Phil Mickelson had far more reason to be disappointed than Tiger Woods at the conclusion of the 2009 Masters. After scorching the front nine with a record tying 30, he was -10, three ahead of Tiger. But then he dunked his ball into Rae’s Creek on the diabolical par 3 12th, made a double bogey, and dropped back to -8.
If Mickelson had parred 12, he would have remained at -10 heading into the par 5s, both of which he birdied. With three closing pars he would have posted -12, putting intense pressure on Kenny Perry, Angel Cabrera, and Chad Campbell. But ifs don’t count, so Mickelson was left with another tragic loss and nightmares of what could have been.
Tiger, on the other hand, was playing poorly by his own admission and had gotten to -7 through the 11th only by making a series of lengthy par savers on the front nine and an eagle on the 8th, thanks to a 30 footer. He did score two putt birdies on the 13 and 15 and a birdie at the 16th to move into contention at -10. But two closing bogeys dropped him into a tie for sixth, four off the winning score.
In the post round interview Woods talked about his poor play. “I fought my swing all day,” said Woods. His anger was apparent as was his desire to get away from CBS’ poor Bill McAtee as quickly as possible. Here are some excerpts:
BM: With what Phil was doing early how hard was it to stay patient?
TW: You just go about your own business. I was just trying to post an 11 under par, to shoot a 65.
BM: What was the turning point for you do you think?
TW: I hit a good tee shot down 17. The wind was just a little off the right. Just didn’t let it cut back. I was pretty much dead from there.
There was one more question about his knee, which Tiger said was not an issue. 47 seconds after it began, Tiger was on his way back home.
Phil’s interview came next. He was smiling and chatty as usual, giving the impression that his 100 second interview (over twice as long as Tiger’s) could have gone on much longer. If you’d just tuned in, you’d have never known that he’d just thrown away his chance for a third Masters.
BM: How was it playing with Tiger?
PM: It was fun.
BM: And then you put it in the water at 12.
PM: That was really a terrible swing.
BM: So as you look at the leaderboard right now do you still feel as if you have a chance?
PM: Right now, no. These guys are too good. But that doesn’t mean I’m leaving. (Laughter.)
Tiger was contrite as expected while Phil Mickelson was personable, open, honest, and even humorous. Indeed, Phil turned back the clock to give us a glimpse how Jack Nicklaus handled his most crushing losses. The contrast couldn’t have been greater.
And so, as Tiger pursues Nicklaus’ record of 18 majors, it is clear that he’ll never match him in sportsmanship, and that should have some bearing on who is ultimately recognized as golf’s Best Ever.
RSS
11 responses so far ↓
1 kanadianhoser // Apr 14, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sir….I usually read your website for its’ wide ranging and somewhat astute observations concerning professional golf…
I will try and be pithy, but this is not a short topic (comparing Phil/Tiger metrics especially when the “Tiger era” is still ascendant), but I must say that your ‘anti-Eldrick bias’ sometimes gets the best of you in your interpretation of others’ actions…I believe you do make a valid and critical point upon Eldrick’s temperament, but alas you miss the overarching consensus view on Phil’s temperament, which is there in plain sight…Phil was NOT crushed by this latest loss because (as Greg Doyel of CBS Sportsline golf puts it much better than I), the immensely talented Mickleson was relieved and not at all disturbed by the latest tossing away of another seminal moment for Phil’s golf legacy, Phil ironically put it best when he has stated previously that, ‘I can’t believe I just did that, I am such an idiot’…the same could apply to his latest foulup, but certain viewspoints allow Phil to be cut some serious slack upon his present achievements and effort level at critical junctures in golf’s majors..imho….
Another factor that must to be taken into consideration is that many golfers make statements or actions that they regret when they are immediately canvassed about what has just transpired. as Geoff Ogilvy stated last week at Augusta, that maybe an interview pursuant to a bad or frustrating round of golf was not such a good idea for anyone…..Witness Sergio Garcia’s present apology to the powers that be at AGNC…anyhow keep up the good work…
2 BD // Apr 14, 2009 at 11:52 am
No question Jack was one of sports’ all-time greats in terms of sheer sportsmanship. However, I don’t think that in any way clarifies which one — Jack or Tiger — was golf’s “Best Ever.” Arnold Palmer exhibited much more sportsmanship than Ben Hogan, but I don’t think that justifies placing Arnie (7 professional majors) above Ben (9) on the list of all-time greats.
Also, I think you are being unfair in characterizing Tiger’s relatively (compared to Phil) terse demeanor in a post-round interview as an example of poor sportsmanship. When I think of poor sportsmanship, I think of someone who refuses to show respect for his opponent’s accomplishments, calls into question the legitmacy of the outcome, or otherwise exhibits “sour grapes.” Tiger did none of those things. It’s plain as day that any anger or disappointment he was feeling during the post-game interview was directed at himself.
I give credit to Jack for conducting himself so magnificently throughout his career. I give credit to Phil for his levity Sunday in discussing what must have been a crushing disappointment. But tipping my cap to these guys in no way implies that Tiger did anything during that 47-second interview to undermine his claim to the title of golf’s “Best Ever.” In any case, that’s a distinction that should be decided based on how someone plays golf, not how well he performs in interviews.
3 BD // Apr 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Question for Phil Capelle:
Phil, as a regular reader of your blog, I feel like nearly every entry offers some new reason or insight as to why Tiger Woods is, at best, a weak candidate for the title “Greatest Golfer of All Time.” I’m curious to know two things:
First, would you agree that Tiger is at least the SECOND greatest golfer of all time, or do you put him lower down on the list?
Second, what would it take, in terms of career majors (or some combination of majors and regular PGA wins) in order for him to move into the top spot? I guess what I’m asking is, what objective achievements must Tiger attain in order to convince you, by the end of his playing career, that Tiger is indeed the Greatest Golfer of All Time?
I think these are worthwhile questions to address. For what it’s worth, I think Tiger’s 14 professional majors on top of his incredible amateur career place his well ahead of the rest of the contenders for golf’s second-greatest golfer. On the other hand, he hasn’t reached Jack’s level of 18 majors and may never do so. If he ends up with 18 or even 19, then I think Jack would still have a case, but 20 or more would make it very hard to justify calling Nicklaus the greatest ever. Anyway, what do you think?
4 Phil // Apr 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm
kanadianhoser
Thanks for your kind words.I appreciate your taking the time to express your viewpoint. Yes, the ultimate determinant of who is the greatest will be decided on the course. But if the number indicate that the contest is very close, then sportsmanship would become more important. As Grantland Rice said :…it’s how you play the game.”
5 Phil // Apr 14, 2009 at 12:57 pm
BD - Yes, based on the record I would place Woods as the second best of all time. I used to root openly for Woods until it became apparent that his behavior leaves a lot to be desired. This sentiment is being echoed on forums everywhere as fans are getting tired of his petulance. That said, I do try to provide a balance perspective, and have written lots of positive things about Tiger.
As for what it would take for him to become the Best Ever, you will be reading a lot more about that in the future. Thanks again for caring enough to write and for your insights into the game we love.
6 rexfordbuzzsaw // Apr 14, 2009 at 9:57 pm
“Yes, based on the record I would place Woods as the second best of all time. ”
I think there are two arguments to this. Best of All-time and Greatest Champion. Nicklaus is the greatest champion, which cannot be argued until Tiger passes him.
As for Best of All-Time, that is harder to tackle. I look at this as a argument of if two players played 1000 rounds together under the same conditions, who would win more. For me, it is hard to look at the way Tiger played last season or 2000-01 and say that any golfer has ever been more talented than him.
As for personality, I would be careful making judgments about them based on what they say to the press. I think it is pretty clear that Tiger/Phil have carefully crafted media images and are probably completely different when not in the spotlight.
7 BD // Apr 15, 2009 at 7:00 am
I agree with rexford, except I look at it as “greatest golfer” vs. “best golfer.” “Greatest” would be the player who figures the largest in the annals of the game. “Best” would be the most skilled.
I think Tiger is probably the best golfer ever. When you match him up with Jack, the only part of the game in which Nicklaus really surpasses Tiger would be in long irons. Tiger beats Jack in putting, short game, and “trouble” shots.
In terms of greatness, I think Nicklaus has a leg up not only because he’s ahead in majors, but because he’s had an additional 30+ years in which to grow his legend. In the same way no team is going to suddenly eclipse the Yankees as the greatest team in baseball history, it SHOULD take more than 15 years for Tiger to displace Jack at the center of golf’s pantheon.
8 MikeZ // Apr 15, 2009 at 8:12 am
A couple of comments … first, I just discovered this blog and it looks very interesting I look forward to exploring it!
Second, I’m not sure I agree that Jack has always been the consummate sportsman. I’m not really old enough to remember much about Jack in his prime, but I just finished the book “Arnie & Jack.” One of the things I came away with was that Jack wasn’t always the gracious winner/loser that he is today, or became later in his career. He was cold, somewhat terse, and a bit “prickly” when he was younger — certainly compared to the affable Arnie. He really only cared about playing the game and beating his opponents. It’s why the public rejected him at first (and because he was dethroning Arnie, their hero), but also part of what made him so great.
I see today’s Tiger in a similar light. I didn’t view his post-round Masters interview as rude or unsportsmanlike, just very, well, cold, terse, and a bit prickly. Phil, on the other hand, I think is a lot like Arnie was. And I think, frankly, that it was one of the reasons Arnie had so much trouble beating Jack after about 1962 or ‘63. He wasn’t as focused as Jack was (nobody but Tiger ever has been, as far as I can tell). His charm helped him win fans, but not tournaments.
I think a very strong case can be made that Phil’s cheery demeanor is a “symptom” (for lack of a better word) of his focus problems, or his lack of drive, if you will. Tiger just *wants* it a lot more than Phil does, and it shows. That’s one of the big differences between them.
The major point of the “Arnie & Jack” book was that each was a little jealous of the other, and that’s what fueled their rivalry, on and off the course. Jack wanted the love Arnie got; Arnie wanted the victories Jack got. Today, Jack gets plenty of love, but he’ll never be *beloved* the way Arnie was and continues to be.
I think Tiger will become more gracious and open as he matures (having kids will help), and I hope that Phil can squeeze out a couple more majors before he’s through. But I think that 25 or 30 years from now we’ll be thinking about Tiger and Phil in much the same way we think of Jack and Arnie today: One as the greatest golfer ever; the other as one of golf’s greatest ambassadors.
9 Phil // Apr 15, 2009 at 9:18 am
rexfordbuzzsaw
I like you 1,000 round idea. But that should be played over 10-20 years, and could not be completed in two seasons. Over the long haul, Nicklaus’ consistency would be tough to beat. As for personality, I look to their upbringing. I think with Phil, what you see is what he is. With Tiger their is the warrior with a temper and the nice guy family man.
BD #7
I disagree with two components of their games. Nicklaus was far superior with the driver. Allowing for the far from perfect putting surfaces of his day, Nicklaus was just as good with a putter. It was far more difficult back then.I agree with your point that greatness takes time.
MikeZ
Nicklaus was a bit cold on the course in his early days, but not in the post round festivities, which I’m old enough to have witnessed since the beginning of his pro career. I read Arnie & Jack - yours is a good synopsis. I’ve been waiting for Tiger to soften just a tad for years - lets hope he does so sooner than later as it is now costing him points with fans and certain members of the media.
10 BD // Apr 15, 2009 at 9:42 am
Mike - Terrific comments!
For me, it’s easier to connect Jack to Tiger, personality-wise, than it is to make the same connection between Arnie and Phil. Phil may be cheerful and outgoing, but he also comes across (to many people, at least) as kind of quirky. Palmer was a much cooler, more glamorous personality than Phil could ever hope to be. I can easily imagine Jack’s being envious of the adulation heaped on Arnie when he was the master of the golf universe. I can’t imagine Tiger’s being at all envious of Phil’s place in the public’s imagination.
You make a great point about the evolution of Jack’s persona over the years. It’s easy to forget that he was once thought of as somewhat of a bad guy when he first came on the scene. I think that ties in with my point that Jack has had a much longer period of time than Tiger has had to “grow his legend.” We think of Jack today as practically the greatest man the game of golf has ever produced. That idea would have been revolting to a lot of people in the mid-1960s. I don’t see how Tiger can really be expected to measure up to the legend of Jack Nicklaus in 2009, and yet we already place him at nearly that level.
11 MikeZ // Apr 15, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Yes, there are probably more differences than parallels (between Jack/Arnie and Tiger/Phil), but I find the parallels intriguing nonetheless. To me, the biggest difference is that Arnie was truly king of the hill before Jack came along, where as Phil had the *potential* to be the best, but never fulfilled it. And he did not become beloved until later in his career. Personally, I remember not liking him at first simply because he wore his shirt collars up! He struck me as a spoiled rich kid, where Arnie was always viewed as a “working-class” hero.
Good stuff, any way you look at it. Makes for an enjoyable debate!
Leave a Comment