite by 12 strokes.

Nicklaus did not enjoy such a comfortable margin in 1963. He held on for a one–stroke victory over Tony Lema, who trailed by three strokes entering the final day and nearly forced Nicklaus into a playoff. A double bogey in the opening round proved to be his undoing.

---

---

The 1963 Masters was a defining moment, writes John Berry in the Lake County Record–Bee of Lakeport, Calif.

Battling "brisk and windy" conditions, Berry writes, Nicklaus "showed that he had what it takes to win under the toughest of conditions on golf's biggest stage."

The Golden Bear won the Masters five more times, the most recent being in 1986.

Down From the Pedestal

---

---

Because he is so young compared to most in his sport, many people forget that Tiger Woods already has had a remarkable career.

He's won two of the four major tournaments four times each — the exceptions are the U.S. Open and The Open Championship, both of which he has won three times and came close to winning on a few other occasions. He also holds records for the most consecutive weeks in the top spot and the most total weeks ranked #1.

If he isn't the best golfer of all time, his name belongs in the conversation.

His pro career isn't over, of course. Many pro golfers are just hitting their stride when they are Woods' age (36), which means there may well be some more titles in his future — perhaps many more — even though he hasn't won a major since 2008, and he hasn't won two or more in a calendar year since 2006.

It doesn't look as if he will add to his majors total in today's concluding round of The Masters. There is too much ground to make up, too many golfers to overtake.

Woods won his first major, the 1997 Masters, 15 years ago this month. Only 21 years old at the time, Woods was the youngest–ever Masters champion, He wasn't the first black golfer to win at Augusta — Lee Elder accomplished that in 1975, less than a year before Woods was born — and he struggled out of the gate, but he won the tournament in dominating fashion, setting scoring records that still stand today.

Through the first nine holes, Woods was four–over par, but he finished the round three shots off the pace at two–under par. He seized control of the tournament in the second round, shooting a six–under 66.

(Nothing like that happened this year, of course. Tim Dahlberg of the Associated Press describes Tiger's second round of the Masters as "a foul–mouthed, club–kicking back nine ... that would have gotten you or me thrown off much lesser golf courses.")

Back in 1997, the third day was much like the second. Woods shot a 65 and took a nine–stroke lead into the final round. He only shot a 69 on the last day, but that was good enough to add three strokes to his final margin. His eventual margin of victory (12 strokes) is still the greatest ever in the Masters — and it was a record for all of the majors until Woods himself bested it with a 15–stroke win at the U.S. Open.

If anyone in golf is regarded as a natural (a la Robert Redford in his memorable baseball movie role), it must be Woods. So often, from his childhood through his young adulthood, it has seemed that things have come so effortlessly for him — the championships, the money, the adoring women.

The 1997 Masters made him seem like golf's version of Secretariat, pulling away from the field like (in the words of horse race caller Chic Anderson) "a tremendous machine" and strolling to the clubhouse to pick up his first green jacket. Hard as it may be to recall now, there was a period there in the late 1990s when many spoke of wanting to "Tiger proof" their golf courses with par–6 holes.

Undoubtedly, Tiger was a role model for millions. He was golf's golden boy who struck it rich with endorsement deals as well as tournament triumphs. In a post–Michael Jordan world (or one that was nearly so in 1997), he was the new Muhammad Ali of sports in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, recognized by all, master of all he or anyone else could see.

But, as both Jordan and Ali could have told him, such a time is fleeting. America loves its sports heroes, but it always ends — too soon for most athletes — and the love affair with Tiger was tarnished long before this year's Masters.

His tantrums on the Augusta National course in the last few days indicate that Tiger has been doing things in reverse order. He was a child prodigy for whom success came too early; he lacks the maturity and discipline now to learn and, eventually, benefit from mistakes and setbacks.

His enablers may say otherwise, but he hastened his own plummet from golf's pedestal.

A Memorable Masters

---

---

"If you could read Adam Scott's lips when he shook fellow Australian Jason Day's hand as they walked off the 18th green as runners–up, it summed up a day unlike any other in Masters history.

" 'That was awesome; that was unbelievable; that was great,' said Scott in a flurry of superlatives about a day that was all of that and then some."

Scott Michaux
Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle
April 11, 2011

---

I don't usually watch golf on TV.

I don't play the game so I don't understand many of its subtleties.

And I've always been of the opinion that, if someone wanted to market a truly effective cure for insomnia, all that person needed to do was sell video tapes of golf tournament broadcasts. The announcers always speak in hushed tones, as if they are standing just behind the golfers, and the imagery is always pastoral and soothing.

---

---

Especially the Masters — with the coma–inducing theme music it has been using as long as I can remember.

But I watched much of Sunday's final round of the Masters — and I was never tempted to doze off.

There were too many stories unfolding, as Scott Michaux wrote in the Augusta Chronicle.

Now, I don't know anything about Michaux. I presume that, if he has been writing for the Augusta paper for awhile, he has covered more than his share of Masters tournaments — and he speaks from experience when he calls yesterday "a day unlike any other in Masters history."

What I do know is this.

I've watched bits and pieces of most of the Masters broadcasts in my life. Occasionally, I have felt compelled to watch a bit more than that.

But I can't remember the last time I sat in front of my TV for hours, watching the Masters' final round unfold.

I was alternately astonished by Tiger Woods' remarkable comeback (for awhile on Sunday afternoon, he was actually tied for the lead), Rory McIlroy's equally amazing final–round collapse (thanks to a still–hard–to–fathom triple bogey from a guy who had been shooting under par all week) and the rapid ascent of three Australian golfers.

It was like golf's version of the Olympics. Something dramatic was happening at every hole.

And when the dust settled, South African Charl Schwartzel birdied the final four holes and won the tournament by two strokes.

When Tiger Woods won the Masters 14 years ago, he changed golf. He became its star — an unreachable star, in the eyes of many who played the game. Hard as it may be to remember, there were actually managers of some golf courses in America who wanted to extend some of their holes to make them more challenging for any golfers who could hit drives as far as Tiger could.

Tiger has fallen on hard times, and golf no longer has a dominant personality — but, as Michael Hiestand observes for USA TODAY, there was no absence of star power in Augusta on Sunday.

Even when it became clear that Tiger's comeback would come up short.

Tiger Blood

---

---

Someone is going to win the Masters today.

It ain't gonna be Tiger Woods, writes Gene Wojciechowski for ESPN.com.

But it might be Rory McIlroy, who staked out his advantage in the first round and has built it into the "largest lead Augusta National has seen since that remarkable day 14 years ago," writes John Romano of the St. Petersburg Times.

Anyone who is old enough to remember the 1997 Masters remembers the way Tiger Woods dominated the field. He was the youngest golfer ever to win the Masters, a mere 21, but that was probably the least of his accomplishments on the day he won his first green jacket.

He's won three more since then, and he's won every other major multiple times.

Tiger continues to cast an enormous shadow over this tournament — even though he has only won it once in the last eight years — but that shadow seems to be receding.

Tiger goes into today's final round trailing by seven strokes. He had a seven–under round one day in 1997 en route to his record–setting triumph in the Masters, and he flirted with it the next day so he is — or, at least, has been — capable of that.

But, in order for a 65 to result in at least a tie with the current leader, that leader would have to do something he hasn't done in the first three days of this tournament — break even.

In fact, even if the leader duplicates his worst round of the tournament (yesterday's two–under 70), Tiger would need to shoot a nine–under 63 to match him — and he would have to hope that the other golfers who stand between him and McIlroy don't have record–smashing afternoons of their own.

It just seems to me that there are too many obstacles between Tiger and a fifth green jacket. And even if there were no other golfers between Tiger and McIlroy, the greatest of the obstacles would remain: If Tiger ever shot a 63 (in a major or even a non–major), he hasn't done it recently.

So I would have to conclude that Wojciechowski was right — but we won't know that for sure until later today.

We'll also have to wait until later today to find out if Sports Illustrated's Joe Posnanski was right a couple of days ago when he observed that first–round leaders seldom win it all.

"In the last 25 years, there have been a total of 41 first–round leaders, including ties," he wrote. "One won the Masters. One. More first–round leaders over the last quarter century have finished in 21st place than first. Only 17 of the 41 first–round leaders even finished in the Top 10."

Let me amend what I just said. Posnanski clearly is right about the tournament's recent history. What remains to be seen is whether McIlroy will overcome it.

Going into today's final round, McIlroy has a chance to make that two first–round leaders in the last quarter century who have made their leads hold up long enough to win a championship.

We'll find out if he is able to do it later today.

It's All About Lebron

I haven't seen the ratings for Lebron James' hour–long self–lovefest yet.

I know. A few months ago, I wrote in this blog that it was all about Tiger Woods. But that was following Tiger's public "apology" — which, it is worth noting, did not require anywhere near an hour.

Of course, neither did Lebron's announcement. Well, I'm guessing it didn't take an hour to make it. I didn't watch the show.

And, in fairness, Lebron's announcement was an ESPN exclusive. It wasn't shown live on several networks simultaneously — the way Tiger's apology was.

But it did include sponsors, which makes it a commercial endeavor, whereas Tiger's apology was treated as a "news" event.

So, while I still believe that it was all about Tiger back in February, I believe it's all about Lebron now.

Both were shows, not really news events, although there were kernels of news to be found in each one. But they were faux news events. Tiger's sorry he cheated on his wife — how many times? Lebron's going to play for the highest bidder?

What were the odds?

I was amused yesterday when I saw an article at NPR.org, which suggested 20 ways that Lebron could fill "the other 59 minutes and 45 seconds."

Of course, the hour did include commercial breaks, and the revenue from the commercials was earmarked to benefit Boys and Girls Clubs, which is a good thing.

But make no mistake about it.

This production was really about Lebron.

I guess it shouldn't surprise us, this obsession with themselves that so many celebrities seem to have these days.

At its worst, it can be seen in the blatant narcissism of Lindsay Lohan's ongoing saga. But it is everywhere, really, to varying degrees.

So Lebron is not alone.

And he certainly doesn't appear to have been alone last night. If his ESPN "special" was, in fact, a media circus, as Richard Deitsch writes for Sports Illustrated, there were plenty of clowns running around.

And some people have the audacity to suggest that this is "reality" television.

Whose reality would that be?

Tiger's Apology

---

"Whenever someone says, 'This is not about money' — it's about money."

H.L. Mencken

---

I read a lot of H.L. Mencken when I was younger. And I remember reading this — or something like it — when I was in college.

Mencken was a prolific writer, though, so I can't say I remember precisely where I read that. And I can't say that my quotation is exact.

But I think you can get the gist of it, can't you? The essence of it has stayed with me all these years so if my wording isn't exactly what Mencken's was, forgive me. Pay attention to the message, not the messenger.

And this messenger believes everyone has an agenda — and some of them are brazen enough to protest that they don't have an agenda while everything about their public actions and language says that they do.

I guess it was for that reason, more than any other, that I found Tiger Woods' apology today insincere.

Cam Inman of the Bay Area News Group called Woods' "scripted" statement "awkward."

I thought it was awkward, too, but for what may be different reasons.

Woods didn't exactly say, "This isn't about sex," although, clearly, it is. And he didn't say, "This isn't because I'm a reckless, self–centered individual," although he certainly appears to have been one.

So why did Mencken's statement keep running through my head? When did it start? I think it may have been the point when he said he "stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in." So far, so good. I admit, he had me for a little while, when he said he only thought about himself and how he felt a sense of entitlement.

But then came the clanger, as far as I was concerned.

"Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them," he said, speaking of the "temptations" that had gotten the better of him.

As if he was really saying, "Gee, you know, I've got this terrible character flaw, but I was doing a real good job, a commendable job of keeping it under control ... darn that fame and fortune! It made it all too easy, too accessible. I mean, come on, what's a guy to do?"

Maybe it was wrong of me, but I kept thinking of the recordings I've heard of the last interview with serial killer Ted Bundy. Have you heard them? They were made the night before his execution. Evangelical Christian James Dobson conducted the interview. In it, Bundy kind of hints that he knows more than he's telling — probably a ploy to obtain an extension — and then talks about pornography as the "root" of his problem.

He didn't exactly blame pornography for his crimes, but he strongly implied that it played a key role.

Well, guess what? Lots of people look at pornography, but I would say that relatively few of them go around cracking girls' skulls open with whatever heavy club they can get their hands on.

Obviously, it isn't that dramatic — or deadly — in Woods' case, but I think the pass–the–buck mindset is the same. Lots of people have been blessed with fame and fortune, but relatively few squander them.

Then, in what I can only assume was intended to appear to be an indication of his selflessness, he pleaded with the media to leave his family alone. "They did not do these things; I did."

There it is, the confession — and the reminder. This is about Tiger — not his mother, not his wife, not his children. Like many things, I think this began as something entirely different, but now it's about who is in the spotlight. The attention may be bad, but it is still attention.

It can't be about money. He's a millionaire several times over. I think, at this point, it's a craving (possibly one of which he is not consciously aware) to have the spotlight all to himself — Tiger Woods, the essentially good guy who was the victim of fame and fortune.

So if anyone (especially Tiger) tells you this isn't about Tiger, trust me ... it's about Tiger.

Tiger and the Truth

As a journalist — and I'm talking about a real journalist, with college degrees and newsroom experience and everything — I find a lot of sense in what Dan Le Batard writes in the Miami Herald about the recent Tiger Woods incident.

"Truth," he writes, "is one of the many things that gets trampled today when boring facts can't keep up with the media's need to feed instantly and the public's appetite to be fed faster than that."

It's always been frustrating for journalists that news stories are often incomplete, that reporters must wait while facts are gradually disclosed and answers emerge.

It is even more frustrating today.

"We get news faster than we ever have," Le Batard writes. "We just can't trust it to be right."

So, as Le Batard observes, in the absence (so far) of a statement from Woods, the "news" we get tends to be gossip and speculation. And we're left with, as Le Batard writes, "what we kind of know."

It strikes me as yet another chapter in the evolving debate over the role of "citizen journalism." I have often written, particularly in my Freedom Writing blog, about the conflict between today's citizen journalism and traditional journalism. And nothing I have seen suggests to me that the so–called "citizen journalist" (whose only qualification to report the "news" often appears to be nothing more than the fact that he/she has access to a cell phone and a computer) is better prepared to inform the public on matters of substance than the journalist who went to college and covered general assignments for newspapers.

It has to do with more than the writing ability of the citizen journalist. It has to do with news judgment.

John McIntyre, former copy desk chief at the Baltimore Sun, mentions the Woods incident briefly in a blog entry titled "Not news." To a certain extent, he is correct. The fact that someone was involved in a single–vehicle accident a few feet from his own front door in which, apparently, no one was seriously injured likely would not, in the opinions of most news editors, be newsworthy.

But what makes this case unusual is the fact that it wasn't Joe Six–Pack who was involved in the accident. It was Tiger Woods, the #1 golfer in the world and one of the most recognizable people on the planet.

The fact that Woods is known to millions, obviously, is going to affect the newsworthiness of the story. And news judgment is certainly something that one learns and develops. In my experience, it is seldom, if ever, something that one is born with.

It is a topic about which I wrote about last summer, as the media (both traditional and nontraditional) got worked up about the memorial service for Michael Jackson.

Actually, the day that Jackson died is a perfect example of the tug–o–war that goes on between speed and accuracy today. On that afternoon back in June, the citizen journalists were quick to report that Jackson had died, but CNN refused to say anything more than it could confirm, which was that Jackson had been taken to the hospital. Once CNN got someone in authority to confirm that Jackson had, indeed, died, it joined the media chorus proclaiming his passing and scrambling to get comments from those who knew him, who worked with him or who merely listened to his music.

I must admit that I appreciated CNN's insistence upon confirming such a development before running with it — even though its competitors did not seem to hesitate to get the word out. What if they had been wrong? Once the world breathed its sigh of relief that Jackson had not died after all, how many news organizations would have been sued for jumping to an unsupported conclusion?

Well, Woods needs to bite the bullet and speak to investigators. After postponing meetings on Friday and Saturday, Woods apparently canceled an interview that was scheduled for today. He made a statement on his web site accepting responsibility but offering no other details.

The citizen journalist may be too awed by Woods' celebrity status to pursue the matter any farther. But the trained journalist, who must answer to his editors, will not let it die that easily. And, while it may not seem that way on the surface, that is a good thing for Woods.

I understand this is embarrassing for him, but will rampant, unchecked rumors be less so?

Curiouser and Curiouser

---

---

I'm trying to get a handle on the matter involving golfer Tiger Woods, and I don't seem to be doing a very good job.

At first, I guess I was something of a victim of misleading information. It was yesterday afternoon that I heard, on a local sports radio station, that Woods was in "serious condition" following a late–night auto accident outside his Florida home.

Subsequent reports indicated that Woods had been in a "minor accident," which made me wonder, how does one sustain "serious" injuries in a "minor" accident?

That question was later answered, by the local sports radio guys, who said it was SOP when someone was involved in an auto accident and had to be transported to a hospital by ambulance to say that the patient was in serious condition — even if, as appears to be the situation here, the person who was transported suffered nothing more serious than lacerations.

Or did he?

Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren, says she used a golf club to break one of the windows of Woods' SUV and pulled him out of the vehicle. Apparently, he lapsed in and out of consciousness while waiting for police, and then emergency medical personnel, to arrive on the scene.

Woods' condition does not seem to be the issue, though. From what I've heard, he was treated at the hospital and released.

From the first report, I've heard it continually mentioned that alcohol was not a factor in the accident. Then, today, I heard reports that the accident was not due to some sort of domestic issue.

Those seem like answers to questions I haven't heard anyone ask.

Maybe it's routine to suspect alcohol and/or a domestic dispute when an auto accident happens in the early hours of the morning. And providing those answers upfront is a way of cutting to the chase.

(Well, I've often heard that nothing good happens after midnight.)

But answering those unasked questions suggests to me that there may be a history of one or the other, which might lead investigators to wonder about their potential influence.

I haven't heard reports that Woods has had problems with alcohol in the past. Of course, there is a first time for everything.

And I haven't heard many reports that Woods and his wife have squabbled in the past. But at least one web site — TMZ.com — says this was a domestic dispute.

But that just underscores a problem that is identified by Gary Van Sickle for Golf.com — until Woods tells his story, most people will get their information on this case from media that specialize in entertainment, not news gathering.

Perhaps we will get some answers when we hear Woods' side of things. But investigators are having trouble interviewing the golfer.

This is getting — as Alice often said during her Adventures in Wonderland — "curiouser and curiouser."

Mike Lupica writes, in the New York Daily News, that Woods owes the public an explanation of what happened.

There may be, as Lupica writes, a "simple explanation" for what happened — but "[w]e sure don't have it yet."

Curiouser and curiouser.