Goodnight and goodbye. The Grand Slam year is over before it even began. This will please some people: already a trawl through the UK press sees Tiger being written off, called an elder statesmen and generally mocked for ever claiming he could win the Grand Slam.
The facts are that Tiger didn’t play well. I doubt I was alone in thinking that, particularly on Friday, he was chasing too hard, locked in a fruitless pursuit of the impossible when concentrating on the simple stuff might have brought him back into contention sooner. But he finished second. So no Grand Slam this year. But another example of just how far ahead of the rest he is. In a mediocre week for the Tiger it took an immense (once in a lifetime?) performance from Immelman to beat him. And when the sun eventually sets on Tiger’s career the second places will provide the commentators with another measure of his greatness – just as it is a measure of Nicklaus’ greatness that he was so often there or thereabouts in the final shake up on a Sunday afternoon.
Was he wrong to say this could be the Grand Slam year? Yes, if only because hubris is unbecoming in a man who has fostered his public image so carefully. Was he wrong to believe he could do it? Absolutely not. He might well do it in the future. Or he might go on to win another Tiger Slam in the next four majors.
Can we describe Woods’ Masters as a failure? We can. But only because we measure Tiger by a different set of rules. Losing the Masters was not the real story. The aborted Grand Slam effort was. Nobody else in golf is measured in this way. Tiger’s success has brought him so much, but it has its drawbacks as well. The prizes may well be greater, but the price of failure will also cut that much deeper.
I for one am saddened that the Grand Slam year has ended so soon. It would have been fun. The eyes of the world would have been on golf. And it would have been a moment of history, one of those rare occasions when sport transcends boundaries and captivates the globe as one man reaches for immortality and touches the limits of what was thought to be possible.
But the lesson for Tiger is that when you are that good there will be those who dream of you failing as much as there will be those who dream of you excelling. So this week Tiger will be compared, unfavourably, to Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus and Nick Faldo who triumphed from behind on bygone Augusta Sundays. The commentators won’t point out that those three shared something that Tiger won’t know for years: that exalted triumvirate were raging against the years as much as the field, proving that the old dogs still had the stomach for a fight. That will come to Tiger, but not now.
They will say that a younger man has won. They will not dwell on Tiger’s relative youth. If golf is now a young man’s game (and Tiger has made it so) then Tiger remains a young man.
They will say that he can’t win the biggies from behind. That is a blip that one day, some day Tiger will rectify. They will not point out that their new hero, Immelman, hasn’t proved he can win a major from behind either. It is one of those stats that can mean everything or mean nothing. 13 majors is a statistic that can’t be disputed.
And what will Tiger be left with? The “what ifs†of putts that didn’t drop, of birdies that could have sparked a charge being negated by carelessness on the next hole. Of a week that didn’t go right but proved again that he is the dominant beast in golf’s jungle.
The Tiger will rise again. The commentators will again fall into line. This week, this year, was not to be. But with Tiger in our game we can bask in greatness that doesn’t even come along once in a generation. Let’s not turn on him now. Let’s enjoy him for as long as he lasts.
It seems that Lorena Ochoa’s Grand Slam chance is still alive and well. I would submit that based on her recent victories and winning margins, she’s been the one with the best chance at a Grand Slam all along.
Usual great article Andy!
-Bob
I’m with you Andy. I remember watching Tiger’s first major and remember
talking about his game on the Monday morning at my club here in Australia. That might not seem like much, but that was ten years + or – years ago and, since I am now 77 years old, remembering things from 10 minutes ago is hard enough.
There are a lot of people who write about great sportsmen with their envy showing and the drivel they write should be ignored while they must be remembered for the morons they truly are.
A little presumptuous there, don’t you think? Quite obviously your statement about the Grand Slam being “over” shows your neurosis symptom of wildly jumping to an illogical conclusion. The GrandSlam possibility is there, very real, and clear and present for Trevor Immelman. Don’t sell him short!! He deserves better and earned it well.
😀 Andy, I read with much glee, your take on the media’s view, of Tiger’s resulting second place finish in the ’08 Masters.
One important fact, must be mentioned here, that those giants, occupying the pinnacle of their respective sport’s game, will surely encounter the barbs, of those who pine and savour their failings. But, it must also be said, that Tiger’s second place finish, did not reflect his having failed, but rather, his failing to succeed in winning. There is a distinction here. When one is characterized, as having failed, he ceases to go on, or better still, is DONE; in Tiger’s case, his second place finish, at this year’s Masters, was seen as his, failing, but not FAILED.
You are so right, in your comments, that Tiger, will be judged, not in comparison, with the run of the mill, tour professional, but among the pantheon of those, who exemplify greatness, in the sport of golf.
Thanks for your wonderful take! Lance PS. You have continued to merit my praise and admiration, of what you do, Andy, which is whiy I subscribe to your golf products and valuable tips.