Bob,

I think the momentum has been here for a little while.  Twelve out of the top 20 in the World Golf Ranking are "furriners."  

When is there going to be a Europe vs. Rest-of-World Ryder Cup-type match?   Loser plays the lowly U.S.  

Bob

With less than 5% of the world population, we have a higher percentage of leading golfers than we have greehouse gas emissions.  I'd say that's a pretty good result!

It would also seem a Southern Hills or Pinehurst have more familiar grasses for South Africans,Australians,etc.Plus,a lot of these players spend off tour time in Fla. or Dallas.Short bermuda rough shots are a different animal.

The article strikes me as a crock...  No player that I heard was complaining of unfairness, like last year.  It is what it is.  This business of having to have a tournament where the stars of the regular tour dominate is bogus.  It is an OPEN!  The whole 'tin cup' thing where a fellow can get qualified (like Campbell's qualifiying in Europe) is one of the good things about it.  When Francis Ouimet won out of nowhere, then it was an exciting story that he took on the big guns of his time and prevailed.  This is an undeserved backhanded disrespect of Micheal Campbell.  He won it fair and square, and did so by playing himself into it in the ideal fashion of qualifying.  Olin Browne also played his way in with phenomenals rounds, shooting 73-59!  That is the quest, and that is what makes it interesting that a fellow with talent, and just never had all the stars lined up for his career, can have that shining moment.

Whining that your super heroes didn't shine through is really embarrisingly homerism.  

The more I think about the article, the more pissed I'm getting.  To continue the rant... what about Hensby? The fellow was sleeping in his car a few years ago to follow his dream for cripes sake!  Had he won, they could make a movie out or it.  Gore was a sentimental figure too, even if he collapsed with is pairing partner the last day.  I am getting tired of the notion that only the most marketed IMG represented players can or should win opens.  We are supposed to be the land of opportunity.  The ideal of the US Open ought to mimick that ideal.  

I think for once the underdog came through in a tough battle at the end with the favorite.  That is hopeful, inspiring, and in the best tradition.  We shouldn't revere the notion of the struggle, but the big famous guy always wins in the end.  That is imperial and not our tradition, IMHO.

I think there is slightly more to the article than the big guy vs the little guy.  New Zelander Campbell is a "no-feel story" yet Gore the American is a "legend".  The USA's Tiger needs to "dominate" the game but Fiji's Singh wins with "mind numbing regularity".  The writing seems incredibly xenophobic to me.  

I'm mystified by this column on so many levels that I admit to jumbled thinking, so in no particular order:

1. You definitely do not get the sense that this column would have been written if "legend" Jason Gore (a genuine no-name, unlike Campbell) had won the tournament. On my first read I didn't sense xenophobia at work, but David Elvins' post definitely made me think twice about what's beneath the surface here.

2. Barnett talks about the need for "appealing personalities". By the way Campbell acquitted himself during and after his final round, I found him to be genuinely likable. This is entirely subjective of course, but I don't think it would be hard to argue that Cambo has a much more "appealing personality" than Retief, one of the "big names" Barnett would have preferred to see win. He also mentions stone-faced David Duval as one of the "big names" that just aren't shining through anymore.

3. At what point does a player become enough of a "recognizable name" to warrant genuine congratulations on winning a major? Should the USGA simply select their field based on Q Scores? Roll out Adam Sandler in the role of Happy Gilmore? It should be noted that Retief's win at Southern Hills was his first in the U.S. He was hardly a household name. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, right?

4. I don't doubt for a second that there is a fascinating back story in the journey that Michael Campbell made. Some journalists on deadline are just frustrated that they didn't know it in advance. But he clearly means an awful lot to New Zealand. His Maori heritage would be a compelling element to explore, as would be what he went through in his career after St Andrews in '95. There's a great story out there, but it's probably not going to be filed on the Monday after the U.S. Open. I couldn't agree more with RJ Daley's phrase "backhanded disrespect".

It's a shame. Michael Campbell played inspired golf and this is the kind of post-game analysis that American readers are supposed to digest. Lame.