To: TheBigB
I'm glad Mickelson won. But the reality is that Tiger is a giant among ants. Tiger's principle rivals are good players, not great ones. Tiger's final round of 68 was the lowest among the leaders, and he was 7-under after round 1. If Tiger's off-day on Thursday hadn't been so bad, he would have won. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Tiger fan.
Mickelson is so hit or miss, we have no idea what he's going to do. When he wins sometimes it seems as if he does so in spite of himself.
28 posted on
08/15/2005 9:09:48 AM PDT by
ValenB4
("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
To: ValenB4
"Tiger's final round of 68 was the lowest among the leaders, and he was 7-under after round 1. If Tiger's off-day on Thursday hadn't been so bad, he would have won."
Tiger also played in much better conditions than the leaders did on Sunday. If he had played later in the day he may well have won, but he almost certainly wouldn't have scored a 68 on Sunday.
58 posted on
08/15/2005 9:26:27 AM PDT by
Moral Hazard
("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
To: ValenB4
Mickelson is every bit as talented as Tiger, the difference between Tiger and Mick is conditioning and the will to win. Tiger has always had both, Mickelson has figured out that winning isn't everything but it sure the hell beats second. Now if he conditions himself to the level of Vijay and Tiger we'll have another big three for years to come.
To: ValenB4
For the record, Tiger was +5 the first round, -1 for the second to post a 144, right on the cut line. Then he shot -4, -2 on the weekekn to score -2 for the tourney.
But who's counting :)
134 posted on
08/15/2005 12:29:55 PM PDT by
citizen
(History shows Muslims are Jihadists....The real radical Muslims are the live-and-let-live moderates.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson