…but is there a form I can sign to excuse myself from being one of “the people” if there is ever a return to Bethpage and the media starts in with the “people’s championship” garbage the way so many of those “people” behaved ? :-)

Maybe it’s my years of training in not winning – growing up with the Cleveland Indians/Browns/Cadavers, then moving to Atlanta with the Braves/Falcons/Hawks/Thrashers (with a few exceptional years…ok…ONE exceptional year – the ’95 Braves) – I understand that there is only one winner each season/series/night and these guys, for the most part, bust their hump trying to win.

Sometimes you just can’t win for winning. Glover got a little credit, but still took heat for hitting a 6-iron off the tee at 18 – playing SMART – to win the tournament. This after Jean Van de Velde and all the Monday Morning Caddies who wondered why he didn’t hit three 7 irons and two putts to win the Claret Jug – or Phil Mickelson flushing the ’06 US Open at Winged Foot by refusing to leave the driver in the bag, or pulling a 3-iron out for the second shot after a souvenier tent saved his tee shot on 18 and hitting that 3 iron off of a tree instead of punching back to the fairway, taking bogey, and winning.

Too many people laugh at NASCAR or NHL fans saying that they only watch for the crashes or the fights – but those same people watch guys like Mickelson for the flashy shots that work for a win, or, more often, crash and burn for a loss.

Cabrera is flashy…but he uses a translator for his acceptance speech and interivews.

Glover is solid…so he’s boring…even though he crushes drives over 300 yards – just not when he needed a smart shot for the US Open.

Cink isn’t flashy, either – but he “beat up on an old man” for his major."

What can you do ? Just look at the trophy on the mantle and forget all the people who only want to badmouth the guy who wins.

You can never take anything away from the winners, even if the guys who should have won sported stronger pedigrees or more fitting stories.

Just because he still has a lot of time to build his résumé, Glover can’t be placed in the same league as Todd Hamilton, Paul Lawrie and Shaun Micheel (and to a lesser extent, Rich Beem and Ben Curtis). Cink could definitely win another major because his game can adapt to so many different types of courses.

It’s definitely cliché, but the thing I take most so far from this year’s majors is how hard it is to win the big one. Luck plays a huge role, but 72 holes on the most demanding setups in the world is just so physically and mentally draining. I think the age of Tiger Woods has made us question the legitimacy of all other current major winners moreso than when lesser-known types triumphed at majors during the Jack Nicklaus age. Nicklaus had more prominent, accomplished foils (Tom Watson, Gary Player and even Johnny Miller are a more formidable trio than Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els and Vijay Singh) and the worldwide talent pool is deeper than it used to be, making Woods’ major tally in such a condensed period of time that much more incredible. But still, Woods can’t win them all, so hats off indeed to Cabrera, Glover and Cink.

who “SHOULD have won” ?

It’s eliminated the differences between the semi-greats and the greats. The margin of error has been increased due to the forgiveness of today’s equipment.

One way of determining who “should” have won is if a player has been to multiple Ryder Cups or Presidents Cups. It implies a level of greatness over a period of at least 2-4 years. Still, the number of winners outside of that group is quite substantial.