Tiger Woods a boring, front-runner

What did you smoke down in Mexico, Tim?

These are great points. Tiger is without
question "The Evil Empire". Anyone who
roots for Woods probably roots for the
US to turn into a police state.

Oh, I assure you, Tiger can come from behind.

Tim,

I get it.

The idea is to be ahead of Woods by one or two in a major going into Sunday. Appleby and Baddeley did just that in the last two majors.

Then make a few double or triple bogeys, and someone else takes advantage of Tiger's complacency and wins the title. In these cases, Zach and Angel.

Sort of a team effort. Not a bad idea if you're the guy who gets to win, not so good if you get the doubles and triples.

So, Tim

I suppose Tiger's come-from-behind victory to capture his third U.S. Amateur Title means nothing? Dude, the guy has won 12 majors in the span of 10 years. Is it his fault that no one could grab the lead from Tiger after 54 holes in any of those majors? Tiger's not going to win every tournment he enters.

Robert

Bob,

You're exactly correct.

Today on ESPN, one annoucergave a post-mortem on "Woods' loss in testerday's Open."

What he should have said was Woods' tie for second in yesterday's Open

Tiger has won close to 25% of the Pga events and worldwide events that he has entered. He's even better than that in so-called majors.

No one else is remotely close to that, yet some folks can't help but find fault with Tiger when he finishes second.

I'm surprised there hasn't as yet been another "Tiger's in slump" blog.

Tiger isn't getting beat by "Watson" or other established players. He's losing to no-names. It is unsettling.

Brandon,

If Jim had parred his final two holes Sunday, he would have been in a playoff with Angel Monday.

Jim is a former Open champion an definitely not a no-name.

So, I guess you would not be so unsettled if Jim would have won that playoff that didn't happen.

Jim would have liked it, also.

To Woods, it wouldn't have made any difference. Only that he would have finished third instead of tied for second.

What's wrong with all of you MEN?? His
wife gave birth less than 24 hours later!
Don't you think his mind could have been
elsewhere? Or are you just a bunch of
uncaring clods who didn't care about the
birth of your first child??

Take it eeeeasy!!!!!

I totally disagree. Tiger was off his game just a bit and still he came in 2nd. Of course he can, and he will come from behind. After all, all it would have take was for just ONE of those puts to fall in and he would have been tied for the lead, forced a playoff and mostly likely won. He is STILL by far so much better than anyone else on a day to day, week to week basis. Other pros may rise to the top like last week, they will again at the British open, and at the PGA, but who WILL be there??? Tiger of course, he makes the whole of golf worth watching. I was actually glad to seem him lose, and cabrera win, that makes for great golf! Did you see how the TV ratings shot up with Tiger in contention? 27%! That's great for golf and great for us fans. But to suggest that he has ANY weakness is really not valid. It does however, make for a good discussion. Thanks for the thoughts!

Tiger always (or almost always)loses to no name players. It's interesting, maybe he has more motivation and focus when someone well-known is breathing down his neck.

I think people are underselling the potential signifigance of Tiger's seeming inability to raise his game when he's not at his best and come from behind.

He's into his 30's. Injuries come easier, (he had knee surgery a year or two ago) aches and pains more common, and a general decline in most motor skills.

It is likely that we will see Tiger face more Sunday deficits in his 30's than we were used to seeing in his 20's. Whether he can raise his game and win some of them may turn out to be the difference whether or not he catches Nichlaus, and the defining difference between them.

Dont hate the player (Tiger ) hate the game..... all your ranting,Tiger is still the best that ever played, 12 majors give me a break,
in any sport who wins everytime?
Don't hate appreicate!

To Tony Williams, I don't know why you, and more than a few others, find any comment that points out a flaw in Tiger as somehow meaning that people hate him.

I sure don't. He's the best in the world today, maybe the best ever, and does more than anyone to make golf enjoyable and exciting to watch.

He is on the other hand human and has his flaws. He doesn't seem to be able to raise himself when he only brings his B game.

He seems to get upset when things aren't going as he expects them to go. You could especially see that at the most recent Masters, by the look on his face and the way he was banging his clubs.

In some sports like hockey or football, directed anger can be a very positive thing. Not so much though in a game like golf that is so much about thought, preparation and concentration.

Simply put, whatever amount of your brain is devoted to chewing over your anger, will not be devoted to the task at hand. The next shot.

And that is exactly what Nichlaus was so good at doing. His comebacks were legendary. The 65 he shot at the 86 Masters was just the epitome of it. (seven under on the last 10 holes for the win by a stroke) If you care to read an excellent article about that tournament, try this.

http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd200604nicklaus86.html

No, I don't hate Tiger. I consider myself to have been blessed to see both him and Nichlaus in their prime. Tiger probably has the most complete game of anyone in history. When he comes out of the chute with his A game, he can lap the field like no one before him.

Nichlaus' strength was his ability to gather himself. If he was standing on the 10th tee on Sunday within sniffing distance of the title, look out. He almost always raised his game. If he didn't win, he'd put on a charge and a scare into the leaderboard. That's how he ended up with a lot of his record number of second and third place finishes.

Before you dismiss what that means, consider. If Nichlaus hadn't come back a number of times, Tiger would've almost caught him by now. That he is still 6 back is only because Nichlaus did, and Tiger never has.

Bob C: Well put. A thoughtful and accurate analysis.

Tim, thanks for the kind words. It should be interesting to look back on Tiger vs Jack a few years from now when Tiger's major winning days are over.

A lot can happen between then and now. Tiger wins 6 more in the next 4 years and ends up cruising past Nichlaus. Maybe he wins 4 in the next 5 years and the ravages of time start to catch up to him while he's still a couple short.

It should be interesting.