But he did choke. He shanked two very short puts on 15 and 17 that cost him two strokes and he also had a bogey on 18 after getting a birdie and two pars already in the tournament. That's three strokes. If he just gets a par on 12, that saves two more strokes. All in all, that's five strokes he missed, with four guaranteed if you leave out 18. He finished at -9, which was three back, so if you add in four of those strokes, he's at -13 which wins the tournament. The way he played the front nine was amazing, and that can't be taken away from him. But on 12, he was one back of the leaders with six holes left after that - he didn't need to stick it two feet from the pin. He just needed to get it on the green, and two putt for the par. Tiger finished four back and even if he pars those last two holes, he's two back. He had two pars and a birdie on 17 but just a par and two bogeys on 18 so expecting him to do much more on that hole isn't fair. he didn't know that perry was going to give two strokes back. he birdied 12 and had easy birdies coming up on 13 and 15, you can't play trying to par #12 if you've been firing at the pin all day and are still trailing a guy who is playing well. plus this silly way of thinking is giving him no credit for the good shots and is putting a label on him because of his poor shots. he choked on his putts on 15 and 17, but what about the great drives and great iron shots he hit to put himself in position to make eagle and birdie on those holes? did tiger choke on his shots because he couldn't get as close? tiger also missed some makeable putts in his round and failed to capitalize when he was in good scoring position in the fairway, i think we should add those to his "could've" score. bottom line, if mickelson had shot 63 (to get to -13) it would've been the best round of the tournament by 2 strokes and would've tied the course record that has been reached twice in 75 years. not doing it is not a choke.