Questions and Comment about ending (Spoilers)

Okay, here's my comment. Many criticize Roy for his choice to go for it on the last hole. However, this involves certain assumptions -- like that "winning" and money are everything.

However, while both can be nice, they're not everything. There are plenty of wealthy, successful atheletes (businessmen, etc.) who are miserable. Often because they're not living the way they really want to, they don't take any risks, they don't have any balls, etc. (Being a pussy makes life pretty much not worth living, regardless of what else is going on -- read Hemingway's "the Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" if you need insight on this.)

Here's what motivates Roy, and what makes him happy: making killer shots, beating certain holes on his own terms, getting recognition and glory, and getting the girl.

And Roy gets all of that in the end. He therefore wins in all meaningful senses, even though he doesn't technically win the tournament. (Depending on the answers to the question in the first post, he was not guaranteed to win no matter how conservatively he approached that hole anyway.)

Roy is also positioned to start a successful pro career, with likely sponsors and endorsements. (He is the spectacular, entertaining underdog everyone will root for.) So he can still get money and wins, in addition to the immortality he has already secured.

To the extent people think Roy is an idiot, or the ending sucks, they are simply imposing their own values on the film. Obviously, if you think money and a tin cup (trophy) is all-important, you'll think he's dumb. If you think glory and beating the course/hole on your own term are what matters, you'll disagree.

I think people who don't enjoy the ending just need to step outside of their own worldview for a moment, and think about the fact there are other ways to experience great fulfillment aside from the most conventional ways. Was Bill Gates an idiot for dropping out of Harvard, which offered a very socially respected "tin cup"? Was Steve Jobs an idiot for not getting a college degree at all (its own form of basic tin cup)? Both followed their own vision of greatness, based upon their own individual passion/love, and it worked out fine for them.

The whole point of the film is that there are different ways to win and be successful, and you don't have to be tied to everyone else's view of what that means. That's why it's such a great film.

In the end, when you're on your deathbed, the thoughts in your mind will probably be about whether or not you lived a fulfilling life -- not on how much money you made, or how many contests you won. Those things may help make your life fulfilling in some respects, but there may be other things -- a great love, a great sacrifice, etc. -- that do so even more. It's all about enjoying the ride, and I bet Roy enjoyed that tournament -- and will enjoy his future career -- a lot more than most golfers.

P.S.: As I realized as I was writing the last post, the entire title of the film "Tin Cup" is probably meant to symbolize the meaningless of a technical victory in the tournament -- or anywhere else -- if it doesn't satisfy the individual's definition of success. (The trophy itself is really just a tin cup.) Roy wouldn't have been happy if he won the tournament and let the hole beat him. People may think that silly, but he ultimately had to live with himself -- and on his terms, he won, even if he needed Russo to remind him of that at the end.

It's clearly a happy ending, whether or not people realize it. And given his obvious talent -- and the fact he has now beaten the hole on his own terms -- he's likely to win the Open outright the following year. (He probably won't feel the same need to prove he can get the hole without laying up now that he already has.)

Previous poster explaining the meaning of the movie and the final sequence perfectly.

But, in terms of the actual golfing strategy, Roy was a tool.

As his caddie said: "You don't need an eagle to win."

The strategy with the highest possible outcome for victory was for Roy to lay the ball up close and then hit a wedge in close and hopefully tap it in for birdie and the win. He chose to "go for it" to get an eagle to win the tournament and finish 10 under par, which nobody had ever done. He was on a quest for "immortality." Which is ironic. Earlier in the tournament he had already set the record for the lowest US Open round ever. Beating he score of 62 would be extremely difficult. Probably way tougher than beating an aggregate score of 10 under.

So on the last shot, was he aiming for a hole-in-one or just to get it on the green?