OMG

OK, it's too early to get excited, and this probably won't last, but Tom Watson is in the lead at the Masters. He's in the clubhouse with a 67. That's only 7 more than his age!

It was amazing enough that he came within a whisker of winning last year's British Open -- and that's a tournament where skill in battling the elements is more important than length off the tee. The Masters requires length.

Once again, it's time to get inspired. If a 60-year-old man can be in the clubhouse leading the Masters, surely there's time for me to learn how to play golf.

Update: OMG2! Now 50-year-old Fred Couples is in the lead, with 60-year-old Tom Watson tied for second!

Fixing Figure Skating

Figure skating needs to be fixed, because it is fixed: a recent study by Eric Zitzewitz, an economist at Dartmouth, suggests that figure skating judges are still favoring their own nation's athletes and trading votes with other nations in shadowy blocs.

Of course, everyone knew figure skating was rigged long before the famous controversy at the 2002 Salt Lake City winter Olympics, where judges apparently colluded to give the pairs gold medal to the Russians. It's been obvious for decades that figure skating scores reflected bias, favoritism, and Cold War politics.

The solution put in place after 2002 was to anonymize the judge's scores. Scores now appear without judges' names or nationalities attached. Which judge gave which score is secret. Organizers believed that the bad actors who try to rig the events would be less likely to bribe judges if they couldn't tell whether their judge had performed his or her part of the illegal bargain. But Zitzewitz's study claims that the fix isn't working.

My colleague Michael Abramowicz actually came up with a great solution for this problem some years ago. (Unfortunately his article is not easily available on line.) Michael specializes in dreaming up market-based mechanisms that -- he claims -- will solve social problems without the need for centralized human control. His figure skating idea is a real winner.

The solution is so simple: rate and rank each figure skating judge based on how close the scores he or she gives are to the average score given by all the judges. That is, suppose a given competitor gets an average score of 54 (or whatever, I don't understand the scoring scale anymore) from all the judges. An individual judge who gave that competitor a score of 54 would get a perfect rating for that competitor. A judge would gave a 53 or a 55 would get a very good rating. A judge who gave a 51 or a 57 wouldn't do quite so well, and so on, until a judge who gave an outlier score like 46 or 62 would get a really bad rating.

Then it's just a matter of cumulating the judges' ratings over time and rewarding them accordingly. Either their pay could be adjusted, or, perhaps even more important, only the top-rated judges could advance to judging higher levels of competition, particularly the Olympics. And bad judging ratings at the Olympics would mean those judges wouldn't get to judge in future Olympics.

The beauty of this scheme is that, without the need for some ultimate official to determine the ideal, "correct" score for any competitor, it will give figure skating judges a strong incentive to try to score each competitor the way they think the competitor really ought to be scored, because their goal will be to give a score that all the other judges will give too. It's a beautifully simple, self-correcting system that could, I think, really work to solve the problem of subjectivity in figure skating judging.

Knit One, Curl Two

I think I could handle curling if it weren't for the brooms. If people want to play slow-motion shuffleboard on ice, that's fine. But the brooms have to go. They're what transform this so-called sport from something only slightly silly into an international punch line.

As I've remarked before, the Olympics are strangely compelling. They make us care deeply about sports we'd never even watch any other time -- track and field, swimming, speed skating, cross-country skiing. OK, maybe not cross-country skiing. Even during the Olympics, it's hard to care deeply about that. But at least we don't laugh at it. It looks like a tough, gritty, challenging sport, even if it's not exactly exciting to watch.

But curling is the synchronized swimming of the winter games. I'm sure there's all kinds of skill and subtlety to it that viewers can't appreciate. I'd probably fall down if I tried it. But that doesn't stop me from laughing when I see it presented as a medal sport in the Olympic games.

And the real killer is the brooms. Look, just launch the stones at the target. Then at least the game would be dignified. You could compare it to archery or riflery. It still wouldn't get big ratings, but at least it wouldn't be the butt of so many jokes. But with those brooms in there, you might as well have people blowing on the stones as they go down the ice. While wearing tutus. Lose the brooms, and you'd have something resembling a sport.

Unanswered Questions Indeed

As the news reports, there are "plenty of questions" after Tiger Woods got in a car crash that sent him to the hospital. According to the story, Tiger hit a fire hydrant and a tree right near his own driveway, and his wife Elin had to smash a rear window with a golf club to get him out.

But the story is asking the wrong questions. "Where was he going at 2:25 am Friday? Why was there no word from the Woods' camp for nearly 13 hours?" That's not what golfers want to know. There's only one question on golfers' minds:

What club did she use?

Oh, So Close

Middle-aged duffers everywhere groaned in dismay as Tom Watson's par putt slid away from the hole on number 18. He played so well for 71 holes. It would have been an amazing display of skill and sang froid for a golfer of any age. For most of the day, it was easy to forget that Watson was not just another top golfer in the mix, but a 59-year-old who by all rights and expectations shouldn't have made the cut, much less been atop the leaderboard. His steady play and spirit, including his recovery from bad holes, was inspirational. While younger golfers spun out of control in the rough (including Ross Fisher, who never recovered from a devasting quadruple bogey), Watson plodded on.

And all he needed to do was par the last hole. Just one more hole! But that's when your nerves get to you. Of course most golfers would hardly have been able to swing the club at all, much less produce such a fine drive as Watson did on 18, much less follow it up with an almost equally fine approach. And Watson did.

But then it slipped away. He couldn't get up and down. His final par putt was his poorest effort of the day. You could really see his tension and tentativeness.

After that, it was all over. Only Watson's shell showed up for the playoff. Finally, after bearing up under unimaginable pressure for 72 holes, he was physically and mentally spent. I'm sure he was replaying that par putt over and over again in his mind while his body went through the motions of making shots. He finished six back in a four-hole playoff. That wasn't the same player who played the first four rounds.

Oh, well. He came in second -- and who would have expected that four days ago? It's still an inspiration to older golfers everywhere. There might still be time for me to learn how to play.

OMG

OK, this is too incredible. 59-year-old Tom Watson is leading the open after three rounds.

Anyone can have one great round. But you don't just happen to be in the lead after three rounds. This is truly amazing. He won the Open thirty-two years ago and now he's in the lead with one round to go.

Mr. Watson, you are inspiring middle-aged golfers across the globe. Keep it up! One more round! Go Tom!!

Age Does Not Wither

OK, it was impressive enough when 40-something Kenny Perry almost won the Masters earlier this year, but now Tom Watson was leading the Open Championship at age 59. He's a stroke back right now, but he had the lead for over seven hours yesterday.

Heavens! Maybe there's still time for me to learn how to play golf!

Pros Acting Irrationally

Fascinating article in yesterday's NY Times: a study of over 1.6 million putts made by professional golfers shows that the pros are slightly more likely to make a par putt than to make a birdie putt of identical length. The study's authors believe that the data demonstrate the psychological phenomenon of "loss aversion": golfers try harder on par putts because they don't want to lose a stroke to par; whereas on birdie putts they have the psychological comfort of knowing that if they miss they can still make par.

The study is fascinating because it shows golfers acting irrationally. The golfer's goal is to do as well as possible in the tournament, and this goal is backed up by a large financial incentive. Whether a stroke is for birdie or par is irrelevant to the golfer's best strategy for the stroke. The study controlled for relevant factors, such as the golfer's current position in the tournament or the number of holes remaining. But the number of strokes taken on the hole so far and the relationship between that number and par are irrelevant -- a stroke is a stroke whether it's for birdie, par, or double bogey.

One expects casual players to make strategic misjudgments, just as a casual poker player will fall for the "sunk cost" fallacy and tend to stay in a pot to "protect" the amount he's bet so far, even though paying attention to that irrelevant figure may cause him to throw good money after bad. But professional poker players should be keenly aware of and should know how to avoid that error. Similarly, economists would predict that, with the big sums at stake, professional golfers would act rationally and learn to overcome the psychological pressures identified in this study. But they apparently don't. Humans befuddle economists again.

Lunch Time Time Waster

Call me a sap, but I loved this review of the Olympics. If you want one last feeling of that strangely moving spirit inspired by sports you care about only once every four years, check it out.

Almost Perfect

Michael Phelps didn't break the world record in winning his 100m butterfly race -- not in speed, that is. He may have broken the record for incredible and dramatic finishes, winning by the length of his fingernails as he out-touched his opponent by 1/100 of a second.

But what I want to discuss today is the rendition of our National Anthem chosen for these games, which Phelps and his relay teammates have brought us 7 times now. It sounds easy to choose a recording of a song that's only 90 seconds, but really, rendering the anthem is a minefield of stylistic choices. I don't know who produced the recording that's being used for Beijing, but they did a fine job, with just one questionable choice.

The brassy opening, with the strings added at "whose broad stripes," is just what is wanted for this kind of event -- majestic, imposing, powerful, but not arrogant. It bespeaks confidence and satisfaction in victory, without getting in the face of the international crowd. Slow, rolling, with minimal ornamentation, the music says that we are great and proud and respectful all at once.

Things go somewhat wrong, in my view, as the rendition switches to stringy sentimentality in the "rockets red glare" section. Suddenly, we're all supposed to have tears in our eyes, and a little xylophone trill or some similar ornament added behind the word "air" is particularly sappy, like something out of a Disney movie.

Fortunately, this only lasts 20 seconds or so, less than a quarter of the recording, and then it's a return to majestic full orchestra for a clear run into the ending, at which point there's a surprise -- a three-note highlight on the last word, "brave." Now, ordinarily, I wouldn't like this kind of thing -- I can't abide the octave jump that's become common on the word "free" -- but somehow it works in this setting. It tells everyone that we are Americans, after all, and we have a little showmanship in everything we do.

With cheesiness on one side and excessive jingoism on the other, it isn't easy to play the anthem for the Olypmics. Nice job.

Olympics -- Why Do We Care?

I couldn't help myself this weekend -- I watched some of the Olympics. And it was great.

Why do we care? Do you watch swimming, or cycling, or running, or gymnastics, in non-Olympic years? I didn't think so. There are world championships in these events every year, or every other year, or something like that, but when was the last time you saw the non-Olympic competitions? Do you know who won the gold medal in men's pole vault in Osaka in 2007? (It was Brad Walker of the U.S.). Can you name the winner of any of the events? Do you remotely care? I certainly don't.

And yet, whenever the Olympics come round, I am strangely drawn to them. I don't know if it's the pagentry, or the politics, the nationalistic competition, or the judging scandals, or what, but somehow I suddenly care who can swim faster, jump higher, or dive more beautifully. I am awed by Michael Phelps, entranced by Kirsty Coventry. Bring it on, NBC, I love it.

Bloody Good Try

Norman didn't win, but he did come in tied for third. His last round was a disappointing 77, but he still had an incredible week, and I'm none the less inspried. Bloody good try, Greg, you gave us middle-aged hackers quite a thrill.

Back to more normal topics tomorrow.

Surge of the Middle-Aged

I knew it was too good to be true that Greg Norman was actually leading the British Open almost through the end of the second round -- at the close of play he's one stroke back. But my goodness, the man's 53! He won the Open in 1986!

And don't forget Rocco Mediate -- the 45-year-old, who was second at the U.S. Open in a playoff, is just 3 strokes back.

If these guys can compete at the highest levels, perhaps I can still learn to play.

C'mon Greg, c'mon Rocco! Middle-aged guys everywhere are rooting for you.

Competitive What?

I was out of town when NPR aired this story, so I'm a bit late here, but can there actually be a league of competitive yoga? That's hoping to become an Olympic sport in 2012? Apparently there is.

My goodness, what are the events? Is there a competition for being the best at renouncing competition? A prize for not caring about prizes?

I guess once synchronized swimming got in, there was no stopping the silliness. Rhythmic gymnastics, moguls skiing, and half pipe weren't far behind. Even bridge was a demonstration sport at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

But at least these "sports" aren't inherently oxymoronic.

Are You a Golfer?

Are you a golfer? Take this simple test:

The Associated Press reports that "a man who lost his ball in a golf course pond nearly lost a limb when a nearly 11-foot alligator latched on to his arm and pulled him in the water."

Fortunately, the man was able to beat the alligator off with a golf club.

If you are not a golfer, your first thought on reading this story was, "oh my God, how scary!"

If you are a golfer, your first thought was, "what club did he use?"

----------------------

[P.S.: Sadly, I had to alter one critical detail in the above story. The man did not beat the alligator off with a golf club. He used his left arm. But the important thing is the test. We can't wait for the perfect story.]

Last Cliche Running

Isn't it kind of insulting to refer to Angel Cabrera as the "Last Man Standing" at the U.S. Open? That suggests he won only because everyone else screwed up.

Look, the man broke par twice in four rounds, had a round of 1-over and a round of 6-over, to finish at 5-over, on a course where half the field was 11-over or worse in the first two rounds. He beat last year's champion by 14 strokes. He held off Tiger Woods, Jim Furyk, and all the rest. I say, more power to him.

WaPo's headline is kinder: "Cabrera Rises Above Field."

Tough Year at the Masters

It's the weekend, so we get to relax and think about golf.

With the third round of play almost complete, the leader at the Masters tournament is one over par. Tiger Woods's score of +3 puts him in fourth place.

I am eminently unqualified to offer an opinion about this topic -- I've been seen hitting a ball around the course, but it would be an exaggeration to call anything I do "playing golf" -- but it seems to me that Augusta is setting the course up to be too hard. The official reason for the recent course changes is that Bobby Jones meant for players to use a mid-iron or a long iron for their second shot on many holes, and today's longer distance means that many of the players were getting around the course with nothing but a driver and a wedge. So Augusta has had to lengthen and toughen many of the holes.

All very sensible, but still, the club should remember that the tournament is a show and that people want to be entertained in a certain way. Just as baseball is best when the average combined score in each game is about 9 runs, a golf tournament is best when the top players can make some (but not too many) birdies and an occasional eagle and have a decent shot at breaking par at the end of the day. The U.S. Open, of course, is famous for attempting to set up the course so that only the leader breaks par, but other tournaments shouldn't be emulating this goal. Each day's leader should be shooting about 67 or 68, with lower scores occurring on days when conditions are favorable.

Part of Masters lore is that no player has ever put together four rounds in the 60s. It's not ever going to happen if the club keeps the harsh course setup.