From The Inbox

From the Morning Read inbox

Hawkins shortchanges Mickelson
John Hawkins may have gotten it right in his article on a Mickelson-vs.-Woods winner-take-all match, but his analysis was dead wrong (“Woods-Mickelson duel needs reality check,” July 9). By repeatedly bashing Mickelson for his conduct at the U.S. Open, he used specious reasoning.

It seems that Hawkins forgot, or ignored, the fact that many believed (and cogently expressed in Morning Read) that Mickelson was properly penalized for hitting a moving ball (“Mickelson, USGA disgrace U.S. Open,” June 17). And, of greater importance, Hawkins failed to recognize that Mickelson is one of the most popular professional golfers of our time, and that fact alone likely would make the big-money match successful.

Yet, all Hawkins had was to chastise Mickelson to make his point, all the while neglecting to mention Tiger Woods’ many shortcomings, on and off the course. If Mickelson’s one-time transgression was a centerpiece, why weren’t Woods’ many years of questionable behavior part of the analysis?

While the money match may be a bad idea, Hawkins missed the mark on why.

Ted Comstock
Lancaster, N.H.

The arrogance of Woods and Mickelson
I cannot watch two of the most arrogant, narcissistic, self-serving people play a meaningless match for other people’s money.

The PGA Tour knows that when the cameras are on, Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson look fine, but when the lights are off, they are not on the likeability list. Let each put up $10 million, and the winner gets to donate to his favorite charity.

This match would be just two rich guys rubbing everybody's noses in it.

Larry Guli
Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

Cut Mickelson some slack
It’s golf, not nuclear proliferation. Those of us in the average world
couldn’t care less.

Phil Mickelson would have to do more than this to undue all the
good that he has done. Check it out.

Tiger Woods’ history is nothing to brag about.

Leave Mickelson alone. You must have lived an error-free existence to date.

Dennis A. Stone
Aurora, Ill.

Don’t be so naive, Morning Read
I really enjoyed your take on this $10 million match. As a Phil Mickelson fan, I believe he's got a long way to go to regain the luster of his reputation.

You are a bit naive if you think they ever will play for their
own money. One way or another, they will be reimbursed by sponsors, networks, etc.

Ed Simek
Westport, Conn.

Woods, Mickelson need to put up own cash
If it’s not their own money, there is nothing interesting about
two guys who clearly are not the best in the business.

Bob Geismar
Boca Raton, Fla.

Ready for a Woods-Mickelson match
I would love to see Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson square off. Please quit stirring the pot and let go. Find something interesting and new to write about.

Steve Mork

A flop on Rocky Top
The proposed match is a big yawner. The match would be at the bottom of my golf/sports shows between now and December. You have the British Open, PGA, FedEx Cup, Ryder Cup and then college and pro football, etc.

Call off the big-money match (wink, wink) while it is still moving forward.

John Stiles
Knoxville, Tenn.

Not worth a dime or any time
Two washed-up has-beens? We're supposed to watch that? Really? Who cares?

Phil Mickelson should have been dropped by all of his sponsors. Instead, it appears that Mickelson remains delusional about just how much dirt is clinging to his reputation.

I'd rather watch two up-and-coming 17-year-olds – and have them win a quarter-million dollars (which would be far more appreciated by them) – than to fatten Tiger Woods’ or Mickelson's pocket one more dime.

Debra Forrester

Let them play for charity
I would like to see Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson in match play, for their own money, with losses going to the other player’s charity. They could play for a half-million dollars a hole, with the loser of the hole having to write the check and present it to the charity before the next hole.

How cool would that be?

Can you imagine one of them not giving the other a 3-footer early in the match? That might dampen the banter and tighten up play.

Don Beck
Goodyear, Ariz.

Match would give Woods rare opportunity
Before all of the golf traditionalists and purists denounce this Tiger Woods-Phil Mickelson money grab, go back to the mid-1960s, when golf’s “Big Three” of Arnold Palmer, Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus was a made-for-TV idea that played for a few years. Although they didn't play winner-take-all, the three of them equally split a purse.

Woods is all for it. It gives him his best chance to do something that he hasn't done in more than five years: win something. 

Charlie Jurgonis
Fairfax, Va.

Morning Read invites reader comment. Write to editor Steve Harmon at Please provide your name and city of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, Morning Read will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We will not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.