Tiger and Phil (A Post for Josh Terebelo)

If you have no idea what the title of this post is about, you are probably not going to be at all interested in the link I am posting.

Here is that link. A nice little ESPN The Magazine, Rick Reilly essay imploring viewers of Thursday and Friday's U.S. Open head-to-head between Tiger and Phil to cheer for Phil. Reilly argues that you must choose, to not choose he says, is "unamerican."

Here are some samples:

Rooting for Tiger Woods is like rooting for Justin Timberlake to get lucky, Exxon to hit a gusher, Bill Gates to find a twenty on the sidewalk. It takes no imagination. It takes no courage. What's the point? It's 1-to-5 he's going to win anyway, whether you cheer or not. Makes no difference to him. It's like rooting for erosion.

Rooting for Phil Mickelson, on the other hand, is like rooting for the salmon to eat the bear. It takes faith. It takes forgiveness. It takes Tums. Mickelson is a roller coaster in an earthquake. One shot will be so inspired you'll cover your mouth in astonishment. The next will be so Spam-brained you'll slap your forehead in disbelief. It's like watching a blind guy jaywalk across Hollywood and Vine. Your fist is in your mouth the whole way.

Here's how to tell them apart: Woods has the Joe Weider body, the Iron Byron swing, the Green Beret mind. Mickelson's body leans toward Sara Lee. He's carried two drivers—one for hooks and one for slices—but none for straights. He can get it up and down out of an ice cream cart, which is a good thing, because he's there a lot. He might be the only athlete whose catch phrase is, "I'm such an idiot!"

Besides, rooting for Phil is so much more interesting. Tiger's in the fairway. Phil's in a lady's Prada! Tiger's on the green. Phil is banking it off a pine, a boulder and a San-o-let! Tiger makes a 2-footer for a what-else-is-new 4. Phil makes a seagoing 30-footer for a did-you-see-that 4! It's the difference between watching Dow Jones and Indiana Jones.

Look, Tiger needs this major like Yao needs stilts. There'll be a dozen more after this. He doesn't need to prove he's better than Phil. We know. Not counting Stableford or match-play tournaments, these two have entered 157 pro tournaments together. Tiger is 104-50-3 against him. That's not a rivalry. That's avalanche versus twig. That's more one-sided than a Venezuelan election.

My Take: I get what Reilly is saying and it's compelling. I love watching both of these golfers. It is hard not too root for Tiger though, because you frequently see him pull off such amazing shots that you feel you're watching poetry. Phil is the everyday man with a surreal skill set of his own. I like his personality more and find him more accessible and engaging and I wish him well. Given this, who am I going to root for? I still have to go with Tiger, because to me, watching him golf is like watching Bill Clinton give a campaign speech in 1992. It is pure genius and there is something compelling, even better than a good story line, about watching someone who is the best at what they do go out and simply do that. It's like watching Jordan or Gretzky back in the day, only better. Like most people, I will probably always have a softspot in my heart for the guy whose meltdown at Winged Foot in 2006 led to memorable T.V. lines, such as Ari's Temple rant ("I'm melting down like Phil Mickelson at Winged Foot!!!") on "Entourage." However, when push comes to shove between the softspot and my desire to watch pure genius at work, I have to go with genius.