Le Tigre

Here's a newsflash: Tiger Woods is awesome. I'm not sure what else there is to say about this guy.

In 1997, after having won the Masters by 12 strokes and having won six tournaments in less than a year as a pro, Woods decided that he needed to change his swing in order to stay at the top. People questioned him. When he won only one tournament over the next year and a half, the golf and sports press thought his decision to change his swing was a grave mistake for his career and legacy. They laughed off his claims that he was getting close to where he wanted to be. He became yesterday's news - all hail David Duval. The press stopped laughing when Tiger won 32 tournaments between 1999 and 2003. In 2000 he won the U.S. Open by 15 shots and the (British) Open Championship by 8. He won the Canadian Open with a shot for the ages on the 72nd hole. He won the PGA, and then the 2001 Masters, and he held all four major titles simultaneously. By mid-2002 he had won 8 majors. Once again he was the toast of the sports press, perceived as unbeatable and Ruthian in stature. And in 2003, he decided he needed to change his swing again.

George Santayana once wrote, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The sports writers should have heeded this warning. They thought Tiger had flipped. They said that his breaking away from longtime coach Butch Harmon and working with Hank Haney instead was a grave mistake for his career and legacy. Why change horses when you're leading the Derby? When he won no majors in 2003 and 2004, and only one tournament in 2004 (and match play at that), it was said that Tiger had lost his aura of invincibility. Vijay Singh surpassed him in the World Rankings. Phil Mickelson finally won a major and was seen as a threat to overtake Tiger both in rankings and popularity. There was talk of a "Big Four" or "Big Five", with Tiger only being a small part of this elite group of players. The press laughed off his claims that he was getting close to where he wanted to be. Some said that he could never be the same kind of player now that he had gotten married. There were even stories comparing Woods to other athletes whose careers pinnacled in their mid-20's and never approached greatness again.

Given what had happened in 1999, who would you be more likely to believe, Tiger or the press?

As recently as Doral this year, he went mano a mano with Phil Mickelson and wasn't considered the favourite. He won that battle, and Mickelson hasn't challenged him since. He then won the Masters without being at his best, another ominous sign for the competition. At the U.S. Open he was the best ballstriker in the field, with only a wonky putter getting in his way. And now he has won the 134th Open Championship for his 10th major and the completion of the career Grand Slam a second time over.

It was scary how much in control of his game he was today. If not for a few missed short putts, this would have been a monumental rout. But does anybody doubt he would have made those putts if he absolutely needed to? Colin Montgomerie seemed to take solace in the fact that he would have needed to shoot 66 to win. But does anybody doubt that even if Monty had shot 65, Tiger would have still dug deep enough to win? I think Tiger, Monty and every other player realize that to be true too. The swing is working, and the aura of invincibilty is back. But he's still no David Duval.