BEGINNINGS OF AN ICE WAR
In reference to Mark Mulvoy's article Hockey's Turn to Wage a War (June 19), if Bobby Hull wants to jump over to the WHA, let him go. I live in a minor league hockey town, so when I go to an NHL game I make sure it's going to be a good one, and seeing the great Bobby Hull in action is no special thing. The Golden Jet is no longer as thrilling a figure as he once was. Now when I see the Black Hawks come rushing down ice I see six hockey players, not five and one superstar. Don't get me wrong; the NHL and the Black Hawks won't be the same without Hull, but the other Hawks who have played in the Golden Jet's shadow could, I think, more than adequately fill in the hole dug by Bobby's departure.
I really would like to know what the WHA thinks an aging Golden Jet would do for it. It is going to take much more than Bobby Hull, John McKenzie and Bernie Parent to get this mini-league going. I'd just like to see the New England Whalers play a game against the Boston Bruins, or the New York Raiders play the New York Rangers. The players should forget about the WHA. It is not going to do any better than the NHL.
New York City
The WHA will definitely get off the ground. All it needs is a little more interest and for Bobby Hull to jump leagues. If Hull goes, many other players will jump also. The WHA will at least play competitive hockey, something Clarence Campbell's NHL has not done with all its ridiculous expanding. Philadelphia hockey fans will be attracted by the acquisitions of ex-Bruin John McKenzie and Bernie Parent. If Bobby Hull does not sign with Winnipeg, it will be the biggest mistake of his life.
One thing in the WHA's favor is that Boston (Hockey Town, U.S.A.) will without a doubt sell out every Whaler game. Most people in New England want a chance to see professional hockey, and they can't get into a Bruin game for all the beans in Boston.
THE BLALOCK CASE
I'm all for fighting for the underdog, but Barry McDermott's article Keeping a Close Eye on the Ball (June 19) was slanted to an extreme. It was insulting to the LPGA. It is totally absurd to claim that Janie Blalock's "single-minded devotion...is why she is not admired by the other women." Many of those women were devoted and dedicated enough to play on the tour before the money got halfway decent or the public even recognized the LPGA.
I found McDermott's article offensive. He was right about one thing. No one could be a winner—least of all the LPGA—after this biased, belittling article.
I am amazed that the members of the LPGA are able to actually grip a golf club. One would expect their claws to interfere. Jane Blalock's innocence or guilt remains to be seen, but the fact is that the whole affair is being handled with all the grace and dignity of a second-grade Brownie meeting.
Jane Blalock must have been reading Kin Hubbard, the practical philosopher who said, "Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit a lot of people."
ROBERT L. CAHILL
East Hampton, N.Y.
Having seen Janie Blalock before, and after seeing Cynthia Sullivan in your article, I know which one I'll be keeping an eye on over the next 20 years.
Your article on Jane Blalock's dispute with the LPGA has caused me to wonder what the rationale is for the rule that ball marks may be smoothed on the green, but nothing else can be repaired. This rule seems to have indirectly led to the Blalock difficulty, and it struck me as ridiculous on the final day of the U.S. Open, when a TV announcer reported that a ruling was requested on whether one player's line was obstructed by a ball mark or by a spike mark. Why not let a player smooth or remove any obstruction in his intended line and thus eliminate the necessity for rulings, suspicions, etc?
PAUL G. HERRICK
Cherry Hill, N.J.