It’s hard to imagine there were many golf fans that were pulling against Phil Mickelson as he worked his way through the last 9 holes of the 2004 Masters.
That Mickelson won the tournament was as popular a victory as could be imagined. For years, the accomplished left-hander had earned a tag that the top golfers don’t really want: the best golfer never to win a major championship.
Oh, Mickelson had won his share of PGA tour events and was considered an elite player, certainly worthy of Ryder Cup play for the U.S. side, for example.
Yet he had developed, fairly or not, a reputation as a player who couldn’t win the big one, who folded somewhat under pressure; someone who perhaps did not bring the necessary ‘thinking’ and strategic tool box with him at crunch time in the big events.
It was also mentioned that he was not quite dedicated enough to winning, to getting himself into top physical condition as had others such as David Duval. He certainly did not seem to have the drive or the intensity of a Tiger Woods.
That said, Mickelson brought another quality with him to work every day, one that most professional athletes would do well to emulate: he was human and acted that way.
He was “normal”.
Even his critics would have to acknowledge that few in his sport -- and few in professional sports, period – were as patient and articulate in defeat as Mickelson. And given that he seemed to “lose” a lot, that patience was surely tested more than he might have cared for.
But unlike many in his sport (even Canada’s popular Mike Weir has been known to fly past reporters with little to say on days he does not play well), Mickelson will stand for lengthy periods of time, thoughtfully addressing the same questions over and over again.
He almost always does so, by all accounts, with as much good cheer as possible. He answers questions fully, not with short, clipped, defensive responses.
He is clearly a family man, with three young children, and for all his golf-earned wealth, appears to have a sense of perspective, which a family can certainly help achieve in terms of balancing life’s priorities. (It can be said that golfers, for the most part, can take themselves quite seriously and can provide unerring and excruciating detail on each shot they make, expressing wrenching disappointment regarding their woes in the sandtrap and such things. They sometimes give the impression they have no idea there is a world often in real pain beyond theirs.)
This is not to canonize Mickelson, simply to say the moral of the story here is this: you do often reap what you sow.
Why are people so happy for Mickelson? Not because he needs the money that winning the Masters will bring him in terms of earnings and endorsements.
No, people are happy for him, one senses, because he seems to be a genuinely decent, well-rounded guy. He loves baseball (spent some time “pitching” at a major-league training camp earlier this year, as I recall, a privilege not granted many, to be sure) and is about as accommodating as an athlete can get.
That even the media on hand was largely pulling for him demonstrates that he has earned their respect and support with his determination, accessibility, straightforwardness and honesty.
So yes, every once in a while “nice guys” can, deservedly, finish first.
And set a pretty good example for others in their field in doing so.
