Eric, I love ya man!! I knew this thread would get you fired up.
Let's see... Tiger shot Par on a course he owns while three other guys posted 69. But that is not my point.
Historically speaking, Tiger (12 majors, never lost when he had a lead, 50+ victories, 70.85 scoring avg #1 in history) had a better chance to win than Phil (two majors, 3 runner ups at US Open, and a rep as a "river boat gambler"). If you were to plunk money dow in Vegas would you put it on Phil at 18 or Tiger at 2?
Tiger had the lead alone after 2 holes. Zach went out and played better. Tiger couldn't keep up with him.
And yes I do listen to the podcast. Every week you bag on Phil for everything under the sun. You probably blame him for global warming too!
Who among us didn't think it was over when Tiger took the lead after #2? If not then then when Tiger made that eagle with 5 to go. Who didn't think here he comes. Zach Johnson thought the same thing. I just think that it is more significant that Tiger didn't catch Zach than Phil blowing the Open when looked in a Macro sense.