"Why would they go, 'I want to play that game!'?"

FANS are the people who like the game and probably already play. Of course we fans like seeing birdies – because most of us don’t make very many of them. A lot of people tried golf because of Tiger Woods, and probably Phil Mickelson to an extent, but a lot of them gave it up when they found that it’s (a) not as easy as Tiger makes it look, and (b) it ain’t the cheapest game on the block.

Last time I looked – a golf course never kicked anyone out. Inability to play the course got those guys out of the tournament. Ask Andres Romero – he only put up the round of the tournament when the Oakland Hills was dryer than it had been all week. Harrington put up two 66’s when the rough was wet and extremely tough to escape.

Here’s something for Steve Flesch to chew on – a lot of people already have the opinion that golf isn’t a sport, and that it is played by spoiled, whiny country club kids. Statements like that only back up those opinions. In their eyes, you are a big baby and a good reason not to try the game.

A friend of mine was IN the PGA – he said it was THE hardest course he had ever played in 20 years as a PGA Professional. (not a Tour player) – but he also said that it was fair. A few of the holes seemed a bit excessive in their setup, but overall, it was a good test of golf. If he had been able to hit his ball in the fairways, he had no doubt he could have made the cut. (he made no worse than bogey on any hole)

Sure – people like good scoring – but good scoring doesn’t always mean tee shot into a mile wide fairway followed by a short iron into the green three feet from the hole and an easy putt. Now THAT is boring golf to watch. There is no challenge to the best players to make the impossible escape or make what looks like an impossible putt or chip.

FANS like seeing you do things that we CAN’T do, Stevie boy – so shut up and play – and quit blaming other people for your inability to beat one of the toughest course around.

If televised golf is the catalyst, I believe potential golfers will be inspired to pick up a club by Tiger Woods, Lorena Ochoa and hundreds of other international stars, not by the course set up at a major. Most of the women I play with were introduced to the game by a relative or friend.

I totally disagree with Flesch.

The usual complaint after a tough setup is that no one wants to see the best players in the world go out there and embarrass themselves. Well, what do they have to be embarrassed about? The course is ridiculously difficult and everyone watching knows that.

What I want to see is, players overcoming that difficulty with strategy, imagination, and a solid game. Who wants to see the best players in the world go out and shred up an easy course? A winning score of -20 is ho-hum to me.

Don’t get me wrong – I like seeing birdies and great shots. But I also like to see a player’s tactical ability. A player has to put together four good rounds to win on a course that difficult. There’s no chance of playing sloppy the first three rounds and then throwing up a miracle 65 on the final day to win by one. That must feel great to the guy who goes out and puts together four solid rounds to finish second.

I suppose Flesch is right in one sense: having a person see how difficult the PGA Championship was and deciding that golf is too difficult to take up in the first place is worse than the same new player picking up the game for a few months because he saw how easy it was by watching Tiger Woods win the Masters by 12 strokes. But only marginally because the net effect is the same – the game is still frustrating to him, he can’t break 100, and he’s stuck on the course for 5 1/2 hours on weekends. And after the honeymoon is over, his clubs get listed on eBay.

I don’t know why I kept typing Aberdeen – I knew I meant Hoylake. My bad!

The R&A’s philosophy is one that I like and agree with wholeheartedly. Still, they pretty much toned down Hoylake. Like you, it’s a mystery to me how the field didn’t take Tiger’s lead. Had they, scoring would’ve been a lot easier. And it was the quickest example I thought of for a relatively easy setup.

There certainly were pockets of scoring at Oakland Hills. But, to me, there is nothing exciting about rough that makes you hack out into the fairway. And I don’t like par 4s that largely all look alike.

...about how links courses defend themselves, or their architectural characteristics. Hoylake just happens to be weaker in all of those elements and it makes the course easier to play.

Here’s a BBC preview for the 2006 Open Championship from hackers like you and me. They indicated the course is easy and fairly defenseless.

If you looked at other courses in the rotation, you couldn’t say that. Carnoustie is a bear with or without wind. Birkdale would have been pretty difficult with the extra length, sans wind. St Andrew’s forces players to think strategically without wind. Troon’s bunkering is so vast that it doesn’t need a breeze to bite. Even Royal St George’s has mounds that are daunting.

Hoylake just doesn’t fit in that company.

if you’re ranking the rota (dang – I’m sounding like a democrat speech writer) – Hoylake is the easiest on the list. It is the one that most depends on the weather for its defense – and they had the “perfect non-storm” in ‘06.