 |
 |
 |
|
The headline writer employed by perhaps the most respected periodical in Britain captured the hyperventilation best of all.
|
|
| Padraig Harrington finishes off the eagle that finishes off the British Open. (Getty Images) |
"Two Strokes of Genius," it read in part.
At minimum, that's at least partly debatable. In fact, it remains at issue whether he should have even attempted the second key blow.
As the golfing globe knows by now, Harrington knocked a pair of massive and memorable shots with his favorite club onto the green on the par-5 17th and tapped in a four-foot putt for a decisive eagle to cement his second consecutive Open title, this time at wind-battered Royal Birkdale.
Afterward, as Harrington deservedly hoisted the claret jug overhead, others raised the rhetoric well beyond arm's reach. Said his sports psychologist, Bob Rotella, moments after witnessing the round: "I think that shot on 17 might go down as the greatest shot in championship history."
Given that the tournament is 137 years young, that's quite an assertion, Doc. If you weren't a psychologist, I'd suggest that you have your head examined. Truthfully, it wasn't even the Irishman's most important shot over the last four holes.
But Rotella, a likeable guy, was hardly flying solo in hyperbole. The story in the Times characterized the Harrington shots thusly:
"In fact, two strokes by Harrington, which were brilliant in conception and faultless in their execution, skewered the challenge not only of (Greg) Norman but also of (Ian) Poulter.
"They are arguably among the most courageous and skillful strokes to have secured a major championship in living memory. Taking into account the degree of difficulty, the distance the ball traveled and the state of the tournament at the time, they carried a higher tariff than Tiger Woods' chip-in on the 70th hole of the 2005 Masters and the 7-iron to within a handspan of the flagstick that won Shaun Micheel the 2003 PGA Championship."
It's a Ryder Cup year and all, when provincial attitudes run deep, but this is balderdash. The state of the tournament at the time?
Here's a non-parochial history lesson for those whose glasses might be tinted by nationality. Micheel's shot from the left rough to within two inches on the 72nd came while nursing a one-stroke lead and ranks as one of the biggest shots in Grand Slam history. It was a walk-off homer, effectively, the clutch shot of his life from a guy who had never before won a tour event. Game over.
Though their duel eventually resulted in a playoff, Woods' chip-in on the 16th at Augusta National gave him a two-shot lead over gritty Chris DiMarco with two holes to play. As it turned out, had Woods not holed the chip, which included 20 feet of break, he would have lost.
On the scale of relative need, Harrington's eagle gave him a four-stroke lead with one hole to play. Moreover, at the risk of sounding like a crazed contrarian, his decision-making can most certainly be questioned. Just ask his caddie, Ronan Flood.
Harrington led by two shots when he pulled the 5-wood, facing an approach through gusting breezes of 30 mph from a distance of 249 yards. The hay surrounding the green, ridiculously sloped and surrounded by pot bunkers, was as green as it was deep.
The superlatives "courageous and skillful" are accurate but are not to be confused with smart or prudent. Laying up with a mid-iron would have been a practical move, especially since Harrington was faced with a sidehill lie.
Imagine if Harrington had hacked the 5-wood shot into the gunch and mirrored his carnage on the 72nd hole a year earlier at Carnoustie, when he hit two awful shots in the water. It would have resulted in a gaffe equal to the questionable tactics of Andres Romero a year earlier at the Open, when he over-aggressively wrecked his lead with iffy shot selection and execution over the last couple of holes.
Harrington explained the green-light decision Sunday night, and after winning by four to become the first Euro since 1906 to repeat as Open champ, nobody was going to question or micro-manage much of anything. In hindsight, though, the decision seemed a bit reckless.
"My caddie said to me, you know, if you want to think of laying it up -- I asked him the situation," Harrington said. "He said, 'You're two ahead.'
"I just felt, I knew I could make birdie if I hit 5-wood. I was anxious that Greg could make eagle going down there, and if I lay up and make par, all of a sudden I've got a one-shot lead.
"So, I wanted to take it on. The downslope, I convinced myself -- as you could when you're winning tournaments -- I felt the downslope was a help to me. My ball was on quite a hanging lie, and I said, 'Well, this is great. It's going to come out low so I can't get it in the (wind).'"
The shot was brilliant and took a series of perfect, running bounces before stopping near the flag. The thought process, though, can surely withstand re-examination.
Two points to consider as the 17th's place in the thick, musty tome of British Open lore is considered:
Harrington's 5-wood wasn't even the most important shot in the history of Opens staged at Royal Birkdale. That honor falls to Tom Watson, who laced a 2-iron onto the 18th green in a brutal wind and two-putted to win the 1983 title by a stroke.
In some minds, Harrington's 5-wood wasn't the most important shot of the final 90 minutes. Earlier, on the more difficult par-5 15th, he hammered a hugely important 3-wood onto the green and two-putted from 40 feet for a birdie. At the time of the shot, he had a one-stroke lead over Poulter.
In the aftermath of his final-round theatrics, Harrington made a wisecrack at his own expense about the eagle, which meant he could cruise home the 18th with nary a worry.
"You know, you can't have enough shots in the lead going down 18," he said. "I proved that last year."
On that front, there was no discussion whatsoever.