I have to disagree with you on this one. Going for the win would have been to hit a low iron around the trees, hit a good approach and give himself a putt to win. It's to easy and it's been said too often..."at least he had the guts to go for the win...". It was "going for a big chance to lose it".

He didn't have the option of hitting a low iron around the trees, unless he wanted to punch out on to the fairway. That would have left him with a long approach, and getting there in two would have been nearly impossible.

Boy ain't playing for no ties, boy playing to win.

Phil simply made the decisions of a sixteen year old on the final hole.

At least he matured some.

"Boy ain't playing for no ties, boy playing to win." Who talks like this, AI's posse? Are you in AI's posse?

I agree that sympathy is there, but only for the way he handled himself after. Unlike Bill Clinton, who "did not have sex with that woman," Phil admitted what the world's non-soccer sports fans already knew: that he is an idiot. As are we all.

He tried to hit a 3 iron over those trees? That was crazier than Bay Hill, crazier than anything he's ever done before. That's a new level of crazy.

Ron-Mon: Spoken, or written, like the true nerd you appear to be.

You appear unable to understand or appreciate the vernacular.

Nor do you appear to understand or appreciate a true gambler's instincts.

Sit back and smirk your little smirk, and let the men take the bold risks.

I just don't think that Phil can help himself. I have always said from covering Tiger, Barry Bonds, and other for ESPN that great athletes think differently than the rest of us. I think Phil thinks differently than other great athletes.

You can take a humorous exploration of that thought process Inside The Mind Of Phil Mickelson.

Cheers!

TIM

You had better watch it. You are on a slippery slope. Today you are saying nice things about Phil Mickelson, in two weeks you may be saying nice things about Michelle Wie.

Hey Tim, what would have you said if Michelle Wie would have done this on the 72nd hole?

Jim, I've already said a bunch of nice things about Michelle Wie.

Brad, she doesn't have the history of Mickelson. There's no comparison there.

sticks and stones, tiny tim, sticks and stones. What from my comments makes you want to judge manhood from little pictures? I hope the hemrhoids swell down a bit, and that your pain decreases, too.

I agree with Jim. Double standard.

That isn't playing to win. And I was rootin' for the guy. That was simply gambling. That was hoping you would pair up on the River.

It started on 16 when he tried to punch that utility club 140 yards. Even a Sunday hack wouldn't try to punch a utility club out of 5 1/2 inch rough. Three feet later he hits iron to the middle of the green. 2 stroke lead, you hit iron to start with.

18 has no excuse at all. How many times do you go to the Driver well? Keep in mind, if the tent wasn't there he may have been 2 fairways over. (if that's how you carve, stay away from my turkey) That isn't trying to win. That's Tin Cup.

9th inning, down a run, bases loaded, 2 out, am i trying to hit a home run or just making good contact or walk? 4th quarter, 4th down, losing by a touchdown, a yard for the first down. Am I going to go long post or do I try a short, high percentage pass ro run up the middle for the first down?

C'mon, what Phil did wasn't trying to win. In that situation, playing the percentages is trying to win.

Anyone who has ever played the game to less than a 20 handicap knows that when the Driver is going bad, it ain't coming back in all probability. Certainly not under that pressure and those conditions.

He didn't play to win. In fact, at the end, he wasn't playing golf at all.

He was hackin' just like the rest of us.

Jim, I know it's difficult to understand the psyche of someone like Mickelson.

My opinion is that whatever this thing is inside him, that which makes him take courses of action that seem foolish to everyone else, is the very thing that made him great in the first place.

It is often his downfall, obviously, and perhaps there is something else there as well, something darker. He likes to put himself on the edge, and I think a part of him embraces failure. If he was a REAL gamber, he would either be fabulously wealthy or living on the street. That's just the way he is; it doesn't particularly suit his chosen profession very well, but I think he would be like that whatever he did.

I'll take the gambling Phil; what fun to watch. He knows from whence his bread is buttered. The real winner in this tourney was the USGA; they proved they can trick any course up to make these guys shoot whatever they dictate. Heck, next year maybe they'll narrow the fairways to 20 yds, grow the primary to 8", and double cut & roll unwatered greens every day, so the winning score is 15 over. Where does it stop? These guys complain about standards for equipment; what's their standard for golf courses, hmmmm?

The Open is special Wyomick. Since '63 it's been about 'the last man standing'. Most of the PGA courses do have standard setups. It gets old seeing -17 win every weekend.

The Open is the only real endurance test other than The British when it's rainy and windy.

It's once a year and though they probably all get real frustrated, these players love it. In my estimation, it is the toughest Major to win. It rewards the best. And the leaderboard usually reflects that.

It has the same effect on fans as a crash does in NASCAR. You hate to see it but you can't stop yourself from watching.

BTW, this is my first ever blog so bear with me.