PalmIII

Recent, as in the last week, law school graduate. Going into the investment banking industry.

The key is not so much Mickelson winning, but where he won. The Players, as Miller referenced yesterday, is not the typical Mickelson style tournament, as it is all about position golf. I think Butch will help Mickelson a great deal in the upcoming, and future, US Opens. If Mickelson can learn to keep the ball down in the wind, something Tiger obviously can do, or he can get a tame weather week, Mickelson could easily complete the career Grand Slam in the next 3-4 years.

They need a story, so they basically are making wild assertions. Basically, throwing something against a wall to see if it sticks because professional golf this season has not been as exciting as in years past.

Precisely, ClubSwinger. And, I am not even going that far. Again, were Mickelson to have a 3 or 4 year run where he won more majors than Tiger, where he won a couple of money titles, it would be a rational argument to make that, FOR THAT PERIOD, Mickelson would be better than Tiger. Mstuk, there was a period in the late 70s, early 80s, where Tom Watson supplanted Jack Nicklaus as the best player in the world. If you look at it from their overall body of work, of course Nicklaus was better. And, that scenario is not exactly the same, because Nicklaus was on his way down and Tiger could certainly retake Phil for status of best player in the world AT THAT MOMENT, I believe Jack won the '80 PGA and the '81 US Open, probably wrong about the years, but Watson, overall DURING THAT 5 year period or so, was the best in the world. Let me make it clearer for you. I am saying starting over, from say 2008 until 2011, if Mickelson had a better run than Tiger, over that 4 year period he would be the better golfer, and in all probability, the best golfer in the world. And, I believe that is what Phil is shooting for. But, NOBODY is saying that Phil can ever overtake Tiger, OVERALL. Merely, for a 3 or 4 year span.

For me, GD > GM. I find the major previews in Golf Digest to be superior, as well as the product reviews and golf course rankings. I agree that GD has become too instruction heavy, and I do enjoy Feherty's articles. Regardless, I still prefer Golf Digest.

Not necessarily taking over the official rankings as #1, but be the man. As you said, Tiger has a commanding lead, but if Mickelson could string a couple of years together where he won more majors than Tiger, maybe win a couple of money titles, then I think he would be considered on par with Tiger, or even better, in the short term. Obviously Phil is not going to match Tiger's overall accomplishments, which he said himself. But, I feel confident that Butch wants to take Tiger and Haney down if at all possible. I mean, this might become personal for Harmon, which could be great for Mickelson.

First of all, it has to be a huge slap in the face to Rick Smith, who has been Mickelson's instructor for what seems like forever. Conversely, Smith has made a lot of money trading on his association with Lefty. For example, Smith has an endorsement deal with Ford. That certainly would not have happened if he had not been with Lefty. However, they are more than coach/player. Mickelson and Smith are real good friends, not to mention business partners in some deals. Also, I attend the Masters every year, and I tend to follow Mickelson, whilst sneaking a peak at Amy every now and then. Smith's wife seems to always be in tow at the ANGC, along with Smith and Lefty's parents. I have always wondered if Mickelson's dad owns that golf binocular company, or a % of it, that he advertises on his hat every day he is out on the course. It would seem logical. At any rate, I think this is a great move for Lefty, because you know that Harmon wants a pupil that can dethrone, if only temporarily, Tiger as the best in the world. And, it will not be Adam Scott.

It should be noted that VPI won the ACC Championship in men's golf on Sunday. They basically came out of nowhere, as traditionally VPI does not have that strong of a program, at least not compared to older ACC programs like Clemson, Tech, and Wake. I thought it was great that the Hokies were able to pull one out at Old North. Definitely did not see that one coming.

I have no written source on the matter, but I heard it on the Golf Channel about two weeks ago. This was during the PGA, last year I believe, when Pelz said something to the effect that Mickelson was better from 150 yards in and when Mickelson was "on" nobody could beat him, or something along those lines. That you can google and find rather easily. However, the Golf Channel stated that, when asked if Mickelson's short game, which is not the same as anything from 150 yards in, obviously, was better than Tiger's, Mr. Woods responded that it probably was. I think Tiger merely meant that Mickelson was more imaginative around the greens, and in the closer areas. But, again, that was said on the Golf Channel, and you are not going to find that in print, or in a quote made by Tiger, which you alluded to, earlier.

Actually, Tiger agreed that Mickelson has a better short game, or was superior from 100 yards in. Of course, Tiger does not let that stop him from winning tournaments.

Word of mouth is some of the best advertisement available, and I am certain the original poster will tell everyone he knows about this. Now, that alone is not going to cause a million more drivers to be sold, but it can't hurt. It is not that Nike would not have acted on this without the media attention, merely that they probably would not have found out without it. Bob Wood calling you is very impressive. Good job by Nike.

Couples' back is acting up again, and it has not been determined whether or not he will compete in the Masters next week.

We get that you are a Mickelson fan, but Titleist had no problem letting Mickelson out his deal, only 5 months after he won his first major. They could have kept him under contract for another year, but they had no problem with him bolting when he did. Same thing with Els. There was nothing to stop Titleist from keeping Mickelson and Els on staff for one more year, nothing at all. Both players signed these things called "contracts." They were bound to Titleist, and only Titleist's allowance to break the contract, which Mickelson paid a small penalty for, but not Els, allowed them to ink with Callaway. If they wanted to keep both of them around, they could have. They merely chose not to pay what Callaway would, and I don't blame them. Now, obviously, you are severely biased, "Philfest," shocking I know, but Mizuno's most popular irons are still the MPs, today's 37 which is basically the old 33 or 17. And, as for Titleist irons, those who purchase the bulk of them are not buying those perimeter-weighted, oversize, monstrosities that Callaway sells by the truckload, such as Titleist's 775 and 775 irons, but Titleist's 695 line. Take off the Lefty blinders, Spicoli.

The theory being that packing more golf into coverage is preferential to championship ceremonies. The networks and the Tour have done focus groups on this, and they know what people want to see. Viewers don't care about seeing Al Smith, Honda VP of Sales, handing over a trophy to Joe Blow, or even Tiger Woods, for that matter. They want to see action, so they try to set up the tee times for such acommodations, even though they have an agreement that, "time permitting," the Cooper Tires Ce o can hand over the sword to Vijay. But, I don't care to see the presentation, and neither does the majority of the people who tune into golf on Sundays.

http://www.davidduval.org/stats.htm On this page is the following information regarding Duval's eligibility for this season and the the '08 season. He is good until then without making another cut. One-time 1 year exemption can be granted to a tour player that is in the top 50 all-time career money list. bullet One-time 1 year exemption can be granted to a tour player that is in the top 25 all-time career money list (Duval for 2007). bullet (Note: David Duval is currently ranked 24th on the all-time career money list, so he will still have the Top 50 exemption in his back pocket if he needs it at the end of the 2007 season. We are hopeful that he will not need to use that additional exemption, but it is there if necessary because of his stellar performance in the late 1990's and early 2000's.)

Even with the faulty swing, and that is fine, he could have punched out instead of trying to be hero, which was my main point. Second, no, Tiger does not have a better life. Tiger has more money, but I would definitely prefer Phil's life to Tiger. If you do not follow golf, you do not know who Phil Mickelson is. But, you definitely know who Tiger Woods is. More or less my point. I would much prefer to make Lefty $$$, and live his life, than Tiger's. And, comparing Amy to Elin is splitting hairs. I would prefer being married to the American blonde, myself.

I agree with most regarding Mickelson's response. I found it interesting that he said more should emulate his approach instead of criticizing it, since Mickelson's failures have been in larger tournaments. His style of play, which has become more conservative in recent years as opposed to 20s Mickelson, plays better when there is more room for error, obviously. At any rate, hitting driver was questionable on the 72nd at Winged Foot, but I understand his logic. His next shot was where I had the biggest problem with the ending. Again, for the most part, I agree with him and his stance and opinions. And, at the end of the day, who has a better life than Lefty?

Didn't Mickelson change irons before the Ryder Cup, approximately one or two weeks after he switched over to Callaway?

Take it down a notch. You are using faulty logic saying, "I am better because I play X." I am above average, and because I am above average, I choose to play forged clubs that are the modern day equivalent of blades, not the other way around. Not true blades in the Hogan Apex or Wilson Staff since of the past, but fairly close. If I had a 15 handicap, I would not be touching these sorts of irons. As I said, Callaway has been getting great reviews. And, AGAIN, nobody is saying what Mickelson plays does not have an effect on sales, merely that it does not really come into play with better amateur golfers. Nobody who has is scoring in the mid 70s, consistently, is going to buy a club because Ernie Els uses it. They are trying to improve their game, and if what Els and Mickelson use works for them, then more power to them.

"Their" clubs was in reference to Mizuno. Sorry about the passive language. However, the majority of Titleist iron users are better players, as Titleist sells more of their forged, or close to forged, models, than those cavity-back giant monstrosities. Callaway, in comparison, has the market cornered on those types of clubs, and, overall, sells more irons a year than Titleist. As for who makes better equipment, I definitely think Titleist does, but I have never liked Callaway equipment. Cosmetically attractive, but not the same quality as other makers, in my opinion. Coincidentally, or maybe not, none of the Tour's big names had deals with them. Now that they have Els and Lefty on the bag, and their woods and some of their irons are getting better reviews, perhaps Callaway is making dramatic improvements, or at least in perception. However, I have never met a club pro or a store salesman that was pushing a single digit player to buy Callaway irons. But for people who can work a ball, as in draw or fade, on demand, and those who are above-average for the amateur world, Titleist makes great products with their woods and irons like their 695s. I had a set of Lefty's 731s for a while, and enjoyed those, too. That is not being a snob so much as being honest. At any rate, what really matters is that Els received more money from Callaway than he could have hoped to receive from Titleist, and he can pretty much play anything and be just as good.

It is really quite simple. Els had one year left on his deal with Titleist, and his agent understood that he could get more money from Callaway, just like Phil did. It was time for negotiations, and Titleist was not going to offer Els more money, which Callaway would, and may have not been keen on offering Els the same money, so when Els' agent said he could get a better deal, Titleist showed him the door. The people, like myself, who play Titleist irons and woods don't do it because Els or, at one time, Mickelson or Love plays them. We do it because, for the most part, we are above-average players. You don't see Mizuno worrying about signing names to deals, either. Their clubs are for guys who have 5 handicaps and below, basically. Callaway, by comparison, sells their clubs to the masses, where they make their money, and they want the big named endorsement guys. Els is a desirable endorsement for them. Titleist makes their lion's share on balls, so they really don't care who they have with their name on their bag.

I believe the originator of the thread was being facetious regarding chaing the format to make a point, that Tiger is given way too much attention and it is annoying. But, the reality is, the networks think that is what people want to see, and the ratings are higher when Tiger is playing. And, once he was eliminated, and there was nobody else out there who was compelling to the US viewer, they had to do something. Basically, filler. Match play is a nightmare for the networks, and I will admit I don't watch it once the big names are knocked out. Great view from Wednesday-Friday, but usually Friday it gets boring.

When you consider that GIR is not that much different for the winner each week and the guy who finishes in 15th place, I think you have to go with putts. I have heard many times that, basically, the guy who putts the best wins. If you are putting well, you are going to erase the bad fairly easily. Also, if GIR was so important, guys like Fred Funk and Jay Haas would have won much more over the years.

Mickeslon did the same thing when Tiger beat him at Doral a couple of years ago, which was extremely uncharacteristic for him. Tiger basically does it every time he is in contention, but does not win, which is a rarity. But, he just won't talk under those circumstances, and the media obviously disapproves, but never says anything. Basically, they don't want to get on his bad side. It is amazing that he controls the entire golf media, and they are afraid of him. Everyone is too scared of being blacklisted by his camp, which I find amazing.

I think you took him out of context. I think he was either saying: A) Tiger has a fairly rigid schedule that he adheres to, certain events he plays or doesn't around the world w/o much deference to them being on the PGA Tour, except for the Buick in Cal and now the tournament in DC, which is basically a Tiger Tour. B) Along the same lines, since Tiger has such a limited schedule and could work out something with certain sponsors, i.e. the Buicks, DC, Memorial, so on and so forth could cease being a member of the PGA Tour. However, I sincerely doubt he would want to publicly draw the ire of Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player, the guys who had the "Big 3" shows now on the Golf Channel. IMG and McCormack approached those 3 about starting something, unofficially, away from the PGA Tour, and those guys could have crippled the PGA Tour, had they been so inclined, but they chose to go the traditional route in growing the game, and we are all the better for it. But, more importantly, Tiger would be crucified in the world media for being so selfish as to try and monopolize an entire sport, something nobody has ever attempted to accomplish. Tiger Woods has not made a non-calculated move since he turned professional. He is not going to start now.