Tom....the tourney is over and the best golfer that week has won.

Seen from afar it seems pretty simple to me.

Monty was Monty and Phil was Phil.  Monty, bless him, can't make himself win a major.  And Phil had to play the gambler.  He couldn't help himself.

Maybe the real question is whether and how Winged Foot exposed them.  It seems the course produced a distinctly worthy champion.

Let's see, a few years ago I recall Phil saying how pleased he was with his play when he finished 3rd at the Master's to Tiger.

Now, he's bummed for a long period of time because he finished 2nd. Yes, with the foolish way it ended, there is a lot more to be bummed about. But Monte is showing what you do in the face of bitter defeat, and recall, he foolishly blew it too.

While this was more than about money, I always recall what Lee Trevino said about golf tournaments. When you win, you get lots of money. And when you lose, you still get lots of money.

As a side note, regardless of the varying degrees of like and dislike for Fuzzy, I always got a kick at the Par 3 tourney when he was swinging as he was talking!

"Admit that Phil screwed up.  He invited double into the hole."

Well, what do you think I'm saying, he did what he was hoping to do?

 

Mark Cannizarro was being a typical New York homer and blasting Mongomerie instead of Mickleson.  Not exactly balanced journalism nor an honest apprasial.

Mickleson made mistake after mistake all day and in the end he kept making mistakes.  Monty made one, tried hard to tie or win and failed.

Now he's kicking the Euro Tour's ass this weekend in Scotland because he figures, "I can still do this - win my major". Mickleson is off whimpering somewhere.

Mickleson tought us yet another lesson we all should learn from wating the "Open that no one was enjoying" (as another thread implied) - In addition to not compounding mistakes, losing a tone-a-mint not winning it and all that

Under the worst of stresses, we will revert to our most basic stupid mistakes (For Phil - too aggressive, I can do teh shot of the century immediately after a major screw up).  We should have a plan. Something to go to when we're just about to pee our pants. A 3/4 swing, a controlled pull, a push fade we can predict - whatever, but whatever we can make work when we must.

Monty tried was indecicive and then tried too hard in the heat of things, Lefty melted down into the same old Phil - a hubristic denial-laden do-do without a proverbial paddle or clue.

Props to Monty and whistles to Mickleson.
 

Noble Monty and clueless Phil?

Well, somehow Phil has won three majors, and Monty none.  Without a clue, making "mistake after mistake", Phil came to the last hole of the U.S. Open in the lead.  

None of us still knows exactly what Phil faced on his 2nd shot.  Did he make a reckless play that was too aggressive?  Maybe.  I don't have enough information yet to make that call.  Until someone goes to the exact spot Phil was, and can report back to us on the precise options Phil had, condemning him is jumping the gun just a little.  

Monty made more than one mistake.  Besides doubling the last hole, he made two bogeys on the back.  He played the final nine 3 over.  I don't know where you come up with the idea Monty played hard and Phil melted.  Phil gave an incredible performance on a day when his swing sucked and he couldn't find the fairway with his 4-iron.  On the last hole, Monty is in the middle of the fairway, 170 yards from the pin, yet makes double.  How do you not call that a meltdown?  It's as big a meltdown as Arnie in the 1961 Masters.    

Playing the week after.  Tiger almost never does.  Jack almost never did.  Seems like a red herring.  

I also note that Monty has fallen under the cheating cloud, more than once I believe.  Whether or not it was intentional, he absolutely positively improved his lie in that Asian tournament last year.  When play was suspended, he had a real hard stance in a bunker.  When they started up again the next day, he gave himself a real easy stance.  Many pro's say he should have been disqualifited.  Instead, his finish there let him squeak into the U.S. Open at Pinehurst.  I remember a thread here a while back that said Monty continues to take architectural credit for a course he never even saw till after it was done.

I'll take Phil as a better role model.  

 
 

None of us still knows exactly what Phil faced on his 2nd shot.  

We don't? It's been shown and dissected from every angle with the exception of what the grass beneath Phil's feet was thinking.  

I'm sure the Home and Garden channel will have that perspective in an upcoming 2 hour special where they interview the 419 pencross rye and how the oak tree felt when Phil grazed it's bark.
 

Bruce,

Hear! Hear! I second that emotion!

Jim,

I'll be checking my local listings for the H&G special that will surely draw more viewers than the American Idol final.

Not an hour after the final putt at the Open than The Golf Channel had Frank Nobilo at the spot of Phil's 2nd shot on 18. The camera behind, and commentary, showed what Phil was seeing. A Large tree in front, and a larger tree to the right of the first- some 40 yds away. According to the larger Oak tree, Phil had no shot - he over cooked it, and grazed it's bark.

Word is that the Oak is asking for equal time. X-Rays of it's cambium layer have proven negative, but of course, Dr. Phil wants to see how the hardwood is coping with all the notiriety.  Undisclosed sources from Home and Garden say some of the tree's leaves may be sold on Ebay. Fall colors will be sold separately.

Again I would like to retract my post-round support of Mickelson.  Today, I played golf with the caddy for one of the top ten players in the world.  I asked him about 18 at Winged Foot.  The caddy, whose man is one of the shorter hitters, said that his guy could bunt three wood off of the tee and still have at least a 5 iron into the green.  He opined that Mickelson's driver selection was terrible....since he was there, and I was not, I will side with him and retract my prior support of Mickelson - regardless of how ardent of a supporter I once was.  

I now agree.

Matt -- that clears up part of my confusion.  Did your friend tell you what other choices Phil could have made?  What kind of "safe" play could he make back to the fairway?  Any way to go over the trees?  How badly did Phil hit his 2nd shot to end up where he did?

Ryan -- Phil didn't have 3-wood, only 4-wood.  Were his chances much greater to find fairway with that club?  Remember he missed fairway a few holes earlier with 4-iron.  He probably felt as comfortable with driver as he did the 4-wood.  And if he misses with the 4-wood, not only is he in the rough or trees, he is 30 to 50 yards back.  

I wonder if what the caddy said was entirely accurate, too.  Monty  is not a short hitter.  Yet after a perfect drive he had six-iron into the green.  (Or should have, anyway.)  

I'm thinking if Phil hits a good 4-wood off the tee, he has 4-iron or even 3-iron to the green.  Why give up 3 or 4 clubs on your second, when you feel just as confident hitting driver off the tee?

Another question: how well did the 2nd shot fit Phil's swing and game?  I remember one year Couples came to the 72nd hole of the Players at Sawgrass.  Leading by two, if I recall.  Pushed his drive behind some trees.  No way to hit directly at the green.  

He hit a shot that left the announcers speechless.  He started the ball way out over the water, and hit a huge slice.  In fact, he over-cooked his shot.  The ball ended up on the right fringe, about 50 feet from the pin.  He two-putted for the win.

Afterwards they asked him about that shot.  Fred said he felt completely comfortable and confident.  If it had required a hook, he wouldn't have tried it.  But "I can slice it with the best of them," he said.  The shot fit his game.

How hard or easy was the shot Phil tried, for his game?