Dufner continues trend of first-time major winners

PITTSFORD, N.Y. - So what did we learn from another season of golf's four most defining weeks, other than the fact that no 54-hole leader was able to get it done on Sunday?

Well, if Jim Furyk had held on to win the PGA Championship at Oak Hill - instead, Jason Dufner held the Wanamaker Trophy as yet another in a growing list of first-time major winners - we would have had a 5-month run that gave us a pair of 32-year-old champions in Adam Scott and Justin Rose followed by two 40-somethings.

The first, of course, was Phil Mickelson, who captured everyone's heart when he won the one major his game supposedly wasn't suited enough to win, the British Open, a month after finishing second for a record sixth time in the major he absolutely wants the most, the U.S. Open. And Furyk would have added another title that historically matters to his 2003 U.S. Open, after coming so close in our national championship in 2006, '07 and again a year ago.

Instead, he left upstate New York wondering whether he's ultimately destined to go down the same way as Fred Couples, Davis Love, Lanny Wadkins and Tom Kite, to name a few. Hey, they're all Hall of Famers. Furyk might join them someday, maybe even soon. But there's always that nagging question of why not more. This would have elevated Furyk to another category. Even though it wasn't necessarily his fault this time, he did not make enough happen to put some heat on Dufner. Which means it won't make most folks forget about the late collapse at the Olympic Club or even his troubles at last year's Ryder Cup.

Nobody said this posterity stuff was supposed to be fair. Or easy.

Speaking of which, it'll be interesting to see what Scott, Rose and perhaps even Dufner can do now that they've broken through, although the spotlight doesn't figure to be as focused on Duf. Scott and Rose both emerged at a young age with expectations that, for the longest time and for whatever reasons, never materialized. Dufner is more of a late bloomer. That doesn't mean he can't or won't be the one to add more majors. It's just means nobody will beat him up if he doesn't. Scott and Rose are more like Furyk. One will never seem like enough. Ask Tom Weiskopf, to mention another. And that's probably the way it should be.

Dufner, by the way, continued another interesting trend, in which guys come back to win one after enduring a potentially career-deflating loss. See Scott and Rory McIlroy. If you have to ask, then you haven't been paying attention.

Rose really hadn't had a chance to win many majors before Merion. Scott has played as well as anyone in the majors in the last few years and still has only a lone victory - the Masters - to show for it. I don't know exactly what that means. I just know it's hard to win majors, as even Tiger Woods is finding out. There's a reason 19 of the last 21 major winners have been different guys. Look back in the last decade and see how many have won one without getting a second, let alone a third. It's kind of mind-boggling when you think about it. And it makes what Tiger did for so many years that much more special.

I don't know what the future holds for Scott or Rose. I just know that the recent past suggests we may be sitting here a decade from now wondering how come they couldn't win multiple majors. Do people change once they get one? It's one of the things Dufner talked about, just as every other person in his position seems to do. Golf's a fickle game. The same guy making headlines one year is pulling a disappearing act the next. There are distractions, and temptations. You get offered a bunch of money to switch equipment. And why anyone who just won a major would want to switch clubs is befuddling, but it's obviously not my money. I'm sure that, at the time, nobody who couldn't handle it ever thought it would happen to him. But it must, or we'd have a bunch of guys with three or four majors walking around. Maybe that's why sports psychologists are in such demand.

As for Mickelson, he showed once again that being the second-best golfer of his generation ain't such a bad gig after all. He's one of the great highwire shows. It probably explains why he's so popular. You're just never sure whether he will make a fatal mistake trying to pull off some shot everyone else realized he should never have attempted, or whether he'll be the hero because he did pull off that same risky play.

It's what made Arnie Palmer the people's choice. The same attraction applies. And that approach will probably continue to serve Mickelson well, when, of course, it's not costing him. He played some of his best golf in June and July. He won't do that all the time, not at his age. But at this point, why would anyone think he can't get one or maybe even two more, maybe even at a U.S. Open? And he owns three green jackets, so there's that chance every April. Next year's Open, in case you weren't aware, is at Pinehurst, where Phil lost that epic battle with Payne Stewart in 1999. So you think he won't be one of the favorites there?

That brings us to a guy who didn't win a major this year, for the fifth straight year. The same guy who'll probably be the one to beat at Augusta. By now, it's almost force of habit. Tiger nearly won a fifth jacket, and might have if that flagstick hadn't got in the way. But a cynic would note that he hasn't won the first major of the season since 2005.

So how about the U.S. Open? Well, Tiger came real close at Pinehurst in 1999 and 2005. That might have been a different Tiger, but sometimes there's something to be said for past performance. Almost all of his wins in the last 4 years have come on courses where he's had success before. Fair enough. But this ain't Firestone or Bay Hill we're talking about.

Anyway, the British Open is going back to Royal Liverpool, or Hoylake if you prefer, where Tiger left the driver in his bag in 2006 and outlasted Chris DiMarco to win his first major after the death of his father Earl. And the PGA returns to Valhalla, where, in 2000, Tiger became the only man other than Ben Hogan to win the three modern majors in the same year by beating Bob May in a playoff.

And while Tiger technically has never come from behind to win a major on the last day, check out what he did on the back nine that afternoon. But again, at the time he was never better. Now we're talking about someone who hasn't broken 70 in his last 16 weekend rounds in a major. That sounds impossible.

But golf is often full of surprises. So by this time next year, we could be talking about three or four more new major winners. There's no shortage of candidates: Brandt Snedeker, Lee Westwood, Jason Day, Henrik Stenson, Luke Donald. Or one or two might take that next step and move up the food chain.

And remember when you're handicapping that the last three British Opens have gone to guys with over 40 candles on their birthday cakes. The bad news for Tiger? He'll be only 38 in July. But at least he can begin pointing to 2016.