Mickelson continues to impress me.......

[Chas]

Excuse my ignorance but I didn't know that Tiger was at Stanford for the one blasted semester - that fact somehow isn't mentioned when the Stanford thing comes up on the tube, at least not while I've been watching. Funny thing that .... If it's true, why did he only stay one semester?

Of course you're right Flap but still it's pretty funny in the present context. I'm really on a learning curve when it comes to the level of some people's dislike for Phil, here on the forum and elsewhere I've discovered. Very interesting.

No, there are no Golfing Gods, and I'm not sure there are any Golfing Demons either.

[flap]

Chas-I have never met or talked to either Phill or Tiger.I work for the #5 newspaper in the US and talk to sports writers all the time for the past 33 years.I have grown to see Tiger is all bussiness in everything he does and Phill for better or worse likes to freewheel more.His wife is the more bussiness brains from my understanding the more scientific mind no doubt {biology major}.Does all this make him a better player than Tiger HELL NO no one is better than Tiger on the course his record speaks for it self.Who is more fan friendly?Phill hands down.I guess you can say rooting for Tiger is like rooting for IBM or the old Yankee teams and Phill is a loveable old Brooklyn Dodger

[photoballmarker]

Photoballmarker: Phil would probably agree with you, and doubtless wishes he had been more competitive against Tiger over the years. It is implied in his recent statement after Doral is it not? Still and all, he's done rather well in his career to date and is on a bit of a roll at the moment. Question is, how long will it last and how many more Majors has he got in him?

All the great champions of my generation had a peer that forced each to new heights. Ali-Frazier, Chamberlain-Russell, Aaron-Mays, Jordan-Bird-Johnson, Nicklaus-Palmer and others. My issue with Phil is he gives out the impression that he is that peer to Woods. That is fine, providing he lives up to the challenge. But, he really hasn't. That being said, he is off to a great start for the year and Woods is not yet playing at his normal form. Phil has closed the gap on the Number One world ranking. "The Masters" is his opportunity to step up to the level of greatness that Tiger has risen. Perform well at "The Masters" and beat Woods and we just may get to see some epic battles between these two. A true Ali-Frazier rivalry. If not, then Tiger will have to continue to measure himself against the Nicklaus record book. And Phil, needs to quit pretending he can play at Woods level.

[PEZGolf]

All the great champions of my generation had a peer that forced each to new heights. Ali-Frazier, Chamberlain-Russell, Aaron-Mays, Jordan-Bird-Johnson, Nicklaus-Palmer and others.

You are right. The Masters will tell us if the Phil-Tiger rivalry is a reality. In the period of 2004-06, when Phil won 2 Masters and the PGA Championship, he showed that he has the "right stuff" since Tiger was in the field for all three. In that 3 year period, Tiger won the Masters and the Open Championship in 2005 and the Open Championship and the PGA Championship in 2006, for a total of four, one more than Phil. That established Phil as Tiger's main rival. Since then, as we all know, Phil has not won a Major. As for the Masters, let us all not forget that Zach Johnson and Trevor Immelman won the last two, so if history repeats itself, neither Tiger nor Phil may win this year. Those two traded Masters victories from 2004 to 2006, but have been shut out since.

[Chas]

Nice posting Ken, but I don't agree that Phil gives the impression that he is the like of Tiger. Maybe you've seen differently, but from what I've observed of Phil he avoids the comparison and focuses on his own game and playing the best that he can on the day - as all good golfers do. He can't help it if stupid reporters keep asking him their stupid questions.

Of course there's a rivalry going on, and so there should be. Should anyone want it otherwise? There's no doubt, not a shred IMO, that in any particular tourney Phil is capable of beating Tiger, but it's a question of probabilities and "extraneous" factors (medical, domestic, who knows what) that might play a role. We all know which of them the odds favor (assuming peak performance), but who's actually gonna win in any one event ....... ? That's what makes it so interesting to watch.

To actually win a tournament at this highest level, to beat all those other gifted and committed players, you have to really, truly believe that you can do it - it's the same in any sport really (I used to follow tennis and squash more than anything else and it's very true there as well). Both Tiger and Phil have that belief.

p.s. nice post Pez as well. Erik should be proud of us ..... ..

[PEZGolf]

Nice posting Ken, but I don't agree that Phil gives the impression that he is the like of Tiger. Maybe you've seen differently, but from what I've observed of Phil he avoids the comparison and focuses on his own game and playing the best that he can on the day - as all good golfers do. He can't help it if stupid reporters keep asking him their stupid questions.

Good post. I believe that both Tiger and Phil like the rivalry. Each pushes the other to do the best they can. Every good competitor likes to be pushed and welcomes the challenge. I believe that each of them feels this way, and it is not a hostile relationship, but rather a normal competitive one. As Arnie and Jack and Gary, they were always trying to beat each other, even in practice rounds! That is a sure sign of pride, which all great Champions have.

[Trav]

I thought this article on golf.com was interesting. It's "19 Reasons to Show Some Love for Phil Mickelson" by Michael Bamberger:

I have no idea whether any of the other events were publicity oriented, but even if they were, the Montgomery prank alone would outweigh it all. Priceless.

[flanagan]

Getting your degree does not mean you are smarter but it does show you have commitment to see it thru.Lets face it Tiger did Stamford just for one semester to play golf at a GOOD school,not to get a degree.Phill's parents made him promise to stay and get his degree which he did.Does not make him better just more commited to his education.

First, it's Stanford, not "Stamford". Second, I wouldn't suggest taking after someone when you are totally and inexcusably wrong. Tiger Woods did not enroll at Stanford for just one semester. Not real smart to make up stuff.

[flanagan]

I don't agree at all that Phil pushes Tiger in any way, or that there is any comparison between their rivalry, as such, and Jack and Arnie. Jack and Arnie truly were in competition with each other, all the time, at everything, but also had an off-course relationship, both personal and competitive. Their relationship was unique, and shaped by a lot of factors, none of which are in play between Tiger and Phil. There's nothing wrong with Phil, but he's no Jack or Arnie to the game of golf.

Jack and Arnie enjoyed playing team matches together and in Ryder Cups, we know Tiger and Phil can't (shame on both of them), and I really think Tiger is to blame for that Ryder Cup pairing going south.

Phil and Tiger have no such relationship, at all. I don't think anyone believes that Tiger is "pushed" by Phil or anyone else. You'll never see them running on the beach together like the schoolgirls Rocky and Apollo in Rocky III. He is pushed by himself and his focus on Jack's titles and being recognized as the greatest golfer ever, and that has never changed.

The media, when it isn't talking only of Tiger, wants there to be a rivalry with someone, anyone, but there really isn't. There are a bunch of guys out there, Phil included (and I think his record puts him at the top of the group), who can challenge Woods, but no co-equal player of Tiger's dominance.

[flap]

My typing is not as sharp as it should be with the n and m next to each other but when you correct someone give a fact to show I am wrong.How many semesters did Tiger do in STAMFORD?

[flap]

By the way he entered college in the end of 95 and declared pro the end of 96 according to his Bio.So shoot me if he got a little bit of semester #2 But do your home work before you accuse someone of making things up pal.

[flanagan]

Given you are too busy wrongly taking after me, like the other guy you wrongly took after, and can neither read nor use your mouse: Tiger entered Stanford in 1994 and left in 1996, played two full college golf seasons, which would be at least 4 semesters (2 years) at Stanford. He had a successful golf career at Stanford, which would have not been possible had he been there one semester. All of this is pretty easy to find, and fairly well known.

It's one thing to go off on someone and be totally wrong, but to repeat the same mistake? First you had him only there one semester, now one and part of two, and have him entering college AFTER he had already had a successful first golf season. Not looking good.

[flap]

Wikipedi states that he entered Stanford in the fall of 95 and was voted Male freshman of the year.It further states he turned pro in Aug of 96.Now would you mind quoting your source of info or am I going after you as you say.

[flanagan]

Just a little difference between "Wiki" and his "bio" which is what you were claiming to quote earlier, but obviously were not.

It's one thing to make an honest mistake, but to make such obviously wrong mistakes and just keep compounding them isn't real swift.

I really don't think your behavior justifies not making you take the time to look things up, but I just can't let you keep looking foolish. Try Tiger's website for a start, maybe you'll believe that. If not, about 30 seconds of searching will get you to Stanford golf archives.

Don't take shots at Woods or fellow forum members when you don't want to take the time to know the facts.

Back to the topic, kind of, I commend Mickelson for finishing college, but Tiger had no reason to continue at Stanford and was right for leaving.

[flanagan]

Good article in Golf World about his win at Doral, and the circumstances. Not a big Phil guy, but his win impressed me. Like the way he's going about his business this year, so far.

[87vert]

I like the way phil plays too. taking risks is what makes it more exciting, especially on tv.