| Page 2 of 2 < |
Golf Will Survive Without a Grand Slam by Woods
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
As great as Woods is, the odds against such a feat are daunting. The fact that he won four majors in a row back in 2000-01 is an amazing feat and is proof that he is capable of winning four straight.
But so much has to go right for such a thing to happen. You can't have one truly bad round like the 81 Woods shot in a hurricane at the 2002 British Open when he had already won the Masters and U.S. Open that year and was a couple of shots back after two rounds at Muirfield.
You can't have another great player like Lee Trevino have a near-perfect week the way Jack Nicklaus did in 1972 after he had won the first two majors of that year.
And you can't have a wayward driver and a less-than-perfect putter, even if you do enough other things well enough to finish second to a good young player having the week of his life.
One can only hope that Woods was joking when he said after his loss, "I learned my lesson with you guys," when discussing the comment he had made, unsolicited, on his own web site. Woods is so careful about everything he says in public that it would be a shame if one slightly wayward prediction (he didn't say he would win the Slam just that he could) caused him to retreat back into some kind of shell.
There are some, many in fact, in the media who think that a major isn't really a major when the winner is Immelman or Zach Johnson or Angel Cabrera. If Woods can't win for some reason, then Phil Mickelson should win, or Ernie Els, or Vijay Singh, or maybe one of the young guns like Adam Scott, or a bomber like Bubba Watson. One national radio talk show host was heard on this morning saying, "Enough with Zach Johnson and Trevor Immelman we need a real Masters winner next year."
Which misses the point entirely. Immelman is a more-than-worthy winner and a terrific story too. He's good enough to contend in majors down the road. A victory like his should be both appreciated and enjoyed.
There will be plenty more majors where Woods ends up with the trophy or the green jacket. He will blow away fields again -- quite possibly in the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines in June -- on plenty of occasions, leaving us all gasping at his talent. That's almost the norm in golf these days: Tiger laps field; sun rises in east.
That's why a Sunday like the one just past should be savored because it isn't the norm. The unexpected is what makes sports worth our time. Trevor Immelman was an unexpected winner.
And a worthy one at that. Woods will survive a few missed putts and another year without a jacket to add to his collection.
So will golf, believe it or not.

