PHIL MICKELSON (THE GAMBLER)

Whether you like Phil Mickelson or not -- and I've never been a big fan -- the recent criticism of his aggressive play on 18 at the US Open misses something. What people don't understand is that part of Phil Mickelson's identity as a golfer -- part of who he is, on the course -- is a risk-taker, a gambler, a gunslinger. And if that's part of his identity, then it's something he might not want to change, just to chase more dollars and trophies, when he already has plenty of both.

At some point in life, you craft a philosophy that becomes part of your identity. You build principles that you embrace and believe in. For Phil, his philosophy is a rather aggressive one, in playing golf. Now, before he had won a single major, maybe he had to think about altering his risk-taking philosophy. Certainly, if he couldn't support himself financially on the PGA Tour, then he would have definitely had to think about adopting a more cautious approach. But Mickelson has already won 3 majors, and more than enough money to last a lifetime.

At this point, Phil Mickelson is free to vindicate whatever philosophy he wants. Many people, especially golf announcers, claim to have a preference for the quantitative-success-based philosophy: judge someone by how much money they make and how many trophies they accumulate. By that standard, they chide Phil for not having won more majors, when it seems that he has the potential to win more. But what they don't understand is that for Phil, winning by playing cautiously and laying up -- well, that isn't really winning. If Phil believes that the game is about fun, challenges, and living by the seat of his pants, then Phil probably wouldn't derive a lot of fun or satisfaction from winning by cautious play -- that would just be a chore to him. Now that he has more than 20 career wins and over $39 million in earnings on the PGA Tour, Phil has earned the right to play golf with his aggressive style, consequences be damned.

Not only has Phil earned the right to pursue his own philosophy; but arguably, it is better for pro golf that Phil plays aggressively, instead of using caution to win. Golf announcer Johnny Miller prefers a win-by-any-means-necessary philosophy: do whatever it takes to win, including playing cautiously with the lead, when the situation demands that. Tiger purports to hold such a philosophy, it seems. This is well and good, but pro sports are an entertainment business, and there is nothing wrong with Mickelson choosing to entertain the fans with the great drama that comes from risk -- rather than pursuing winnings by less exciting play. Tiger entertains by showing us the drama in his quest to win as many majors as possible, and ultimately to try to break Jack Nicklaus' all-time majors records. Phil couldn't break Nicklaus' record, even with a more cautious philosophy; but Phil entertains fans plenty by living on the edge.

The irony of it all is that there is no Phil Mickelson without the risk taking. Plenty of average-level guys on the tour play the cautious style that Johnny Miller prefers. They are content just to make a ton of money, and play by the book. But what has gotten Phil to the top is his aggressiveness. On a short par 4 (the 12th hole, I think), Miller chided Phil for going for the green with his tee shot -- but the gamble paid off with a birdie. This is symbollic of the aggressiveness that a player needs to try to be the best in the world -- to take on the toughest courses, in the toughest conditions. Mickelson makes the most birdies of anyone on tour. Now, Miller and the other critics would like to see Phil turn off the aggressiveness in certain key junctures, when the chips are on the line -- but if Phil did that, then he'd no longer be Phil Mickelson.

To be sure, the Mick is subject to real criticism on other fronts. He fails to maintain proper condition -- this subjects him to mental & physical stamina (of the sort that probably was the true culprit for his US Open collapse on the 18th on Sunday). Also, he is sometimes too obsessed with marketing -- as when he chose the Ryder Cup to debut his Callaway clubs, from a new, lucrative endorsement deal. Heck, his interview style also leaves a lot to be desired -- he seems like a deer in the headlights, too eager to please. Chide him for these flaws, but don't criticize his on-course risk-taking -- the dramatic failures that he has endured do not outweigh the spectacular successes that aggressive play has brought him.