No Panic Necessary

Reports of Tiger Woods' demise have been greatly exaggerated

Tiger Woods' final-round performance at the PGA was uncharacteristic, but it may not be an indication of a trend.

Related Links

By John Hawkins

Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images

August 20, 2009

The editors wanted something on the death of the Woods Dynasty, on how Tiger's vulnerability was exposed by a little Korean dude named Yong-Eun Yang last Sunday at the PGA Championship. By theory, anyway, Yang's stunning victory will convince anyone with major-title aspirations that Woods is no longer an unstoppable force, that his legendary willpower has limits, that he can be overtaken down the stretch at golf's most important tournaments.

Call me a moron, but I don't see it that way, certainly not in terms of Yang's accomplishment redefining the competitive landscape. Historic? Absolutely. All 14 of Woods' majors had come after he held at least a share of the 54-hole lead, and that streak is over. Surprising? Obviously. Yang trailed Tiger by two strokes entering the final round but still teed off at odds of 25-1 to win, presenting a hefty payoff for anyone smart enough or brave enough to bet against conventional wisdom.

As upsets go, they don't get much bigger. A poll in this week's issue of Golf World ranked Yang over Woods as the most improbable of golf's modern era, although I still think Ben Curtis' triumph at the 2003 British Open was every bit as stunning. Curtis beat Woods, Vijay Singh, Davis Love III and Thomas Bjorn, all of whom were in groups behind Curtis, who posted early and ended up hoisting the claret jug.

We're talking about a first-time winner on foreign soil, a guy ranked 396th in the world who showed up at Royal St. George's that week without a caddie. The strongest argument against Curtis is that he wasn't paired with any of the big names and didn't have to deal with any related pressure down the stretch. I made a lousy case for that upset on this week's "Grey Goose 19th Hole" and both panelists objected to my take, but every shocking result comes with a different set of parameters, which is why the topic can lead to one of those conversations where everyone agrees to disagree.

Yang was 110th in the World Ranking entering the PGA. He'd beaten Tiger in late 2006 at the HSBC Champions in China and picked up his first PGA Tour victory at the Honda Classic in March. He wasn't a total unknown like Curtis or John Daly (1991 PGA), but at age 37, a guy with some big-game experience and at least something on his resume, much like Japan Tour refugee Todd Hamilton, who had won the 2004 Honda before knocking off Ernie Els at the British that summer.

But enough on all that. There is no downplaying the astonishment factor that emerged last Sunday at Hazeltine, especially from the poise exhibited by Yang as he pulled even with Woods, then ahead of him with an eagle at the par-4 14th, then rebounded from a three-putt bogey at No. 17 with a spectacular closing birdie to finish three shots clear of Eldrick Almighty.

It was great stuff from a heavy underdog, but a long-term effect? Don't hold your breath. I can see Tiger winning two or three majors by huge margins in 2010 faster than I can see him becoming an easy target or struggling to cope with the bull's-eye on his back. Only time will tell, but it's funny how the future can end up looking very similar to the past.

The law of averages. About half of the tour's 54-hole leaders go on to win that week, so Tiger's ability to get the horse in the barn 14 straight times in majors (and in 47 of 50 wins overall) registers somewhere between phenomenal and impossible. Any mathematician will tell you probability was bound to catch up with him -- at some point, every prodigious streak becomes a victim of its own excess.