Why Tiger Woods' Absence Could Be Detrimental to Phil Mickelson's Legacy

Professional athletes never want to see the word “but” appear in the same sentence as their names.

Byron Nelson won 18 straight events in 1945, but many of the game's top players, including Ben Hogan and Sam Snead, played a limited schedule that year due to World War II.

Padraig Harrington won back-to-back majors in 2008, but Tiger Woods was not present at either event.

Peter Thompson and Bobby Locke won eight out of 11 British Opens between 1949 and 1958, but that was during a time when the top American players were not making the trip over to the United Kingdom. It wasn’t until Arnold Palmer began showing up in 1960 that Americans resumed their interest in the British Open.  

Many are predicting that, with the absence of Tiger Woods, 2010 could be a defining year in Phil Mickelson’s career.

Mickelson could go from a very good player with three majors and 37 career wins to one of the game’s all-time great players with five majors and 40 some-odd wins.

Considering Woods wins almost 30 percent of the tournaments he enters, you don’t need a math degree from Harvard to realize when Woods is not present, the rest of the field, including Mickelson, has a better chance to win.

However, Woods’ absence also carries with it that much dreaded word no professional athlete likes to see associated with his name.

By not attending an event, Woods single-handedly produces the “but” that will forever be associated with any accomplishments achieved during his absence.

Woods' self-imposed exile could certainly provide Mickelson with an opportunity to add to his major championship tally in 2010.

However, the “opportunity” Woods' absence will create is one Mickelson probably didn’t need in the first place.

By the close of the 2009 season, Mickelson was a better golfer than Woods.

Mickelson was hitting the ball a lot longer, he was putting better, he appeared more comfortable on the golf course, and he defeated Woods twice in a four-week stretch at the Tour Championship and the HSBC-Champions in Shanghai, China.

Woods' “indefinite” leave might actually be detrimental to the legacy of any accomplishments Mickelson achieves during the 2010 season.  

No Woods in 2010 means that Mickelson could be robbed of a legitimate chance to defeat Woods on a regular basis.  

Mickelson is playing well enough right now to go head-to-head with Woods in 2010 and take him down at Augusta, just as he did last year.

He is playing well enough to finally overcome those five second-place finishes at the U.S. Open and corrale that unicorn at Pebble Beach.  

Mickelson is playing well enough that many consider him to be the best player in the world at this very moment, Woods or no Woods.

Best selling author, John Feinstein, is already referring to this season as the start of ATF—after Tiger’s fall.

But the real opportunity for Mickelson in 2010 would have been the chance to face off against Woods while finally having the upper hand.

The real opportunity for Mickelson in 2010 would have been the chance to cement his place as this generation's Arnold Palmer to Woods' Jack Nicklaus.

But, no Woods automatically means a “but” attached to any accomplishments Phil may achieve in 2010, and according to John Feinstein, it may also carry with it an ATF label.

Is it right to think that way?

Of course not.

Winning a major championship with or without Woods in the field is an extremely difficult feat, and one that only a minuscule number of professional golfers ever achieve.

But as we all know, the public creates its own judgments in the court of public opinion.