The Triumph and Tragedy of Tiger Woods

Tiger Woods' ability to play competitive rounds at major golf championships after almost losing his leg in a car accident speaks volumes about not only his prodigious talent but also his determination, grit, and pain tolerance. Woods made the cut at the 2022 Masters ahead of several notable names, and he finished 47th. He then made the cut at the 2022 PGA Championship before withdrawing after limping through a difficult third round. There is much about Woods to be admired, emulated, and respected, both in terms of his dominance in his prime, and his determination to play through injury now.

However, obscured in the story of his remarkable comeback is why exactly he has to come back.

In February 2021, Woods suffered serious injuries in a one car accident during which he was entirely at fault due to driving far faster than the speed limit. Despite his vehicle event recorder demonstrating that he was driving in excess of 80 mph in a 45 mph zone at the time of the crash, Woods was not even issued a speeding ticket. His dangerous conduct not only caused serious injuries to himself, but he could have seriously injured or even killed innocent people. Even worse, this not the first time that Woods' reckless conduct behind the wheel potentially endangered other people. 

In May 2017, he was arrested for suspicion of DUI after police found him sitting unconscious in a damaged Mercedes Benz on the side of a road; he tested positive for five different drugs and had no explanation for how his car became damaged, but he was permitted to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for entering a diversionary program. 

In November 2009, Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant, a tree, and several hedges. He was cited for careless driving as a result of that incident. Fortunately, no one was injured other than Woods. 

Woods' injuries and the obstacles that he created for himself in his personal life are tragic notes to his golf career, but his reckless behavior behind the wheel could have led to fatal tragedies not only for himself but for innocent people and their families. While it would be inspiring to see Woods charge up the leaderboard at a major golf championship again, it would be even more inspiring if he conquers whatever causes him to get behind the wheel with such callous disregard not just for his life and limbs, but for the life and limbs of others. If Woods is only working on his golf, his life story may have a much more tragic ending than just falling short of breaking Jack Nicklaus' record for major championships won.

Tiger Woods Experiences the Full Career Arc of A Champion

Tiger Woods, who just became the second oldest winner of The Masters, is experiencing the full career arc of a champion. That arc begins with the wonder years, when the prodigy becomes the youngest to accomplish certain feats or win specific events. It would be wrong to say that at this stage championships are inevitable--nothing about competition involving skill is inevitable--but there is an expectation that the prodigy will achieve and sustain greatness. Because of that expectation, the first championships may come more with a feeling of relief than of joy, and there may be an accompanying feeling of pressure to maintain a high standard of play.

After those first titles, the champion goes through his prime, when winning titles appears to be effortless. That perception is incorrect, of course; championships are only achieved after much hard work is put in, and the margin between winning and losing is rarely large, even if the final score suggests otherwise.

Father Time is undefeated, so at some point the champion ages and new contenders enter their own wonder years. Each title won by the champion at this point may be his last, and thus these latter titles may feel more meaningful or precious; the hard work that must be put in to win these titles is apparent to everyone: Tiger Woods has to get up in the middle of the night to loosen up his back before playing the final round at Augusta.

Winning a first title is great but winning a title in your 40s--when there is much doubt (including, perhaps, even at least a little self-doubt--is very satisfying.

The images of Tiger embracing his children--who are too young to remember prodigy Tiger or dominant Tiger--are priceless, and it is an added blessing that his mother was able to witness Tiger's triumph as well; Tiger's father is no longer with us but he is surely smiling down on his son.

Watching Tiger win a major as an older player who is no longer consistently dominant brings to mind Bill Russell's last title run with the Boston Celtics and Pete Sampras' final U.S.Open title. The difference, though, is that Russell had already announced his pending retirement and Sampras never played again on Tour (though he did not formally announce his retirement until shortly before the next year's U.S. Open), but Tiger iso regaining his mental and physical strength; it is doubtful that he will ever dominate to the extent that he did during his prime, but he could conceivably be a credible contender in majors for the next several years, and--with his 15th major win under his belt--possibly even renew his quest to break Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 wins in majors.

Comparing the Greatest Sports Dynasties

The December 9, 2013 issue of Autoweek contains an article by Al Pearce titled "No End in Sight" (an abridged version can be found here); Jimmie Johnson had just claimed his sixth NASCAR Sprint Cup Series title in his 12th full season on the circuit, placing him one behind record holders Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt. Petty considers Johnson a lock to win at least eight crowns and would not be surprised if Johnson pushes the standard to 10. Although Johnson receives most of the glory, racing is a team sport and the success of Rick Hendrick Motorsports with Johnson behind the wheel and Chad Knaus serving as crew chief raises an intriguing question: where does this accomplishment rank in the pantheon of great sports dynasties?

Hendrick has actually won 11 Sprint Cup Series titles overall--with Jeff Gordon serving as the driver for four of them and Terry Labonte capturing the other one--and a sidebar to Pearce's article (not included in the online version) notes that Hendrick is tied with the NHL's Detroit Red Wings and MLB's St. Louis Cardinals for the seventh most championships won by a professional sports organization. The leaders are the New York Yankees (27 World Series championships), the Montreal Canadiens (24 Stanley Cups), the Boston Celtics (17 NBA titles), the Los Angeles Lakers (16 NBA titles), the Toronto Maple Leafs (13 Stanley Cups) and the Green Bay Packers (13 NFL titles).

Autoweek notes that Hendrick has captured 11 championships in 30 seasons, a .367 winning percentage that is the best in American sports history, ahead of the Celtics (17/67, a .254 winning percentage), the Canadiens (24/95, a .253 winning percentage) and the Yankees (27/113, a .239 winning percentage). Hendrick has been incredibly dominant in the past two decades, winning 11 of 19 championships (.579).

Autoweek lists some of the "Best of the Best" sports dynasties without ranking them:
 
Boston Celtics of the late 1950s/early 1960s (nine NBA championships in a 10 year span), Michael Schumacher (five straight Formula I titles and a record seven titles overall), Los Angeles Lakers (five NBA championships in the 1980s), Chicago Bulls (six NBA championships in eight years during the 1990s), Pittsburgh Steelers (four Super Bowl wins in a six season span during the 1970s), John Force (16 NHRA Top Fuel championships in 24 years as a driver, 18 NHRA championships as a team owner), New York Yankees of the late 1940s/early 1950s (six World Series wins in seven years), Montreal Canadiens (five straight Stanley Cup wins in the 1950s), UCLA (10 NCAA basketball championships in a 12 year span in the 1960s/1970s), Jack Nicklaus (18 pro golf major wins), Tiger Woods (14 pro golf major wins), Dario Franchitti (four IndyCar titles in five seasons), Sebastien Vettel (four straight Formula I titles, 2010-13), Sebastien Loeb (nine consecutive World Rally Championships, 2004-12), A.J. Foyt (seven IndyCar titles, the most all-time), Richard Petty/Dale Earnhardt (seven NASCAR titles each).

Considering the source, it is not surprising that eight of the 17 dynasties involve some form of auto racing but overall that list is a good one. If individual athletes like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods are going to be mentioned, though, then Bjorn Borg deserves consideration; when Borg retired he held the records for most Wimbledon wins (five), most consecutive Wimbledon wins (five), most French Open wins (six) and most consecutive years with at least one Grand Slam win (eight). Borg still holds the record for best Grand Slam winning percentage (.407, 11 wins in 27 appearances). Even though some of Borg's records have been surpassed by various players, no player in tennis history has been dominant enough to hold all of those records at the same time the way that Borg did.

Objectively ranking the aforementioned dynasties is an impossible task; it is difficult enough to rank the greatest players of all-time in one sport, let alone compare athletes and teams from various generations and vastly different sports. I agree with Pearce, though, that the best of the best have a special quality about them:

Elite competitors, like newly minted six-time NASCAR Sprint Cup Series champion Jimmie Johnson, have it. They always have, and they always will. No worthy champion achieves anything without it.

Michael Jordan had it during those magical years with the Chicago Bulls. Tiger Woods had it before foolishly throwing it away. The Boston Celtics and Arnold Palmer and "Mr. October" Reggie Jackson had it. "I am the greatest" Muhammad Ali had it. So did Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky. And, don't laugh, but Terry Bradshaw had it, too.

It's an indefinable gene that carries the day and elevates an athlete. It separates truly great ones from those who think they're great or merely think about being great.

"It" is a powerful combination of talent, work ethic, confidence and will power. Someone once said of Jack Nicklaus that he knew he was the best, his opponents knew that he was the best and he knew that they knew. Ranking the great sports dynasties is impossible but it is clear that they all had that type of dominance, an expectation of victory that inspired them and that inspired fear/resignation in even the staunchest opponents.

Enjoying the Process

"Focus, while I display flows ferocious."--Busta Rhymes, "Everything Remains Raw"

Consistently converting winning positions is one of the greatest challenges that a chess player faces. Perhaps the biggest difference between Masters and non-Masters is that Masters are much more proficient at winning the games that they "should" win. I have worked very hard to improve at this phase of the game and I have made enough progress to maintain an Expert rating but not quite enough progress to earn the Master title. Throughout my chess career I have sought the advice of Masters on this subject, trying to gain insight about how their minds function when victory is in sight but not yet secured.

When I was a Class A player trying to reach Expert level in the early 1990s, Senior Master Boris Men explained to me that when you have the advantage the most important thing is to "play against your opponent's play." I had never heard this expression before, though I later realized that it is a standard Master level technique. The idea is that by squelching any possible counterplay you will force your opponent to either trade pieces or else place his pieces passively; this is much more prudent than chasing after stray pawns or prematurely launching an attack that could weaken your position. SM Men's advice has helped me a lot, though following through on his prescription is easier said than done.

More recently, Hans Multhopp, a USCF Master who is also a FIDE Master, told me to enjoy the winning process. At first I thought that he meant savor the prospect of victory--by cultivating the Relentless mindset of champions like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant, players who are not satisfied until they dominate and destroy their opponents--but Multhopp clarified that a chess player should enjoy looking for the best moves and solving problems over the board. Chess should be fun! When you are winning a chess game it is easy to become bored, stressed out and/or distracted but ideally one should remain focused and joyful.

This is one of the many ways that chess is a metaphor for life. In The Spiritual Practices of the Ninja: Mastering the Four Gates to Freedom, Ross Heaven writes, "Life is meant to be played with, not stressed over." Having a winning position can be more nerve-wracking than having a losing position, because the losing player may have already resigned himself to his fate while the winning player, paradoxically, has everything to lose if he makes one false move. Chess can be a masochistic endeavor: we suffer when we are losing because we hate to lose but we also suffer when we are winning because we are afraid that we might lose! I overheard an International Master exclaim, "I hate this game!"--and this was after he had just won from a losing position. Something is very wrong if someone who has reached the 99th percentile in his chosen endeavor feels miserable after winning a game instead of being happy not just for the victory but also for becoming so proficient and accomplished in such a challenging sport/art. Caissa is a mistress who both tempts and torments her lovers.

I am more convinced than ever that Multhopp is right: enjoying the process is the key not just to attaining chess mastery but also the key to getting the most out of chess--and life. Making Master is a worthy goal but achieving mastery of one's emotions--"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/And treat those two impostors just the same," as Kipling put it--is the ultimate goal. Win or lose, in chess or in life, I am fighting to not say/feel, "I hate this game!"

The Best Thing About Sports: The Ever Changing, Unpredictable Narratives

We thought that we knew the story. Mike Tyson was an unstoppable force, a knockout machine so fearsome that he seemed to win many of his fights before they even began as his terrified opponents stared at him through saucer-sized, fearful eyes. Then Buster Douglas came along and Tyson looked less like an all-time great and more like the neighborhood bully who finally met someone who was not afraid of him.

We thought that we knew the story. John Elway and the Denver Broncos could never win the big one. Elway had a rocket arm and nimble feet but he was destined to come up short in the Super Bowl. Then Terrell Davis arrived, Coach Mike Shanahan tinkered with the offense and Elway won back to back Super Bowls as a stirring coda to a Hall of Fame career. 

We thought that we knew the story. The 2007 New England Patriots seemed to be the ultimate team of destiny, a squad that had recently won three Super Bowls in four years, had just completed the first 16-0 regular season in NFL history and was now poised to finish 19-0 by winning a fourth Super Bowl. Then Eli Manning and the New York Giants pulled off perhaps the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

We thought that we knew the story. Tiger Woods was destined to shatter Jack Nicklaus' record for major championships, while Phil Mickelson was a talented but flawed player whose reckless approach would inevitably lead to thrilling moments followed by baffling choke jobs. The same thing was true of Woods that used to be said of Nicklaus: He knew that he was the best, his opponents knew that he was the best and he knew that his opponents knew. Woods never came from behind to win a major championship but he never needed to come from behind because he usually had lapped the field by Sunday. Chess Grandmasters once spoke of "Fischer Fear," referring to the way that Bobby Fischer intimidated other great players to such an extent that those players performed far below their normal standard against him; for many years it seemed like golf's best players suffered from "Woods Fear," collapsing down the stretch of tournaments at the mere sight of Woods prowling the back nine. Then Woods' personal life crashed--literally and figuratively--and he struggled to regain his former dominance; Woods may still believe that he is the best (or he may doubt that at some level, which could be part of his problem) but it is clear that his competitors no longer suffer from "Woods Fear."

Meanwhile, Mickelson--whose personal life seems to be the steady and grounded opposite of his free-swinging playing style--has figured out how to seize the big moments on Sunday at major championships as opposed to shrinking from those moments. Mickelson has won more majors since 2004 (five) than any golfer except for Woods (six) and he seems to be getting better with age, while Woods' game does not seem to be aging well; Woods used to be the ultimate finisher but in his past several majors he has started strongly only to falter down the stretch and it is unclear if the problem is physical, mental or some combination of both factors. It is a tribute to Woods' former greatness that despite his recent drought he still has won more majors in the past nine years than anyone else (and more than Mickelson has won in his entire career) but unless Woods undergoes some kind of revival the narrative of his career--and of his rivalry with Mickelson--will be much different than anyone could have imagined as recently as that fateful Thanksgiving weekend in 2009 when Woods' private life became a source of public mockery and derision.

The great thing about sports is that competition is the ultimate unscripted drama. We may think that we know the characters and we may think that we know the stories but people can change their lives and write new, previously unimaginable tales.

Woods Speaks, World Sits in Judgment

At 11 a.m. on Friday morning, Tiger Woods emerged from his self-imposed seclusion and delivered a prepared statement lasting a little more than 13 minutes. Woods admitted that he cheated on his wife by having several extramarital affairs and he apologized for letting down his family, friends, fans and business partners. Then he hugged his mother, greeted several friends/business associates and went back into seclusion without answering any questions from media members. The widely varying responses to what Woods said and how he said it constitute a veritable Rohrshach test of one's attitudes about a host of issues, including celebrity, morality, the role of the media in modern society and race; depending on your life experiences and your perspectives about those matters, you may think that Woods was contrite and humbled or you may think that he was robotic and fake--but the reality is that no one other than Woods truly knows what is going on in his head and even he may not know to what extent he can/will modify his behavior.

Several things struck me about Woods' remarks. First and foremost, he completely eschewed any form of the typical garbage apology that follows the template "If I offended anyone then I am sorry"; instead, Woods boldly declared:

Good morning, and thank you for joining me. Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me or you've worked with me or you've supported me.

Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each of you, simply and directly, I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.

After apologizing directly to his wife, his friends and his fans, Woods said:

The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them.

I was wrong. I was foolish.

Regardless of your opinion of Woods, try to objectively consider what he did with those words: he accepted complete responsibility for his actions, stating unequivocally that he was wrong and that no one else is to blame. It is hard to think of another celebrity who has spoken with such clarity in a similar situation; contrast Woods' words with Mark McGwire's whiny excuses ("I wish I had never played during the steroid era") and the similarly disingenuous remarks made by Alex Rodriguez and the rest of MLB's PED cheaters. I am not a connoisseur of celebrity apologies but the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that was as brutally frank as Woods' was Kobe Bryant's statement that he was "furious at myself, disgusted at myself for making a mistake of adultery."

Woods has been criticized for reading a prepared statement instead of speaking from the heart but that is not fair; Woods knew that whatever he said would be seen and heard around the world and literally might be replayed for decades, so it is understandable that he did not want to speak off the cuff. It is obvious that Woods put a lot of thought into what he said and how he said it, so in that sense his words came from an even deeper place in his soul than they might have if he had simply decided to wing it.

There is every indication that Woods wrote the remarks that he delivered and he was quite frank even if he did not satisfy the salacious appetites of those people who lust to know exactly which rumors about Woods are true and which ones are false. When Woods said, "I thought that I could get away with whatever I wanted to" he delivered a very honest explanation of his actions without excusing his conduct.

The second thing that struck me is that Woods neither looks nor sounds like someone who will be playing world class golf any time soon. I had assumed that when Woods reappeared it would be to announce his return to competition and I seriously doubted that he would miss even one of golf's major events--but during his statement golf seemed to be an afterthought at best.

Along the same lines, the third thing that struck me is that we may be witnessing a watershed moment in golf and/or sports history; so far, the Woods story has created a tabloid feeding frenzy that lacked lasting significance--but if Woods misses one or more majors then this story becomes a permanent part of the history of the sport and could loom very large if Woods fails to break Jack Nicklaus' career record of 18 Grand Slam wins.

The fourth thing that struck me is how so many people are trying to make names for themselves at Woods' expense, the most recent example being the so-called body language expert interviewed by ESPN. I will not give her more publicity by mentioning her name but she took the all-time prize for shameless self promotion after an ESPN host asked her what she thought of Woods' statement: she delivered so many plugs for herself and her book that I had almost forgotten the question by the time she got around to trying to answer it. If this had been the Gong Show then someone would have yanked her off the stage.

It is irrelevant whether or not Woods furrowed his brow, cried, tapped his heart or spoke extemporaneously. The bottom line is that he humbled himself literally in front of the whole world by admitting that he violated his marriage vows--and he apologized repeatedly and without any hesitation or excuses. Woods has committed no crime and he certainly does not owe the public a play by play account of his extramarital affairs; just because other people have bared their soul to Oprah Winfrey does not mean that Woods is required to do so. He is quite correct that moving forward this is a private matter between he and his wife. Business partners, fans and others are free to respect his refusal to supply more details or to choose to not deal with him/not root for him--but they are not "owed" more than an apology and a sincere effort by Woods to conduct himself better in the future. It is possible to live a long, healthy and productive life without knowing exactly who Woods slept with and when he slept with them.

Woods spoke the truth early in his statement when he acknowledged that ultimately he will not be judged by his words but rather by "my behavior over time." In this reality TV age, everyone wants to instantly decide if Woods' statement was a "par," a "birdie" or a "bogey" but that kind of thinking is facile, juvenile and ignorant. All that can be honestly said is that Woods made a good step by issuing an unequivocal apology combined with a pledge to be a better man and that only time will tell if his future actions live up to his lofty words.

Shark Falls Short in Bid for Third British Open Title

For Greg Norman, a British Open that started out as such a wonderful and completely unexpected fairy tale story came with a very familiar ending: he entered Sunday's final round with a two stroke lead and finished up in a tie for third, six strokes behind winner Padraig Harrington, who claimed this title for the second year in a row. This is the seventh time that Norman held or shared the lead in a Grand Slam event going in to the final round but did not win the tournament; he won the 1986 British Open after having a 54 hole lead and he also won the 1993 British Open despite trailing going into the final round. Those are Norman's only Grand Slam wins, though he famously "won" the so-called "Saturday Slam" in 1986: Norman led after the third round in all four majors only to come up empty each time other than his British Open victory.

When Norman electrified the golf world by taking the lead in this year's British Open, the Chicago Tribune's Mike Downey rightly noted that no one should feel sorry for Norman because of his previous disappointments in the final round of Grand Slam events. After all, Norman still must be considered one of the greatest golfers of all-time. He topped the end of the year Official World Golf Rankings seven times (1986-87, 89-90, 95-97) and finished second on three other occasions (1988, 1993-94). Only Tiger Woods (nine) has ranked first at the end of the year more times than Norman has. Norman spent a total of 331 weeks ranked as the number one golfer in the world, second only to Woods' 504 weeks at the top--and the next closest competitor is, frankly, not even close: Nick Faldo was ranked number one for 98 weeks. Norman was the leading money winner on the PGA Tour in 1986, 1990 and 1995 and in 1989-90 and 1994 he won the Vardon Trophy for posting the lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour.

It is hard to understand or explain why such a talented and highly accomplished athlete has fallen short so many times in Grand Slam events. It is easy to mock Norman as a "choker," but that label is clearly inappropriate regarding this year's British Open: he set a record by becoming the oldest player to hold the 54 hole lead in a major championship and finishing third is quite an accomplishment for a 53 year old who hardly even plays golf anymore. This result is so much better than anyone could have reasonably expected that it cannot be classified as a failure for Norman, particularly considering how well Harrington played in the final round.

As for Norman's disappointing Grand Slam finishes during his prime years, they are frankly quite puzzling; he obviously won a lot of big events in order to maintain his world number one ranking, so it's not like Norman does not know how to manage final round pressure and emerge victorious. I don't believe in luck but Norman seemed to have a lot of bad fortune that directly coincided with good fortune for his opponents in those situations. Perhaps the best explanation is that the traits that make Norman great also leave him vulnerable: he is a confident, aggressive golfer, so the same bold strokes that enable him to carve out big leads can also result in bogeys at the most inopportune times.

Woods is something of an "anti-Norman" in terms of Grand Slams. While Norman will forever be known as the Shark who let many "fish" get away, Woods has never lost a Grand Slam after having the 54 hole lead. As I mentioned in a July 23, 2007 post titled "The Difference Between Winners and Champions," "I hear golf analysts make much of the fact that on the one hand Woods rarely gives up a lead on Sunday but on the other hand he has never come from behind on Sunday to win a major. I think that the former is much more significant than the latter. When Woods has his 'A' game, as he would put it, he wins, point blank--he gets a lead, he keeps it and they put his name on the trophy. When he has his 'B' or 'C' game, he still may be in contention just because he is so good but someone else who is having the tournament of his life may end up winning."

According to the standard that I mentioned in that post, Woods is a "champion" while Norman is a "winner" but I wonder if in this case that harsh distinction is really fair or accurate. Norman spent the better part of a decade ranked as the number one player in the world in his sport and he did win two Grand Slams. Even though Norman has come up short so many times in Grand Slams, I must say that he is still a champion--just not as great a champion as Woods, who seems to be on a path to become the greatest champion in golf history and one of the greatest champions in sports history.

Tiger's High Stakes Gamble Pays Off--For Now

Tiger Woods' high stakes gamble paid off but it may be years until we know the ultimate cost. As you have undoubtedly heard by now, Tiger Woods will not play golf for the rest of 2008 due to a torn ACL in his left knee and a double stress fracture in his left tibia (lower leg)--injuries that he overcame to win the U.S. Open after 91 agonizing, brutal holes. That moved Woods one major win closer to tying Jack Nicklaus' all-time record but knee surgery and the ensuing recuperation process will force Woods to miss at least two majors. Basically, Woods took the bird in hand--a major that he felt confident that he could win on one leg--over the two in the bush. It is only fair to wonder, though, if Woods' grit, stubbornness and determination may end up costing him many birds in the bush.

While announcing that he will need reconstructive knee surgery, Woods revealed that he tore his ACL 10 months ago. Since that time he won 10 of the 13 events that he played in--never finishing lower than fifth--and he added two majors to his trophy case. The delay in getting his ACL repaired resulted in cartilage damage and that was the reason for his April 15 knee surgery, a stopgap procedure that Woods hoped would help him make it through this year. That plan fell apart when it was later discovered that he had stress fractures in his left leg. If Woods had gotten his ACL repaired immediately then he probably would not have sustained the cartilage damage and the stress fractures. He truly made a Faustian bargain with the older version of himself, betting that the young, hobbled version of himself has a better chance to win majors than an older, not hobbled version would.

Perhaps he was right; as noted above, he won two majors despite not being 100% healthy. However, if Woods develops nagging knee or leg problems that shorten his career or curtail his dominance he may one day look back on his memories of winning while limping and wonder if he would not have been better off listening to his doctors, who told him he should be on crutches instead of playing golf.

An athlete's body is like a finely tuned machine and when one part is not functioning at 100% that places tremendous pressure on the other parts. Woods generates tremendous torque with his powerful drives and he literally has ripped his left leg apart in multiple places. Modern surgical procedures can most likely repair the damage for now but a rebuilt body part is never as sound or functional as it originally was. Also, whatever it is about his swing that caused this damage will inevitably place pressure on his knee and lower leg once he resumes playing. If Woods is not able to change his swing without reducing its effectiveness then he will most likely have a recurrence of this problem in a few years.

The reality is that for a great, supremely confident athlete like Woods no other choice was possible: the same self-assuredness that convinced him that he could not only tolerate the pain but play well enough to win the U.S. Open also is why Woods undoubtedly believes that next year he will come back fully healthy and better than ever. I sure hope that he is right. I don't know the ins and outs of golf strategy the way that I do about basketball, football and other sports, but I love watching Tiger Woods play because I recognize in him the same focus, will power and skill set mastery that only a select few--guys like Michael Jordan and Jerry Rice--possess. It would be a shame to see Woods cut down in his prime.

Tiger Woods Marches--and Limps--Toward Golf Immortality

Tiger Woods certainly looked mortal at times during his marathon 91 hole U.S. Open victory, particularly when his balky knee made him wince as he shuffled around Torrey Pines with a gait more like Fred Sanford's than that of one of the greatest athletes in the world. Woods joked that during his 18 hole playoff with Rocco Mediate he played "military" golf because his shots veered "left, right" but Woods made no excuses, refusing to discuss in detail how much he was hurting or how much his pain/limited mobility affected his game. However, you don't have to be a golf expert to realize that Woods was experiencing a serious problem and that impression is confirmed by Woods' statement that he is going to rest his knee for an indeterminate period.

Hall of Fame forward Kevin McHale played with a broken foot in the 1987 NBA playoffs as he tried to help the Boston Celtics win back to back championships. The Celtics fell short and he was never again the same player. Woods' gritty effort this weekend brought him his third U.S. Open title and moved him to within four Grand Slams of tying Jack Nicklaus' career record but it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks, months and years if Woods pays a long term price for his stubbornness and toughness; his doctors advised him not to play and it is very possible that Woods caused further damage to his knee by disregarding their recommendations.

For now, though, all we can do is marvel at what Woods accomplished and how he added to his already rich legacy. Focus and preparation are the two keys to success for elite athletes. Pain and injury sap most people's ability to focus but Woods overcame that obstacle well enough to best a strong field of players at a very tough golf course. Just as impressive is the fact that Woods did this with very little preparation due to his physical limitations in the wake of his April 15th knee surgery. Woods' swing coach Hank Haney says, "He bent over to read a putt for the first time on Thursday"--in other words, during the first round of the U.S. Open. It is amazing to be able to win a major championship with such little preparation.

Nicklaus set the standard for golf excellence but Woods is well on his way to surpassing Nicklaus' records. Woods won his 14th Grand Slam in his 46th appearance in a major as a professional, while Nicklaus won 11 Grand Slam titles in his first 46 majors as a pro. Nicklaus scored 26 over par in those 46 majors, while Woods has posted a mind boggling 126 below par score. Nicklaus had more second place finishes (10-5) and more top three finishes (26-22) in those events but, frankly, I don't think Woods is very interested in those marks. Woods' only goal is victory and what is remarkable about him is that when he is on form--or even close to being on form--he has an extraordinarily high winning percentage; that is why the fact that he has never lost in a Grand Slam after having a lead at the 54 hole mark is much more significant than the fact that he has never won a major after trailing at that point. Woods has an 11-1 career record in PGA Tour playoffs, the best winning percentage in the past 50 years for players who have participated in at least four playoffs. Nicklaus (13-10) and Arnold Palmer (12-8) are the only players in the past half century to win more PGA Tour playoffs than Woods but their winning percentages are far worse than his. When Woods is playing well enough to be in contention to win a tournament he almost always wins the tournament.

Woods has now joined Nicklaus as the only players to ever win each of the Grand Slams at least three times. This was also Woods' 65th PGA Tour win, moving him past Ben Hogan into third place on the all-time list behind Sam Sneed (82) and Nicklaus (73). Woods has won a major in four straight years for the second time (1999-2002, 2005-2008), something that only three other players (Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Walter Hagen) accomplished even once.

Woods birdied the 18th hole on Sunday to tie Mediate and force a playoff and Woods again birdied at 18 on Monday to force a sudden death playoff match, which Woods won on the first hole by scoring a par at number seven while Mediate bogeyed. This will most likely turn out to be the best--and last--chance for the 45 year old Mediate to win his first Grand Slam title. Mediate said, "It was just a pleasure--an honor--being out there. I'm sure I scared him. I did good today...I almost--I just about got him." Those are nice sentiments and Mediate certainly won over many fans with the engaging personality that he displayed throughout the weekend but I can say with 100% certainty that never in Woods' life has he gone out on the golf course satisfied to "scare" his opponent. After a runner up finish in the Indy 500, Mario Andretti once said, "Second place is first loser." That may sound harsh and unremitting to the average person--but that is why average people don't win Indy 500s or Grand Slam golf tournaments. One characteristic of people and teams that score big upsets--Joe Namath's Jets, Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, the 2007 New York Giants--is that they have no fear of their opponents. If Woods ever loses in a major after having a 54 hole lead it will be to a player whose goal is to defeat Woods, not cause him momentary anxiety.

Quick Thoughts on Three Headlines From This Week

Most of you probably know that I have been busy with the NBA playoffs, which is why I have been posting less frequently here. Three non-NBA stories caught my eye recently but I have not had a chance to write about them until now:

1) Tiger Woods has knee surgery right after finishing second in the Masters.

As Christine Brennan pointed out in her USA Today column, Woods did an impeccable job of not using his knee injury as an excuse for his performance and of making sure that the timing of the announcement about his surgery did not overshadow or diminish the attention that Trevor Immelman received for winning his first major. The Cleveland Cavaliers pride themselves on being a "no excuses" team and that is an attitude that all champions (and aspiring champions) should take. Woods clearly understands this.

2) Toronto Blue Jays waive slugger Frank Thomas

Frank Thomas finished fourth in the AL MVP voting in 2006 as an Oakland A and last year as Toronto Blue Jay he hit .277 with 26 home runs and 81 RBI. Thomas, who often is a slow starter, hit just .167 in the first 16 games of this season, though he did slug three home runs and 11 RBI. Thomas did not react well when word came out of Toronto that the Blue Jays planned to bench him in favor of some younger players and then all of a sudden the team announced that it had reached a "mutual" agreement with Thomas to release him. ESPN's Buster Olney reports that the A's may sign Thomas soon. Thomas has been one of the most remarkably consistent and disciplined sluggers in MLB history, a great home run hitter (516 and counting) who also hit for average (.302 lifetime, including a .347 average in 1997 that earned him the batting title). For five straight seasons in the 1990s Thomas produced at least 30 home runs, 100 RBI, 100 runs scored and 100 walks. Neither his physique nor his numbers changed during baseball's "steroids era" and he has always been at the forefront in calling for more drug testing and harsher punishment of drug cheaters. He is not popular with some members of the media, which leads to him being portrayed poorly at times, but overall Thomas has not only been a great player but a class act. Here's hoping that his career ends on a positive note.

3) Danica Patrick becomes the first woman to win a major open-wheel auto racing event

Danica Patrick took the checkered flag in the Japan Indy 300 last weekend, holding off two-time Indy 500 champion Helio Castroneves to become the first woman to win a major open-wheel auto race. Some people are comparing Patrick's triumph to Billie Jean King's famous victory over Bobby Riggs but Patrick's is much more significant from a competitive standpoint even if it does not have as much impact culturally and socially. Riggs was an over the hill (55 years old at the time) tennis hustler who may very well have even bet against himself when he played King; he had previously claimed an easy 6-1, 6-2 victory over Margaret Court, the top ranked female tennis player in the world at that time. Patrick's win came in serious competition against some of the very best drivers in the world. Success in the auto racing world is heavily dependent on having the right team backing you with the best equipment but the driver still has to have the skills to get the job done. Some people were beginning to compare Patrick to tennis player Anna Kournikova, which is actually unfair to both athletes. Kournikova has been wrongly characterized as simply a stunningly beautiful woman who never won anything but the latter charge is not true. Although she never won a singles title, she was ranked as highly as eighth in the world at one time; also, she won 13 career doubles titles--including two Grand Slams--and achieved the number one ranking in the world in that discipline. Whether or not Kournikova fully maximized her potential is a separate issue but she achieved more in the world of tennis than 99% of her critics ever achieved in anything. Patrick is a young racer who had already enjoyed some success even before her win in Japan, so it was very premature for anyone to assume that she would never win a race.

No Grand Slam for Tiger in 2008

One of the greatest testaments to Tiger Woods' greatness is that a second place finish in the Masters is considered to be a disappointment for him--not that he would disagree at all with that perception or resent the added pressure that it places on him. I remember one time when racing legend Mario Andretti finished second at the Indy 500, a track where he suffered more than his share of bad breaks. Someone asked him what it felt like to do well there in light of his history at the event and the 1969 Indy 500 champion replied with disgust that second place is just "first loser." Woods would certainly understand and echo that sentiment. As the four-time champion who has now finished second two years in a row put it, he did not come to the Masters with the idea of settling for anything less winning the tournament.

Woods never got his putting game going in this year's Masters but he is so talented that he finished second anyway, three strokes behind Trevor Immelman. Woods had been on such a roll recently that he did not discourage talk that he could become the first player to win all four of golf's Grand Slam events in one calendar year. After all, he captured the "Tiger Slam" by winning the U.S. Open, the British Open and the PGA Championship in 2000 and then capturing the 2001 Masters. Woods will be much more reticent about openly speaking about such things in the future, telling reporters after the Masters, "I learned my lesson there with the press. I'm not going to say anything."

Winning one Grand Slam event would be the highlight of most golfers' careers and only 13 players have won at least six of them, a list topped by Jack Nicklaus' 18 titles. Remarkably, Nicklaus also finished second a record 19 times. Woods is second on the career list with 13 Grand Slam wins and he now has five second place finishes. I think that Woods will eventually eclipse Nicklaus' 18 titles but I don't expect him to make much of a run at the 19 second place finishes. The reason I say that is that when Woods has his "A" game--as he likes to call it--he generally leads from start to finish (or comes pretty close to doing that). Every time he has won a Grand Slam event he was leading or tied for the lead going into the last round. The flip side of that, of course, is that he has never come from behind after 54 holes to win a major title. Some commentators act like this is some kind of hole in Woods' resume but I disagree. ESPN.com ran a graphic detailing Woods' final round performances when he did not hold the lead after 54 holes and what I immediately noticed is that in most of those cases he trailed by a significant number of strokes and in virtually every instance he gained ground in the final 18 holes. What that tells me is that in those events he did not have his "A" game--that is why he was out of contention in the first place--but he is so mentally tough and so focused that he moved up in the standings and obtained the best finish that he could under those circumstances. It is much more significant that he has never lost after holding the lead after 54 holes in a Grand Slam; that tells you that when he has his "A" game he is unaffected by pressure and he always seals the deal. This is why I believe that Woods will not rack up a lot of second place finishes; when he has his "A" game he wins tournaments with ruthless precision and when he does not have his "A" game he usually is too far back to move into second place. I am not taking a shot at Nicklaus for having so many second place finishes; that is truly remarkable and it may be an indication that he was battling against a more talent rich field of competitors than Woods is. All I'm saying is that based on Woods' track record I would not expect that finishing second will ever become a trend for him.

What Does 2008 Hold in Store for Federer and Woods?

Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are the two most dominant individual athletes in the world. Woods just reasserted that dominance with a command performance in the Buick Invitational, winning by eight strokes over Ryuji Imada, who candidly admitted afterward, "First place was out of reach, I figured. My goal was to finish second." Woods obliterated the tournament record for margin of victory (five strokes), which had been shared by Tom Watson (1977) and Fuzzy Zoeller (1979).

Woods has won the Buick Invitational four straight years, the second time that he "four-peated" at a particular event; he also turned the trick at Bay Hill, now known as the Arnold Palmer Invitational, from 2000-03. Speaking of Palmer, with this victory Woods tied Palmer for fourth place on the PGA Tour career wins list with 62. Ben Hogan ranks third with 64 wins, Jack Nicklaus won 73 events and Sam Snead set what once seemed to be an unreachable standard with 82 wins. Palmer spoke briefly with USA Today and said that he believes that Woods can win the modern Grand Slam, win more events than anyone in Tour history and be the greatest player of all-time. He recalled that Woods sought him out for advice when Woods was a collegiate player at Stanford; Woods told Palmer his goals and asked how he should deal with anything that might prevent him from achieving them. Palmer added that Woods betters his competition in three areas: natural ability, physical fitness and mental ability. Woods once held all four Grand Slam titles simultaneously but he has yet to win each of them in a calendar year; on his website, Woods says that this year that accomplishment is "easily within reason." If Woods does beat the odds and sweep the Grand Slams at least part of the reason will be that he pursues perfection as relentlessly and tenaciously as the New England Patriots. Woods, sounding like golf's version of Bill Belichick, was perhaps the only person who was not impressed by his performance in the Buick Invitational: "I still have holes in my game that I need to fix."

Federer set records left and right the past few years but he showed a slight chink in his armor last week, losing in the Australian Open semifinals to eventual winner Novak Djokovic. That ended Federer's record run of 10 straight finals appearances in Grand Slams. He still maintained his number one ranking for a record 209th straight week but Djokovic may be the player who knocks him off of that perch. Djokovic is no flash in the pan and it is unlikely that this will be his last Grand Slam win. He is just 20 years old and he showed signs last year that he may be the next big thing in tennis. Djokovic defeated the first, second and third ranked players in the world at the time--Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick--on consecutive days in the 2007 Canada Masters, the first time player to do that since Boris Becker in 1994.

Federer is at a very interesting age now--26, the same age when Bjorn Borg retired at the height of his powers after a year in which he won the French Open and reached the finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Federer is considered by some people to be the greatest tennis player ever but, as I pointed out last year, Borg's career accomplishments match up very well with Federer's and Borg actually bests Federer in several categories, including being the youngest player to win 11 Grand Slams (25), Grand Slam winning percentage (.898, first all-time), winning Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year (Borg did this three straight years; no one else has done it even once) and winning three Grand Slam events without losing a single set (only three other players have won a Grand Slam without losing a set and none of them did it more than once). Borg won at least one Grand Slam title in a record eight straight years (Sampras matched this feat). One of my favorite Borg stats is that he did not lose to a younger player until 1977, when he was 21 years old and already arguably the best player in the world.

Federer is not going to retire soon but it is also not at all certain that he will keep winning titles and Grand Slams at his recent pace. Top level tennis is a game for the very young. Consider the career arcs of the career Grand Slam title leaders in the Open Era other than Federer (12) and Borg (11). Pete Sampras won 10 of his record 14 Grand Slam titles by the age of 26 and he held the year-end number one ranking from the age of 22-27. Sampras' rival Andre Agassi was one of the most productive "old" players, winning five of his eight Grand Slam titles after the age of 26. He reached a Grand Slam final at age 35, prompting Mats Wilander to comment, "...that tells me he wasted the first five years of his career, otherwise he couldn’t have lasted this long," a reference to Aggasi's indifferent early career performances. Jimmy Connors won three of his eight Grand Slam titles after the age of 26 and famously reached the U.S. Open semifinals as a 39 year old. Ivan Lendl won four of his eight Grand Slams after the age of 26. John McEnroe won all seven of his Grand Slam titles prior to the age of 26 and did not even make it to a Grand Slam final once after that age (he played until he was 33). Wilander won all seven of his Grand Slam titles by the age of 24 and did not appear in a Grand Slam final again even though he played until he was 32. Stefan Edberg won all six of his Grand Slam titles by age 26 and made it to only one Grand Slam final after that. Becker won five of his six Grand Slam titles by age 26.

Barring injury, Woods may have a decade or more of dominance ahead of him--but Federer is most likely already past his best days, though he could very well retain the number one ranking for another year or so and win several more Grand Slams before he retires. Borg did not pad his Grand Slam total with Australian Open titles (Federer has won three of them) but he set modern records for both Wimbledon (five) and French Open (six) titles. Sampras broke the Wimbledon record and Federer matched it last year but neither of them won the French Open. Unless Federer simply shatters Sampras' mark for career Grand Slams and/or displays the versatility necessary to conquer the French Open, Borg will still have a very valid claim to being the greatest tennis player of all-time.