(ALMOST) ONE FOR THE AGES
And really, it was.
Like anyone interested enough in the game to be reading this website, I’ve watched a number of U.S. Opens over the years, and while par as “the standard of excellence” has never particularly bothered me, it is a recipe less likely to produce high drama than, say, a pre-Hootie Masters. Of course, this Open cannot be considered the highest of drama in the sense that by the final green, Lucas Glover faced a relatively easy three putt for victory after Ricky Barnes near-perfect run at birdie somehow stayed on the high side. But the events leading up to that point were so special that for the second straight year, the Open succeeded both in getting me out of my seat and making me feel goosebumps – reactions which I long thought the USGA to be ideologically opposed to.
Other then the new champion, the centerpiece of the entire enterprise had to be Phil Mickelson, playing for the final time before the start of his wife Amy’s treatment for breast cancer, in the event he most covets, in a city where his fan base’s exuberance is borderline irrational. Seemingly destined to linger in the lower reaches of the top 10 after playing Monday’s front nine in a one-over-par 36, Mickelson made birdie at the 12th, then a spectacular eagle at the par-5 13th to rather suddenly launch himself into a tie for the lead. But sadly, in a chapter which has been written several times before, his putter betrayed him late, including a crucial three-putt at the 15th and a missed six-footer at the 17th – and once again Mickelson was left on the outside looking in despite having made a truly gutsy and emotional run.
And then there was David Duval.
It’s hard to say that a potential Duval win would have been the greatest Major championship story of all time, but had such a victory actually come to pass, it would certainly have placed itself squarely in the conversation. This, after all, is a man whose interest had clearly waned during his first several years in the golfing wilderness, and whose occasional flashes of one-round form have all-too-often been followed by a next-day implosion. That Duval kept the wheels on right into round four was impressive. That he managed not to collapse after carding an early, hard-luck triple bogey at the 3rd (where his tee ball embedded under a bunker lip) was even moreso. But his mid-back nine run of birdies at the 14th, 15th and 16th, to lift himself into a tie for the lead, was epic stuff indeed, screaming of an almost impossible degree of self-confidence at a point where nearly anyone else who’d walked his particular road would quite likely have cracked.
I have watched Duval in person twice in the last three years and each time come away convinced that his troubles were 90% mental; the physical tools, it appeared to me, were still largely intact. His 2nd-place finish at Bethpage – which prompted a 740-spot jump (!) in his World ranking (from 882 to 142) – must provide the sort of confidence boost necessary to lift Duval back among the game’s best, for after putting together four days of inspired, world-class golf, it would seem almost inconceivable that he might now tumble back into the abyss.
As for Lucas Glover, what can we say that hasn’t already been covered to death? The 2007 Presidents Cup team member has long been viewed as a potential star by his peers, but never quite found a way to lift his game above the single win level (that being the 2005 Walt Disney Classic) – that is until a splendid 8 iron at the 70th set up the crucial birdie which, combined with both Mickelson and Duval’s bogeys at the 71st, lifted Glover to a two-shot victory.
Much like Duval’s, Glover’s future suddenly looks pretty bright right about now.
And finally, for the second year in a row, serious kudos to USGA course set-up guru Mike Davis, whose desire to see some dashes of excitement led to some shortening of final-round tees (e.g. the 127-yard 14th and 354-yard finisher) and some opportunities for drama that were, for decades, largely eschewed by his blue-blazered predecessors. Whereas in the past, we looked to upcoming U.S. Opens wondering how hard the USGA could possibly make things, now we can anticipate opportunities for them to make it thrilling. It’s an approach that turned an utterly mundane Torrey Pines layout into a strong venue in 2008, and a solid-but-waterlogged Bethpage into a Sunday classic in ’09.
It was far too long in coming, but its value, both now and for the long-term, is significant.
Reader Comments (1)
Twelve shell beans are amazonite beadsexcavated because of Riwi, a nice coop in any Devonian aquamarine beadslimestone part in your Kimberley from Gulf Projects. Are coral beadsall broken phrases from tusk shells belonging to the choose garnet beadsDentaliidae and yet, for the reason that i doubt any of this broken paua shell jewelryphrases range from the posteriorWholesale Beads portion of the shell, it is not necessarily potential to further classify typically the Glass Beadsshells other than expression construct y might possibly work for 6 kind with the the entire family Dentaliidae, Fustiariidae not to mention Laevidentaliidae (R. Kendrick pers. comm. )#). Virtually all are reclaimed by depths relating to 15 not toTurquoise Beads mention 25cm following light (stratigraphic versions iii, 4, versus & vi through Sum 3) as they are affiliated with radiocarbon occassions of about 20 000 numerous years. That comes archaeological information comprises of material artefacts, ochre, area not to mention freshwater mussel shell (Balme 2000). Such excavation versions are actually following wholesale"> glass beadsa definitive hiatus through deposit relating to stratigraphic films ii not to mention iii. Explanation for the purpose of cut down practise not to mention sedimentation during the last shamballa jewelsglacial the most (LGM) happens to be vastly discussed through important not to mention north-western Projects (O'Connor & Veth 2006). Typically the have an impact on of this LGM will likely rose quartz beadsare generally seemed a lot of early on
paua shell jewelrythrough Australian wilderness sections whereby you will find proof reduction in covering the water amount from 37 000 prohibited (Hiscock & Wallis 2004).