I'm angry with Sergio Garcia.

Tiger should obviously be upset. First of all, he's Thai not Chinese so it's completely inappropriate to lump him in with billions of fried-chicken eating fanatics (in fact, based on current trends, China should pass the U.S. for number of KFCs in 2013). It is offensive to assume that Asians can be lumped together like that and thus imply that they all look the same (you can test yourself here). We certainly all know Thais are not known for fried chicken and prefer chicken curried or in pad thai (or do Thai people just call it "pad"?). The point is Sergio ... wait ... what?

Oh no.

Sergio, Sergio, Sergio.

Garcia ruined a good feud by introducing the most sensitive of all topics in the United States: African-American race relations.

I have no idea if Garcia is racist, not racist, stupid or ignorant of race issues in the United States. As we've said before, golfers and athletes are not and should not be the source of integrity and moral standing. Of course, that is not to say we shouldn't care if Garcia is a racist: that would be ignoring the fact people do look up to athletes and do look to them as role models. Certain things matter about a person other than golf. This would be one of them.

We certainly hope Garcia is not a racist. It's not really possible to root for that person. Generally, he seemed contrite at his press conference this morning and thankfully didn't qualify his apologies in any way. From all accounts I've read of people that now him, they don't believe that he's racist.

In terms of Sergio's specific comment, Tiger appears ready to move on based on comments from his Twitter account later the same evening (in stark contrast to Fuzzy Zoeller whom Tiger let twist in the wind by remaining silent). Woods essentially let Sergio off the hook last night.

Anyway, as much as we'd like to move on, this will continue to linger because of the sensitivity of the topic.

My initial reaction was: How racist is the comment really? We all love fried chicken so maybe African-Americans should own this stereotype in order to diffuse it. Sort of a reverse psychology. Plus, how and why could it be derogatory to be stereotyped for loving something we all adore? After all, the New York Times within the past two years have on three separate occasions instructed readers how to make fried chicken (here, here and most recently last week). If that's not proof we all love fried chicken, I don't know what is. This is not the Grand Forks Herald we're talking about but the high-brow NY Times Dining Section that, let's face it, has been known to cater to the Northeast liberal effete elite (albeit appropriately at times).

Of course it is not that simple. There is too much baggage, history and malice behind something as apparently innocent as fried chicken. Until the targets of such idiocy no longer care (i.e. no longer feel any malice or bigotry), then we are going to have to go on with these "learning moments." 

As usual, let's turn to Dave Chappelle to confirm our understanding of race issues in America.

ANCHORS AWAY!

There is a Latin expression in the legal world: res ipsa loquitar. Literally, it translates to "the thing itself speaks." To overly simplify, it essentially means the result speaks for itself or proves the point. Consider it the Latin version of "just take a look and this mess -- do I need to say anything more?"

In some ways, it was essentially the tact the USGA and R&A took when they confirmed and implemented new Rule 14-1b banning the anchored stroke. Of course, they were not that concise and provided a 40-page explanation that looked a lot like a legal memorandum. It's actually very well written (if the same people responsible for this had handled Vijay Singh's deer antler spray situation, the PGA Tour would likely not made a lawsuit, albeit still dumb, so easy to file). Despite the long and technical legal nature and structure of this dissertation, what underlies the whole tins is what we all know deep down. The anchored stroke looks and feels wrong and is just not golf. 

The USGA & R&A start with a clever approach by saying it doesn't matter whether or not the statistics show it makes putting easier. That is not the point. The only issue is whether if has the potential to do so and more importantly, whether it is a stroke within the nature of golf from s subjective sense. A telling quote is:

The concept of intentionally immobilizing one end of the golf club against the body, in a manner equivalent to creating a physical attachment point to use as a fixed fulcrum or pivot point around which the club can be swung, is a substantial departure from that traditional understanding of the golf swing. Reduced to its most basic elements, golf involves a player swinging a club at a ball to move it toward and ultimately into a hole. The player’s most basic challenge is to direct and control the movement of the entire club in making that swing. Anchoring the club while making a stroke also involves a challenge, but it is a different one, in which the player uses the immobilization and stability of one end of the club as an essential component of the method of stroke. It is not the same as freely swinging the club.

The application of the rule itself is summarized in this handy USGA video:

Golf may be the most precise sport in the world. The difference between success and failure can be measured in millimeters: whether it is on the clubface, the blade of grass or the edge of the cup. The scoring is objective: we count strokes. More than any other sport, the difference between winning and second place is miniscule. One stroke accounts for less than 0.35% of the number of strokes required for even-par over four rounds of golf. Tiger's dominating performance last week at the Players Championship? After four days, his 2-stroke victory was a mere 0.72% better than the three players that tied for second with 277 strokes. But a victory by a mere one or two strokes is unambiguous. Success requires accuracy and precision and repetitive practice.

But it is the aesthetic of golf that nurtures our love of the game.

I am certain this contradiction of aesthetic and mechanical precision is no accident. It is the requirement for precision that makes the aesthetic of a beautiful swing so appealing. The essence of golf is the swing. When performed by artists like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus and Couples, the swing is described in the poetic language of beauty, harmony, flow and balance. 

This brings us to Jason Day this week.

The best tidbit this week (from Kyle Porter's excellent Eye on Golf and the PGA Tour website) is that Jason Day put a one-iron into his bag this week at the HP Byron Nelson Championship. A one-iron! Players used to use the one-iron because it allowed more flexibility on flight and trajectory than a fairway wood. Of course the cost of this flexibility was that it was the most difficult instrument to play.

The one-iron is well known as the most difficult club to hit. We all know Lee Trevino's joke about the one-iron. Because it is so difficult, a perfectly struck one-iron is a shot and swing to behold, by both the player and spectator. Prove you can hit the one-iron, and you can hit anything.

The one-iron also has an amazing history in golf, perhaps more than any other single club.  

Consider one of the most famous photographs in golf.