Horse racing betting

With a few days remaining before the most daunting s many will play seven times in CBSSports.com senior writer Steve Elling and golf writer and columnist Scott Michaux pass the popcorn and do their weekly Siskel-and-Ebert act.

This week marks the 30th anniversary of the release of the movie . Universally panned upon release and cobbled together with a somewhat ad-libbed script attempting to duplicate the raunchy success of “Animal House,” its got to be the most-quoted sports movie of all time. Whats your favorite scene and why?

ELLING: So they threw in the episode in the cart barn, where Carl Spackler was living, and the two Saturday Night Live alums winged their way through a masterpiece of utterly ad-libbed comedy. Dont believe me? Check out the outtake version of the scene, included on the 25th anniversary DVD. Its unwatchable and awful. They turned on the camera, somebody shouted “action,” and the two went at it, hoping for the best. I still dont know what getting “stoned to the bejeesus belt” means, but its hilarious. Tiger Woods was asked a few years ago to identify his favorite golf movie. After hesitating for about one second, he said, “Theres only on possibly better than ever. By the way, there is no right answer to this question. Pick a scene, any scene. Like when Dangerfield fakes breaking his arm to get out of the money match with Judge Smails. If you think my pick was crazy, well, thats what they said about Son of Sam. Cannonball coming. Double turds. Ahoi, polloi. I could go on. …

MICHAUX: The best part is when Jackie Mason buys the majority stake in Bushwood and turns it into an amusement park. … Oh wait, that’s . Probably the worst sequel of all time (and that’s saying something). I dont think theres a line in the original that I don’t know by heart, having seen the thing at least 60 times in the last 30 years. Any scene with Al Czervik (Dangerfield), Judge Smails (Ted Knight) or Carl Spackler (Murray) are classics. They all carried this crazy tune. Spacklers cinderella story, Dalai Lama and pool-or-pond scenes are legendary ad-libs and probably top my personal faves. Czerviks one-liners ironically turned him into the respected comic legend that never could. (It annoys me that the Caddyshack restaurant near the World Golf Hall of Fame doesn’t serve i “It looks good on you, though.”). And Smails nailed every snooty country-clubber with his many gems including “Youll get nothing and like it!” When was the last time you got through a r “I don’t think the heavy stuffs gonna come down for quite awhile;” “right in the lumberyard;” “Billy-billy-billy-billy-billy;” “you’re a tremendous slouch;” “be the ball;” “thats a peach, hon;” “rat farts;” or “its in the hole!” So weve got that going for us, which is nice

Five of the past six Grand Slam events, and nine of the past 15, have been won by first-time major winners. Is that good or bad for golf?

ELLING: It might be the ultimate double-edged sword. As evidenced by the abysmal television ratings from the British Open, where the final round set record lows on ESPN, having unknowns or less-heralded players atop the scoreboard tends to make the casual fans flip the remote control to another channel. Surely, its a boon for the game in places like South Korea, Ireland and South Africa, which have all produced upset major winners in the past 11 months. But odd as it sounds, from reader feedback alone, its almost as though fans would rather see Mickelson or Woods win by a landslide than watch a close contest between Sergio Garcia, Padraig Harrington and Ben Curtis, who fought it out at the PGA Championship two years ago. Golf fans will watch regardless and t but the sidewalk viewers who watch only during the Masters, U.S. Open and other biggies want a rooting interest with identifiable players. Louis Oosthuizen seems like a terrific kid who has overcome plenty. Graeme McDowell is underrated and played on a Ryder Cup team. Y.E. Yang took down Woods. A little variety is fine for the growth of the game, especially globally, as long as the big boys are in the mix and they win at least occasionally.

MICHAUX: Golf is one of those weird games where everyone seems to root against the underdogs. We all judge the quality of a tournament by the names on its leaderboard, and if those names don’t include Tiger or Phil or Ernie or some other chosen favorite, than it gets diminished in the eyes of the beholders. Few bothered to behold this year’s British Open simply because a “no-name” ran away and hid with the claret jug. But if the 27-year-old Louis Oosthuizen develops into a multiple major winner (as countryman Ernie Els did after surprising at the 1994 U.S. Open at Oakmont) then history might look back on this event differently. Having some fresh faces pose with major trophies isn’t a bad thing. We just seem to prefer those faces already being defined before they kiss the prize. McDowell and Stewart Cink were established contenders before breaking through. Lucas Glover, Yang and Oosty were relative interlopers. But so what. We’re the ones with the problem if we can’t respect their achievements on merit instead of popularity. Take it from a guy who has to write epic articles on reigning Masters champions every year. It’s more fun to tell a new tale than try to come up with a new angle on a story told so many times we all know it by heart.

Weve had consecutive first-time major winners with McDowell and Oosthuizen. In their honor, please pick the greatest one-time major winner of all time and defend your position.

ELLING: Im going slightly off the traditional track here. You can have Fred Couples and Lanny Wadkins, guys who would certainly be at the top of most lists given their firepower and considerable gifts. But when I was a (very) young boy, my grandfather was a big fan of Gene Littler, who had a swing that was as smooth at age 60 as it was at 30. Littler, who like titans Phil Mickelson and Billy Casper hailed from the San Diego area, won the 1961 U.S. Open, right in the midst of the rising tide for American golf and the birth of the so-called Big Three. He was a college grad, part of a new breed who attended college before turning pro, establishing a career template that still holds true for most career paths today. He won the U.S. Amateur and a PGA Tour event as an amateur. He later lost playoffs at the U.S. Open and PGA Championship. In all, he won 29 times on tour, including five titles after he beat a case of lymph cancer. Needless to say, Couples and Wadkins did not play in the shadow of the Big Three, not to mention the likes of Casper, Floyd, Miller, Trevino and their ilk. In 27 Ryder Cup matches, he lost five times, amassing a 14-5-8 mark. Gene the Machine, indeed.

MICHAUX: As tempted as I am to pick Michael Campbell, I think this argument comes down to two great Hall of Famers – Lloyd Mangrum or Roberto De Vicenzo. Though his only major win was the 1946 U.S. Open, Mangrum ranks 13th on the PGA Tour’s all-time win list with 36 – smack dab between Phil Mickelson (38) and Vijay Singh (34) for those needing perspective. And neither of those guys had careers interrupted by earning two Purple Hearts fighting in World War II. Mangrum lost to Ben Hogan in a playoff at the 1950 U.S. Open and was runner-up in three majors including the 1940 Masters when he opened with a 64 that stood as a scoring record for 46 years. He finished in the top 10 in 25 majors, including 10 straight at Augusta from 1947-56. He also earned two Vardon trophies and won seven times in 1948. But since this isn’t just an American game, De Vicenzo deserves strong consideration as well. More famous for not winning the 1968 Masters because of his scorecard gaffe than winning the 1967 British Open at Hoylake, “El Maestro” is among the all-time greats. He won 231 tournaments around the world (six on the PGA Tour) including 48 national opens in 18 different countries. He had 17 top 10s in majors, which accounted for 40 percent of his career starts. And he did much of this in an era when overseas traveling included ships or short-hop flights that took three days to get from Buenos Aires to Miami. Lets see Couples or Love measure up to that.