How were you able to extrapolate from the link that Phil Mickleson's decision to give some Super Bowl tix to a father and his son was phony or a fake?

My wife and I both thought the gesture was awesome. So were you of the opinion that Phil is a phony?

The link changed after we posted to become a far more generic version of the story.

Did you listen to the podcast? I think Alan and I both came down on the side of "phony." He made a show out of it when he needn't have.

My wife and I both thought the gesture was awesome. So were you of the opinion that Phil is a phony?

Your comments to the effect that Ernie hasn't won any majors since Tiger was on the scene... and in the same tournament...

Yeah, you got us there. We didn't say Ernie hadn't won any tournaments, just majors since Tiger came around. How can 2002 seem so long ago? In our defense, both of Ernie's victories came while Tiger was overhauling his swing and the general point remains: Ernie's success rate dropped significantly post-Tiger. He admits it as well, hence the infamous "three year plan."

P.S. Man was 1997 a long time ago. Congressional? Gee whiz.

Want to rethink that?

Nice thing to do, but I would hardly call it "classy". It would have been classy if we didn't know about it. So much of what Phil does seems so staged and manerred - even his interminable conversations with Bones which to me sound as if they're designed for an audience. I think Bones is paid by the word. Phil's "Happy Mothers' Day" thing to the cameras last year was exactly the kind of thing that makes a lot of people see him as a phony. By focusing on others, a person in his position is really trying to draw attention to himself.