text:
\section{Introduction}

Molecular clouds (MCs) are observed to have large non-thermal line widths \citep[e.g.][]{Larson81,Solomon87} indicating supersonic turbulence. This turbulence is present at early as well as later stages when star formation has already set in \citep[e.g][]{Williams94,Hirota11}. However, supersonic turbulence is expected to decay in a turbulent crossing time \citep[e.g.][]{MacLow98,Stone98}, which is typically shorter (a few Myr) than the cloud lifetime \citep[$\sim$ 10 Myr; see e.g.][]{Dobbs14}. Hence, the observed level of turbulence needs to be driven by either internal stellar feedback \citep[see e.g.][for reviews]{Elmegreen04,MacLow04,Ballesteros07}, local gravitational collapse \citep{Ibanez15,Ibanez17}, gas accretion onto the cloud \citep{Klessen10,Goldbaum11}, or supernovae (SNe) located \textit{outside} the cloud \citep{Padoan16}.

SNe are considered as one of the main drivers of interstellar turbulence \citep[e.g.][]{Elmegreen04,MacLow04,Walch15b,Naab17} and are involved in the formation of MCs e.g. by sweeping up material \citep{Koyama00}. Although there are observations of the interaction of SN remnants with MCs at infrared and $X$-/$\gamma$-ray wavelengths \citep[e.g.][]{Neufeld07,Hewitt09,Tang14}, it remains unclear whether SNe can maintain the internal velocity dispersion of MCs \textit{after} the cloud has formed. To investigate this, realistic MC formation models \textit{including} their surrounding galactic environment, through which the SN shock has to travel before it hits the clouds, are required. Such studies are numerically demanding and recent works by \citet{Ibanez15,Ibanez17} and \citet{Padoan16} come to different conclusions. \citet{Padoan16} argue that external SNe alone can maintain the observed level of turbulence, whereas \citet{Ibanez15,Ibanez17} suggest that gravity rather than SNe causes the observed turbulent velocity dispersion.

Here, we present a novel study, which systematically explores the effect of SNe at varying distances on self-consistently formed MCs embedded in their galactic environment \citep{Seifried17}. The simulations include a chemical network with associated self-consistent cooling and heating processes in combination with a high spatial resolution of \mbox{0.12 pc}

\section{Numerical methods}
\label{sec:ICs}

The simulations presented here make use of the zoom-in technique presented in \citet{Seifried17} for MC formation within the SILCC project \citep[see][for details]{Walch15,Girichidis16}. The simulations are performed with the adaptive mesh refinement code FLASH 4.3 \citep{Fryxell00,Dubey08} using a magnetohydrodynamics solver which guarantees positive entropy and density \citep{Bouchut07,Waagan09}. We model the chemical evolution of the interstellar medium (ISM) using a simplified chemical network for H$^+$, H, H$_2$, C$^+$, CO, e$^-$, and O \citep{Nelson97,Glover07b,Glover10}, which also follows the thermal evolution of the gas including the most relevant heating and cooling processes. The shielding of the interstellar radiation field \citep[$G_0$ = 1.7;][]{Habing68,Draine78} is calculated according to the surrounding column densities of total gas, H$_2$, and CO via the {\sc TreeCol} algorithm \citep{Clark12b,Walch15,Wunsch17}. We solve the Poisson equation for self-gravity with a tree-based method \citep{Wunsch17} and include a background potential from the pre-existing stellar component in the galactic disc, modeled as an isothermal sheet with \mbox{$\Sigma_\mathrm{star}$ = 30 M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$} and a scale height of \mbox{100 pc.}

Our setup represents a small section of a galactic disc with solar neighborhood properties and a size of 500 pc $\times$ 500 pc $\times$ $\pm$ 5 kpc. The gas surface density is \mbox{$\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}$ = 10 M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$} and the initial vertical distribution of the gas has a Gaussian profile with a scale height of 30 pc and a midplane density of 9 $\times$ $10^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$.
The gas near the disc midplane has an initial temperature of 4500 K and consists of atomic hydrogen and C$^+$.

Up to \mbox{$t_0$ = 11.9 Myr}, we drive turbulence in the disc with SNe, which are randomly placed in the midplane and have a Gaussian distribution with a scale height of 50 pc in the vertical direction. The SN rate is constant at 15 SNe Myr$^{-1}$, corresponding to the Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation rate surface density for \mbox{$\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}$ = 10 M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$} \citep{Kennicutt98}. For a single SN we inject 10$^{51}$ erg in the form of thermal energy if the Sedov-Taylor radius is resolved with at least 4 cells. Otherwise, we heat the gas within the injection region to \mbox{$10^4$ K} and inject the momentum, which the swept-up shell has gained at the end of the pressure-driven snowplow phase \citep[see][and \citealt{Gatto15} for details]{Blondin98}.

The base grid resolution is 3.9 pc up to $t_0$. At $t_0$ we stop further SN explosions. We choose two regions in which MCs -- henceforth denoted as MC1 and \mbox{MC2 --} are about to form and we continue the simulation for another 1.5 Myr over which we progressively increase the spatial resolution d$x$ in these two regions from 3.9 pc to 0.12 pc \citep[][Table~2]{Seifried17}.

In order to estimate the time required to develop a realistic three-phase ISM from the quiescent initial conditions, we assume a mean expansion speed of our SN remnants of \mbox{$\sim$ 20 -- 30 km s$^{-1}$} \mbox{($\simeq$ 20 -- 30 pc Myr$^{-1}$)} and a mean SN age of \mbox{$t_0$/2 = 6 Myr}. Hence, each SN remnant would cover on average a spherical region with about 240 -- 360 pc in diameter. Given the SN rate of \mbox{15 SNe Myr$^{-1}$}, \mbox{180 SNe} are inserted up to $t_0$. Comparing the area which would be covered by all 180 SNe to the area of the simulated part of the disk (500 pc $\times$ 500 pc) gives us the typical number of how often each point in the disk is hit by a SN shock. With the numbers above we find that up to $t_0$ each point in the disk midplane is affected on average by $\sim$ 50 SNe. Although this is a rather crude estimate, it shows that a time of $\sim$ 12 Myr is sufficient to develop a self-consistent, turbulent three-phase ISM.

Shortly after the clouds are fully refined, at \mbox{$t_\mathrm{SN}$ = $t_0$ + 1.53 Myr} we explode single SNe at different distances of $d$ = 25, 50, 62.5, or 75 pc from the center-of-mass of either cloud along the $\pm x$-, $\pm y$-, or $\pm z$-direction. In addition, we also investigate the impact of SNe going off $\sim$ 1 Myr later at \mbox{$t_\mathrm{SN}$ = $t_0$ + 2.5 Myr} (Section~\ref{sec:laterSN}). A schematic overview of the different times in our simulations is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:overview}.

Furthermore, in Section~\ref{sec:MHD} we investigate the influence of magnetic fields on our results. For this, we zoom-in on 2 clouds denoted as MC3 and MC4 at $t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ = 16 Myr in a comparable simulation with magnetic fields. In total, we consider 132 different simulations including SNe  (see Table~\ref{tab:overview}), thus giving us statistically reliable results.
\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f1.pdf}
 \caption{Schematic view of the different phases in the simulations showing the initial phase up to $t_0$ for the evolution of the three-phase medium and the different times $t_\mathrm{SN}$ =  $t_0$ + 1.5 Myr and $t_0$ + 2.5 Myr at which SNe are inserted for the parameter study. For the runs with magnetic fields (Section~\ref{sec:MHD}), we insert SNe at $t$ = $t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ + 1.5 and $t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ + 2.5 Myr.}
 \label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
 \caption{Overview of the performed simulations showing the cloud name, the time $t_0$, at which we start to zoom-in, the distance $d$ and time $t_\mathrm{SN}$ the SN goes off, and whether magnetic fields are included.}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
  \hline
  cloud & $d$ [pc] & $t_0$ [Myr] &$t_\mathrm{SN}$ [Myr] & B-field \\
  \hline
  MC1 & 25, 50, 62.5, 75 & 11.9 & 13.4 & No \\
  MC2 & 25, 50, 62.5, 75 & 11.9 & 13.4 & No \\
  MC1 & 25, 50 & 11.9 & 14.4 & No \\
  MC2 & 25, 50 & 11.9 & 14.4 & No \\
  \hline
  MC3 & 25, 50, 62.5 & 16.0 & 17.5 & Yes \\
  MC4 & 25, 50, 62.5 & 16.0 & 17.5 & Yes \\
  MC3 & 25, 50 & 16.0 & 18.5 & Yes \\
  MC4 & 25, 50 & 16.0 & 18.5 & Yes \\
  \hline
  \vspace{0.2cm}
 \end{tabular}
 \label{tab:overview}
\end{table}

\section{Results}

\subsection{Column density evolution}

\begin{figure*}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f2.pdf}
 \caption{Time evolution ($t$ = \mbox{$t_0$ + 2 Myr} to $t_0$ + 4 Myr) of the column density of MC1 (top row) and MC2 (bottom row) as they are hit by a nearby SN (red star). For comparison the right panels show the reference run with no SN at $t_0$ + 4 Myr. The comparable structure of the clouds with and without a SN indicates that the SN mainly affects the low-density environment.}
 \label{fig:col_dens}
\end{figure*}

In \citet{Seifried17} we have investigated the formation and early evolution of MC1 and MC2 for 5 Myr, i.e. up to \mbox{$t_0$ + 5 Myr}, without any further SNe in the simulation domain. These simulations serve as the reference simulations indicated with the subscript ``no SN''. The clouds harbor increasing amounts of molecular gas and develop a strongly fragmented sub-structure (right panels of Figure~\ref{fig:col_dens}).

The left panels show the time evolution of the column density of MC1 (top row) and MC2 (bottom row) which are exposed to a SN at a distance of 25 and 50 pc, respectively. The SN bubbles expand asymmetrically and seem not to be able to significantly affect the central, high-density regions. A qualitatively similar behavior is found for all other simulations.

\subsection{Time evolution}

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f3.pdf}
 \caption{Time evolution of the velocity dispersion (top row) and the mass (bottom row) of the non-magnetic clouds MC1 (left) and MC2 (right) calculated for gas with densities $\geq$ 100 cm$^{-3}$. The black line shows $\sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$ and $M_\mathrm{no \, SN}$ from the reference runs, the remaining lines show $\sigma_\mathrm{SN}$ and $M_\mathrm{SN}$ for SNe exploding at distances of 25, 50, 62.5, and 75 pc along the -$y$-direction.}
 \label{fig:sigma_mass}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f4.pdf}
 \caption{Relative change, $\sigma_\mathrm{SN}$/$\sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$, for SNe going off at increasing distances (from top to bottom) along the $\pm x$-, $\pm y$-, and $\pm z$-directions for  MC1 (left) and MC2 (right) calculated for gas with densities $\geq$ 100 cm$^{-3}$. At distances up to 50 pc, $\sigma$ is temporarily (for $\sim 100$ kyr) enhanced up to 70\% compared with the respective reference simulation. At larger distances the SNe have very little effect. }
 \label{fig:sigma_rel}
\end{figure}

In Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass} we show the time evolution of the mass and velocity dispersion of the two non-magnetic clouds. We define the mass $M$ of the cloud as the mass of all gas with particle densities \mbox{$n$ $\geq$ 100 cm$^{-3}$} (assuming a mean molecular weight of $\mu$ = 2.3). The velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of this mass is then defined as the mass-weighted root-mean-square velocity with respect to the center-of-mass (COM) velocity of the cloud, $\vec{v}_\mathrm{COM}$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
 \sigma = \sqrt{ \frac{ \Sigma \, ( \mathrm{d}m \times (\vec{v} - \vec{v}_\mathrm{COM})^2)}{\Sigma \, \mathrm{d}m} } \, ,
\end{equation}
where d$m$ and $\vec{v}$ are the mass and velocity of an individual cell, respectively, and we sum over all cells with \mbox{$n$ $\geq$ 100 cm$^{-3}$}.

For the unperturbed clouds, the masses $M_\mathrm{no \, SN}$ increase over about 2 Myr and afterward remain roughly constant, with values around 5 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_{\sun}$ and 3 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_{\sun}$ for MC1 and MC2, respectively (bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass}, black line with crosses). The velocity dispersion of the unperturbed clouds $\sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$ (top row) increases continuously for MC1, whereas for MC2 around \mbox{$t$ $\simeq$ $t_0$ + 3 Myr} it levels off at \mbox{$\sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$ $\simeq$ 4.5 km s$^{-1}$}. We emphasize that both, the derived masses and velocity dispersions indicate that the chosen clouds are representative of typical MCs in the Milky Way, for example \citet{Miville17} found a median cloud mass of \mbox{4 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_\sun$} \citep[but see also e.g.][]{Solomon87,Elmegreen96,Heyer01,Roman10}. Furthermore, the high level of turbulence of $\sim$ 2.5 km s$^{-1}$ present already at the beginning of the cloud evolution as well as the strongly fragmented sub-structure (Figure~\ref{fig:col_dens}) indicate that the initial SN-driving period of 11.9 Myr was sufficient to establish a turbulent three-phase medium.

Considering the impact of external SNe, we find that the cloud masses $M_\mathrm{SN}$ (bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass}) show only a moderate initial increase by $\sim$ 1\% ($\lesssim$ 1000 $M_\sun$) compared to $M_\mathrm{no \, SN}$, which we attribute to the compression of less dense gas by the incoming SN blast wave. We note that in a few runs, at later times, $M_\mathrm{SN}$ even slightly drops below $M_\mathrm{no \, SN}$, i.e. the SN has a negative effect on the cloud mass, but the changes are always of the order of a few percent. The influence of the SNe on $\sigma$ (top row of Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass}), however, is much more pronounced than on $M$. We find that in particular nearby SNe seem to have a noticeable effect on $\sigma$ increasing it by a few km s$^{-1}$. For more distant ($d$ $>$ 50 pc) SNe, the impact is significantly lower.

In Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_rel} we show the relative change of $\sigma_\mathrm{SN}$ with respect to $\sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$, now for all directions and the four distances considered in this work. Overall, the SN impact temporarily enhances $\sigma$ by at most 70\% for the nearby SNe ($d$ = 25 and 50 pc). For more distant SNe, the relative increase is almost negligible with $\sim$ 1\% for $d$ = 75 pc. Interestingly, even for nearby explosions, the increase is short-lived and the additional dispersion decays on timescales of a few \mbox{100 kyr}.

\subsection{Maximum gain in velocity dispersion and decay time}
\label{sec:gain}

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f5.pdf}
 \caption{Relation between the decay time $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$ and the maximum increase $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ of the additional turbulent velocity component caused by SNe with different distances (symbols) for MC1 and MC2 (open and closed symbols) calculated using different density thresholds (color-coded).}
 \label{fig:decay_time}
\end{figure}

We determine the additional turbulent velocity dispersion driven by a nearby SN,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ =  max($\sigma_\mathrm{SN} - \sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$)}
\label{eq:sigma_max}
\end{equation}
reached at $t$ = $t_\mathrm{max}$, and its decay time (half-life), $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$, which is the time which passes until \mbox{$\sigma_\mathrm{SN} - \sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$} drops from $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ to \mbox{$0.5 \times \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$}\footnote{Note that the half-life is related to the e-folding time $\tau_\mathrm{e}$ of an exponential decay as $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$ = $\tau_\mathrm{e}$ $\times$ ln(2). When fitting an exponential function to the decaying part of $\sigma_\mathrm{SN} - \sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN}$, we obtain very similar timescales. However, determining $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$ provides somewhat more robust estimates.}
, i.e.
\begin{equation}
 (\sigma_\mathrm{SN} - \sigma_\mathrm{no \, SN})(t_\mathrm{max} + \tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}) = 0.5  \times \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \, .
 \label{eq:tau}
\end{equation}
We do this for both MCs, but now using three different density thresholds of 30, 100, and \mbox{300 cm$^{-3}$}. Considering Figure~\ref{fig:decay_time}, we find that with increasing distance, $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ decreases. Furthermore, for \mbox{$d$ $\leq$ 50 pc} there seems to be a weak anti-correlation between $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$ and $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ (and thus a positive correlation between $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$ and $d$). We attribute this to the fact that turbulence decays roughly within one crossing time, which is inversely proportional to $\sigma$ in the supersonic case \citep{Stone98}. Furthermore, typically $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN} \sim 100 - 600$ kyr, i.e. the effect of SNe is very limited in time compared to MC formation and evolution times of up to a few 10 Myr \citep[see e.g. the review by][]{Dobbs14}. Since the SN energy is lost quickly by radiative cooling in the dense gas of the cloud \citep[a few 1000 yr, see e.g][]{Koyama00,Haid16}, $\sigma$ is only temporarily boosted and decays subsequently.

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f6.pdf}
 \caption{Mean maximum increase of the velocity dispersion $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ caused by SNe as a function of their distance averaged over MC1 and MC2. The error bar gives the minimum and maximum values found. For $d$ $>$ 50 pc, the velocity gain decreases steeper than expected for adiabatic expansion ($d^{-1}$, red dashed line). For the momentum-conserving snowplow phase we would expect $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle \propto d^{-2.5}$ (cyan dashed line).}
 \label{fig:sigma_distance}
\end{figure}
Combining the results of Figure~\ref{fig:decay_time} for MC1 and MC2, we calculate the mean value of $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ for each $d$ (Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_distance}). The error bars indicate the minimum and maximum value found. First, we see that $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ decreases with increasing density threshold. This is due to the dissipation of kinetic energy as the shock travels deeper into the cloud, i.e. into higher-density regions. Furthermore, for \mbox{$d$ $\leq$ 50 pc},  $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ is typically between a few 0.1 - 1 km s$^{-1}$, whereas for \mbox{$d$ = 62.5 pc}, \mbox{$\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ $\simeq$ 0.1 km s$^{-1}$}, i.e. less than the typical sound speed $c_\mathrm{s} \simeq$ 0.2 km s$^{-1}$ of molecular gas with \mbox{$T$ = 10 K}. For \mbox{$d$ = 75 pc}, $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ only increases by a few 10 m s$^{-1}$.

Assuming energy conservation, which is applicable if the SN is hitting the cloud during the Sedov-Taylor stage, we obtain the following for the energy gain of the cloud:
\begin{equation}
 \frac{1}{2} M_\mathrm{MC} \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}^2 = \frac{A_\mathrm{MC}}{4 \pi d^2} \times E_\mathrm{SN} \times 0.27 \, .
 \label{eq:energy}
\end{equation}
In the following we assume fiducial values of \mbox{$A_\mathrm{MC}$ = $\pi \times$ (10 pc)$^2$} and \mbox{$M_\mathrm{MC} = 5 \times 10^4$ M$_{\sun}$} for the area and mass of the MC, and take into account that only 27\% of the SN energy ($E_\mathrm{SN}$ = 10$^{51}$ erg) is in kinetic form during the Sedov-Taylor stage. This then results in a relation \mbox{$\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ $\propto$ $d^{-1}$} (red dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_distance}), which is similar to the observed slope for $d$ $\le$ 50 pc.

Furthermore, for the typical number densities of 0.2 -- 5 cm$^{-3}$ of the regions, within which the SNe explode, the Sedov-Taylor radii are $r_\mathrm{ST}$ $\simeq$ 5 -- 35 pc \citep{Haid16} and are always smaller than the distances of the SNe. Hence, the SN must have lost a significant amount of energy due to radiative cooling even \textit{before} hitting the cloud. In particular for $d$ $>$ 50 pc, where the SN has entered the momentum-conserving snowplow phase, the decline of $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ is much steeper than $d^{-1}$. In this stage we expect an energy gain of the cloud of
\begin{equation}
 \frac{1}{2} M_\mathrm{MC} \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}^2 = \frac{A_\mathrm{MC}}{4 \pi d^2} \times \frac{p_\mathrm{shell}^2}{2 M_\mathrm{shell}} \, ,
 \label{eq:momentum}
\end{equation}
assuming that all the mass in the volume occupied by the SN remnant is contained in the swept-up shell, i.e. $M_\mathrm{shell} \propto d^3$, and that this swept-up shell has gained a momentum $p_\mathrm{shell}$.
This results in \mbox{$\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ $\propto$ $d^{-2.5}$} (cyan dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_distance}), which is closer to the decrease of $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ for $d>50$ pc.
However, at any $d$, the actual values for $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ are smaller than those of the two theoretical predictions, which indicates that the energy transfer from the SN shock to the MC is not very efficient \citep{Walch15b}.

It is difficult to find a common origin for the scatter of $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ at a given distance. We do not see a correlation of $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ with the density of the region in which the SN explodes, nor with the integrated column density along the path of the SN shock towards the center of the MC. It seems that $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ is highly sensitive to the density distribution along the path of the shock \citep{Haid16} and can be significantly affected even by small fluctuations. This is also supported by the fact that the standard deviation of $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ increases with increasing distance, i.e. as there are more density fluctuations along the path of the SN shock. Moreover, differences in the cloud structure when seen from the 6 different directions also cause a scatter in $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$.

\subsection{The influence of magnetic fields}
\label{sec:MHD}

In order to test whether magnetic fields measurably alter our results, we perform a corresponding simulation including magnetic fields. For this we use the same initial conditions as described in Section~\ref{sec:ICs}, but now include a magnetic field along the $x$-direction with a strength of
\begin{equation}
 B_{x} = B_{x,0} \sqrt{\rho(z)/\rho_0} \, ,
\end{equation}
with \mbox{$B_{x,0}$ = 3 $\mu$G} in accordance with recent observations \citep[e.g.][]{Beck13}. We insert SNe up to \mbox{$t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ = 16 Myr} in order to establish a realistic multiphase ISM. We note that we here apply the SN driving for a longer time than for MC1 and MC2 since the magnetic field delays the formation of overdense structures, which subsequently form MCs \citep[][Girichidis et al., submitted]{Walch15,Girichidis16}. Afterwards, we follow the evolution of 2 MCs -- denoted as MC3 and MC4 -- in selected regions with the same zoom-in strategy as before and insert a nearby SN\footnote{Due to the small influence of SNe at $d$ = 75 pc, we do not follow this case further here.} (\mbox{$d$ = 25,} 50, or 62.5 pc) along 6 different directions at \mbox{$t$ = $t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ + 1.5 Myr}, i.e. once we have reached the final resolution of 0.12 pc.

We redo the same analysis as before by comparing the runs to a reference run without any nearby SN. A short overview of the results of these runs is given in the Appendix. Here, we only focus on the distance dependence of $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_distance_mag}. Overall, we see a similar behaviour as for the runs without magnetic fields (Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_distance}). The gain in $\sigma$ decreases with increasing $d$, in particular at \mbox{$d$ $>$ 50 pc} the decrease becomes steeper. However, now it is closer to the theoretical expectation of a SN in the momentum-conserving snowplow phase than for the unmagnetized runs. For \mbox{$d$ $\leq$ 50 pc}, $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ ranges from several \mbox{0.1 km s$^{-1}$} and  \mbox{$\sim$ 3 km s$^{-1}$}, whereas for \mbox{$d$ = 62.5 pc} it drops below \mbox{0.7 km s$^{-1}$}.

The induced level of turbulence is thus somewhat higher compared to the non-magnetic runs (a factor of \mbox{$\sim$ 2}). On the one hand, this could indicate that magnetic fields support the transport of turbulence from the diffuse into the dense ISM. On the other hand, as we will show in Section~\ref{sec:laterSN}, this can partly be attributed to the fact that we model the SN impact at a stage where the clouds are in a relatively early assembly phase with masses of $\sim$ 1.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_\sun$ only (bottom left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigma_mass_mag}), i.e. significantly less massive than the MCs without magnetic fields at this stage (4.1 and 2.4 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_\sun$ for MC1 and MC2, respectively). However, overall our main findings of a moderate influence of external SNe on MCs seem to also hold in the presence of magnetic fields.

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f7.pdf}
 \caption{Same as in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_distance}, but now for the runs MC3 and MC4 including magnetic fields. Overall we see a similar behaviour as for the runs without magnetic fields, in particular the drop of $\left\langle \Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max} \right\rangle$ above \mbox{$d$ = 50 pc.}}
 \label{fig:sigma_distance_mag}
\end{figure}

\subsection{SN impact at a later stage}
\label{sec:laterSN}

\begin{figure*}
 \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{f8a.pdf}
 \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{f8b.pdf}
 \caption{Ratio of the half-life at 2.5 Myr and 1.5 Myr against the corresponding ratio of $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ for MC1 (filled symbols) and MC2 (open symbols) without magnetic fields (left panel) and MC3 (filled symbols) and MC4 (open symbols) with magnetic fields (right panel). At the later stage, on average the strength of the SN impact is reduced.}
 \label{fig:sigma_ratio}
\end{figure*}

As can be seen from the mass evolution of MC1 and MC2 (bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass}), the SNe which go off at $t_\mathrm{SN} = t_0$ + 1.5 Myr impact the clouds during their assembly phase, which is completed around \mbox{$t = t_0$ + 2 Myr}. Similar also applies to the magnetized runs MC3 and MC4 (Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass_mag}). In order to test possible differences when a cloud is hit by an SN at a later stage of its evolution, we repeat the previously discussed simulations but now with SNe going off at \mbox{$t_\mathrm{SN} = t_0$ + 2.5 Myr} and \mbox{$t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ + 2.5 Myr} for the case without and with magnetic fields, respectively. Since we found that for distances larger than 50 pc the influence is almost negligible (Figures~\ref{fig:sigma_distance} and~\ref{fig:sigma_distance_mag}), we only consider the cases $d$ = 25 and 50 pc.

We repeat the previously described analysis and determine $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ and $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}$ (Equations~\ref{eq:sigma_max} and~\ref{eq:tau}). In Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_ratio} we plot the ratio of the half-life times determined for the SNe going off at the two different times (2.5 and 1.5 Myr) against the ratio of $\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$ using the same symbols as in Figure~\ref{fig:decay_time}. The scatter in the ratios seems to be similar for all four clouds considered. Furthermore, we find that for both $d$ the scatter in the distribution is somewhat larger for higher MC density thresholds. We argue that this is a consequence of the shorter dynamical timescales in higher-density regions which allow for more variations in these regions within 1 Myr. For the decay time of the initial gain in velocity, we do not see a clear trend here.

Concerning the strength of the impact, however, SNe going off at later stages seem to have -- on average -- a slightly reduced influence  \mbox{($\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$(2.5 Myr)}/\mbox{$\Delta \sigma_\mathrm{max}$(1.5 Myr) $<$ 1)}. We speculate that this is due to the fact that, as the cloud evolves, its density contrast increases: the already dense regions become even denser and are thus harder to affect with incoming SN shocks. Furthermore, larger low-density regions might evolve due to the accretion of material on the denser regions, which might allow the SN blast to pass relatively unhindered. Finally, at \mbox{$t_\mathrm{SN}$ = $t_0$ + 2.5 Myr} ($t_\mathrm{SN}$ = $t_\mathrm{0, \, mag}$ + 2.5 Myr for the runs with magnetic fields, respectively), also the total masses of the clouds have increased by about 30 -- 40\% (up to a maximum of 5.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_\sun$ for MC1), which also might reduce the influence of an incoming shock carrying a fixed amount of momentum.

\section{Do supernovae drive molecular cloud turbulence?}

In order to assess whether many SNe exploding in the vicinity of an MC can maintain its turbulent state, we estimate the rate of SNe, \mbox{(d SNe/d$t$)$_\mathrm{impact}$}, which could significantly impact the cloud velocity dispersion. Based on our results, we only consider SNe with $d$ $\leq$ 50 pc (Figures~\ref{fig:sigma_distance} and~\ref{fig:sigma_distance_mag}). Applying the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, we can link the star formation rate to the gas surface density via $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR} \propto \Sigma_\mathrm{gas}^{1.4}$ \citep[Equation 4 of][]{Kennicutt98}. By assuming a standard IMF \citep{Chabrier01}, which results in 1 SN per 100 M$_{\sun}$ of stars, we then convert $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$ into an SN rate, $\Sigma_\mathrm{SNR}$. This leads to \mbox{15 SNe Myr$^{-1}$ (500 pc)$^{-2}$} for \mbox{$\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}$ = 10 M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$} \citep[see][]{Walch15,Girichidis16}. With this we obtain the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d \, SNe}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)_\mathrm{impact} &=& \Sigma_\mathrm{SNR} \times \pi \times (50 \mathrm{\, pc)^{2}} \nonumber \\
 &\simeq& 0.14 \, \frac{\mathrm{SNe}}{300 \, \mathrm{kyr}} \left(\frac{\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}}{10 \, \mathrm{M}_{\sun} \, \mathrm{pc}^{-2}}\right)^{1.4} \, ,
 \label{eq:snrate}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d \, SNe}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)_\mathrm{impact}$ is the number of SNe that hit a cloud in a given time interval under the assumption of random SN locations.

Since we found a typical decay time $\tau_\mathrm{1/2, SN}\simeq$ 300$^{+300}_{-200}$ kyr for the externally driven turbulent component in an MC (see Figure~\ref{fig:decay_time} and right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_mass_mag}), an MC has to be hit by one SN per 300$^{+300}_{-200}$ kyr to maintain the observed level of MC turbulence of a few 1 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{Larson81,Solomon87,Elmegreen96,Heyer01,Roman10},
which happens for \mbox{$\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}\gtrsim$ 40$^{+49}_{-15}$ M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$}.
We note that this estimate assumes that SNe in environments with higher $\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}$ are as effective as found in this study, which is not necessarily the case \citep{Li17}.

However, for solar neighbourhood conditions ($\Sigma_\mathrm{gas}$ = 10 M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$), an MC is hit by a nearby SN once per $\sim$ 2.1 Myr. In the time interval between two hits, the initial gain in $\sigma$ thus decreases to $\sim$ 1\% of its original value. Hence, even for the nearest SNe ($d$ = 25 pc, see Figure~\ref{fig:decay_time}), the increase of the turbulent velocity after \mbox{2.1 Myr} is \mbox{$\lesssim$ 10 m s$^{-1}$}, i.e. significantly lower than the velocity dispersion of a few km s$^{-1}$  found in Galactic MCs with masses comparable to those of the clouds presented here \citep[e.g.][]{Larson81,Solomon87,Roman10}. Therefore, if $\sigma$ were to be maintained by external SNe explosions {\it alone}, this would result in significantly lower values than observed.

On the other hand, in the Galactic Central Molecular Zone (CMZ, typical radius  $\sim$ 250 pc), SN rates of about 1 SN per 1 kyr are reported \citep[e.g.][]{Crocker11,Crocker12,Ponti15}, which translates to $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d \, SNe}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)_\mathrm{impact}$ $\simeq$ 10 SN per 300 kyr. Based on our study, this rate would be high enough to sustain the MC turbulence by SN explosions. This is in line with recent results by \citet{Kauffmann17}, who found a steep linewidth-size relation in MCs in the Galactic Center, which indicates shock-dominated turbulent motions as e.g. created by SNe.

We argue that -- as we find a comparable effect of SNe for magnetized and unmagnetized clouds (Section~\ref{sec:MHD}) as well as at later times (Section~\ref{sec:laterSN}, here the influence seems to be even slightly reduced) -- the results above should hold for a wide range of evolutionary stages and physical conditions of MCs.

\subsection{Gravity or SN-driven turbulence?}

In Figure~\ref{fig:sigma_dens}, we show the gas velocity dispersion in MC1 as a function of density at four different times. Compared to the sound speed, which corresponds to the equilibrium temperature at a given density (cyan line), the mean velocity dispersion in the cloud (black line) is highly supersonic in gas with \mbox{$\rho$ $\gtrsim$ 10$^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$}. This could be partly attributed to accretion-driven turbulence \citep{Klessen10,Goldbaum11}. At \mbox{$\rho$ $\gtrsim$ 10$^{-20}$ g cm$^{-3}$}, the velocity dispersion even increases with density, which is a sign for local gravitational collapse.
\begin{figure*}
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{f9.pdf}
 \caption{Time evolution of the density-$\sigma$-distribution for MC1. For densities above $\sim$ 10$^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$ the mean $\sigma$ in each density bin (black line) is clearly supersonic when compared to the equilibrium sound speed (cyan line) and, at late times, even starts to increase towards the highest densities.}
 \label{fig:sigma_dens}
\end{figure*}

The latter result is in line with recent simulations by \citet{Ibanez15,Ibanez17} and observations by \citet{Heyer09}, who claimed that gravity is the main driver of turbulence in MCs. Our results also agree with \citet{Iffrig15}, who found that the influence of SNe located outside MCs is only moderate and temporally limited to a few 100 kyr. However, the authors used a highly idealized setup and limit the SN distance to at most 7 pc,  which is why a proper comparison with our work is difficult.

We emphasize that our results are still in agreement with the scenario in which MCs form from gas that is swept-up by SN explosions \citep{Koyama00,Inoue09,Inutsuka15}. In our simulations, cloud formation is mainly triggered by SNe going off prior to $t_0$, which sweep up turbulent gas while their shocks travel through the three-phase ISM.

However, at first glance our results seem to be in an \textit{apparent} contradiction to \citet{Padoan16}, who found that SNe alone can maintain turbulence in MCs using turbulent box simulations with a comparable resolution of 0.24 pc. They used a rate of \mbox{$\Sigma_\mathrm{SNR}$ = 25 SNe Myr$^{-1}$ (500 pc)$^{-2}$}, which gives $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d \, SNe}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)_\mathrm{impact}$ = 0.24 SNe per 300 kyr (Equation~\ref{eq:snrate}) and would therefore be too low to drive MC turbulence in a stratified environment. There are, however, significant differences in our setup. \citet{Padoan16} used periodic boundary conditions, which could enhance the impact of SN explosions compared to a stratified disc setup \citep[compare][with \citealt{Girichidis16}]{Gatto15}, as well as a different parameterized cooling function without a chemical network. Furthermore, due to the random distribution of SNe in their simulation domain, a small fraction of SNe might also go off in the clouds themselves, which we do not consider here. Also the different usage of self-gravity can contribute to the differences: whereas \citet{Padoan16} turned on gravity after an initial driving phase of several 10 Myr, in our case gravity is applied from the start of the simulations. In a recent follow-up work, \citet{Padoan17} extended their study to even higher resolutions of 0.0076 pc. However, since the authors only focused on the state of their clouds after self-gravity is switched on, a direct comparison to our results is difficult.

In this context, we note that we have recently investigated the propagation of turbulence from the diffuse into the dense ISM by means of idealized simulations with a resolution of 0.0078 pc.  We find that the transport of turbulence from the low-density environment into the dense medium is inefficient (Rathjen et al. 2018, in preparation), which is in line with our results presented here.

However, we emphasize that, since \citet{Padoan16} did not include self-gravity initially, their clouds might be more diffuse and thus are probably in an earlier evolutionary stage than ours at the time we inject the SNe. As stated before, at this earlier stage, the turbulence of our MCs is mainly generated by SNe, which is in \textit{agreement} with the results of \citet{Padoan16}. Only subsequently, as the clouds become more massive and denser, the importance of external SNe reduces (Section~\ref{sec:laterSN}) and gravity seems to become mainly responsible for maintaining the turbulent stage of MCs. To summarize, our work suggests that -- depending on the evolutionary stage of the cloud -- different turbulence drivers might be at work.

\section{Conclusions}

We present simulations of MC formation within their galactic environment with an effective resolution of \mbox{0.1 pc} including the chemical evolution of the clouds. Our MCs inherit the initial level of turbulence from the diffuse gas they formed in. After they have condensed out of the diffuse ISM, we systematically explore the effect of individual SNe going off outside the clouds at different distances.

Nearby SNe (d $\sim$ 25 pc) boost the turbulent velocity dispersions by up to a few \mbox{1 km s$^{-1}$}, whereas for more distant SNe ($d$ $>$ 50 pc) the boost is almost negligible.
Independent of the distance, however, at these later stages the SNe exploding outside the clouds can increase the level of turbulence only temporarily for a few 100 kyr. Furthermore, we find that the later the SN goes off, the lower is the influence of the SN on the cloud. This holds for MCs with masses from \mbox{$\sim$ 1} to \mbox{5.5 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_\sun$} and MCs with and without magnetic fields. Furthermore, we tentatively argue that magnetic fields slightly support the transport of turbulence from the diffuse ISM into the dense clouds.

With these results, the following picture for MC formation under solar neighbourhood conditions emerges: in the earliest phase of MC formation, SNe can play a significant role in seeding the initial level of turbulence. At later stages, however, nearby SNe are not able to maintain the turbulent state of MCs. We argue that here turbulence has to be maintained rather by turbulent gas accretion, the onset of local gravitational collapse, and internal stellar feedback. However, in galactic environments with gas surface densities above 40 M$_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$, we expect SNe to be able to sustain MC turbulence. In particular in the Galactic CMZ, cloud turbulence driven by SN shocks could be present.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

The authors like to thank the anonymous referee for the comments which helped to significantly improve the paper.
DS and SW acknowledge the support of the Bonn-Cologne Graduate School, which is funded through the German Excellence Initiative. DS and SW also acknowledge funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) via the Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 956 \textit{Conditions and Impact of Star Formation} (subproject C5). SW and SH acknowledge support via the ERC starting grant No. 679852 "RADFEEDBACK".
SW, and TN acknowledge support from the DFG Priority Program 1573 ``Physics of the Interstellar Medium''.
PG acknowledges funding from the European Research Council under ERC-CoG grant CRAGSMAN-646955.
TN acknowledges support from the DFG cluster of excellence ''Origin and Structure of the Universe''.
The FLASH code used in this work was partly developed by the Flash Center for Computational Science at the University of Chicago.
The simulations were performed at SuperMUC at the Leibniz-Rechenzentrum Garching.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Gap Mangione & The New Big Band – A Holiday Concert
December 11 @ 7:00 pm
Gap Mangione has always loved big bands. His first experiences with them was as a youngster when his father would take him and his brother Chuck to hear the best of them in live performance. As a teenager he was arranging for and playing in semi-professional groups. During his college days at Syracuse University, he was the house pianist at the 1,200 seat Three Rivers Inn Theater Restaurant and played in big bands accompanying the likes of Sammy Davis, Jr. and Nat King Cole. His first solo recording, Diana In The Autumn Wind, introduced the big band writing talents of Gap Mangione and Chuck Mangione to a national audience. Today, Gap has his own big band and sustains a passion for and a fascination with the sounds and possibilities of this wonderful musical entity. Please join us for a very special night as Gap and his Big Band celebrate the music of Holiday season.
The Lovin' Spoonful
Dreamer: Tribute to Supertramp

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
City of Largo buys land for new City Hall
Margie Manning
The current Largo City Hall at 201 Highland does not meet the city's current needs, officials said.
The City of Largo will build its new City Hall in the 400 block of West Bay Drive.
The city bought several parcels of land on West Bay between 4th Street and 5th Street Northwest in three separate transactions on May 20. The city paid a total of $2.845 million for the property, according to deeds filed in Pinellas County. A spokeswoman for the city confirmed the property would be the site for a new City Hall.
The new City Hall will be "one of the most exciting projects the city has ever done," City Manager Henry Schubert said in a December video about the new project. "It is going to be the lynchpin, we believe, for significant redevelopment in our downtown area."
While the design is still being finalized, the new City Hall is expected to be a five-story, mixed-use structure with retail space as well as offices for city workers, and a parking garage with 360 parking spaces.
The current City Hall, at 201 Highland Ave., does not meet the city's needs, Schubert said. It was originally built for a financial services company about 46 years ago, and the city of Largo moved into the building 20 years ago. It has major problems with its HVAC system, as well as electrical and plumbing issues, and it is in a flood-prone location. It is energy inefficient and has poor accessibility, Schubert said.
"We feel that moving City Hall back to downtown is where it really needs to be. It would be a mixed-use complex. It wouldn't just be a typical City Hall with offices for city employees, but would include retail space to be rented to private businesses, and in many ways it would be a gathering place for the community," Schubert said.
It is expected to have up to 20,000 square feet of retail space, with both restaurants and retail shops. The parking garage would serve city workers during the day and be used by patrons of downtown businesses in the evenings and on weekends, he said.
The city is working with architectural firm ASD|SKY, which was part of the design team for the St. Pete Pier, and has hired Biltmore Construction in Belleair as construction manager. Construction is expected to begin in 2022 and be completed in 18 months, Schubert said.
The city expects to tear down the current City Hall and sell the property for private sector redevelopment, most likely for residential use, Schubert said.
The property the city bought for the new City Hall is currently occupied by a strip center, an office, a warehouse and vacant commercial land, according to the Pinellas County property appraiser. "There are tenants currently located on this property and the City has negotiated a lower lease for businesses that wish to stay until ground-breaking or sometime the first of next year," said Kate Oyer, communications director for the city.
Here are the details of the May 20 purchases, based on the deeds filed in Pinellas County and county property appraiser records:
• 400 West Bay Drive, acquired for $1.4 million from 400 West Bay Plaza, and currently used for a 4,320-square-foot strip center.
• 408 West Bay Drive and 412 West Bay Drive, acquired for $450,000 from the Douglas Cole Family Trust. The property currently is vacant commercial land and a 3,000-square-foot single building store.
• 422 West Bay Drive, 424 West Bay Drive, 435 1st Ave. NW and vacant land on 5th St. NW, acquired for $995,000 from Roy Terepka, Stephen Terepka and Sandra Terepka Hoffman. There's a 1,200-square-foot office building at 422 West Bay, a 4,428-square-foot strip center at 424 West Bay and a 1,241-square-foot warehouse at 435 1st Ave. NW. The property on 1st Avenue and 5th Street is adjacent to the West Bay property.
The Community Redevelopment Agency is listed as the owner of several other adjacent parcels.
Related Topics:ASD|SKYBiltmore ConstructionCity of LargoconstructionFeatured
Add your idea below. Review Catalyst posting guidelines here.
Subscribe to the St Pete Catalyst Daily Spark newsletter
By posting a comment, I have read, understand and agree to the Posting Guidelines.
Subscribe to the Daily Spark
Get the latest right to your phone
the Daily Spark
Peak Surf Park hopes to make big waves in Tampa Bay
Brandes discusses new District Court of Appeals in downtown St. Pete
Bayfront plans new ER, medical pavilion in west St. Petersburg
Enter the details of the person you want to share this article with.
Friend Email *


271-277 Sip Avenue is a new condo development currently in preconstruction at 271 Sip Avenue, Jersey City. 271-277 Sip Avenue has a total of 60 units.
Your inquiry will be delivered to the developer / builder of 271-277 Sip Avenue, who will send you more information about this development.


We aim for complete customer satisfaction. We respect our customers' rights and always try to comply with best practice and all relevant laws. In certain cases, and within certain limits, a refund may be permitted.
If you are not satisfied with any of our services, or have any questions, please contact our customer services department at Help.MicrosystemSupport.com and have your invoice ready. We will try our best to solve your problem. We are proud of the reputation we have built for our services.
If any of the work has been accomplished on at least one device, a seventy-nine dollars ($79) processing fee will be retained.
If refund is approved, it will be refunded (minus $79.00) to the same method of original payment. It may take up to 2 to 4 weeks for a refund to be issued.
If you are asking to withdraw from a long-term contract, explanation must be made in writing within 180 days of the signed contract. Submit request to: Help@MicrosystemSupport.com A minimum processing fee of seventy-nine ($79) will be retained, and an additional fee for each call of work already accomplished since the beginning of the contract date.


text:
Big Break Ka'anapali - Episode 7: What goes around...
Well, this interview was a very pleasant surprise. After seeing Tina Miller leave last week's Big Break Ka'anapali under the umbrella of the "choke" comment, I thought she might be a little bitter. Many would be. In fact, we saw a number of the ladies this week give Christina Lecuyer the cold shoulder or worse as a result of her whispered comment to Susan.
So when I called Tina, I was expecting more of the same, but that's not what happened...
Class act, don't you think?
Tina will be joining us again next week to share her thoughts on Episode 8 of the Big Break Ka'anapali. We've all heard that it's going to be "hot" (and I'm talking about the weather) so I hope you'll come back and share your thoughts on it as well.
Posted at 03:05 PM in Big Break Ka'anapali | Permalink | Comments (3)
Big Break Ka'anapali - Episode 7: Can't get enough of Maui
Well, it was another beautiful day in paradise on Big Break Ka'anapali, especially for Kim Welch who won the immunity challenge by the skin of her Titleist and was rewarded with a bonus golf trip back to Hawaii! Wow...nice bonus! And Just a few chip shots was all it took.
Hmmm...maybe I should take up this game full time...how hard can it be to hit a little white ball inside a 3 foot diameter circle? Whooa, Golfgal!!! Stick to your day job! Chipping for dough is like singing for your dinner. You'll starve! [LOL, I feel like I'm in one of the new Ping commercials]
Anyway, it was a very good day for Kim and one I'm sure she'll never forget. it was also an unforgettable day for Courtney, Christina and Lori but for much different reasons. Let's hear Kim's perspective on the elimination challenge and the battle of the barbs.
For those of you who don't follow the Duramed Futures Tour, you should check it out. There are some real up and comers playing there. Kim is currently in 6th place.
Play well this week, Kim and get inside the top 5. Would love to see you full time on the LPGA next year!
Big Break Ka'anapali Episode 7: Target golf, without the golf
So we're halfway through Big Break Ka'anapali. Heading into tonight's show were seven talented ladies who, while thankful they were still alive, were feeling a lot of pressure to stay in the running.
Courtney was unfortunately eliminated this week, but the elimination challenge was actually quite good -- some solid golf played by both her and Samantha.
You'd think that would be enough for a great show, but nope! Golf wasn't the focus of this episode. Hey! It's reality television...and television rating success is spelled M-U-D S-L-I-N-G-I-N-G.
I've got some great interviews for you tonight and the rest of the week from current and past players. You've heard Lori's side of this cat fight, so now it's Christina's turn.
Let's listen to what she has to say after watching the behind the scenes antics that she may or may not have known about, all those months ago.
So are we having fun yet? My, my... I can't imagine the "heat of the battle" heating up any more than it already has, but apparently, there's lots more to come next week.
Can you handle it? ;) Then I'll meet you back here next week.
Meanwhile, check back Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week for more interviews with Kim Welch, Tina Miller and Cirbie Sheppard and get their thoughts on this week's show.
Posted at 04:36 AM in Big Break Ka'anapali | Permalink | Comments (3)
Big Break Ka'anapali - Episode 7: Teflon Lori Sticks it to her Roommate
As I was watching tonight's Big Break Ka'anapali, I was immediately struck by the elevated tension in the air between all of the players and their latest target -- Christina Lecuyer.
Lori started by the show by saying, "This is my office and I'm going to take care of business." And did she ever! If she wasn't giving Christina the "stinkeye" (what is that anyway?), she was dishing out some of the best trash talking we've heard on this show thus far.
After watching the show, I had to know...was it because Lori was upset about Christina's "choke" comment last week OR was it because she saw Christina as her toughest competitor and wanted to start playing mind games with her?
So I called Lori after the show aired and asked her about tonight's episode and her role in the drama. Take a listen and then you decide.
Lori did warn us last week that it was the tip of the iceberg and she was right. To learn Christina's side of this cat fight, just keep coming back to Big Break Central on GFW. There's lots more to come!
PS: Unfortunately I could only share about 10 minutes from Lori's interview due to some technical constraints, but I will post the other part of the interview later this week, where she shares how different the pressure is on the BB compared to LPGA events and who her favorite LPGA player is.
Posted at 04:07 AM in Big Break Ka'anapali | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Get to know Big Break Ka'anapali's Golf Vixen, Cirbie Sheppard
Although the time spent with Cirbie Sheppard was short, there's one thing I can say for sure...she left a big impression. How could anyone possibly forget the barefooted Golf Vixen as she stepped up to play the elimination challenge of her life against Tina Miller in episode three?
If we had been able to zoom on the BMW Zone during that challenge, I am sure we would have seen some jaws drop. She really gave Tina a run for her money and walked away from the BB in style. Speaking of style...I think she should be a guest on "Golf with Style." What do you think?
I caught up with Cirbie last week just after she finished walking her dogs: Tank, a Rottweiller /Pit Bull crossbreed; and Maxim, a Boston Terrier. She calls them "the lil bundles of joy" in her life. When I heard that, I just knew she was my kind of girl.
So Cirbie, I'm curious how you came to be part of the BB.
I had joined the Cactus Tour as an amateur and played some tournaments and then turned pro. I injured my wrist pretty badly, but still continued to play a couple of tournaments. The coordinator saw how badly my wrist was swollen and unfortunately, the scores were pretty bad as a result, so I had to withdraw.
The Golf Channel was holding auditions for the Cactus Tour players at the Legacy Course in Arizona. I bought a house on that course, so it was pretty convenient for me.
On the day of my audition, my fiancee was going on tour in Europe and he left at 4 a.m. that morning. Then I had to get up and be ready at 9, and so I said, "I just need to get some eggs and stuff into my system and I swear I'll be fun." <giggles> And they said, "Oh, you're high maintenance already on us, huh?"
I was so nervous because I had never auditioned for anything like that before, so I had to chug a couple of beers down to calm my nerves. <LOL!> But it was fun and [it] worked out. A few weeks later, they gave me the call for the semi-finalists and after that I got the call for the finalists and that was amazing. I was completely blown away to be chosen.
So you had to go to three sets of interviews...
Yeah, and they did background checks on us and they told me that I had a criminal misdemeanor because I was going to court for a DUI. So they called me the second I got out of court, which was pretty funny, but everything went fine with that and they picked me for the show.
You really played your heart out on that show, battling Tina Miller to the very end. Tell me what was going through your mind at that time.
You know I was just hoping that I could perform... unlike I did the first couple of days. I was very disappointed how I performed the first couple of days because it made me look like I was a terrible player and that I didn't belong there. And I knew the viewers would just be hating me.
So to be able to go into elimination very strong, and then in a playoff and give her a run for her money, I knew that I could throw it back in everybody's face. So I was nervous, but filled with adrenalin because I was pumped and focused -- very focused! I really wanted to beat her so bad! <giggles>
But I started getting too creative with the shot. And then there was that putt which was a golden opportunity...definitely missed. But everything happens for a reason and I was happy to go, because all the other girls had been playing for so long -- they deserved it more. I was tickled pink to be there in the first place.
More like tickled black - you wear a lot of black :)
<laughs> Definitely tickled black <laughs> -- that's a good one!
Yes, you really did look focused. And sometimes when you're really focused, time seems to stand still. Your pace of play was talked about a lot. Did you realize how long you were taking?
They were trying to make a TV show and I know for a fact that they missed a few things. Also, they over exaggerated the time limit. I remember them coming up and telling me what the time was, but personally I think it was well under three minutes. And I remember the Marshall coming up and telling me that. But considering what they have to do on the show... and they edit it for certain reasons (and we signed pretty much our life away on that show <giggles>), I just had to suck it up and let it look like I took a lifetime. <laughs>
I did take a long time, but I was so scared of mis-hitting it on a short shot like I did the first couple days because my wrist just won't allow me to make that kind of shot. So I was in choppy grass and I was thinking, "Oh God! Should I putt or should I chip? You know what's going to happen if I skull it, it's not going to be good." So I decided to putt and I was nervous and they said that could hear my heartbeat in the microphone.
We were all on pins and needles watching it. One of the things I love about this whole series is that I have no idea what's going to happen on each show. And so watching you that night, I actually thought you were going to take her.
Yeah...I thought I was too! And then I went, "Ah...oh well...everything happens for a reason." <laughs> I think I and Cougar Momma were the only girls who were eliminated that didn't cry. I was always told, "Oh we cried in the car on the way there to the interview, or I cried here or there..." Then they'd ask, "Hey Cirbie, when did you cry?" And I said, "I didn't cry at all. I was just laughing -- I thought it was awesome that I could finally perform and show you guys I do have game." I could leave on a high note.
So tell me what happens when you do leave the show. I've heard you stick around in Hawaii, but what do you do with yourself?
All the remaining contestants are on one side of the Sheraton resort and the "eliminated" go onto the other side. The first day I did para-sailing and snorkeling. That was pretty cool. And we did things like whale watching and some of the girls did surfing, but the waves were only a foot high so I didn't want to surf. I like the big ones <chuckles> I went sunbathing.
Did you get your own room or did you have to bunk up like you did on the contestant side?
Just for the first night and then whoever gets eliminated next gets to room with you. I had Liz in my room. I remember that Adrienne was very shook up about how she was eliminated and so she needed some time to herself. So I told her she could have her own room so she could think about things and have her emotions come out...and we were there if she needed us.
I heard you and Adrienne and Liz showed up on the set -- were you allowed to do that?
<laughs> No, what's funny is TGC producers haggled us about it, but they gave us the vouchers to eat lunch there that day. So we said, "You gave us the vouchers to come up here and we happened to notice that there was an elimination going on. So of course, we're going to watch." You could see us just in the very background for a split second on TV.
Have you been following the series on TV?
Oh yeah, my family and my fiancee and my friends come over and watch it and we have some brewskies and we cook some food and we make a fiesta out of it.
We'll watch the week before and then we'll watch the new one so we're all caught up and don't miss anything. Cause it's fun...it's a lot of fun, especially for me, because I know those girls and the event of a lifetime that we experienced together. We'll always remember that and cherish it no matter what.
[Aside...for those of you who don't know who Cirbie's fiancee is, I think he's from Vancouver and his name is Troy Healy. He's the guitarist for the very popular hard-rock band Neurosonic. I just went to their website and you know...I'm not into hard rock (Aerosmith is the closest I get :)), but they are really good!].
So have you stayed in touch with the other ladies?
A lot of us stay in touch. I see Christina and Lori. Kim and Adrienne and I stay in touch via texting on our phones...and some of the other girls on email. Tina and I touch base on MySpace.
Adrienne actually came out to one of Troy's concerts at the House of Blues in Texas. She came out one night and got to meet my family and got to meet Troy and we got to go backstage and hang out with all those people...she had a lot of fun.
Have there been any surprises for you on the episodes so far?
You know, in the very first episode, one of the girls chunked her shot about 10 yards and they didn't show that at all.
Who was that?
Sophie...ya, they took that out, which was very strange. That's when we were Team Pink and we were hitting up and into the wind on a par 3 into the third hole. So they can portray people any way they want.
And there have been a couple of others, but...C'est la vie...we've signed our life away. <laughs>
But I think they portrayed each of us pretty well. Now the personalities are starting to come out and there are more cat fights.
I have a journal and I wrote in it everyday, and with each new girl that was eliminated I would ask her, "What's the gossip...what happened...what's going on..." and I'd write it all down. It's nice to look back now and see what's going to happen each week and then see how it is portrayed through the camera.
You should publish that when it's over. I'd love to put it up on GFW after the show's all over.
That would be awesome.
Are you continuing to play golf?
Yes! I never had my wrist fully heal, so I was doing some chip shots and some sand shots with the golf simulator at my house and I hit one a little fat and the shock just shot up my arm and it numbed my pinkie and ring finger pretty badly for about 20 minutes.
After that I wasn't able to grip very well, so I went to the doctor and got it x-rayed and thank God, nothing was broken. But he said it was such a bad sprain that it never healed properly. I kept playing on it and doing things so that it couldn't set itself. So I had to wear a brace for a few weeks and finally got it taken off last week. But if I do anything that is extracurricular, I have to wear the brace. So I can't really get out to the golf course too much right now, but I'm planning to.
And I'm also planning my wedding!
Really...that's so great. When's the big day?
June 10th.
Wow, you have to send me pictures so I can post them here.
It's going to be a rock and roll kind of wedding, so there's going to be golf tees and guitar picks on the tables that are personalized with Cirbie and Troy...lots of fun stuff.
You are such a positive person. How did being on the BB change your life or did it? What did you learn?
<giggles> Well, I knew going in I was definitely in over my head, but I was going to put forth the most effort that I possibly could and I told them that. And they said, "Well, if you're a deer in headlights, just suck it up!"
It has changed my life in terms of my golf game...I don't think I'll really be nervous over another golf shot for quite a long time. It will be a breeze because I won't have to see anyone around. There were so many crew guys and cameras constantly in your face.
But really, it was the experience of a lifetime. And it was definitely a highlight in my life, but not "of" my life, because I'm 24 and I still have my whole entire life ahead of me.
Anything you want to add for our readers?
Just that I am very versatile person and golf is just one of those natural abilities that I picked up. And to be able to put that forth to the world was amazing. It was kick-ass! I loved it! And I'm coming back...don't forget about me because I will be out there!
No worries there, Cirbie! You will definitely NOT be forgotten! When people first see her, many are taken aback a little because she dresses a bit differently and golfing barefoot isn't exactly conventional. But now that I've talked with her, I'm so impressed with her positive outlook on life, her confidence and the joy that radiates through the phone, I hope some day I'll get to meet the Golf Vixen in person.
2 Big Breakers Reunite at CN Canadian Women's Tour Event
For all of you Big Break Ka'anapali fans who wonder what goes on after the BB is over...well, here's a secret...life goes on and win or lose, you just keep playing the game we all love. I still don't know who wins and I really don't want to know, but what I do know is that these ladies are fantastic golfers and fantastic competitors and really great golfgals!
Last week I had such a great time following Christina Lecuyer and Susan Choi around on the final round of the CN Canadian Women's Tour event in Vancouver BC. It was a cold and very windy day, but that didn't dampen the spirits of either of our feisty competitors.
I followed Christina through nine holes of play, where she battled the winds and made some amazing clutch putts over and over again to par holes in a tournament where there were no red numbers to be found on the leaderboard. It was a very tough day.
Then I followed Susan on her back nine and was blown away by her amazing short game, which led to birdies for four consecutive holes. It was quite the sight to see! And to think that everyone on the BB thought she didn't have game. WRONG!!!
Susan ended up tied for first place, but unfortunately lost in a playoff - but it was an exciting one. In the end, the trophy went to 17-year-old Sue Kim, who became the first amateur ever to win on the CN Canadian Women's Tour. Very impressive!
I have to say, however, that what I enjoyed the most was sitting down with Christina and Susan after the event to reminisce about the Big Break. Don't forget last week's episode when Susan spilled the beans on Christina's "choke" comment. Do you think a grudge lingers between these two? Well, see for yourself...
Tomorrow, I invite you back for an inside look into Cirbie Sheppard's life before, during and after the Big Break and hear her thoughts on the whole BB experience.
Big Break Bomber Kim Welch joins the party
I don't think I've had so much fun in years. What started as a lark to follow fellow Canadian, Christina Lecuyer, on the Big Break Ka'anapali has turned into many fun filled weeks of watching Christina and the show, meeting more of the ladies and having the best gab sessions I've had in years.
Today was no exception. I had a wonderful conversation with the Big Break Bomber, Kim Welch, and found out a few things I didn't know before. And of course, she had her own views on the series and what we've seen so far, which I'll love sharing with you.
Before I get to Big Break, I'd like to congratulate Kim on her T2 finish at the Bright House Networks Open (Lakeland, FL) in March. She's now sits sixth on the Duramed Futures Tour money list. Did you know that the top five at the end of the year receive exempt status on the LPGA Tour for the following year? Only one more notch Kim-- you can do it! You go, girl!
Kim, congratulations on your success on the Futures Tour and thanks for being with us today. Let's start with this week's show. First impressions...any surprises?
It was crazy watching the show with my family and seeing their reactions to Christina's little comment that she made. <giggles>
Want to share some of those reactions with us?
I guess it was what you'd expect...they just couldn't believe it. This girl just doesn't know how to behave on the golf course. You know...she has no sportsmanship.
Were you really surprised by that, given how competitive she has been up until now on the series?
It was a complete shocker. We all knew that she was competitive, but that's just taking it to a whole new level. That's just something that nobody has really ever heard on the golf course before.
Okay, let's talk about the show and your challenges. We've heard from Lori, and from watching you on previous shows, that you're not exactly enamored with team play. What did you think when you heard that you'd be playing on a team?
I thought, "Oh, great! Here we go again. But, you know it wasn't too bad. At least it was just a two-person team competition. So I think that was a little bit better. But Tina was my teammate, so I felt alright with it.
If you had been allowed to pick your own teammate, who would you have chosen out of the ladies that were still on the show?
I think Lori would be the obvious pick. She's just so spot-on with everything. Her game's just so good that no matter what challenge comes up, I think, "Oh...I'd like to be partnered with Lori."
I guess that begs this question: If you had to pick your strongest competitor, who would it be of all the 11 other ladies?
I think Lori , Adrienne and Sam were the three that I thought would do pretty well on the show.
Well, I just got off the phone with Lori and it is fun to hear all the different perspectives from the ladies. Do you think that the show is portraying you accurately?
I think they are doing alright with it. I don't look too much into it and I don't spend a lot of time analyzing how they are trying to make me look. Just from watching the show every week, that's pretty much how I am -- I'm pretty quiet and I make sarcastic little comments here and there. But overall, I try to stay out of things and just let the clubs do the talking, whether it's good or bad. <chuckles>
Well, your clubs definitely have received attention on the show and on the golf forums, especially your driver. It was pretty interesting to hear you say last week that when you stand over a putt, you're like a 2-year-old and don't quite know what to do with it. To have a game that is so strong in one area and then another area where you aren't as confident is a very interesting mix.
I think it's a common thing that pops up in professional golf. You just lose confidence in areas of your game for no good reason, but it just happens and I just admitted it.
So what's been your favorite part of the series so far?
I think it is really cool to see how the producers have pieced the show together. We've been waiting so long to see it and we're watching it for the first time [along] with everybody else. It's not like we got to preview the show before [it aired]. It's just interesting because we all have our own perspectives and now we are getting to see the producer's and other people's perspectives. Like, I never knew what the girls were saying in their confessionals and their interviews, so it's interesting to see all the comments that were made.
So what's your least favorite thing, besides the team play.
Yeah, the team play just gets old, but...I don't know...in my opinion, I know it's a reality TV show about women, but they just do so many camera angles with their legs, <pauses, then laughs> that's probably my least favorite.
I have to ask you about your trademark bandanna. When did you start wearing that to play golf?
I started wearing them on the golf course right after college. In college that wouldn't have been a good thing to wear when you are on teams and all trying to look the same. I've always had them, but I just hadn't worn them on the golf course before that.
So you've always worn them as fashion accessories before?
Ya ya...
Sponsors may have a little trouble placing logos on your bandannas :)
Ha ha...I know...they'll get around it.
Any closing remarks?
I think up to this point there hasn't been too much drama or too much controversy, but I think we're getting into the thick of it now. It should just get more and more exciting every week.
Funny, I thought there'd been a ton of drama! I guess we're in for quite a ride if the past is considered "tame" compared to the future. Thanks Kim!
Well, I think you'll agree with me that all the ladies have a lot to offer to the post Big Break episode analysis. I'll be back with Kim's views on next week's show sometime wee into the hours of Wed a.m., so stay tuned.
Lori Atsedes joins "Big Break Central"
Welcome back to the Big Break Ka'anapali recap of Episode 6 - and the gang's almost all here! You've heard from Christina, and from Tina. Now, I am very pleased to have Lori Atsedes join us to talk about her experiences and insights on Big Break Ka'anapali, past, present -- but oh, not the future.
No...the future is still a big secret -- and one that seems to be chock full of surprises. As Lori said in her last blog post -- this week's drama was just the tip of the iceberg -- storms are coming.
Lori is an amazing women with an incredible past. If you haven't read her bio, you really should check it out. I love the way this woman has come from the depths of drug addiction to someone who, as Brittany Lincicome said, "has a lot of potential to be a great player."
Lori, welcome! It's a real pleasure to have you join us. First impressions on last night's episode?
It is really interesting to watch yourself on television, but I was kind of glad that Samantha and I didn't have to do much work that day. Watching the show, it was nice to sit back and not be part of the drama that went on after the show.
There certainly was enough drama this week. Besides the "choke" issue, any other surprises/comments?
Well, I know that Kim and I, over the previous shows, have voiced our opinions about why are we always in teams. You know we really want it to come down to us, not whether our teammates played well or played badly. I know that Kim doesn't want to be on a team, and she finds herself again in a team and having to go into elimination.
You really want to rely on your own performance. It's a tough situation for golfers because it's not a team sport. Courtney struggled and that put Sophie in a bind, but yet they pulled through.
Christina and Susan -- they didn't even hit the green from 105 yards. But you can't blame each other there.
But when Kim made a 4, almost a 5, and then her partner [Tina] squeaked out a 2...<pauses> Kim hit good shots and now she's going to go [into] another elimination. So I think the team thing is starting to get to all of us.
Yes, I remember hearing you say in a previous episode that you didn't like teams, but I think Sam was pretty happy to have you on her team. She looked like she needed a bit of a confidence boost and I think you gave that to her.
Yeah, it worked out fine for me on that show. I'm a mother at heart; I just can't help it. I just want to help everybody. <chuckles>
When the series first started, you were portrayed as a very aggressive "Get in my way and I'll knock you over" type of person. Is it me, or have you mellowed a lot in the last couple of shows?
You know, I am in who I am -- a kind of "in your face" person. The word that has been used for me is "intimidating," but that's only because I'm not saying a lot. If you got to know me, you'd know that I'd probably do anything for you.
I think in the beginning of the show, everybody was feeling each other out and the pressure of teams really bothered me, because I didn't want to come all that way and be eliminated because I had three players on my team [who] don't play like I do. So I had a hard time in the beginning with teams.
In one episode I got really irritated, and I don't normally get irritated when I play golf. I've made a conscious effort over the years to only play if it was fun for me. And I made a conscious effort after that show that I needed to relax and loosen up because that's not who I am. I'm not aggressive; I'm not uptight; I'm a very laid-back person. But I'm intense about my golf.
So after that episode I got irritated and I said [to myself], "You know what..this is not worth it. If I'm going to be here, I'm going to have fun with this and if I'm in a team and I get eliminated, I get eliminated. But I've got to get out of the way here -- I'm in my own way."
I really enjoy your blog. When do you write it each week, after the show or before?
They [TGC] call me on Thursday or Friday and tell me what is going to be on the show to jog my memory. They have an idea of what points they want me to write about OR I can do my own. They give me the weekend to write it -- I have to get it in by Monday so they can post it right after the show.
You mentioned in your blog earlier in the series that you and Christina were "iron sharpening iron". At one point in an earlier episode, you mention that she was getting a little too intense for you. And this week you mentioned that you have a roomie that other girls are starting to have a problem with. But then I see you watching her hit that shot after Kim missed and you said, "I say she does this in one." I get the feeling that you two have an interesting relationship -- a combination of respect and tension at the same time.
I think that Christina and I, up to this point, have gotten along because we are very similar. She's very intense about her golf and even though she hasn't played a long time, she still knows what she wants to do. There's something about having that kind of personality -- whether you can do it or not, people will still believe you can.
I think her intensity shows other people that she's probably going to pull this shot off. And she may not pull it off, but the way she acts about it says she'll probably pull it off. We've seen her miss shots and we've seen her make shots. She's been a little bit all over the board, so some people are not able to figure her out.
But I think because our personalities are similar, we kind of have that unspoken understanding of each other. Now I can't say what she thinks of me, but when you don't know somebody, all you have to go on is how they carry themselves, and what you've seen. I've seen good shots...I've seen bad shots. But I've always seen her carry herself in a strong way. She's got enough confidence to override something that might be bad.
Based on your earlier comments, it sounds like your least favorite thing on the BB is too many team events. What has been your favorite part of the series so far, besides breaking glass? Everyone says that :)
Yeah, that was fun, but I like to parallel golf with my life. I would probably never put myself in a situation where I would have to spend 16 days with 11 other girls that I play golf with or don't play golf with.
I had to decide... do I want to spend the effort getting to know them better or just getting to know them? There are a lot of people who think I am intimidating [as] I only want to go to a certain point in a relationship because I don't have time. But this time, I put myself out there, because I realized that sometimes I'm a hard ass.
I really enjoyed getting to know my friends better and I found out things I didn't know about any of my friends. I know what they've heard about me over the years, [that] I am tough to get to know. But I laid that aside and decided, " I'm here and this is a great opportunity. I'm going to do my best to enjoy everything about this experience." So, I was able to put down some of that hard exterior and let people really see me. And in turn, it gave me a better understanding of them and we are all better friends for it now.
That's great, because this show doesn't appear to create friendships, but more like break them, because you're always competing and the show creates drama. It must be hard to compete during the day and then have a really good time at night.
But you know, it's just a television show and it's still just like going to a golf tournament. There's going to be a prize at the end and 143 other ladies aren't going to win anything. It's not all about the heat of the battle. There's more to it than just that moment.
You have to live a little life to realize that this isn't everything. You saw Adrienne leave, but you didn't see how she handled being knocked off the show early. She built herself up and built it up...almost too much. And she took it very hard. You can't let things like that dictate who you are. It was just a television show that we got the privilege to be a part of and if something good comes out of it, then something good comes out of it. But if something good doesn't come out of it, there's still something good to come out of it.
I sometimes wonder if the cameras and microphones portray people as they really are. How much of it is real?
A lot of it is real. The problem that I have is that I don't have a lot of tolerance for ignorance. I think all the people on the show are fun, but some are not going to be as close to you as others. But I have a hard time with younger players that act [like] they don't have a clue.
It probably shows up on the show that Susan gets on my nerves. I am at the age where I need people to act more like adults. I nicknamed everyone on the show, and I gave her the nickname, "Dip and Dots" -- you know the ice cream that's shaped in round little balls? When I first met Susan, I said [to myself], "Oh my gosh, this is 'Dip and Dots.' " It's ice cream that wants to be ice cream but has no idea how to be ice cream. We had a flavor of the day every day for her! And "Tutti Fruity" usually won -- we had fun with that. I saw her a couple of days ago and I still called her "Dip and Dots."
Any comments on the ladies who have left the show or past shows you want to share that didn't come out in interviews and confessional?
I think in the beginning I was put out there as the bad guy, and you know, in a lot of ways I can see why people would see that and why they would say that. But I think people in the last few shows have seen a different side of me, but only because the cameras were showing them that side because they needed to form personalities and characters to identify to the viewing audience.
But what I think I'd like people to know is that I am going to be as tough as tough comes when it comes to my golf. But when it comes to people, I'm going to be kind-hearted and caring and I would probably do anything for you. I think the show has actually shown both sides of me at this point.
But whatever comes of the remaining shows, I'm glad that people are seeing who I really am now and not just [how] The Golf Channel wants to portray me.
Thanks Lori! I am looking forward to hearing all the other nicknames you have for the other ladies next week.
Stay tuned for more Big Break interviews later this week, when Kim and Cirbie will be joining me!
And don't forget, all the BB posts are easily reached right here. So bookmark that page and keep refreshing, because more's coming!
Big Break Ka'anapali - Stop choking around
Hi everyone! Did you enjoy tonight's drama? I sure did. Wasn't it great to see the two Brittanys of the LPGA join the ladies on the BB?
I knew about Brittany Lincicome joining the Big Break Ka'anapali, but I wasn't aware that Brittany Lang, who tied for second at this past weekend's Sybase Classic, was part of the mix. So for those of you who think I'm "in the know", think again. I watch every show with the same information as you -- I'm in the dark and I'm loving it that way!
This week was yet another great hour of television and golf drama and Christina was right in the middle of it. Haha...
Christina's in Vancouver playing in a Canadian Women's event this week and we were able to connect in person to watch and talk about show. I couldn't pass up an opportunity to do something a little different and videotape my interview with Christina. I hope you enjoy it.
Well, there's no doubt the camera loves her, even if some of the other BB ladies don't. Something tells me there's more drama coming for Christine, so I hope you'll join us again next week.
BTW... yes, I am keeping my day job -- no multimedia career changes for me :)
Big Break Ka'anapali - Tina Takes a Tumble
Time once again for a Big Break heartbreak...Tina Miller has left Big Break Ka'anapali. There's just a handful left of the ladies. I don't know about you, but I'm going to be very sad when this series is over. I look forward to watching the show and talking to these great gals every week.
For all of Tina's fans, it's a sad day, but we know gone does not mean forgotten, and we'll continue to chat with Tina throughout the series. Here's another great post-episode interview with the stylish golfgal herself...
When we first saw the two pyramids on the range, we thought maybe they had a challenge with the girls that had already been eliminated and that two of them were coming back. So we were all throwing some ideas out there. Even at the breakfast table that morning, we all said, "I have a feeling we're going to have guest appearances today."
Actually, a couple of days before this challenge, I was walking to the putting green and I saw Brittany Lang. And I thought, "Oh, she must be here on vacation." It never crossed my mind that she'd be part of the competition. <laughs>
It was neat to see them both, because I played junior golf with Brittany Lincicome and college golf against Brittany Lang. Both are really nice girls and all of us want to be where they are today.
Brittany Lang played really well this past weekend, tying for second at the Sybase Classic.
She's probably one of the strongest players I've ever played with. She hit a 5-iron out of the thick rough like it was a pitching wedge. I was just blown away. But Brittany Lincicome is really long too. In junior golf, I think she was 14 years old and drove a hole that was 350 yards -- she's extremely long.
Okay, you already know this question is coming. You and Christina created the drama on this week's show. I realize you didn't know that Christina whispered, "Come on, choke!" when you were about to hit your shot, but you did hear her say, "Yes!" after you missed your shot. How did that affect your play?
I was a little upset, but when I first heard it I knew I could easily create drama for the Golf Channel here. I could go up to her and say, "Look, that was inappropriate." OR I could focus on my shot and hit it in the circle and that's what I did.
But later, after Christina and Susan got immunity, when Kim and I walked to the golf cart, that's when I lost it. I was so upset that somebody would react to a missed shot that way. I just didn't think at our level that people did that sort of thing. I thought it was very amateur/junior golf behavior.
I know that she's a competitive person and I really tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, but in the back of my head, I was thinking, "Are you kidding me!? We're professional golfers. Okay, Annika Sorenstam may wish Lorena Ochoa to miss a shot, but if Lorena did miss a putt, do you think Annika would go, 'Yes!'?"
When you found out from Susan later that day that Christina wanted you to choke, what was your reaction?
I really tried to forget about it until after the elimination challenge. I wanted to focus all my energy on that, but I was completely floored by somebody saying that. I just thought that at this level we should have better sportsmanship. I knew that everybody who was on the show was there for a reason -- we all want to win. That's a given -- you should always play to win. But after seeing it on television, I was disgusted by it.
So then what happened?
Before we left Maui, I did confront her about it and she and I have kind of patched things up, but I hope that she's learned from that. On a professional level, you can think things like that, but just don't say it out loud for everybody to hear, unless it's a different type of situation where you're playing around, like at a celebrity pro-am and it's on television and you're bantering back and forth. But for a competition where there is a lot on the line, you just don't do that -- it's really not classy.
I thought that the elimination challenge looked pretty tough, having to get up and down from 120, 90, 60, 30 in all that wind.
You know I did too. In [2007] I was scrambling so much on the golf course that I thought, "I've done this plenty of times." <laughs>. But I thought, to get up and down and get a two from the farthest distance, that's like a birdie on a par three. You could do it. I really tried my best, and obviously I fell a little bit short. Again, the wind was a major factor in this challenge. The green was really quick. If you were any where past the pin, it was super fast -- extremely quick.
On the third challenge, I almost chipped it in. I was so close to chipping in and I was so bummed. I thought, "You know... I chip in all the time when I play with my fiance and he hates it <laughs>. How funny would this be if I chipped in to stay safe." But then I just missed.
In the playoff with Courtney, that must have been pretty tough for you both, given your friendship.
At the time I wasn't thinking that I wanted to eliminate my friend. I was thinking that I wanted to stay safe. Obviously for me, as I said on the show, it was a lose-lose situation. Courtney and I have been friends for a few years now and it was a blessing for me to be roomed with her -- for both of us to stay and get past the first elimination challenge. To stick it out as long as I did, I thought was good.
I didn't think that I was going to go home that day because I actually played better golf than I did in the other shows. That was the day when I felt the most comfortable. I thought, "Just when you let you guard down, you don't get through."
It's hard to remember because so much happened that day, but I think Courtney and I had two playoffs, but I think they had to cut it for TV time - I'm not 100 percent sure on that. But I remember us laughing about having to go back again and again every day.
What about that decision for Kim to hit that shot against Christine? Why were you so uncomfortable with the shot?
In the first part of the show with Kim, I didn't hit great shots. A lot of people said that I should have done the playoff shot with Christina, but to tell you the truth, I wasn't comfortable with that distance -- it was between yardages for me. Kim had hit really good shots against the two Brittanys and that was the same yardage and very similar wind.
Given Kim's performance and her comments from last week about "not playing into elimination," how did you feel when she missed all those shots and you ended up in elimination?
I think we both just struggled. I wasn't confident in the shot and I didn't want to put my team in danger.
So, what did you learn and take from your BB experience?
There were times on the show when I saw the old Tina in me and it made me feel that I can compete again. At the same time, one of the hardest things is putting too much pressure on yourself because you are on the Big Break. People expect you to shoot these great scores and you try to prove the critics wrong, so I think I put too much pressure on myself and I did on the show.
Looking back, there are a couple of things I would have done differently to prepare for it. I did focus a lot of practice on my short game. I probably should have focused more energy on my drives. To this day I am still struggling with it. Last week, not qualifying for sectionals for the Open was tough.
The best thing I took out of it was that it was an amazing experience. It is something that not every professional golfer can say they've been a part of. It's a great series.
Is it real golf? Not really, but I knew that before going into it. People can say they need to play more golf, and yes, I understand that, but it wouldn't be The Big Break without the glass breaking and the wall challenge and all those goofy skills challenges.
And I love the Golf Channel for picking me -- I'd do it again 1000 times over. I have so much respect for Golf Channel because they do treat you like first class when you are on-site. It was awesome -- both the good and the bad. It was something that I'll never forget.
Well, Tina, I hope you'll come back and give us your thoughts after future shows. I want to congratulate you on a very classy exit interview, where you shared openly that you have some hurdles to get over, but that you are confident that you could be one of the most successful BB contestants ever on the LPGA. Well done!
Thanks. I have a lot of people who believe in me. Somebody told me recently, "You need to enjoy your past experiences, and let those build confidence, but at the same time, you can't live in your past." I've done too much living in my past and I think I need to appreciate what I've done is good -- winning in college and playing in LPGA events -- it was good for me, but it isn't me now. I'm three years removed from college and I need to move on. I'm going to Q-school this year in Palm Springs and hopefully find myself on the LPGA.


text:
import { Drop } from '../drop/drop'

export const toString = Object.prototype.toString
const toLowerCase = String.prototype.toLowerCase

export const hasOwnProperty = Object.hasOwnProperty

export function isString (value: any): value is string {
  return typeof value === 'string'
}

// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/ban-types
export function isFunction (value: any): value is Function {
  return typeof value === 'function'
}

export function isPromise<T> (val: any): val is Promise<T> {
  return val && isFunction(val.then)
}

export function isIterator (val: any): val is IterableIterator<any> {
  return val && isFunction(val.next) && isFunction(val.throw) && isFunction(val.return)
}

export function escapeRegex (str: string) {
  return str.replace(/[-/\\^$*+?.()|[\]{}]/g, '\\$&')
}

export function promisify<T1, T2> (fn: (arg1: T1, cb: (err: Error | null, result: T2) => void) => void): (arg1: T1) => Promise<T2>;
export function promisify<T1, T2, T3> (fn: (arg1: T1, arg2: T2, cb: (err: Error | null, result: T3) => void) => void): (arg1: T1, arg2: T2) => Promise<T3>;
export function promisify (fn: any) {
  return function (...args: any[]) {
    return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
      fn(...args, (err: Error, result: any) => {
        err ? reject(err) : resolve(result)
      })
    })
  }
}

export function stringify (value: any): string {
  value = toValue(value)
  if (isString(value)) return value
  if (isNil(value)) return ''
  if (isArray(value)) return value.map(x => stringify(x)).join('')
  return String(value)
}

export function toValue (value: any): any {
  return (value instanceof Drop && isFunction(value.valueOf)) ? value.valueOf() : value
}

export function isNumber (value: any): value is number {
  return typeof value === 'number'
}

export function toLiquid (value: any): any {
  if (value && isFunction(value.toLiquid)) return toLiquid(value.toLiquid())
  return value
}

export function isNil (value: any): boolean {
  return value == null
}

export function isArray (value: any): value is any[] {
  // be compatible with IE 8
  return toString.call(value) === '[object Array]'
}

export function isIterable (value: any): value is Iterable<any> {
  return isObject(value) && Symbol.iterator in value
}

/*
 * Iterates over own enumerable string keyed properties of an object and invokes iteratee for each property.
 * The iteratee is invoked with three arguments: (value, key, object).
 * Iteratee functions may exit iteration early by explicitly returning false.
 * @param {Object} object The object to iterate over.
 * @param {Function} iteratee The function invoked per iteration.
 * @return {Object} Returns object.
 */
export function forOwn <T> (
  obj: {[key: string]: T} | undefined,
  iteratee: ((val: T, key: string, obj: {[key: string]: T}) => boolean | void)
) {
  obj = obj || {}
  for (const k in obj) {
    if (hasOwnProperty.call(obj, k)) {
      if (iteratee(obj[k], k, obj) === false) break
    }
  }
  return obj
}

export function last <T>(arr: T[]): T;
export function last (arr: string): string;
export function last (arr: any[] | string): any | string {
  return arr[arr.length - 1]
}

/*
 * Checks if value is the language type of Object.
 * (e.g. arrays, functions, objects, regexes, new Number(0), and new String(''))
 * @param {any} value The value to check.
 * @return {Boolean} Returns true if value is an object, else false.
 */
export function isObject (value: any): value is object {
  const type = typeof value
  return value !== null && (type === 'object' || type === 'function')
}

export function range (start: number, stop: number, step = 1) {
  const arr: number[] = []
  for (let i = start; i < stop; i += step) {
    arr.push(i)
  }
  return arr
}

export function padStart (str: any, length: number, ch = ' ') {
  return pad(str, length, ch, (str, ch) => ch + str)
}

export function padEnd (str: any, length: number, ch = ' ') {
  return pad(str, length, ch, (str, ch) => str + ch)
}

export function pad (str: any, length: number, ch: string, add: (str: string, ch: string) => string) {
  str = String(str)
  let n = length - str.length
  while (n-- > 0) str = add(str, ch)
  return str
}

export function identify<T> (val: T): T {
  return val
}

export function snakeCase (str: string) {
  return str.replace(
    /(\w?)([A-Z])/g,
    (_, a, b) => (a ? a + '_' : '') + b.toLowerCase()
  )
}

export function changeCase (str: string): string {
  const hasLowerCase = [...str].some(ch => ch >= 'a' && ch <= 'z')
  return hasLowerCase ? str.toUpperCase() : str.toLowerCase()
}

export function ellipsis (str: string, N: number): string {
  return str.length > N ? str.slice(0, N - 3) + '...' : str
}

// compare string in case-insensitive way, undefined values to the tail
export function caseInsensitiveCompare (a: any, b: any) {
  if (a == null && b == null) return 0
  if (a == null) return 1
  if (b == null) return -1
  a = toLowerCase.call(a)
  b = toLowerCase.call(b)
  if (a < b) return -1
  if (a > b) return 1
  return 0
}

export function argumentsToValue<F extends (...args: any) => any> (fn: F) {
  return (...args: Parameters<F>) => fn(...args.map(toValue))
}

export function escapeRegExp (text: string) {
  return text.replace(/[-[\]{}()*+?.,\\^$|#\s]/g, '\\$&')
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub