Is Phil the New Tiger?

Did anybody else notice that Phil Mickelson seemed to be channeling Tiger Woods this past weekend? Unfortunately, it was not by willing the field into submission with his superhuman focus and otherworldly command of the game. (Photo: Telegraph, UK)

     As expected, golf's interim #1 took center stage last week at the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines, but it was his exploitation of the new groove rule that dominated discussion. Phil was one of the handful of players deciding to flop through a legal loophole allowing the use of certain pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 wedges, even though their grooves do not comform to the new standard. Mickelson dug out one of his old college wedges in San Diego – and was subsequently accused of "cheating" by Scott McCarron. Other players spoke out against Phil's decision, as well, but only McCarron – a three-time winner who is 0-for-3 in cuts made this year – publicly uttered the c-word.

    The debate rages over whether the rule itself (as opposed to the exception) is a bad one (most seem to think it is) and whether players who put their Eye-2s on the ball are violating the spirit of the law. But my concern is with how Phil handled himself when asked about the controversy:

We all have our opinions on the matter, but a line was crossed and I just was publicly slandered. And because of that, I'll have to let other people handle that.

When pressed if those "other people" might be his legal team, Mickelson declined to say. That's an understandable response. It's safe. But it strikes me that he was being "handled." What I would rather have heard is something along the lines of, "Who cares what Scott McCarron thinks? I'm following the rules, my conscience is clear, next question." Better still, he could have laughed it off, perhaps saying something that might have drawn a little heat, akin to his "Tiger doesn't like that I can fly it past him now" comment from a few years ago. How about: "If Scott McCarron has a problem with me he can talk to me about it this weekend. Oh, wait ...."

     OK, that's kind of harsh*. But you get the idea. Instead of fun or provocative, Phil's answer sounded canned and a bit defensive. In general, Phil's comments over the weekend that I saw seemed a little flat. And it made me wonder if he may be taking his new responsibility as the current face of the game a bit too seriously. Call it a hunch. It was just one tournament, and the circumstances were out of the ordinary. And he may well be feeling the pressure the world of golf is putting on him.

     But c'mon, Phil! People don't love you because you always say the right thing. They love you because you don't! Because you sometimes speak the way you play: fast and loose, run and gun. "What will Phil say next?" You should be giving those kinds of comments the Winged Foot treatment, whacking them deep into the trees, not conjuring up images of Mr. Burns's pack of lawyers waiting at the ready in a secret compartment behind the wall. Leave that stuff to Eldrick.

     I can appreciate that Phil is trying to do what's best for the game, be a good spokesman and all that. And many of us would love to see him be more of a tiger on the course. But I sure hope he doesn't make the mistake of becoming more like Tiger in the press tent. That's the last thing the game needs right now.

* I have no particular beef with McCarron, who issued this response to the controversy. Though I disagree with his characterization that using the Ping wedges is "cheating," McCarron seems to be a man of integrity who is simply speaking his mind and standing up for a principle. That said, I think his complaints should be directed at golf's ruling bodies for allowing this groove-y mess to take shape, not at the players who are attempting to make the best of it.