The Golf Expert is here with answers to your questions. Since slow play is not encouraged, let's quickly move to the first tee, er, question and get started.

Q: For those of us who never saw him play competitively, why is Arnold Palmer so revered? Why did he do so well at the Masters?
-- Chris from Shreveport, La.
A:  Chris, how much time do you have? Truly, we could spend a long weekend discussing the reasons why Palmer is such an icon. But keep in mind that his appeal spreads from the generation that saw him play in his prime, to the generation that only watched him turn for the twilight of his career, to a generation that knows of his legend only from stories passed down from parents and grandparents. That ability to connect with people of all ages is what defines the Palmer legend and it is hard to put into words.

Surely, Palmer is beloved because he was such a fierce competitor on the golf course, one who refused to back down from a challenge, no matter the odds. That's how he won the 1960 U.S. Open, and oh, how we love that spirit in our athletes; but it's also that fire that lost him the 1966 U.S. Open and several other big tournaments, and, oh, how we admire the way he accepted defeat with class and humility.

It is essential to understand about Palmer that for all his success -- and he won more than 60 tournaments, seven of them majors, and he's the one who revived the British Open and invented the Grand Slam -- what made him so universally embraced is that he was one of the first big-name athletes who showed us that it was OK to fail, so long as you maintained dignity and gave it your greatest effort.

Palmer, who played his 50th and final Masters this year, has said on many occasions that his life has been shaped not as much by the wins, but by the defeats that tested his character. Like Jack Nicklaus, it can be said of Palmer that he not only was a terrific winner, but a great loser and who among us doesn't need to understand better how to handle the situations that don't go our way?

Beyond all that, Palmer touched people because he wanted to.

"The first time I played with him, he told me it was important 'To look 'em in the eye,' " said Brad Faxon, now in his 21st year on Tour. "I thought he meant the other players, but he meant the people in the gallery."

That is why Palmer caught on and has remained a rage for more than 40 years -- because he reached out to them and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't have an autograph by the man simply known as "The King."

His style of play was effective at Augusta National; he hit the ball hard, often low, and frequently with a right-to-left shape that worked well at the par-5s. He was a bold, aggressive player, at a course that is one of the ultimate risk-and-reward venues, and in his prime no one made more long putts that mattered.

Q: In his new book Ken Venturi is accusing Arnold Palmer of a rules violation at the '58 Masters. What are your thoughts?
-- Alan Rae from Vancouver, British Columbia
A: Quite honestly, it's sad.

We are talking about something that happened 46 years ago and three of the gentlemen who have been dragged into it -- rules official Arthur Lacey and Masters architects Clifford Roberts and Bobby Jones -- have been dead for years.

What is Venturi's motivation? It's smacks of a bitter man who has carried around the heartache of three squandered chances (1956, 1958, 1960) to win a tournament he was passionate about. He claims that Palmer was credited with a 3 at the par-3 12th and not a 5 "because he didn't know the rules," yet Venturi knows the golden rule in golf -- that once the rules officials enter the discussion, other players are excused from participation. The rules official's decision is final. End of story.

Palmer was deemed to have been entitled to playing a second ball because his ball was embedded and a local rule was acceptable.

He played within the rules of golf; it is Venturi who has played outside the rules of good taste.

Q: What's happened to Len Mattiace since his Masters playoff loss last year?
-- Jeff Hartnell from Ogden, Utah.
A:  Unfortunately for the personable Mattiace, the loss to Mike Weir at Augusta seemed to take a bit of steam out of him.

Having won twice in 2002, a season in which he earned $2,194,064, he was off to a slow start in '03 before catching fire at Augusta, rounds of 73-74-69-65 getting him into that playoff.

Maybe the heartache was too much, maybe not, but in 17 tournaments thereafter, Mattiace had just one finish inside the Top 20. To compound matters, he hurt his knees while skiing this past winter and wasn't able to make his 2004 season debut until the Honda Classic, the 10th week of the schedule.

But Mattiace is encouraged. He missed the cut at the Honda, then at Bay Hill, but at The Players Championship, he went 74-69-74-71 to finish even par, tied for 33rd. He said that his game is coming around, that the biggest thing right now is the lack of strength in his legs. He will be included in the field for this year's Masters.

Q: Any changes to Augusta this year?
-- Fred N. from Ohio
A: The biggest change is the tree line down the right side of the 11th fairway, that it will force you to take a slightly different route off of the tee.

The biggest thing heading into this year's Masters is this: Since the course was given added yardage prior to the 2002 tournament, we have yet to see the true Augusta National because instead of being firm, firmer, fast, and faster, Mother Nature the last two Aprils has provided us a long, wet, sloppy golf course.

Q: When was the last time Tiger finished over par for a tournament?
-- Karl Dow
A: If you're thinking we need to check scores from another century, think again, Karl. You only need to go back to his last tournament in 2003 when he finished 1-over at the Tour Championship at Champions Country Club in Houston. But stunningly, there were over-par efforts in each of the four majors -- 12-over at the PGA Championship in August, 2-over at the British, 1-over at the British, and 12-over at the Masters.

Q: Recognizing that there have been significant advances in the technologies of equipment, are there PGA courses which have not significantly changed in the past 10 years where the scoring averages have remained fairly constant?
-- Stu Hyvonen from Saginaw, Mich.
A:  Stu, TPC at Sawgrass comes immediately to mind. Very few changes have been made to this layout and generally players give the host venue for The Players Championship high marks because it gives players of all different abilities the chance to win.

Oh, Greg Norman got PGA Tour officials all flustered in 1994 when he shot 24-under to win The Players Championship, but they didn't push the panic button and call out the bulldozers; they merely tightened the fairways and made a concerted effort to get the fairways and greens as firm as possible. The result? Lee Janzen won with a score of 283 in 1995 and in two other years when conditions were extremely difficult, David Duval (3-under in 1999) and Craig Perks (8-under in 2002) also prevailed with higher than normal totals, but for the most part, the average winning score has been 13-under. Adam Scott went 12-under to win this year's event, so I like the course for how it has remained consistently strong in the face of technological advances.

Pebble Beach (AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am) several years ago changed dramatically the par-3 fifth hole, but it remains pretty much the same course it's always been, one that relies upon Mother Nature to supply defense. Westchester Country Club (Buick Classic) has made cosmetic changes, but is basically the same gem it has been for years.

Q: What is the biggest misconception about the golf swing?
-- Steve Turner from Eden, N.C.
A: Teachers will tell you that it is virtually impossible to not move the head, so players shouldn't keeping telling one another to keep it completely still. But more than anything, high handicappers probably don't appreciate how important it is to keep the legs quiet, while still rotating the hips. That is where great golfers get their power -- from their lower body, not from swinging the club hard with their arms, as they most likely think.

Q: What percentage of pro golfers are using soft spikes?
-- Mitchell Held from New York
A: It seems to me that it used to be a very high percentage, perhaps as much as 85 percent, but gradually that is coming down. Still, I would venture to guess that it's a good majority who prefer the metal spikes, something that pleases me greatly. There's nothing like the sound of player in spikes walking a short way on cement or pavement.

MORE FROM ASK THE GOLF EXPERT

A world without Woods? Golf would survive

A world without Woods? Golf would survive FedEx Cup lacked drama, but worked perfectly FedEx Cup format remains a work in progress   Add Ask the golf expert headlines to your news reader: