Golf World creates a report card after every major, assigning a grade to the performance of every player in the World Ranking Top 10. In this latest grading, Tiger got a B +, Phil an A -, Paul Casey an F, etc. In the view of a Virginia reader, our grading this time barely achieved a passing mark.

Dear Editor, You often use the public school grading system to describe the performance of key golf professionals. You did it in your June 29th issue which covered the Bethpage Black US Open in depth - almost. I have to give you a C minus on that issue because of the paucity of coverage of David Duval who was arguably, the best story of the open. Don't misunderstand, I'm not to taking anything away from Phil, but guys you could at least given David his own article. It's inexplicable: You did it for Mickelson, Barnes, Weir, Mediate and a host of others, but not Duval?

Tom Jones
Roanoke, VA

Fair point by you, Tom. Duval was a big part of the game story, but he easily could have merited his own sidebar. I'll remember this Open for a conversation I had with Bob Rotella near the putting green on Friday morning. Rotella was working with Mike Weir. When they finished he came over and I asked, who do you like this week? Bob said, "I like this guy," referring to Weir, "and you know else is really in a good place?"

"Who?" I asked.

"David Duval," Rotella said.

Being all-knowledgeable but also very polite I didn't suggest that Bob was smoking something.

--Bob Carney

Phil Mickelson's near-miss in the Open left some fans searching for a reason why the popular one can't win the People's Open.

Dear Editor,
I don't mean to be critical of Phil, but I really beleive he puts to much more emphasis on pleasing the fans than he does about his game. I am a diehard Mickelson fan, but I don't believe he locks himself in at certainA times in tough situations. It amazes me how such a great player can play so poorly at times. Not only the Open, but look what he did at the St.Jude Classic. If he would have only parred the 18th every day he would have been 6 shots better.

Jack Gordy
Fayetteville, NC

Interesting analysis, Jack. There is no doubt that Phil feels an obligation to please the fans, like Arnie in that respect. And like Arnie, he also feeds off the fans' adulation. Can you remove one and keep the other? Not sure...

--Bob Carney

We get a surprising amount of mail that questions Tiger Woods' talent, well-being, schedule, vocabulary and "pampering" by the media. We even get them, like one from reader John D. Riley of St. Augustine, FL, questioning why Tiger's caddy, Steve Williams, is allowed to remove his caddy bib before completion of the 18th hole. We get surprisingly few defending the greatest player ever. Here's one.

Dear Editor,
I know that Mr. Woods hardly needs anyone (else) to speak for him or his golf game, but I feel you gave short shrift to the result of his place in the draw even as you pointed out that only 1 player in that side of the draw was in the top ten after the first 36 holes. In fact, it appears that everyone who finished ahead of Tiger started in the other side of the draw. I would just like to state this fact: Tiger was the only player in the tournament with 3 rounds under par. Luck of the Draw notwithstanding, I believe had he been on the late-early side of the draw, he would have won going away. In no way would I add this performance to "the growing list of majors he let get away". And I certainly wouldn't bet against him in the remaining two majors for 2009.

Respectfully,

Jay Sedrish
Playa del Rey, CA

--Bob Carney

"Some guy hit my fender and I said, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' but not in those words." Woody Allen

In the July issue of Golf Digest columnist David Owen argued that "the occasional unscripted F-Bomb makes golf on TV easier to endure." Not so fast, said one Idaho reader.

Dear Editor,
Regarding the "Fleeting expletives" article by David Owen: To compare dropping four-letter "bombs" to ads for ED or prostate issues in the TV decency debate is like comparing raisins to coconuts. Golf has always been and should always remain a gentleman's game, the last bastion of its kind. That being said, it remains that a gentleman does not need to use 4-letter "bombs". End of debate.

Sharon Hanson
Boise, ID

Thanks, Sharon. Just how we keep golf a "gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) game" is a tough one. At our club, for example, we're currently engaged in a debate about cargo shorts, a piece of apparel that is seen as ungentlemanly by a lot of our members. Not part of the game's great tradition, what? I know that language is very different than this and it's disquieting to hear a professional athlete utter a word you'd prefer your kids not hear and certainly not repeat. And I'm not sure I'd argue that it makes golf on television better, except, as David argues, that it allows us to see more of Tiger, who seems prone to these utterances. There are obscenities I'd attack first, however, the primary one being slow play. I suspect it's the source of more foul language than imperfect shots, and the source of most golf "road rage", as Bill Pennington reported in the Times over the weekend, which results in some very poor language. If the pros all take off their hats and shake hands after the round, that forgives momentary language lapses for. Provided they play at a reasonable #$%^#ing rate of speed.

--Bob Carney

The jury is still out on the golf in the Olympics, with the decision to come within weeks. The PGA Tour, once skeptical, now leads the crusade to have golf added to the games. Our friend from Michigan, Justin Blair, is leaning "no", especially after watching the year's second major.

Dear Editor,
No way should golf be an Olympic sport--and this is coming from a golf fanatic. Four- and-a-half majors; the Ryder Cup, Presidents and FedEx Cups; the WGC events... that's asking too much. Unless, of course, they use amateurs for the Olympic Games... which they won't. The USGA, PGA and R&A are interested in "growth" (or: How To Make More Money In An Already Expensive Sport) so I can understand their need to push so hard. It's too bad that Jack and Annika's integrity look compromised.

Justin Blair
Three Rivers, MI

--Bob Carney

Golf World's news of the 2014 "double major" at Pinehurst, when the USGA will conduct it's men's and women's Opens back-to-back, generated this intriguing idea from a Florida reader:

Dear Editor, To Mr. Ron Sirak and Mr. Ryan Herrington: I have always thought back-to-back (men's and women's) tournaments were a fabulous concept. Better yet would be back-to-back Masters at Augusta. A Masters for men followed by a Masters for women. This, in my view, would be a grand slam for every party involved. The Masters Committee themselves would be congratulated by women golfers and women around the world. It would be a public relations boost and a huge, positive jolt for golf, to say the least. Whatever you could do to present and push this idea would be appreciated. Perhaps you could let me know what you may think. I realize there would be obstacles, but I think the idea remains fabulous.

Jack Ridolph
The Villages, Florida

Very interesting idea, Jack. The obstacles you speak of our huge, however. On the other hand, so were the odds against the USGA conducting its two big events back to back. I remember a conversation with former USGA president Judy Bell, now in the World Golf Hall of Fame, when the idea was discussed at the Executive Committee level back in 1998 at Blackwolf Run. Judy confirmed that the idea of holding Opens simultaneously at contiguous sites had been raised. I said, "So you could use Winged Foot West and Winged Foot East, for example?" And she replied, "Yes, or Pebble and Cypress!" We did not get simultaneous Opens--too impractical--but in 2014 we will get back-to-back Opens, and that's pretty cool. And if that can happen....

--Bob Carney

Contrary to what's occurred with the real championship, rain has delayed zero rounds in the Virtual U.S. Open, conducted by World Golf Tour. As of Friday, Alex Withers, who heads the USGA's digital effort, said there had been 140,000 entries in the cyber event, well beyond WGT's 100,000 goal.

One player has a foot in both worlds: Ryuji Imada, who shot 75 in his opening round, prepped for the real Open using the game. "He came to us and said, 'Can you create a player with my exact specs?'" said Yu Chiang Cheng, WGT's CEO. "He gave us his yardages with every club and we built a player for him. He said it helped him get to know the course even before he'd ever been here. He said it saved him a lot of walking." And how did Imada do virtually? "I don't tell you what he shot the first time out," said Chad Nelson, WGT president. "But he said it was very hard." (As of this morning, he's also in danger of missing the real cut).

The World Golf Tour folks think many players will use games like this one to create game plans for courses they have yet to see, especially if the game is built on photographs--about 100,000 of them in this case--as WGT's Bethpage game is.

Weather forecast for today's virtual Open: Fair and sunny.

--Bob Carney

If it's been a challenge for the Bethpage greenkeepers and the USGA ops folks, it's been just as much of a challenge to the broadcasters trying to make sense of it. Knowledge of this did not prevent Golf World reader Jerry McKenna from commenting on the commentators.

Dear Editor,
It's to bad that ESPN couldn't get Lanny Wadkins in the booth with Curtis Stange and Chris Berman. If they could have pulled that off they would have had the three worst golf announcers in the past 25 years on their broadcast. ESPN can and should do better.

Jerry McKenna
Dublin, Oh

That's very cruel, Jerry, and with Father's Day just around the corner! Actually, I found Berman much toned-down this year, eschewing lame nicknames and trying to be well, like a golf announcer. I also found Curtis' comments yesterday on his consecutive Opens, and the pressure and physical demands of the second pretty interesting. One ought to keep an electronic scrapbook substitute candid quotes 20 years after the events for the empty ones they gave us at the time. But Curtis seemed rusty, I'll give you that. In the end, it was reassuring to hear the commentary of Johnny Miller on the ESPN re-cap show last night. Maltbie, Miller, Hicks...back on solid ground. My one beef is that we never got a graphic on exactly which players had completed exactly which portion of their rounds. It reminded me of the 1997 Ryder Cup, where the time delay coupled with rain delays left a lot of us completly disconnected from the event. I long for this thing to catch up....to the right number of holes and the right team of announcers.

--Bob Carney

Against all odds, we will not be playing the U.S. Open on Tuesday. Against my bets, we also will not have a playoff. But one Golf World reader from North Carolina took the time to voice his opposition to the USGA's 18-hole playoff anyway.

Dear Editor,
What is the difference between 72 holes and sudden death vs. 90 holes and sudden death? NONE...... It is still a major championship determined by sudden death. The most exciting conclusions to major championships have been the sudden death playoffs at the Masters. Those are the one's people remember. The U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA should use sudden death just like the Masters to determine their champion. No one in the world would complain except for the runners-up.

Thomas Ray
Liberty NC

Thomas, we're on the other side of this one. First, it's beyond rare that the 18-hole playoff doesn't settle things. Second, I wish all four majors settled regulation-play ties with an 18-hole playoff, but the other three find it "impractical." I'm happy that the USGA does not find it so and has stuck to its guns. To me the more interesting question is this: If the 18-hole playoff is also tied, as it was in 2008, should co-champions be declared? Certainly, that might not be satisfying to the public, but one could argue that it's the most equitable result. I think the adulation for Rocco Mediate in the past year is a sign that some fans would support it. Won't ever happen, though.

--Bob Carney

When the subject is the Angry Golfer, there is little agreement but plenty of mail. His latest missive on Tiger Woods elicited the usual contradictory reactions. (For all of you who love or hate Mr. Hawkins' angry rants, note that he'll be doing them on video from the US Open at soggy Bethpage. His first report is up now.)

Dear Edtior,
Regarding the Angry Golfer column in Golf World's 6/15/09 issue: I know there's a point in there somewhere, but WHAT is he angry about?

colemantorgan@aol.com

Dear Editor,
Just want to say John Hawkins and Angry Golfer is my favorite article. I turn to it first and always enjoy John's veiwpoint. I agree or disagree which is the nature of opinions. Sometimes informing but always entertaining I look forward to Golf World and the Angry Golfer each week to be kept abreast of the news in golf and the rants of John Hawkins.

Dave Feherty's comments, jokes, adjectives, and clothing keep me in stitches. If only his column were with your publication instead of the ad rag that currently has him. So, tell all those that think they could do better or be better without John and Dave's help to give it a rest.

Thanks for a great read.

Steve Fernando
Bakersfield, CA

--Bob Carney

(Photo: J.D. Cuban)