Players Championship Notebook: Graeme McDowell's collapse opens the door

Getty Images

0

0

0

0

• PRINT
• TEXT

By 

Mark Long

Associated Press

Series:

Graeme McDowell couldn't muster any momentum.

The flat feeling that overwhelmed him following an unlucky roll on No. 18 in the rain-delayed third round Sunday morning carried over to the final round.

And he never recovered.

McDowell shot a 7-over 79 in the final round of the Players Championship, a stunning collapse that left the U.S. Open champion simply trying to stay out of the way of playing partners K.J. Choi and David Toms. Choi ended up beating Toms on the first playoff hole.

"It was disappointing out there today," said McDowell, who tied for 33rd at 5-under 283. "Probably my first time under the gun in a little while. So first time we played in front of a crowd that big in a little while, you know. So it's kind of getting back into the old vibes again.

"Didn't quite have it out there. I was a little flat today. Energy levels weren't where I need them to be. But we live and we learn and we'll be back."

McDowell's struggles started with a bad break on TPC Sawgrass.

He built a three-shot lead in the third round with a tap-in birdie on No. 17, the famed island green. But he was shocked to see his approach on the 18th bounce onto the green, take a hard turn left and roll all way into the water. He wound up with a double bogey for a 68.

Even so, that gave him a one-shot lead over Choi and Toms going into the final round.

It didn't last.

He birdied No. 5 thanks to a massive drive, getting him to 13 under, but then his game unraveled. His tee shot at No. 6 went way right in the trees and led to a bogey. He overcompensated on his next drive and hooked it into the water left, leading to another bogey.

He started chasing shots from there, most noticeably when he tried to hit from behind a bush on No. 9. He barely moved the ball and ended up with another bogey. It was downhill from there, with more inconsistency off the tee and more errant approach shots at every turn.

"I said I was going to take the positives away whatever happened this weekend," McDowell said. "I said I was going to stick to my guns. It's going to hurt for a few hours, but it was a tough task today. The golf course and the wind got up. It was tricky, and I just didn't have it."

He was 8 over in the final 13 holes.

"I think it was physical fatigue brought on by a few bogeys at the wrong time," he said. "Long day out there. I just couldn't seem to get any momentum. You need a little momentum out there, and I couldn't seem to read the grain. I wasn't reading the greens the way I've been reading them. Couldn't hole anything. It was just a bad day at the office."

GLOVER'S GAFFES: Lucas Glover lost 11 strokes in four holes Sunday, a free fall from the leaderboard that cost him a chance at winning the Players.

Glover double-bogeyed No. 16 and tripled No. 18 in a 74 in the rain-delayed third round Sunday morning, then carded a quadruple bogey at No. 4 and a double at 18 in a final-round 77.

"I'm not going to put much stock into today, believe me," said Glover, who was 5 over in the final round and finished at 1 under for the tournament.

Glover, who won last week at Quail Hollow, was 11 under and right in the mix when he stepped to the tee box at No. 16 in the third round.

He pushed his second shot right and into the water at the par-5 hole, then knocked his drop over the green. He chipped on and two-putted for a 7. His tee shot at the par-4 18th was equally poor. He yanked it left into the water, then hit his next shot into the right rough. He had to lay up from there and finished with another double.

Things got worse after the final round began. Glover hit two balls into the water at the par-4 fourth and ended up carding a snowman 8. He yanked another tee shot left at 18 and doubled the closing hole.

"I hit three bad shots and it cost me nine (strokes), and I made a bad decision on 18 and it cost me two," Glover said. "Other than that, it wasn't all that bad. I think it was a combination of hitting the wrong shots on the wrong holes. Just didn't execute this morning and didn't have it this afternoon. No bid deal."

TIGER TALK: PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem insisted Sunday that he never pressured Tiger Woods to compete in the Players Championship.

Finchem spoke with reporters before the final round of the Tour's signature event and made it clear he never asked Woods to play through his injuries.

"I don't twist players' arms, and as far as Tiger being hurt, guys, that's a decision he has to make, and I had no information that he wasn't ready to play golf," Finchem said. "I don't think anybody did. I don't think he did.

"I was on the range with him for a half an hour Tuesday. He was hitting it really well. He went and played nine holes and he didn't have a problem. He played the next day, he didn't have a problem. He stayed on the range that day, he didn't have a problem. So it's all nonsense as far as I'm concerned, and I don't want to talk about it anymore."

Woods withdrew from the Players after nine holes Thursday because of knee and Achilles' tendon problems that had sidelined him since the Masters. His early withdrawal led to speculation that he was playing as a favor.

"We communicate with players all the time with weak fields, weak-field events and we encourage players to move their schedule around and try to include a weak field," Finchem said. "We never go to a player and say, 'Would you please, please, please play this event, this event or any other event, ever. And I don't recall ever talking to any player in my tenure about whether or not they were going to play the Players Championship."

RARE EAGLE: Jason Day joined an elite club Sunday with his second shot on the par-4 14th.

Day struck a 5-iron from 185 yards and the ball rolled into the cup, only the fourth eagle on the 481-yard hole in the 30 years the Players has been held at the Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass.

"I didn't even know it went in until everyone started yelling," Day said.

The eagle helped Day shoot a 4-under 68 and finish at 9-under 279 for the tournament.

Day's eagle was the first at No. 14 since Ken Duke in 2007. Ralph Landrum (1984) and Corey Pavin (1994) also made eagles at the hole that historically plays as one of the toughest on the Stadium Course.

Restoring a single anterior tooth: solutions to a dental dilemma

Gordon Christensen shows the plethora of ways to perform one restorative procedure.

A difficult clinical situation encountered all too often by restorative dentists is the restoration of one single upper or lower anterior tooth with a crown or resin-based composite.

If all of the anterior teeth in one arch need to be restored, the development of an acceptable aesthetic result is relatively easy, because all of the restored teeth match one another. However, restoration of a single anterior tooth is a genuine aesthetic challenge. Most mature dentists would agree that they have restored only a few single teeth to a near-perfect level in their entire careers.

There are many reasons for the difficulties encountered in restoring one tooth. Teeth exhibit different colours in the several types of lighting encountered in any one day, such as sunlight, incandescent light, cool white fluorescent light, warm fluorescent light and evening natural light. An artificial crown may match perfectly in one lighting condition but be significantly off-colour in another.

Natural teeth darken during life, whereas restorations do not. A crown placed in a 25-year-old patient will probably be lighter than the adjacent teeth a few years later. The superficial ceramic stains placed on almost all porcelain-fused-to-metal, or PFM, crowns dissolve in the presence of the acids in sodas, coffee, fruit juices and other foods and drinks. Removal of the stains usually makes crowns appear lighter in colour.

Gingival tissues recede as part of the normal, expected aging process. A patient who receives a new crown at 25 years of age should expect the gingival tissues to shrink away from the crown after a few years, potentially exposing the unsightly juncture between the crown and the remaining tooth root structure.

A significant percentage of people in the US bleach their teeth without a dentist’s supervision (1). As a result, the teeth become lighter, but the restorations do not become lighter. The appearance of bleached natural teeth adjacent to a previously placed crown is not pleasing.

Tooth bleaching has caused growing numbers of patients to seek additional aesthetic dentistry procedures, but when it is carried to an extreme or accomplished without a dentist’s supervision, tooth restorations adjacent to lighter bleached teeth may be aesthetically unacceptable. The acceptability of the most perfectly matched restorative dentistry can be destroyed by a patient who bleaches the natural teeth, not knowing that the restorations no longer will match the natural teeth.

The single-tooth restoration problem is clear to all restorative dentists. What are solutions to the challenge? In this article, I will provide a critical evaluation of the various methods of restoring a single anterior tooth with natural teeth adjacent to the tooth to be restored.

In making an assessment of the restorative possibilities, let us take the following clinical situation as an example: the tooth to be restored is one vital maxillary central incisor, the most difficult tooth colour–matching challenge in any mouth. The prepared tooth is not discoloured, and the tooth preparation is a normal dentin colour.

I will present several restorative options for this tooth. The conclusions about each option are my own observations and opinions after restoring thousands of teeth, as well as my observations of the experiences of the many dentists with whom I work in clinical dentistry, study clubs and clinical research.

Some practitioners forget that today’s directly placed resin-based composites make excellent large restorations or veneers for certain anterior tooth restoration needs (2-3). If a single tooth or a few anterior teeth need a colour change or correction of minor malpositioning, these procedures can be difficult with the popular indirectly made ceramic veneers.

The colour of an indirect veneer is a combination of the colours of the veneer, the cement and the underlying tooth structure. Conversely, correction of these aesthetic challenges using the myriad of colours and translucencies available with the current generation of resin-based composites is relatively easy. It can be accomplished in the office without laboratory involvement and is under the total control of the clinician.

Colour match can be achieved and the contour of natural teeth can be reproduced nearly exactly. Fees for directly placed veneers are less than those for indirect veneers, and therefore are more affordable for patients. In my opinion, resin-based composite should be used more often than crowns for correction of selected single anterior tooth restoration cases requiring colour and positioning changes.

Restoration of one anterior tooth with an indirect ceramic veneer is difficult at best. The blending of the ceramic veneer colour with the colour of the cement and the underlying tooth structure colour requires significant artistic ability and patience on the part of both the dentist and the technician.

Regardless of the restoration being placed, exposure of the mouth and teeth to the drying influence of the ambient room air causes the colour of the tooth being restored to lighten in colour. This lightening effect makes colour matching extremely difficult.

Although ceramic veneers are excellent restorations for multiple anterior teeth, the difficulty of matching the colour of one veneered tooth to the adjacent teeth makes this restoration a secondary choice. However, unlike indirect polymer veneers, ceramic veneers can be modified if colour change is needed before cementation. (4)

When veneering many anterior teeth, this technique is acceptable. However, when restoring one anterior tooth, an indirect polymer veneer is the last choice. If the colour of an indirect polymer veneer is wrong, it cannot be changed unless the entire restoration is remade.

Unfortunately, achieving an exact colour match between PFM restorations and adjacent natural teeth can be extremely difficult (4). Most practitioners will admit that the single PFM anterior crowns they have placed seldom match adjacent teeth in all types of lighting.

However, the higher the nobility of the coping metal, the greater the potential for matching the natural teeth. High-noble metal, with its goldlike colour, covered with fired ceramic and including a ceramic facial margin, provides one of the best possibilities to match adjacent natural teeth. Materials such as Captek (Scottlander, 01462 480848), with yellow-coloured metal directly underneath the ceramic, are very capable of matching adjacent teeth.

However, use of base metal or some compositions of noble-metal copings, accompanied by minimal laboratory technician expertise, usually produces a PFM crown easily recognizable as a crown when viewed at a conversational distance.

All-ceramic crowns with milled aluminous or zirconia copings. Several relatively new commercially available crown types fit into this category. Among them are Cercon-Zirconia (Dentsply, 01932 853422), Cerec inLab (Sirona Dental Systems 0845 0715040), Lava (3M ESPE, 01509 613361), Procera (Nobel Biocare 01895 452900) and several others (5).

These crowns, properly fabricated, offer a good possibility of matching adjacent teeth and provide strength when restoring a single tooth. However, to do so requires a deep tooth preparation of at least 1 to 1.5 millimetres on the tooth’s facial surface, matching the colour of the core material to the remaining tooth structure, and the services of a competent laboratory technician.

The presence of the relatively opaque internal ceramic core still may provide an impediment to matching some tooth colours, but the aesthetic potential of these new crown types is impressive.

Relatively unknown to many dentists, slip castings are becoming more popular. Vita Inceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, 0116 265 4055) and Wol-Ceram (Wolz Dental Technik, Germany) have the advantage of having a relatively thin fired internal coping fitted tightly to the die and, therefore, to the remaining tooth structure. The initial coping is infiltrated with glass and covered with fired ceramic.

Many practitioners have found that these crowns are reliable replacements for PFM crowns. The relatively opaque internal core blocks the colour of discoloured tooth preparations, such as tetracycline-stained teeth. However, our challenge in this article is to provide a restoration for a non-stained tooth, in which case this type of crown, properly made, still has a good chance of providing aesthetic acceptability.

Most restorative dentists have placed pressed ceramic crowns, and the aesthetic success has been excellent (6). These crowns, typified by the popular IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, 0116 265 4055), Cerinate (Den-Mat, Deborah@dkap.co.uk), Finesse (Dentsply, 01932 853422), 3G (Pentron, Wallingford, Conn, USA) and others, provide better aesthetic acceptability for single anterior crowns than do almost all other restorative options.

If a crown is selected for a single anterior tooth instead of a more conservative direct resin restoration, pressed ceramic crowns are the choice of most restorative dentists. However, they are not as strong as the other crowns mentioned in this article, and patients should be cautioned to use care in chewing hard substances to prevent premature failure.

Many tooth-coloured crown types are available today, and all of them can provide an acceptable result when restoring all of the anterior teeth on either arch. When only one anterior tooth is involved, the decision regarding which type of restoration to use becomes more perplexing. If enough tooth structure is remaining, restoration of the single tooth with one of the multicoloured directly placed resin-based composites is a wise choice.

Assuming that the tooth to be restored requires a crown, has natural colour and does not need superior strength, pressed ceramic crowns—fabricated by competent technicians—appear to be the type of crown having the greatest possibility of providing near-perfect colour match for the single-tooth restoration. However, there are some technicians who can produce near- perfect colour match with almost any of the crown types discussed in this article.

References

1. Christensen, GJ (2002). The tooth-whitening revolution. JADA 133:1277-9

2. Christensen, GJ (2003). Direct restorative materials: what goes where? JADA 134:1395-7

3. Christensen, GJ (2002). Has tooth structure been replaced? JADA 133:103

4. Christensen, GJ (1999). Porcelain-fused-to-metal vs. non-metal crowns. JADA 130:409-11p

5. Christensen, GJ (2001). Computerized restorative dentistry: state of the art. JADA 132:1301-3

6. Christensen, GJ (1997). Why all-ceramic crowns? JADA 128:1453-5

Creating endodontic excellence: seeing what is really there

Richard Mounce looks at case selection and a list of things that can go wrong when performing endodontic treatment.

Among many other talents, great football players have two in abundance. One is never looking rushed on the ball. They always seem to have enough time to make the pass, run or movement needed with a minimum of wasted effort. In addition, these players have an uncanny knack of seeming to know where the ball is going to go next, which contributes to their rarely being out of position.

It has been said that football is a mental game and that players who are always thinking before, during and after matches about what will and has confronted them, will only get better and create excellent results. Practicing endodontics at the highest level is not unlike this phenomenon.

Seeing what is present before initiating treatment, assessing the risks, planning evasive action, mentally rehearsing the procedure, anticipating what will happen next, visualising the final result and gaining experience from the issues that went well and those that didn’t are the hallmarks of an astute clinician, not unlike those legendary footballers that seem to get better with age.

The case illustrated (Figure 1), which on the surface might have appeared simple, was anything but. A comprehensive discussion of the treatment planning that went into the case by me, as the treating endodontist, is detailed below. Firstly, I believe that great results are most often ordained well before the procedure begins. Before treatment, the clinician has either correctly assessed the patient, tooth, and their own skills and equipment, or not.

If the pre-operative assessment of these issues is accurate, the procedure has a good chance of being optimal. The converse is also true. If we choose the right patient to work with (i.e. we are personally compatible with the given individual and establish trust and rapport), the right tooth given our experience and equipment, and we carry the procedure out correctly, we create the best possible chance for success.

When things go wrong, they do so because we have (amongst other factors):

• Bad planning or no planning

• The wrong equipment

• No training

• Poor case selection (the tooth is not restorable, sound periodontally or of strategic value to retain)

• Not enough time

• Not established rapport or obtained consent

• Misconceptions about the desired outcome of the clinical treatment, as shown by the actual service provided.

Recognising the limitations above, before starting treatment, can go a long way toward their resolution. Unfortunately, such thoughtful deliberation did not precede the case described here before access.

This patient was a 35-year-old female who’d had one visit with her general dentist for initiation of treatment on the lower left first molar. The medical history was non-contributory. The patient reported that the dentist had been placing a filling the day before and had abruptly told her that she needed a root canal. The commenced treatment was left at the stage pictured in Figure 1.

The patient claimed that there was no pre-operative consent and that she did not know what a root canal was, or to what stage her present treatment had been completed. She did not know why she had been referred to me other than that she was supposed to get the root canal finished.

She claimed to have had no indication that a root canal was possible before the filling was initiated. The patient was not easy to communicate with as she frequently interrupted me and, ironically, questioned me continuously about every aspect of her previous treatment and any possible further treatment. Trust had certainly broken down between the patient and her general dentist and I was not able to establish a positive working relationship with her.

Clinically, the patient had mild spontaneous pain prior to her general dental visit and was asymptomatic on the day of my examination with her. The tooth was mildly sensitive to percussion, within normal limits to palpation, slightly mobile, and there was a 6 mm probing in the buccal furca.

A temporary filling was present and the tooth had obturation material in the two mesial canals with the MB canal filled to a level approximately 3-4 mm below the orifice of the canal. The tooth had three obvious roots radiographically (the patient was unaware of this). It is unknown if the general practitioner had realised there were three roots.

The previous obturation material was in the third root which for our purposes we will call the DB root. There was no material in the DL root. Furcal bone loss was present radiographically. In addition, the MB partially filled canal had a very small white spot at the end of its short obturation. There was a large alloy present which encompassed a significant portion of the coronal tooth structure.

The note from the referring doctor said only that the tooth had three canals filled to a .04 tapered 20-tip size preparation and asked me to finish the root canal. The obturation material used was gutta percha.

There were three main issues to address:

1) Was this a patient that I could communicate with and achieve adequate consent from, so as to develop an environment of trust and complete the tooth well?

2) Was the tooth restorable?

3) Could all the technical issues involved in treating the tooth be performed to a high enough standard so as to give the patient an excellent prognosis?

Given the options, the patient chose to extract the tooth. Had the patient accepted the risks and desired treatment, I would have declined to treat the patient given the limitations present and our lack of rapport.

Firstly, with the amount of tooth structure missing coronally and the furcal bone loss, my experience led me to believe that this tooth had a very high likelihood of fracturing in the long term, especially along the furcal floor. It is possible that it might have been of benefit to use a bonded obturation material such as RealSeal (SybronEndo, 01733 371565) in addition to a bonded material such as Core Paste (Den Mat) to minimise root or furcal floor fracture.

In light of the other variables at play, this was not enough to tip my decision toward saving the tooth. RealSeal bonded obturation does give roots greater resistance to vertical fracture (reference available upon request).

Secondly, the MB canal filled to 3-4 mm from the orifice was very close to the furca. Removal of the previous gutta percha and shaping of this canal carried with it an enhanced risk of furcal perforation, especially if the small piece at the apical extent of the filling was a possible fragment of a rotary nickel titanium file that needed removal.

Such a small fragment of separated instrument could explain why the canal was not filled to the terminus, i.e. a blockage had been created that could not be bypassed. Although unlikely, there could have been an undiagnosed pre-existing perforation at the distal aspect of the mesial root.

Finally, the patient was also going to need periodontal treatment for the furcation involvement and it was very clear from our conversation that this patient was not a compliant individual and would not seek care for this periodontal defect.

As an aside, it is also noteworthy that the referring doctor chose to treat these roots to a .04-tapered 20 tip size. Suffice to say that for this particular root canal system, this was too small. The roots were large enough for a proper three dimensional cleansing and shaping, and it is likely that these canals should have been tapered to at least a .06 taper and a 35-60 master apical file size, dependent on the initial diameter of the minor constriction of the apical foramen once gauged.

To visualise the shortcoming in a different way, imagine the amount of irrigant that might or could have actually reached the apical third during the obturation of the canals. It is difficult to imagine that much, if any, irrigant could have reached the apical third to digest the canal contents at that level. In short, the present cleansing and shaping was not large enough to achieve the biologic objectives of root canal therapy.

As a result of the lack of taper and tip size to the preparation as well as the uncleaned and unfilled space in the MB canal, if the tooth was to have been saved it first needed retreatment of the completed portion before addressing the untreated root canal space. Simply trying to locate and instrument the untreated root would have left significant uncleaned and unfilled space within the root canal system that had previously be taken to a .04 taper and 20 tip size preparation.

It is important to evaluate such clinical cases carefully before starting, so as to avoid future disappointment for both the patient and doctor. Had this tooth been re-treated and a crown placed, the long-term prognosis was poor to very guarded. Extraction avoided an unpredictable outcome.

Minimally invasive aesthetics

Lumineers have been described as the ultimate in minimal-invasive dentistry. Leon Marè discusses their properties.

Some years ago, a patient requested me to do something about his diastemas and brighten up his smile. At the time my armamentarium was limited to porcelain jacket crowns and conventional veneers. As all his anteriors, canines and premolars were perfectly healthy, I was reluctant to propose invasive procedures.

This attitude has probably cost me a lot of work during my professional career, but I have always treated healthy dentine and enamel as something sacred. Having explained all of this to the patient, we agreed to accept the status quo for the time being.

Earlier this year a course in Lumineers was advertised in the Journal of Private Dentistry. ‘No-prep veneers, as thin as a contact lens.’ It sounded too good to be true, but I decided to gamble the time and money to find out if this could be what I had been waiting for throughout my professional career.

It was the first Lumineers course outside the USA, and I was more than impressed and I immediately recalled my patient for assessment and discussion. This being a difficult case, I realised that it would probably be pushing the limits of the conservative approach to the extreme, so I sent study models and photographs to the Cerinate Design Studio in Santa Monica for assessment and advice.

A week later I received a conference call from Dr Ibsen, the president of the Denmat Corporation, sharing the line with four other Lumineers experts. We discussed the case at length, and it was decided that we could indeed follow the minimally-invasive route.

Articulation facets on the canines indicated that considerable forces were at work during protrusive and lateral excursions, so some reduction was needed on the mandibular canines and anteriors. Cerinate porcelain is designed to be considerably stronger than any other porcelain, so as little as 0.3mm was necessary for conventional Lumineers, but to cope with the guidance forces, more was needed on the contacts.

During the first appointment, minimal modification was made to the disto-labial surfaces of the upper left and upper right central incisors. No other maxillary teeth were modified. The mandibular teeth were anaesthetised, and under 4x magnification, the labio-incisal surfaces of the coronal half of the mandibular canines and anteriors were modified, with minimal dentine being exposed. In less radical cases, no anaesthesia is needed, and often no prepping is required.

Standard impression trays were filled with heavy body PVS, and covered with a thin plastic wrap. This resulted in well-fitting customised trays, in which final impressions were taken with light-bodied First Impression paste. The total chair-time, including photography, was one hour and five minutes.

Five weeks later, the Lumineers arrived and the patient was booked for a full morning appointment. Placement, finishing and photography was completed in two hours 15 minutes, and the patient was given a further appointment two days later, for final balancing and finishing.

Dr Leon Karel Marè was born in in Nelspruit in the Eastern Lowveld, South Africa. He graduated from the University of Pretoria in 1977 and, in 2002, moved to the UK. Dr Marè maintains a private practice in New Milton called Greenfern Dental Care. In 2004, it was shortlisted by Private Dentistry magazine as one of the six best new practices in the UK.

池田勇太、好発進が一転噛み合わず4位タイに後退

2011年07月29日19時39分




リーダーズボード
順位 選手名 スコア1 平塚　哲二 -13
2 K・アフィバーンラト -9
3 井上　忠久 -8
4 キム・ヒョンテ -6
J・チョイ -6
丸山　大輔 -6
池田　勇太 -6
8 片岡　大育 -5
9 海老根　文博 -4
武藤　俊憲 -4


順位の続きを見る





池田勇太はスコアを伸ばせず4位タイに後退（撮影：岩井康博）






＜サン・クロレラ クラシック　2日目◇29日◇小樽カントリー倶楽部(7,471ヤード・パー72)＞

　北海道にある小樽カントリー倶楽部で開催されている、国内男子ツアー「サン・クロレラ クラシック」。初日6アンダー2位と好スタートを切った池田勇太だったが、この日はボギーが先行する苦しいゴルフ。2つスコアを伸ばして迎えた8番ではダブルボギーを叩き、この日はスコアを伸ばせず4位タイに後退した。

3度目予選落ちの遼、スイング改造「1、2か月はかかる」

　初日とは打って変わって停滞した池田だが、「絶好調とかではないから。昨日みたいに噛み合えば良いスコアになるし、今日みたいならその逆になる」と深刻にとらえてはいない。この日午後組で回った選手は風にも悩まされたが「吹くことを前提に回ってるんだから、なんてことはない」とあるがままの状態でコースと向き合っている。

　「バーディチャンスを獲れていないのが、流れに乗れない理由」。首位の平塚哲二とは7打差と差が開いたが、この男がひとたび流れをつかめばまだまだわからない。


【2日目の順位】
1位：平塚哲二(-13)
2位：キラデク・アフィバーンラト(-9)
3位：井上忠久(-8)
4位T：池田勇太(-6)
4位T：H・T・キム(キム・ヒョンテ)(-6)
4位T：J・チョイ(-6)
4位T：丸山大輔(-6)
8位：片岡大育(-5)
9位T：海老根文博(-4)
9位T：武藤俊憲(-4)
9位T：井上信(-4)

40位T：※松山英樹(E)他15名

勝負強さ発揮！松山英樹、土壇場の猛チャージで予選通過！

2011年07月29日19時53分




リーダーズボード
順位 選手名 スコア1 平塚　哲二 -13
2 K・アフィバーンラト -9
3 井上　忠久 -8
4 キム・ヒョンテ -6
J・チョイ -6
丸山　大輔 -6
池田　勇太 -6
8 片岡　大育 -5
9 海老根　文博 -4
武藤　俊憲 -4


順位の続きを見る





驚異の粘りで見事予選を突破した松山英樹（撮影：岩井康博）






＜サン・クロレラ クラシック　2日目◇29日◇小樽カントリー倶楽部(7,471ヤード・パー72)＞

　国内男子ツアー「サン・クロレラ クラシック」の2日目。初日1オーバー61位タイの松山英樹はこの日1つスコアを伸ばし、トータルイーブンパー40位タイで予選通過を果たした。

【関連ニュース】3度目予選落ちの遼、スイング改造「1、2か月はかかる」

　スーパーアマチュアの力を見せた。序盤は12番パー3で1オンしながら、まさかの4パットでダブルボギー。思うようなプレーをさせてもらえず「つまらないミスが多くて、ラウンドしながら悔しいことが多かった」。しかし、3オーバーと予選落ちが見えている中で迎えた5番で4メートルを沈めてバーディを奪うと、続く6番でもバーディ。さらに、8番では残り約100ヤードのセカンドショットを1メートルにつけバーディを奪取。「ホッとしています」土壇場で驚異の粘りを見せ予選通過をはたした。

　この2日間は得意なはずのパッティングで苦しんだ。「まったく入る気がしなかったですね。12番のファーストパット打ってから変な感じになって4パット。今からでも、ホテルに帰ってからでもパターの練習をしたい」と小樽の難グリーンに悩まされた。それでも、最後は勝負強さを発揮して急浮上。「5番、6番、8番は良いバーディが獲れて、(そこまでを)忘れるくらい良い内容だった」もう怖いものはなにもない。残り2日間はプロのトーナメントを思う存分暴れてみせる。


【2日目の順位】
1位：平塚哲二(-13)
2位：キラデク・アフィバーンラト(-9)
3位：井上忠久(-8)
4位T：池田勇太(-6)
4位T：H・T・キム(キム・ヒョンテ)(-6)
4位T：J・チョイ(-6)
4位T：丸山大輔(-6)
8位：片岡大育(-5)
9位T：海老根文博(-4)
9位T：武藤俊憲(-4)
9位T：井上信(-4)

40位T：※松山英樹(E)他15名

※はアマチュア

大洗、和合制した難コースキラー平塚、13アンダーで一人旅

2011年07月29日20時36分




リーダーズボード
順位 選手名 スコア1 平塚　哲二 -13
2 K・アフィバーンラト -9
3 井上　忠久 -8
4 キム・ヒョンテ -6
J・チョイ -6
丸山　大輔 -6
池田　勇太 -6
8 片岡　大育 -5
9 海老根　文博 -4
武藤　俊憲 -4


順位の続きを見る





平塚哲二がスコアを6つ伸ばして首位をキープ！（撮影：岩井康博）










＜サン・クロレラ クラシック　2日目◇29日◇小樽カントリー倶楽部(7,471ヤード・パー72)＞

　小樽カントリー倶楽部で開催されている、国内男子ツアー「サン・クロレラ クラシック」の2日目。平塚哲二が連日の大爆発を見せトータル13アンダーでホールアウト。2位のキラデク・アフィバーンラト(タイ)に4打差をつけて独走態勢に入った。

【関連ニュース】池田勇太、好発進が一転噛み合わず4位タイに後退

　比較的風の穏やかな午前組でプレーした平塚は初日の勢いそのままに序盤から快調にスコアを伸ばしていく。前半を9アンダーで終えると、1番、2番で連続バーディ、さらに5番、6番でもバーディを奪いもはやこの時点で一人旅。「(チャンス)上がりで外してしまって、3つ。もったいなかった」と余力すら感じさせる内容で単独首位をキープした。

　全英オープンを終えて痛めた左手首は完治しておらず、「ラフに入れると痛い」とコンディションは万全とはいえない。しかし、好調のパッティングに加え、「ここはいつもスコアが良い。嫌いじゃないんですよね」という小樽カントリー倶楽部との相性良さも好スコアを後押ししている。

　「このまま続けて上がっていきたい。いけるところまでいきたい。少しでも伸ばしたい」と語る平塚は、各選手が苦しむのを尻目に一人別のコースでプレーをしているかのような雰囲気を漂わせている。これまでの5勝を挙げている平塚だが、大洗、東京よみうり、和合、難しいコースにめっぽう強い。難コースキラーが北の名門・小樽完全攻略を視界にとらえた。


【2日目の順位】
1位：平塚哲二(-13)
2位：キラデク・アフィバーンラト(-9)
3位：井上忠久(-8)
4位T：池田勇太(-6)
4位T：H・T・キム(キム・ヒョンテ)(-6)
4位T：J・チョイ(-6)
4位T：丸山大輔(-6)
8位：片岡大育(-5)
9位T：海老根文博(-4)
9位T：武藤俊憲(-4)
9位T：井上信(-4)

40位T：※松山英樹(E)他15名

※はアマチュア