Sunday's final round battle between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson was great theater and a rare display of two superstars playing at their best, with the winner prevailing because of superior play rather than a mistake by the opponent. It is interesting to note, however, that a backlash is beginning to develop against Smilin' Phil. First, there is this AP article AP article that compares Tiger's rivalry with Phil to his rivalry with Ernie Els. The article mentions the even better final round between Tiger and Els in the 2000 Mercedes Championship and how much the two players appeared to enjoy the match, in comparison to the grinding, joyless approach Tiger and Phil took last weekend. (I have to agree that the Tiger-Els matchup, which kicked off Tigers historic 2000 season, was even more fun to watch, in part because both players seemed to be having fun, and marveled at each others' shots.) More intriguing is this quote:
"Ernie Els and Woods make the most natural rivalry. The Big Easy has finished second to Woods six times, more than any other player, and eight of his 15 victories on the PGA Tour have come with Woods in the field. But it is difficult for Woods to work up any animosity inside the ropes because Els is universally liked and respected.
That's not the case with Mickelson. "
The author doesn't elaborate.
Then there's Skip Bayless's hack job against Phil this week. Bayless clearly doesn't like Mickelson for some reason, and spares no opportunity to smear him as insincere and not well-liked inside the ropes. While I detest this sort of broadside attack that does not include any evidence and is secondary to the thesis in any event, I suspect that Bayless and others in the know (assuming Bayless is in the know; as he a studio talking head now, I doubt it) have seen things that the public doesn't know about. Stopping short of speculating about really detestable, Kobe-level behavior, it would not surprise me if it turned out that Phil annoys his fellow professionals. He's talented, been at the top of the game since he was a kid (before he was a successful pro, he was USGA Junior champ, USGA Amateur champ, 3-time NCAA champ and a winner on Tour while an amateur), he's good looking and, most importantly, he's a gambler. He's known for his gambling proclivities, especially his longshot Super Bowl bets (the Ravens paid off big). I take all of this to mean that Phil is ruthlessly competitive, and probably arrogant about it (Michael Jordan, who never met a circumstance he wouldn't wager on, was brutal to his betting partners, teammates or not).
A small moment at the end of the tournament led me to think there may be more steel in Phil's psyche than would appear by his plodding, aw-shucks-grinning exterior. Final hole, Tiger up by one, Phil just off the green behind the hole needing to drop the putt to birdie and tie after Tiger ran his 60 foot birdie putt 6 feet by the hole. Phil nearly holes it out (leading to the unintentionally hilarious photo shown in the first linked article above), leaving his ball a couple of feet out. Technically, Tiger is away, and should putt next. However, Tiger now has a lead and can only fail to seal the victory he screws up the putt; Phil can no longer do anything about it. Ordinarily, when a player is about to putt for the championship, his playing partners will putt out, regardless of the usual etiquette, to give that player his moment of glory with the crowd. However, on Sunday, Tiger putted his fourth and final shot before Phil had finished, which led to the somewhat awkward circumstance that Tiger had just won the tournament, the crowd is trying to show its enthusiastic approval for the day of golf they just witnessed, but thay all have to be shushed immediately so that Phil can proceed with his meaningless tap-in.
Because the tournament would be over if Tiger made the putt, it seemed to me that he should have gone last. Gamesmanship? Did Phil insist that Tiger putt first, with the inevitable result that any celebration would be muted? It would have made more sense, and followed tour custom, to allow Tiger to play last, which would have created additional pressure: on the last shot, either he wins the tournament (but gets the unrestrained adulation), or he misses and they play extra holes. If a little gamesmanship took place, it seems that it would be consistent with Phil's competitiveness, as well as his rarely-seen irritation at losing. It may also lend some credence to the veiled suggestions that Phil is admired far more outside the ropes than inside them.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have always admired Phil. We're the same age, so he was one of the first people of my generation to make a splash in the world. I got to see him play up close at his first professional tournament at the 1992 US Open the week after we both graduated from college. He seemed to be a good guy back then (and he definitely had the attention of every 16 to 30 year old woman within a 100 yard radius; he could hardly take a step without some PYT saying "Hi, Phil!"). He's done well for himself, and I was very happy to see him win the Masters last year. He and Tiger are going to be fighting it out for the rest of their golfing lives, and they probably will never really like each other. Their play, though, is magnificent to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment