Players raise their (white) flag to Tiger

SHELTON E-mail: Click here Archive

© St. Petersburg Times
published April 15, 2002

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- This was supposed to be about Tiger Woods' greatness.

It seemed like a good time for it. Woods has won another major golf tournament, and he has tried on another green jacket. What better time to measure him against history?

This was not a day to speak of greatness, however.

This was not a day to speak of measuring up.

On what should have been a magnificent day of golf, what we saw was surrender. What we saw was the world's highest-ranked golfers accepting their fate. What we saw was Woods in a prevent defense, playing conservative, safe golf ... and still seeing his lead soar to turn-the-channel levels.

Another day, we will talk of Woods' greatness. We will debate whether he is the best golfer or the second-best to play this game. Another day, we will talk of things he may do when he reaches his peak.

Not today. Today, there was far too much mediocrity in the final round of the Masters to speak of greatness, even with a golfer who has so much of it. They say Alexander wept because he had no worlds to conquer. Perhaps Tiger should shed a tear because there is no one left to challenge him.

In the end, this wasn't only about Woods and how he won. It was about everyone else and how they could not. It was about what Woods has and what everyone else lacks.

Is there no one out there with the game, or with the grit, to push Tiger Woods? Even a little? Is there no one to stand up to him, even once in a while? How can an entire field of golfers, of greatly skilled golfers, of men who have grown rich from the game, have a glass jaw? How can no one charge?

Seven times Woods has been tied or led going into the final of a major. He has won all seven. This time there wasn't even a protest. If Woods' greatness is largely because of his ability to make the big run at the big moment in the big tournament, what does it say that no one else can do the same?

Ask Vijay Singh, who is in the water.

Ask Ernie Els, who is in the trees.

Ask Retief Goosen, who is in the gallery.

This was a catastrophe. Coming into the day, the top six golfers on the leaderboard all ranked in the top seven in the world, and all were within four shots. Given that depth of field, given the soft greens, given Sergio Garcia's proclamation the world was gaining on Tiger, you would have expected a show.

It didn't happen. When Tiger is close to victory, it never does.

Goosen finished 2 over. Singh finished 4 over. Phil Mickelson was 1 under. Ernie Els was 1 over. Sergio Garcia was 3 over.

True, the tees were back. But they weren't in Atlanta, for goodness' sake. Yes, the pin placements were difficult. But they weren't invisible. One of the top players in the world should have been able to make a charge.

The course was tough? Of course the course was tough. It's the Masters. And these are the finest players in the world. Someone should have been able to chase down a 71. It was disappointing for golf that no one did.

All of this occurred on a day when it appeared Woods could be had. He had three bogeys and finished with 71. And he won by three strokes. True, Woods might have turned it on if he needed to, but that's the point. He never seems to need to.

After a while, none of this really helps Woods' legacy. If you are going to be great, doesn't someone have to be, at least, good? Doesn't someone have to be Joe Frazier or Wilt Chamberlain or Larry Bird? Eventually, doesn't someone have to take advantage of the time you hit a tree, or the time the putt doesn't fall for you?

Another day, we will debate Woods' greatness. Yes, this allows you to argue that he was better than Palmer. Yes, you can put him ahead of Watson. On the Sandy Koufax-Gale Sayers argument, which concentrates more on brilliance of accomplishment and less on longevity, you can take his side against Jack Nicklaus (although with 18 firsts and 19 seconds in majors, the feeling here is that Woods has a little more work to do).

"Besides Nicklaus, Tiger is the best player," Goosen said. "Give him a couple of more years, and he'll be even greater than Jack Nicklaus. It's just a matter of time."

When Nicklaus was clubbing the field, however, he was doing it against other players who could steal his lunch. Trevino. Palmer. Watson. Miller. Player. Do you see any of those guys on the tour?

These days, the competition should be tougher. There are more players worldwide than ever. There is more money. The improved equipment has made the field closer. And what do you see? You see Tiger. And everyone else talking about bad breaks and bad lies and bad luck.

This will make you shudder. If not for Woods, someone would be winning these tournaments. And we probably would look at them and talk about how great they were. Woods has spared us that. It's a shame he has to be great all by himself.

Another day, we will agree Woods is a fabulous golfer. We will discuss his skill, his focus, his hunger as people will for 100 years. We will talk of his charisma, his intelligence, his charm.

Then we will sigh and shake our heads.

All he ever lacked, we will say, was competition.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright