October 14th, 2013 · 1 Comment
Who knows exactly why the golf’s Hall of Fame cancelled the 2014 ceremony, but many would point to Ray Floyd as the driving force behind the time out. According to golf.com, Floyd said “the bar has been lowered”, and “it’s not fair to the people who went in early” in reference to some recent inductees, including Fred Couples (1 major), Colin Montgomerie (0 majors) and, I suspect, a whole bunch more.
Since the HOF committee is taking some time to review the criteria, I thought I would give them a hand. My first homework assignment was to read Sunday’s Golf.com Confidential to see what the “experts” had to say, knowing that if they had an argument to make, the opposite was most likely true.
Gary Van Sickle led off by saying he favors “a points system factoring in wins, majors, and Ryder Cup appearances.” Majors, of course. Wins – he needs to be far more specific. Appearances in Ryder Cup? Does that mean just making it onto the team, or your record in the matches? Either way, it doesn’t matter because the Ryder Cup is an overhyped exhibition that does not belong in the criteria for the HOF for the simple reason that the Americans and Europeans are the only ones that get to pad their resumes with the cup.
The Internationals get to play in the Presidents Cup – but it has about 10% of the pizazz and spirit of the Ryder Cup. Besides, if we count these cups, the Americans, who are eligible to play in one every year, have twice the number of chances to pull off some history making moment as do the Euros and the Internationals.
And one other thing – in a regular tournament there is a level playing field (more or less, depending on weather and the draw) on which to compete. In the Ryder Cup, your record is subject to your playing partners’ games’, and to the players you draw in both team and singles matches. The verdict: no way should the Ryder Cup, or any other cups, figure in selecting players for the HOF.
Commentator #2 was Michael Bamberger who said, “Fred Couples’ senior career is making him a more legitimate Hall of Famer.” Excuse me, but what has senior golf got to so with the real McCoy! If a player couldn’t establish their credentials for the HOF during their days in the big leagues, which last more than 20 years, then they certainly shouldn’t get second chance on a minor league tour for has beens that few even care about.
Joe Paaov incorrectly seconded Bamberger’s motion, saying “Champions Tour records should be included, where relevant.” The trouble is that on the senior tour is a 2, at best, on the 1-10 relevancy scale. Want proof? List this year’s five senior majors in order, and who won them? You can’t, and neither can I, because all the old guys are doing is making money, not history.
I can go on and on about the criteria for the HOF but, at least for today, I hopefully have settled the matter on Cup records and Champions Tour performances: they should carry zero weight when determining if a player should become a member of golf’s HOF.
Tags: Colin Montgomerie, Fred Couples, Golf Hall of Fame, President Cup, Ray Floyd, Ryder Cup
September 28th, 2013 · 8 Comments
There are, or should be, two Player of the Year Awards.
The standard award goes to the PGA Tour Player of the Year. Notice the modifier. This year, Tiger Woods won it again on the strength of his five win season, which included victories at his usual haunts – Torrey Pines, Doral, Bay Hill, and Firestone, and a W at The Players, which was arguably his most impressive win because he has struggled on TPC Sawgrass (he was 1 win in 15 starts prior to 2013).
So, Woods is the PGA Tour’s POY, but would he be simply the Player of the Year if the award was based on a player’s complete season, and if it gave due credit to wins and close finishes in the majors? I think not.
If you asked Woods whose season he would rather have had, his or Phil Mickelson’s, it would take him a quarter second to utter Phil’s name. The reason: a major title, and a strong second in another, which counts among those sensible analysts who believe that second it better than 32t, which is where Tiger finished at the U.S. Open, the one that Phil lost by two shots to Justin Rose.
On the PGA Tour, Woods won five times and was second once in 16 starts, and finished in the top 10 eight times. In his lone appearance overseas (other than the British Open) he missed the cut at Abu Dhabi.
Mickelson won twice on the PGA Tour, including a major, and won his only other start overseas at the Scottish Open, which preceded his win at the Open. This gave him wins in consecutive weeks, something that Tiger did not accomplish. Mickelson registered six top threes (not counting the Scottish Open) to Woods’ six.
Tiger vs. Phil in the Majors
Woods – Mickelson
M—-4t —- 54t
Again, the big point in Woods’ favor was that he won five times on THE PGA TOUR. Still, but he would take Mickelson’s year in a heartbeat because 1) he would have ended his five year drought in the majors, 2) pulled to within three majors of Nicklaus, 3) passed Nicklaus in career British Open titles with four, 4) added a second in the U.S. Open to his resume, 4) come to within a U.S. Open title of winning a fourth Career Grand Slam, and 5) been able to tell the writers “I told you so,” something he relishes more than just about anything else.
So, who really is the Player of the Year? If you put Woods on truth serum, his answer would be Phil Mickelson!
Tags: Jack Nicklaus, PGA Tour, Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods
Adam Scott seems to many like the nicest guy, but to me he is a scoundrel who will go to any lengths to win.
A few years ago Steve Williams, his caddy, made racially insensitive remarks about Tiger Woods, his former employer. Many felt that Williams comments were so bad that Scott should definitely fire him. Instead, Scott, whose response was essentially no response, kept Williams because he knew his chances of ever winning a major depended largely on retaining the world’s best caddy.
Then, when he couldn’t regain his lost putting touch, he opted for the most grotesque looking putting stance in pro golf, firmly anchoring his putter to his chest while sticking his left arm out in front of him. It was obviously within the rules, so the majority of fans (based on numerous polls) who hate anchoring, had to grin and bear it while Scott prevailed in a playoff at this year’s Masters.
A few weeks later Glen Nager of the USGA issued their ruling on anchoring – it would become illegal at the beginning of 2016. To Scott, that meant that he (and his henchman) had 11 majors to add to his legacy before he would have to abandon his long wand. Or would he? Here is Scott’s view on the change he plans to make:
“I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing and deal with it then,” he said. “I don’t think there will be anything much for me to change. If I have to separate the putter a millimeter from my chest, then I’ll do that. … My hand will be slightly off my chest, probably.”
While Scott’s anchoring is still legal, it is now, officially, against the spirit and tradition of the game as voiced by Nager in his address on the ban:
“Rule 14-1b protects one of the important challenges in the game – the free swing of the entire club. The traditional stroke involves swinging the club with both the club and gripping hands held away from the body, requiring the player to direct and control the movement of the entire club. Anchoring is different: Intentionally securing one end of the club against the body, and creating a point of physical attachment around which the club is swung, is a substantial departure from that traditional free swing.”
So, any player who continues to anchor after the ban is violating the spirit of the game, something which Scott cares nothing about as he continues his all out quest for Ws in the majors. And he may get them as he is currently leading the PGA deep into his second round as this is being written.
Should he win, however, in the history book that I plan to write, his entry will contain an asterisk, as it should.
2013 PGA – Adam Scott*
*Used an anchored putter in opposition to the tradition of the game as expressed by the USGA and R&A
Tags: 2013 PGA, Adam Scott, R&A, USGA
Tiger Woods has gone and done it.
He couldn’t be content to simply win the Bridgestone for the eighth time – he had to lap the field by seven shots, raising expectations to such lofty heights, at least amongst the media and the bettors, that Ladbrokes now has him at 3-1 for the PGA this week at Oak Hill in Rochester!
Those are the kind of odds that Woods drew back in the days when he actually won majors, not just gave some indication that he was ready to do so.
So, while an increasingly large percentage of golf fans believe that Woods is primed to win his record tying fifth PGA, and to prevent another shut out in the majors, as he did in 1999 and 2007 when he won Glory’s Last Shot, I wonder what the man himself thinks.
Woods’ big problem is that the major’s version of Woods can’t putt like the PGA Tour player can because the pressure of winning them has gotten to him. While he putts like a demon during those easy-for-him-to-now-win regular tour events, he just can’t “get the speed right” at the majors.
And so, despite his many tour wins (five in just this season) he is like a player trying to get the monkey off his back, one that is gaining weight, and one that has been resting on his shoulders for the last 17 big four competitions.
Since winning his last major in 2008, the closest Woods has come to winning (as measured by his position at the finish line) is three big shots – at the 2009 PGA and at the 2010 US Open – both of which he threw away on the back nine on Sunday. So, despite his claims that he’s “been in the mix” in half of the majors since Torrey in ’08, he actually has not.
The disconnect between Major Championship Woods and PGA Tour Woods really stands out when his record in each category is put side by side. He is, of course, that well documented 0 for 17 in the majors. At the same time, he is 14 for 51 in regular PGA Tour events. Now you would think that a player who has already shown the mental strength and the game to win 14 majors would have sprinkled in, say, at least 2-3 more within those 14 tour wins.
But not this Tiger, for this one has changed his stripes for a brand of choking that leads to collapses at the majors well before the finish line is in sight. He knows it, we all know it, and he knows that we are watching to see what he does about it. Can this Tiger regain his bite, or has he lost his Sunday growl?
My advice is simple – dump that Sunday outfit (the red shirt and black pants) for something that signals the birth of a new Tiger, one armed with his Foley Swing, a Zen like approach to putting, and the belief that the majors are his birthright, and that no one is going to deny him, least of all himself.
Tags: 2013 PGA, PGA Tour, The Majors, Tiger Woods
Phil Mickelson’s closing 66, with four birdies on the last six holes, propelled him to his fifth major, and to a major upgrading by the entire golf community.
Before the Open Mickelson was a great player and a member of the HOF. Even though he was tied with Ernie Els with four majors, he was the media’s choice for the second best player of the Woods’ era. With his win he is now undisputedly second best over the last 17 years, a position I expect him to retain as I don’t see putting troubled Els winning another major. But, far more importantly, Mickelson is now being called an ALL TIME GREAT!
So, who are the legitimate All Time Greats he’s now joined?
All Time Greats of the Modern Era (1958-now)
All Time Greats of the Pre Modern Era (before 1958)
That is some pretty stout company, 16 players who won no less than five majors. In the Modern Era he is the sixth best of the nine all-time greats. On the list 16 he is probably about 12th based on his overall record, including those six seconds in the U.S. Open, not just his Ws in the majors.
At one time the media tried to make Tiger vs. Phil into debate when there was none. But if we now look at their stats in the majors from 2004 to now, there appears to be one.
Wins in the majors: Tiger 6, Phil 5
Seconds in the majors: Tiger 5, Phil 5
Thirds in the majors: Tiger2, Phil 2.
That is 13 to 12 in Tiger’s favor in top threes in the majors!
With his win, Mickelson has also accomplished the following:
He jumped from fifth to second in the World Golf Rankings
His major titles now span 10 seasons, a measure of longevity that’s only two years short of Woods’ record
He joined Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, and Lee Trevino as Modern Era players who have won 3 legs of the Career Grand Slam
Won a major in his 40s at age 43
Orchestrated a great bounceback win after his collapse at Merion
Won from behind in the final round (with a round that rivals Nicklaus
65 in 1986), something Woods has never done
Tied Seve Ballesteros with five majors, but he passed him based on his overall record in the majors
Passed Els and Ray Floyd, who have won four majors
When Darren Clarke won the British Open two years ago at age 42, you got the feeling that the portly fun loving Clarke had won his one and only major. With Mickelson, the feeling is entirely different.
At 43, the slim and trim Mickelson appears to be at his peak!! He said he putted the best of his life to win the Open, he is ultra-confident off the tee with his new super 3-wood, he’s got that great short game, and he says that his irons have always been the strong part of his game. Best of all, he is also employing Nicklaus’ secret weapon: course management.
So, with this confidence building victory, Mickelson’s got the total package and a heavy dose of career momentum! As a result, it is not hard to imagine him challenging Nicklaus for most majors in their 40s. Right now Nicklaus leads Mickelson 3-1, but I think Phil has at least a couple more in him.
Let’s do a little star gazing and imagine that Phil wins the U.S. Open at Pinehurst next year where he finished a shot back of Payne Stewart in 1999, and one other major. He would own the Career Grand Slam and seven majors. That would, in my opinion, make him the fourth best of the Modern Era, and a member of the All Time Top 10.
Given the current state of his game, the glittering resume that awaits him, and that he “loves golf and loves to compete,” I fully expect that we have not seen the last of Mickelson at the top of the leaderboards in golf’s biggest championships.
Tags: 2013 British Open, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus. Arnold Palmer, Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods
Tiger Woods Continues to be in Denial
I wonder who Tiger Woods thinks he is fooling.
At the pre British Open press conference he was asked what has kept him from winning majors over the last five years. Woods said “I think it’s just a shot here and there.” Actually he needs to add another here and there because the closest he’s come to a playoff since winning the 2008 U.S. Open was at the 2009 PGA, in which he shot a final round 75 to lose by three shots to Y.E. Yang, and at the 2010 U.S. Open where he ended up three back of Graeme McDowell after again closing with a 75.
Woods furthermore said that winning was about “getting a good bounce here,” and “capitalizing on an opportunity here and there.” Well, yes, those happenings can make the difference when you are in the hunt and are breathing down the leaders necks, but in every other of the last 16 majors, Woods has failed to even put himself into position where good fortune could propel to victory.
Woods was primed for a run at the Masters when his approach shot to the 15th in the second round rebounded off the pin and into the lake and he eventually took an 8. If that had not happened, however, I think that the New Woods (the one who seems to have lost his special powers in the majors) would have found another way to lose. As the U.S. Open I guess we can give him a pass for his poor showing due to his injured elbow, which he now says will be fine providing he can steer clear of Muirfield’s hay fields.
Woods, now 37, is down to his last two majors of the year – two chances to avoid his fifth straight season without a major title. If he fails to win the Open or the PGA, he will have only eight starts in the majors remaining in his 30s to add to his 14 titles, and his chances of passing Jack Nicklaus’ record will appear to be all but over.
So, you think he isn’t feeling the pressure?
Mickelson’s big consolation prize
Phil Mickelson brought his family over to Scotland for a vacation on the eve of the British Open, yet still managed time to win a playoff for the Scottish Open, boosting him to the fifth spot in the World Golf Rankings. And, despite his heartbreaking collapse at Merion, where he posted his sixth second in our nation’s national championship, he is definitely one of the hottest players on the planet, having finished 3, MC, 2t, 2t, MC, W in his last five starts.
If Mickelson was asked if he could own one of the two Opens, he would surely pick ours. Still, a win at this week’s British Open would do just as much, if not more, for his position in golf’s pecking order of all-time greats. A win would give him three legs of the Career Grand Slam, pull him into a tie with Seve Ballesteros at five majors, and a win at St. Andrews would give him majors on two continents, bolstering his reputation as an international player. It would also put him in the company of Nicklaus and Woods, who both won at golf’s home.
Tags: 2013 British Open, Jack Nicklaus, Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods
O.B. Keeler, Bobby Jones’s close friend and biographer, had a knack for coining phrases and catchy slogans that would glorify Jones’s achievements, but none was more grandiose and false than the Grand Slam. Prior to Jones winning the two Opens and two Amateurs in 1930 there was no such thing. So Keeler put 2 and 2 together, mixing pro and amateur majors, to come up with the Grand Sham, thus providing a memorable moniker for Jones’s supposed sweep of the majors that year.
Fast forward to 1960 and we have Arnold Palmer and HIS writer pal, Bob Drum, in route to the British Open. While on the plane they hatched a modern day version of the Grand Slam, one that would include the four professional majors. Their Slam has stuck for over 50 years even though no one has won it yet, and likely never will. If wiser heads had had the foresight to conceive of such a thing when the PGA Championship was born in 1916, the real Grand Slam would have been comprised of the two Open, the PGA, and the Western Open (later to be replaced by the Masters). Four pro majors for the best golfers in the world – no mixing of oil and water to fabricate the phony Jones Slam.
The point of all of this is that, even to this day, a Grand Slam is whatever we fans and the media want it to be. Why as recently as 2001 some, including Tiger Woods, felt that he had won the Grand Slam at the 2001 Masters, but it was later revised to the Tiger Slam. As for the ladies version, a rather vocal majority have strongly suggested that the first four majors are plenty. The Evian Championship, the recently coined fifth major, has no more business in the Grand Slam than a prostitute at a President’s Ball.
Let’s assume that the ladies Grand Slam through last season consisted of the Kraft-Nabisco, LPGA Championship, US Women’s Open, and Women’s British Open – all recognized as majors by everyone in golf. Then The Evian was designated a major by Michael “Mr. No-Sense-of-History” Whan. Does that mean, as part of its upgrade, that it automatically becomes a member of the Grand Slam? I don’t think so, and neither do these expert observers:
From Golf Channel:
“If she wins at St. Andrews that is a Grand Slam.” – Amad Rashad
“If she wins at the Old Course, that is a Grand Slam.” – Matt Ginella
“It (winning the first four) would be a Grand Slam.” – Judy Rankin
Golf.com asked this question to their Golf Confidential panel: If Park gets to four, is that enough for you to call it a Grand Slam?
“Win at St. Andrews and give her the Grand Slam. I don’t think anyone will much care how she fares at the Evian — win or lose.” – Mark Godich
“She wins the British, she has the Grand Slam.” – Michael Bamberger
“You can’t just dub something a major. The Evian isn’t a real major and won’t be until it stands the test of time. If Park wins the other four, that’s a slam.” – Gary Van Sickle
“And if she wins the Women’s British Open, I’d consider it winning the Grand Slam. What fifth major? It’s so contrived.” – Stephanie Wei
“If she wins the British Open that’s four in a row, and that’s a Grand Slam. End of story.” – Jeff Ritter
In addition to expert opinion, there are more arguments for excluding The Evian from the party:
It mercifully comes last on the major’s calendar, so it is easy to lop it off. Imagine if Park won the four real majors, but failed to win The Evian and it was second or third on the calendar?
St. Andrews, the home of golf, could be the site of the crowning of not only the British Open champion, but also the winner of the Grand Slam. Anything that takes place at The Evian would be anticlimactic.
The Grand Slam is tough enough to win as it is – there is no need to make it geometrically more difficult by requiring a fifth major.
And speaking of the fifth major, the ladies already have one same-course major, the Kraft Nabisco – so they certainly do no need another.
I am rooting for Inbee Park to win the Women’s British Open, and what my fellow traditionalists consider to be the Grand Slam. I will not be rooting for her to win the supposed Super Slam, which would consist of the four real majors and the phony fifth major. If she won The Evian, it would create an argument in favor of it being a part of the Grand Slam, and a win would be too much of a good thing for Park as it would foster the belief that she faced too little competition.
Inbee Park is making a spirited run at the ladies Grand Slam this season.
After winning the 2008 US Open just before turning 20, Park has added the first two majors of 2013 to her resume, and is currently tied for the lead as this is being typed following an opening round of 67.
If Park were to win the Open, that would give her the first three legs of the Slam and position her for a shot at winning the traditional ladies Grand Slam in July at the British Open.
But here is the rub – LPGA commissioner Michael Whan, a supposed marketing genius, decided that the ladies needed a fifth major to bolster their tour, so France’s The Evian Championship as it is now known was upgraded from a prestigious title to major.
Now, here is the big question: Since The Evian is the final “major” of the season, could a player win the Grand Slam by winning the traditional one comprised of the first four majors, or does a player really have to win five straight? I say winning four in a row is good enough, especially since these majors are played before the Bonus Major.
Since Whan decreed that the Evian is a major, he should at least do us a favor and keep the requirements for the Grand Slam as they were. A player’s chances of winning it are a super long shot at best, but at least there is a chance as Park has shown us after playing 2.25 majors. If she has to win all five, her odds drop from a very small chance to none at all – and that is just not right.
2013 Ladies Majors
The Grand Slam
The Kraft Nabisco – April 4-7 – Inbee Park
LPGA Championship – June 6-9 – Inbee Park
US Women’s Open – June 27-30 – ???
Women’s British Open – Aug. 1-4 – ???
The Fifth Major
The Evian Championship - September 12-15 – Not a part of the Grand Slam according to Capelle
Tags: Inbee Park, Michael Whan, The Evian Championship, U.S. Women's Open
Forget about all of the other young guns you have been reading about.
Jason Day, 25, is unquestionably the second best player in the majors under the age of 30 – and that makes him second best in the world among the younger set as well.
In his last nine starts in the majors, Day’s earned three seconds and a third. Go back one more major and he’s got another top 10, giving him five in his last 10 big ones. The rest of his brief 11 event career in the majors includes a 30t, 59t, 60t, two MCs, and one WD. That’s 8 cuts made in 11 appearances right out of the gate.
That is also some resume for a 25 year old, and it points towards him either being the next Sergio Garcia, or the next Mickelson, Els, Floyd, or even better – and my money is on the later.
For the record, Day closed out the 2011 Masters with 5 birdies and 6 pars on the last 11 holes to lose by two to Charl Schwartzel, but only because the South African somehow managed to birdie the final four.
At this year’s Masters, Day missed the playoff by a couple of shots because he followed birdies at 13, 14, and 15 with bogeys at 16 and 17. And, at the just completed U.S. Open, he tied Phil Mickelson for second, two back of Justin Rose. After playing the first 10 holes of the final round in three under, he played the last eight in three over.
All it seems that is missing is to improve on his closing skills – and that seems inevitable given his experience, talent, love of the game, steely resolve under pressure (the man can grind out those pars, which reminds me of a certain player with the initials TW), and that certain something that he seems to have that so many of the other young players do not.
Given Day’s third and second in the first two majors, if he does win a major and a Top 3 Slam, he would be my choice for the Player of the Year providing Adam Scott does not win another asterisk adorned major.
Tags: 2013 U.S. Open, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Jason Day, Phil Mickelson, Sergio Garcia, Tiger Woods
Overall, I love Merion Golf Club. Strategically and visually this is a U.S. Open site of the highest caliber, one that rewards precision golf, and that eliminates the bomb and gougers of this world. Still, it has two major flaws, and these flaws cost leader Phil Mickelson two shots in the closing five holes, and may cost him the Open as well.
The first are the pins, which are really thick chested logs. I guess the folks at Merion think that they are necessary to hold up the wicker baskets, that good old fiber glass ones won’t do. I don’t know – but what I do know is that these steel rods reject balls that should be dropping in the hole, and that would on any other course that uses “regular” pins – like Augusta National, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, etc.
On the 14th Mickelson missed the green to the left, but played one of those deft little pitches he is known for, the ball landing softly and checking up before it started its slow motion roll to the hole. The ball hit the pin 98-99% squarely, the kind of contact that would have assured a birdie on any other course. But not at Merion, where his ball clanked off the posts and stopped 18 inches from the cup.
After barely missing birdies at 15 and 16, Mickelson made a deuce at the impossibility difficult 254 yard par 3.45 17th after drilling a 4-iron to within 12 feet. On to #18.
Number eighteen at Merion is only considered to be such a hard hole because the USGA insists on calling it a par 4. At 520 yards, uphill, and with an overall average score of 4.71 (and 4.74 on Saturday by those who made the cut), however, rational minds know that 18 is really a par 5. But closing with a reachable par 5 without a lake in front of it (for that risk/reward effect) is unthinkable, so it’s a 4, and course par is 70, not 71 as it should be. (Actually, for the record, par should be 72 because the average on the 510 yard 5th hole is 4.68 for the week. If it was a par five, however, that would make for three par fives in a four hole stretch from 2-5)
As for Mickelson, he got the shaft on 18 thanks to the USGA’s horrific set up. Here’s why: After an accurate tee shot, he blistered a fairway wood that hit short of the green, and then rolled on – but his ball kept on rolling until it trickled into some deep hay not 4 feet over the back edge. His chip understandably came up 15 feet short – you could see is club come to an abrupt stop at impact – and he two putted for a par-bogey.
Mickelson’s ball ran forever because the green slopes away from the player even though the hole requires a super long approach that will be running along the ground after it touches down. Thanks to this design flaw, the USGA should have extended the ribbon of rough behind the green so that two well struck shots, like Mickelson’s, would reward the player with a reasonable chance to recover for apar, while the bogeys are made by those who miss the fairway off the tee, or who strike errant second shots.
Going into the final round, Mickelson has a one shot lead over Charl Schwartzel, Hunter Mahan, and Steve Stricker. Another shot back are Justin Rose, Luke Donald, and Billy Horschel, who backed up his 18GIR 67 with 72. Jason Day trails by three after shooting a 68 on moving day and Rickie Fowler is four behind Phil after his Saturday 67. Because Merion is so resistant to low scoring – the low rounds are the three 67s by Fowler, Horschel, and Mickelson – it is unlikely that the winner will come from past this tightly bunched pack of nine players.
Here are Ladbroke’s odds:
-1 Phil Mickelson - 9/4 – With 4 majors and 5 US Open seconds, he should win
E Charl Schwartzel - 9/2 – closed with 4 birdies to win the 2011 Masters by two
E Hunter Mahan – 7/1 – He has posted low final round in many wins
E Steve Stricker – 7/1 – at 46, this would cap off a fine career
+1 Justin Rose – 8/1
+1 Luke Donald – 8/1
+1 Billy Horschel – 14/1
+2 Jason Day – 14/1
+3 Rickie Fowler – 33/1
I like the chances of those who are hitting the ball well. That points towards Mickelson, Stricker, Horschel, and Rose.
Phil Mickelson - 72.2% – 6t
Charl Schwartzel – 66.7%
Hunter Mahan – 61.1% – 42t
Steve Stricker – 77.8 – 2t
Justin Rose – 72.2% – 6t
Luke Donald – 64.8% – 29t
Billy Horschel – 77.8% – 2t
Jason Day – 70.4% – 10t
Rickie Fowler – 74.1% – 5th
Tags: 2013 U.S. Open, Billy Horschel, Charl Schwartzel, Hunter Mahan, Jason Day, Justin Rose, Ladbrokes Steve Stricker, Luke Donald, Merion Golf Club, Phil Mickelson, Rickie Fowler