| And
why do these same sportswriters continue to bombard Mickelson with question
after question about his major tournament losing streak (currently at
41)? Somebody should inform these guys that it isn't easy to win a major
– especially with Tiger in the field.
There's a reason the
PGA uses the slogan "These Guys Are Good" in their television
commercials. Because they are. All of the players on tour are good. Mickelson
– the second ranked player in the world - happens to be one of the
best. Whether or not he ever wins a major.
And if he does win
the PGA Championship at Hazeltine National this weekend, does that feat
make him better than he is already? Bob Tway won the PGA in 1986; Jeff
Sluman won it in 1988 and Mark Brooks in '96. They're all part of the
"These Guys Are Good" crowd but none are better golfers than
Phil Mickelson.
I guess when you're
the second best golfer in the world and haven't won a major title you
become easy prey for sportswriters. But some of the commentary boarders
on the ridiculous.
On one internet sports
site, a writer claimed Phil Mickelson's golf career is comparable to Anna
Kournikova's tennis 'career'. Now I like to squeeze Anna K. into a sports
column as much as the next guy, but this analogy is just absurd.
A Mickelson-Kournikova
comparison begins and ends with the fact that both have noticeable breasts.
(An unsightly feature in Phil's case).
Mickelson has twenty-one
professional tour victories and is always one of the favorites at the
majors. Kournikova has no tennis wins and is never considered a front-runner
in any of tennis' majors.
Phil has amassed over
16 million dollars in career earnings since joining the tour in 1992.
Anna makes her money from internet stock options and sports bra billboards.
How in the world can any knowledgeable sportswriter call Phil Mickelson
"the Anna Kournikova of the PGA Tour"?
Another online sportswriter
attributes Mickelson's major disappointments to the fact that Lefty never
swears on the course. How the %$#@! does acting like a %$#@! drunken sailor
give you a better chance at winning the PGA Championship? That's %$#@!
bull %$#@!.
Take it from somebody
who's been spewing four-letter words at that tiny, white, dimpled ball
for years: it doesn't help. All it gets you is a dirty look from the course
Marshall.
The article implies
that he's not as successful as he could be because he smiles too much.
And that he doesn't demonstrate the kind of grit and determination required
to win a major.
Somebody needs to
enlighten this writer. Phil smiles because he is a young millionaire who
plays golf for a living. He smiles because there is still plenty of time
to collect his share of championship trophies. And he smiles because his
wife is a hottie.
There isn't a single
sportswriter in this country that wouldn't trade places with Phil Mickelson
in a heartbeat.
Not to mention the
many professional golfers that would love to be in his golf shoes.
I wonder why, when
Jim Kelly was introduced at the Pro Football Hall of Fame induction ceremony,
nobody mentioned that he is one of the "best quarterbacks never to
win a Super Bowl".
Sift through the many
tributes written after the death of Ted Williams and you'll find that
not one described the Splendid Splinter as "the best baseball player
never to win a World Series".
So why is Mickelson
constantly criticized for what he has not yet accomplished on the golf
course?
I don't think that
golf fans share the sportswriter's major obsession with Mickelson. They
root for Lefty to win because he is a great golfer whose shot-making ability
is exciting to watch. And they like Lefty because – well –
he's a very likable guy (and he doesn't curse on the golf course).
I hope Phil Mickelson
wins the PGA Championship this week. Then the sportswriters can get back
to calling Colin Montgomerie "the best golfer never to win a major".
*********************
|