If I had spent a decent amount of time looking at the Champions Tour this week and followed my usual routines, instead of squeezing in twenty minutes on Friday morning, I would like to think I would have asked myself why I was picking up a winning marker on D.A. Weibring when he was a 25/1 candidate for rebounding from his Sunday collapse at Turnberry, and also asked why locally connected Allen Doyle was available at a juicy 20/1. Similarly, I became focused on the European matchups last night and was cursory at best with the outrights instead of breaking down the 16/1 price on Robert Karlsson, who has been impressing me all week on television.
The golf tours (or football in the fall) do not receive equal amounts of devotion each week. Last weekend I was helping my cousin move, but I believe I would have been on Chris Riley after his 65 on Friday if I had made it to a computer and found out I could have gotten 50/1 or better (not on any evidence, just instinct). Yesterday, I listened to Allen Doyle proudly discuss the fact that his daughter was medalist in her U.S. Women's Amateur qualifier, and I watched Bob Gilder look like a man with issues over the back nine. Hmmm.
I was more than a little grumpy over my "lost" writeups from prior to The Open, and the No. 1 point I had worked on making was exactly this: When I am involved and paying attention, so many of my strongest impressions come from what I see and hear after the event is underway, with an exception to prove the rule, and therefore I need to be judicious at the start so I can justify in-running plays accordingly. (Plus a mixed bag of some other stuff that was generally not quite so on the mark.)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Stan, your early post on Furyk immediately struck me as dead on and brilliant, and then I did nothing with it. I hope you are rewarded today, and I hope everyone else was a little more on the ball. Another week, another pity. LOL
GL