Morfit: Let's switch gears to the Canadian Women's Open and top-ranked amateur Lydia Ko (Related Photos: Teenage Tour Winners). At 15 years and three months, she became the youngest to win on the LPGA, and she was coming off a win at the U.S. Women's Amateur. She not only beat the pros in Canada, she throttled them, and looked pretty nonplussed doing it. Anybody else watch this? Amazing to think she wasn't even born yet when Tiger won the '97 Masters.
Shipnuck: It's a mind-boggling double-dip. What a talent! She's 15 going on 35. I can't wait to watch this kid keep going.
Reiterman: It was amazing. She made seven birdies on Sunday. Loved seeing her not only win, but kick ass doing it.
Herre: Yes, I watched. Ko played well and is clearly on a roll, but I came away wondering what a 15-year-old amateur's win against the LPGA's best says about the LPGA. Not an entirely positive development in my opinion.
Dusek: Thanks Jim, because I didn't want to be the first person to say that.
Morfit: That reminds me of the argument that a Tom Watson victory at Turnberry in the '09 Open would have been the worst thing for men's golf.
Godich: I'm amazed (and impressed), but I also wonder if it isn't an indictment of the LPGA Tour.
Van Sickle: I was thinking the same thing about Tiger Woods being able to win in Las Vegas in 1996. How'd that work out again?
Morfit: It would be odd to feel like you're at the top of your profession at 15, when you're not even making money at it yet. Forget about what it says about the LPGA; how does anyone survive precocity like that? History has not been kind.
Bamberger: Elizabeth Taylor semi pulled it off. And after that I don't know.
Herre: I agree, Cameron. I know Van Sickle doesn't want to hear it, but there's a reason you can't drive a car until you're 16.
Tell us what you think in the comments section below: What impressed you most about Lydia Ko's win?
Morfit: Speaking of flip-flopping, Garcia almost won for the second week in a row without the help of a Tour caddie. This time it was a CBS spotter on his bag. Are caddies overrated? And which is more important, a great caddie or a great Ryder Cup captain?
Bamberger: There really is no such thing as a great caddie. There are great player-caddie marriages. At the end of the day, Ryder Cup captains are as good as their lineups.
Van Sickle: Caddies are overrated if players don't listen to them, but plenty of caddies earn their keep. No way John Daly would've won the '91 PGA without Jeff (Squeaky) Medlen on the bag. I'll take a caddie over a Ryder Cup captain any day. The caddie can help on every shot. The captain makes out a lineup, then drives around in a cart and spectates.
Shipnuck: Caddies are very important to some players and close to meaningless for others. Change for the sake of change may be what a flighty character like Sergio needs. I'd say the Ryder Cup cart chauffeur is more important than either.
Godich: Garcia's play is not exactly a ringing endorsement for the caddie profession. As many players like to say, a guy would prefer to have just one thought in his head. That said, I'll take a great caddie over a great Ryder Cup captain any time. How many places can a Ryder Cup captain be at one time? A caddie is with you every step of the way.
Dusek: If a guy with Sergio's talent is hot, a caddie can only get in the way. Caddies really earn their keep when a player gets down on himself, second-guesses himself, or generally needs to be reminded that he's smart enough and good enough to hit the shots. I think Ryder Cup captains are more important because they can influence how the venue is set up, how the event is played, create pairings, and help to set the tone for the whole week.
Tell us what you think in the comments section below: What's more important: A great caddie or a great Ryder Cup captain?
TIGER'S ACHING BACK
Morfit: Let's talk about Tiger, specifically about his lower back. He was in a lot of pain as he played Friday, and even though he played well, it raised new questions about him going forward. Yes, he's won three times this year, but he didn't look so good on the weekend at the majors, or at Bethpage, and he looks physically fragile, to say the least. Given all that, are you more or less bullish on Tiger winning more majors than you were at the start of 2012?
Godich: I am less bullish. There are too many factors working against him, most notably that he is an old 36 and he doesn't intimidate the rest of the field like he used to.
Herre: Tiger remains a mystery. Everyone has a theory -- swing changes, the scandal, poor putting, wild driving, old 36 -- take your pick. I think the most startling thing we saw this week was the putting. Everyone struggled on the greens, but Tiger was particularly bad.
Morfit: Watching him play the back nine Friday was so strange. He was wincing with every drive, and a lot of us were wondering if one false move was going to leave him collapsed in a heap. I guess that's what watching a prize fight in person must feel like -- fascinating and sickening at the same time.
Shipnuck: Tiger's push to 19 is so fraught because he's always one swing away from breaking down. Again.
Bamberger: Less bullish. He looks vulnerable. Almost scared.
Van Sickle: I've said all along that Tiger's "comeback" would only go as far as his putting takes him, and it's clear the putting isn't going to be there day-in and day-out like it was. The first thing that aging players lose is the ability to stripe it and putt great for four straight days. If Tiger didn't encounter back problems some day, he'd be the first golfer in history who didn't. I'd be more worried about the putting on the weekend than his back.
Dusek: I remain only somewhat bullish on Tiger Woods winning more majors. I think he's going to win one, maybe even two, but I still don't think he's going to catch Jack Nicklaus's record of 18. Nothing I've seen over the last few months has swayed me from that view.