Phil Mickelson, "The Loveable Loser"???

I'm guessing they said that just because for so many years Tiger dominated while Phil didn't win much. He was always close but didn't get the wins. I agree it doesn't really fit anymore though. Phil's one of my favorite tour players. 

I don't think he's calling him a "loser" per se.

It's the fact that his career is defined by his losses as much as, if not more than his wins, very much like Greg Norman.

I dont know very many people who would call Phil a loser.  Winning a major forever takes him off of that list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bull worker 

One of the genius Yahoo! sports writers made a comment when Phil Mickelson won Pebble Beach.  He states that Mickelson, "America's loveable loser wins Pebble Beach..."  I know not everyone loves the awe shucks persona of P.M., but I wouldn't consider him a "loser"? Four majors, three are Masters, and 40+ tournament wins.  He's accomplished a lot more than the current "#1" in the world. 

The yahoo writer is the real loser.  Phil has accomplished more in any one year of his career than that guy will in his whole life.  And I'm not even a Phil fan.

Phil, in the past, had just barely lost a number of high profile tournaments, especially between him and Tiger.  He was usually very gracious in his losses and I guess earned the moniker "Love able Loser".  In looking at his career he's done well for himself with his last victory placing him in the Top 10 all time for tournament wins and #1 left handed golfer in PGA Tour history. 

I think he got that moniker at the 2002 US Open at Bethpage. He battled Tiger and lost, but really won the crowd's support.

Yeah, I don't think the writer was calling Phil a loser per se, rather that, when he lost, he did it with relative class and good humor.

Agreeing to be interviewed after blowing up at the US Open, was an example. On the other hand, he has not agreed to be interviewed after some bad rounds, which is his prerogative.  But, shows he's maybe not always so loveable in defeat.

I'm a lefty, so I've followed Phil with interest throughout his career, as he is obviously a very talented guy and has done well in the Tiger Era.  He also had the class to admit that he, and every other tour player making big bucks, owes Tiger a debt of gratitude for how he has expanded the popularity, and purses, of pro golf.  He is often compared to Arnold Palmer, who had his Army of adoring fans, even though he lost some heartbreakers and was outdone often in the Jack era.

But, Phil can be schmaltzy sometimes and likes to hear himself talk sometimes.

I remember seeing a video of Phil telling a joke to a group of guys (in a practice round or Pro Am or something) and the joke was pretty awful, but everyone busted a gut as if it were the best joke they'd ever heard.  I suppose it's easy to develop the idea that you're pretty awesome when you are surrounded by people who think you can do no wrong.  Some have called him FIGJAM (F**k I'm Good, Just Ask Me) which is an indication that his ego is not in any danger of being described as small.  

His DVD's, secrets of the short game, were pretty helpful for me, but part of me felt like he came off a bit arrogant.  But, more than that, he came off as someone who is truly passionate about the game.

He's endured quite a bit of hardship the past few years, with health problems for his wife, mother and himself.  A lawsuit with some nitwit in Canada who says Phil has an illegitimate child and his wife had an affair with Michael Jordan  He's handled all that with class too.

So, in the end, I'd say I'm a fan. I would like to see him win a US Open, which is the one he says he covets more than any other and which has eluded him so far.  He's definitely going to the Hall of Fame.  So, loveable? Some say yes, others may so no, but loser?  Uh, no.

To me, Phil is the modern-day Arnie in that he is almost as well known for the tournaments he lost than what he won - Arnie's 1966 US Open & Phil's 2006 US Open being one example. (Though it's one thing having a one-shot lead on 18 versus a seven-shot lead with nine to go & not getting it done)

They both frittered away a lot of tournaments, but they both also had lots of fan support & are very likable, so they had/have their legion of fans. As well, both are known for a 'go for broke' style of play.

But neither were losers. That's a bit harsh.

I can definitely see how some of the stuff comes across as arrogant but I took it the other way of being straightforward. At of times people hem and haw (there are lots of ways to do something) while I thought Phil was just telling it as he saw it ("Those guys are crazy"). Arrogant is Johnny Miller saying I always hit my shots +-1 yard when I was on. Granted Johnny was probably pretty close to that on those good rounds....
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilinguru 

 

 

His DVD's, secrets of the short game, were pretty helpful for me, but part of me felt like he came off a bit arrogant.  But, more than that, he came off as someone who is truly passionate about the game.