FINALLY Lefty gets 'er done, head-to-head, against Tiger Woods

I am still scratching my head wondering what the hell happened to Mike Weir. What a meltdown considering he was in contention after the second round...I honestly thought he may pull out a win here.

He ended up 12 strokes off the pace. Utter disaster.

 

I may be wrong, but the above statement is yet another where the indication is that some people believe the only golf tournaments that should be played are the four majors. Yet, if that's all there was, amateurs would still be winning them (save the PGA) and golf would be a niche sport on the level of squash. Don't forget something: the PGA Tour provides the vast amount of inventory (players) to the four majors and provides playing opportunities the other 40 weeks or so that drives the interest in golf to those four weeks.

If it wasn't for the PGA Tour, the four majors would have all the interest of the Long Island Sailing Championships.

 

I like Mickelson but he needs to do this more than once every 10 years before I'd get too excited. Tiger makes any putts down the stretch and he might just win.

 

To quote Herm Edwards, you play to win the game. Trying the foolish shot because it is more fun is the mentality of someone who is afraid of winning.

Why doesn't he putt right handed? Or with his eyes closed? That would probably be fun too.

 

Without Tiger, would you find Mickelson as interesting? Tiger's methodical style is reminiscent of Nicklaus in his hayday; Jack knew he was the best and played a waiting game, for the field to either come back to him or fall down chasing him, depending on the circumstances. First Palmer, then Trevino, Watson, Floyd, Player, etc., acted as foils to Nicklaus--once Nicklaus established that he was much more than a foil for Palmer. "Fat Jack" was hated early in his career, and not playing with Palmer's devil-may-care style was part of that. Many people loved to see Jack lose.

Being the best doesn't always mean being beloved. I like watching Tiger because of the variety of shots he can hit to fit the situation. Out of trouble, I like watching Mickelson, especially around the greens. I don't have a rooting interest, now that Tiger has established his creds for a lifetime. But for the sake of Charlie Sifford, Lee Elder, Calvin Peete, et al., I'm very happy to see Tiger do what he does.

 

I really hadn't paid any attention to the FedEx cup up to this point, but I agree...for a lot of fans they're going to be saying "Who cares?" I'll look it up, but I know some were wondering how the point system even works (xxx points for a win, etc.), but the bigger criticism is that since the golfers don't show up to every tournament, it's kinda pointless. Imagine a NASCAR driver in the Nextel hunt saying, "Y'know, I just don't like Charlotte, so I'm going to stay home this week."

 

I'm not challenging your statement--I'm working from memory here, and I didn't see the majority of Jack's wins in person--but I'd like one or two examples of shots Jack hit with reckless abandon. His one iron, for example, was a club he had complete confidence in, and with good reason.

Palmer going for the green at Cherry Hills; that was reckless abandon.

 

I'd rather watch a guy try to win than one who wants to have fun instead of closing out a tournament.

It's great watching Daly try to cut every dogleg or watching Phil try to clear a hazard from a lousy downhill lie, but on the back 9 on Sunday when you are near the lead, the object is to win.

 

Isn't that what he's supposed to do?

 

What if he were the 50th ranked golfer in the world, because he took more risks and was just as happy? What if couldn't get his card because he took even more risks? The point is that he is content with not winning as much as he could.

 

Nicklaus, like Tiger, was the most conservative golfer of his generation. Old-timers (players on the Champions Tour) have told me that Jack would purposely use 3-wood off the tee to be behind the playing partner. He would then stick a shot tight, with a longer club, from a longer distance, and give the guy a look as if to say, "okay pards, get inside that with your wedge, after I just hit it to 8 feet with my 7-iron).

Jack would hit it 300 yards off the tee if he wanted to, or hit every fairway to keep the pressure on. Tiger's a lot the same. The difference between Tiger and Phil is this: both have enormous amounts of talent. But Tiger won't force himself to call upon that talent, most of the time (i.e., he won't miss very many greens to the short side). He'll play for the middle of fairway and the middle of the green most times, and isn't afraid to use 5-wood or iron off the tee. He's not worried about the macho factor of blasting away with the driver. But if Tiger does have that rare miss to the short side, and it's late enough in a tournament, he'll pull off the near-impossible shot. Phil puts himself in those situations too many times, and as good a short game as he has, no one can execute that many risky shots.

 

Tiger, like Jack, has an assassin's mentality. That involves doing brazen things from time to time; taking low-percentage chances, not so much.