Octopus pants: Not the worst golf fashion statement

Octopus pants: Billy Horschel caused a stir when he wore "Octopus pants" in the final round of the US Open golf tournament on Sunday.

(AP Photo/Darron Cummings)
Billy Horschel, wearing his famous "octopus pants," watches a putt on the second green during the fourth round of the U.S. Open golf tournament at Merion Golf Club, Sunday, June 16, 2013, in Ardmore, Pa.

Considering the history of bad pants in golf, Billy Horschel had to go a long way to stand out.

But the Octopus-print pants he donned for Sunday's final round at the U.S. Open did the trick. Somewhere, John Daly, long considered golf's leader in the clubhouse for bad fashion, is rummaging through his closet for a response.

Horschel, a former University of Florida golfer, teed off in eighth place at 3-over, four strokes behind final-round leader Phil Mickelson. While Mickelson went with an all-black ensemble, Horschel tweeted a photo of himself in the navy and white giant squid-patterned slacks, set off by a magenta-toned polo shirt, before heading over to the course.

"Well here they are! The highly anticipated highly controversial....Octopus pants!"

Strange as the Octopus pants looked, few people should have been surprised by the unusual fashion statement. Eclectic only begins to describe Horschel; according to his PGA Tour bio, he also devoured the Twilight young-adult vampire novels in the span of two weeks and is "a believer in Bigfoot and UFOs."

But as far as fashion, Horschel is hardly alone. Bad pants are such a staple of the sport that a number of amateur tournaments are organized each year requiring participants to show up in stunningly loud slacks.

At the professional level, Englishman Ian Poulter has long been considered the front-runner in today's game, wearing everything from his native flag to something best described as an old TV test pattern. Rickie Fowler has pushed the boundary in terms of color, but usually wears the same tone from head to toe.

But just like those two, Horschel has no problem making a "look-at-me" statement. Anybody who saw him pumping his fists and hopping around while celebrating his first tour win in New Orleans earlier this year — after rolling in a 20-footer to win — knows that.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.