U.S. Open: History Not In Mike Weir's Favor
After the monsoon had finished pounding Bethpage Black, the maintenance crews began preparing the course so it could be playable for Friday.
Throughout a cloudy Friday in Farmingdale, N.Y., a lefty not named Phil Mickelson crept up the leaderboard.
He actually prefers to be called Mike Weir. Don't let his size fool you; he's 5'9" of golfing brilliance. That brilliance graced the golf world Friday afternoon.
Weir shot an incredible 64 in his first round—a 64. That's not suppose to happen at the U.S. Open. Maybe 64-over, but not a 64.
We've seen Weir perform well before. For instance, journey way back to April 2003. Weir captures his first major of his career as his 11-under at the Masters was untouchable.
Or what about his play at the 2005 Masters? He didn't win it, but his four-under-par was good enough to earn him fifth place.
Bottom line: Weir is good. Not Tiger good, but good.
Though, despite his incredible play so far, his past doesn't favor him. Now, go way back to the 2002 U.S. Open. Weir, in his second year on the tour, just couldn't handle the pressure of the Open.
Weir failed to make the cut at, where else, Bethpage Black. His 152 in two rounds placed him just two strokes off the cut line. Nevertheless, Weir looked awful in Farmingdale, and it showed.
Now, maybe Weir has learned from his mistakes. Maybe he's attacked Bethpage like Mike Golic attacks a double cheeseburger (come on, you think he's really tried Nutrisystem?). Either way, he doesn't look like the inexperienced Weir we saw in 2002.
I, personally, don't think he can win. He doesn't drive the ball long or accurate enough to win at Bethpage. Sure, he birdied both par fives in his first round, but can he do that every round?
No. Admit it, Weir can't handle Bethpage.
Even after a sensational 64, I still don't think Weir can win this tournament. He's never won a U.S. Open, and I see it staying that way.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?