Go, baby, go!

I like underdogs. In any sport, when underdogs win, it's almost always more exciting, more entertaining. I used to feel that way about Tiger Woods. If anyone could mount a comeback with Woods in the lead, I was backing the little man every time.

But not anymore.

Woods' wins over the last two majors have completely turned me around. Not only do I want to see him win, I want to see him win everything. We golf watchers are in the presence of greatness, and I would like to see that greatness compound itself beyond not only my expectations, but even my imagination.

If there was any doubt that he's the best golfer ever, he put those doubts to rest. The downside to this is that now, golf writers will feel even more compelled to construct rivalries between Woods and other golfers, but those rivalries are as contrived as the President's Cup. Woods has no peer. In a couple of years, Woods may reconstruct his swing, and for a season or two, the vacuum created by his absence will bring a few players to the fore, but inevitably, Woods will return and take back the mantle of Best Player Ever.

Tiger, come back.

Let me qualify the title of this post. I'm not a huge Tiger fan, simply because he doesn't embrace his role as the #1 golfer in the world with much eagerness--no signings, no bumps, nothing. He could use a lot less prima dona and more Everyman. But that aside, it was amusing to watch the U.S. Open unfold without Tiger's presence--we could subtitle the '06 Open the "Implosion" Open. Afterall, how many pros had a chance to win the event with nothing more than a par at the last? Furyk, Monty, Figjam Mickelson, and Harrington all had a chance to win--on 18, no less--but fluffed it out. The sad thing is that the back 9 had potential fto produce drama we hadn't seen in thirty years. Monty could have landed his elusive major, or Furyk could have gone on to claim his spot among golf's semi-greats. Figjam Mickelson could have laid claim to a spot as a genuine Tiger threat, having won three of four of the last majors. Instead, we were faced with a bunch of guys shaking their heads after missing shots which could have brought them the Open. Oh well, majors are meant to be won or lost on fantastic plays, and the '06 Open was no different--just so happens the plays were real stinkers.

Golf's Big Five bores or Come on, Golfers -- Act Like You WANT it!

It may gratify some to watch the perennial favorites win, but I'd rather watch the smaller, more significant dramas unfold. Take last weekend's Barclay Classic. An early leader was Billy Andrade, a pro golfer who has fallen on relatively hard times (I say "relatively" because with his sponsorships and earnings, he's still doing financially better than 97 percent of Americans--$11 million career earnings since '87 (by comparison, I've made $600,000 in the same period.)) Azinger commented that Andrade is no longer exempt, and needs to get inside the top 125 in earnings to secure his card for next year. A win would have gone quite a ways toward that end, but he didn't win. He played good, but not great, and came in fifth. One more top ten and he'll probably be okay for next year. But isn't it more fun to watch a guy like Andrade play for his life and/or career than watch Veej stoically win another check for his retirement fund? I could have even rooted for Adam Scott, who is also quite stoic, if he had shown in some demonstrable way that he really wanted to win--a twitch, hyperventilation, ANYTHING. Which brings me back to the Big five Bores. (Note: These guys may not currently be in the top five, but they are more often than not in the top five, which is why I'll spend an inordinate amount of time commenting on them.) Woods can be fun to watch--when he isn't acting like a robot, but Mickelson, Veej, Els and Goosen are sleep-inducingly boring.