
SOUTHPORT, England -- Here's what players have said about the 137th British Open Championship this week: Sergio Garcia said, "With all due respect, the Open is bigger than any of us, even Tiger Woods." Lee Westwood said, "It's bigger than any one golfer." Geoff Ogilvy said, "If any tournaments can stand up strong when he's not around, it's this one and the U.S. Open and the Masters and the PGA. I mean the events are bigger than any one guy." Methinks the pros doth protest too much. We're not talking about "one guy." We're talking about Woods, who beat the boys on one good leg last month; who is to golfers what Jason and Freddy are to coeds; who by dint of some weird Jedi-like power can hole key putts of up to 66 feet (U.S. Open) and even iron shots (2000 AT&T). Should the name of this week's champion be engraved on the claret jug with an asterisk? No. An asterisk is not sufficient. Woods has won 14 majors in 46 starts, which means he's batting .300, which means he is almost as integral to major championship golf as grass, oxygen and an extra trip to the loo 10 minutes before tee time. The British Open is a major; Tiger's absence is the story. This Open will be devalued in the history books because you can't subtract the greatest player the game has ever seen and have a victory mean the same thing. The same goes for next month's PGA. Woods is not "one golfer" or "one guy," and that's why the cliche players have adopted this week, that a major is bigger than any single player, does not hold up. Not even close. Woods does not win every week, but players almost always feel his presence because he's almost always in contention. We've known this for a while, but only lately has it been proven and quantified. Jennifer Brown of Berkeley analyzed data from tournaments from 2002 to '06, more than 20,000 player-rounds, and found that a Tour pro will take an average of one more stroke per tournament Woods plays compared to the ones he doesn't.
|
Stories
|
||||
|
|