Hamilton tore up Open script on merit

THE WINNER of the 133rd Open at Royal Troon maintained the American dominance of the Championship.

Todd Hamilton follows in the famous footsteps of Arnold Palmer, Tom Weiskopf, Tom Watson, Mark Calcavecchia and Justin Leonard to have captured the Claret Jug.

Yet even his fellow countrymen didn't seem to like it when the unknown outstayed their own Phil Mickelson and the South African Ernie Els, who plays most of his golf in the States.

The cheer in the media centre when Hamilton got into trouble at the 18th on Sunday evening had its own message.

The inhabitants wanted a "name" winner and not a rookie on the US Tour who was plying his trade on the Asian and Japanese tours because he failed eight times in 17 years to win a card on his home circuit.

But Hamilton had news for them. He saw off Mickelson in regular time and showed greater nerve than Els in the ultimate showdown.

Hamilton did it with a display of sound golf and a strong nerve and fully deserved his shock win. Now you wonder how the world will react.

Many Americans dismiss champions like Hamilton if they don't follow a certain formula. For instance, one prominent contributor to a US golf magazine wrote before Troon: "The goofier the playing field, the more likely we are to crown a goofy champ. There's no other way to explain the achievements of Paul Lawrie and Ben Curtis, who were 159th and 396th in the world at the time of their victories."

Sure, Carnoustie was set up in an astonishingly difficult manner in 1999 when Lawrie availed of Jean Van de Velde's memorable and tragic rush of blood on the 72nd hole to win in a play-off. And Royal St Georges was definitely on the quirky side 12 months ago when Curtis prevailed.

But to belittle their performances is ridiculous for many reasons, not least the fact that the courses were the same for everybody.

They all turned up, some had the mental fortitude to stick it out, most just threw in the towel and pointed the finger at the R&A.

Notably on this occasion, no player before, during or after the event complained about the Royal Troon links. Indeed, they were gushing in their praise.

"It was a tough course but it was fair," said Tiger Woods. "And all of us who played thoroughly enjoyed it."

The consensus was the fairways were wide enough, the rough reasonable enough and the greens of the finest quality. The bunkers, however, were both deep and strategically placed, a fact that seemed to escape many.

Not Hamilton though, who said his strategy was to either fly them or come up short. As a result, he reckoned he was in sand "on only two or three occasions" over the 72 holes.

Lawrie and Curtis have not been the only shock winners in recent times.

Shaun Micheel, another so-called unknown, produced the shot of a lifetime at the final hole to capture last year's US PGA at Oak Hill. He too had the discipline and mental capacity to grind it out when it mattered.

Even the most ardent fans of Ernie Els would have to accept that when the serious questions were asked of him on Sunday night, he couldn't find the answers. From the time he made a great par saver at the 71st, he didn't sink a decent putt. Amazingly, he confessed he was afraid to go for the nine footer on the 18th first time round, that would have earned him the title, for fear that it might go too far past.

He was less than positive from the same length to take the lead in the play-off and again made a poor hand of the 15-footer he required at the last of the tie holes.

Els failed under the pressure and Mickelson, in spite of sinking an array of putts and getting up and down from the most unlikely spots, came up short and had to settle for third.

In fairness, not such a bad record at all except for these guys it's all about winning and the rest in almost inconsequential. Already, however, we see efforts to belittle Retief Goosen's magnificent final day performance in winning the US Open at what the Yanks are calling "Shinny-crock".

Admitting that "in victory and defeat, Goosen and Phil Mickelson saved the day, when all is said and done, the robot won," wrote our noble magazine columnist.

Now, Goosen lacks charisma in abundance but surely big time sport is not about the nature of the participants but what they do on the field of play. Everybody is different. We can't all be flash Harries like Ian Poulter or swashbuckling heroes like Seve Ballesteros.

Thankfully, too, we're not all like Goosen. But let's not take anything away from his golf and to describe him as a robot is distasteful and unworthy.

The R&A and the USGA take a frightful hammering when the courses they set up for their major championships go off the rails a bit.

There was no excuse for Carnoustie in '99 and some elements of Shinnecock last month were farcical.

In contrast, Augusta National is a gem every April for the Masters and the USPGA usually distinguish themselves for the quality of their venues.

The game's two ruling bodies may be fairly accused of arrogance at times. In their stated attempts to identify the game's best, they too often present a course that produces strange winners.

I don't think Paul Lawrie or Ben Curtis would quibble too much with that description. However, for the manner in which he performed when the chips were down on Sunday evening, the merit of Todd Hamilton's achievement must not be denigrated especially in his homeland.

He won this tournament by playing golf that the others simply couldn't match.

And isn't that what it's all about?