is one major enough?

After day one, not all the golfers completed their first round at the U.S. Open, due to the weather. Jay Haas, Shigeki Maruyama, and Angel Cabrera are tied for the lead at -4.

There are plenty of interesting subplots so far -- perhaps none bigger than Jay Haas, at 50 years old, leading the tournament. Jay hasn't won a major yet, so is he the best player not to win a major? But then why is there so much hullaballoo over winning 1 major? Shouldn't the true test be winning at lesat 2?

Here's a list of the 1-time majors at the U.S. Open and their scores:

Phil Mickelson -2 (16)
Ben Curtis -2
Corey Pavin -1 (13)
Mike Weir -1
Retief Goosen E (13)

Shaun Micheel +1
Bob Tway +1 (14)
Jim Furyk +2
Tom Kite +2
David Toms +2
Justin Leonard +3 (13)
Rich Beem +4
Paul Lawrie +5 (15)
Fred Couples +5 (13)
Davis Love III +6
David Duval +13

By the way, I'm glad to see Corey Pavin scoring well at the site of his only major, and 54-year old Tom Kite shooting a respectable first round. I'm also impressed with Ben Curtis's play. Maybe the British Open was no fluke.

If I could write a compelling story line to this U.S. Open, it might be either Jay Haas winning his first major or Corey Pavin winning his second at the same site where he won his first 9 years ago. Wouldn't that be cool?