An Asterisk for Tigerless Majors?
BETHESDA, MD. –- With Tiger Woods out for the season, some of my golf pundit pals argue that the winners of the upcoming British Open and PGA Championship won’t be true champions. They say there should be an asterisk by the winners’ names: “* Tiger Woods Not in Field.”
Paul Goydos was asked about that this afternoon at the AT&T National, and the popular journeyman had a glib rejoinder: “Then we need to put an asterisk next to all 18 of Jack’s majors, because Tiger didn’t play in any of those.”
I’m with Goydos, but I come at it from a slightly different angle. I say there should be no asterisk because whoever wins the next two majors will have beaten the same field that Tiger outclassed to win his 14 major championships –- i.e., everybody but Tiger. It would actually devalue Tiger’s accomplishments to say that another golfer isn’t worthy of respect when he beats the very same players under major-championship conditions.
In fact, you can make the specious argument that it is Tiger who deserves the asterisk when he wins. After all, he’s the only player in the field who doesn’t have to beat Tiger Woods to claim the prize.
Posted by: kevin | Jul 9, 2008 3:28:31 PM
players miss majors all the time and no one raises this ridiculous issue. should john daly's win at the PGA back in '91 have an asterisk next to it since nick price wasn't in the field becaue his wife was about to have a baby? daly even got to use price's caddy all week too.
i would proudly take home the trophy for any major i won, whether tiger woods happened to play in the event or not and anyone who wanted to make an issue of it could take a flying leap.
goydos also noted in his now famous comments that one of the requirements to play golf at the highest level is to be ambulatory and guess what? tiger isn't, so that's why he's at home.
Posted by: Curt Fredrixon | Jul 6, 2008 2:17:44 PM
Now, hold onto whatever it is that you need to hold onto for this, but there should be an asterisk on Tiger's major wins because this is the only era in modern golf history with only one great player. Nicklaus beat Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Ballesteros and more to win his 18 majors. Whom has Tiger beaten? Lefty, Ernie and Vijay? Hah! They have three majors each. Palmer, Player and Watson averaged 8.3 each in the era of the guy who won more than anybody. THAT'S competition. Tiger, who is more likely to be pursued by a newbie or a journeyman than by somebody with a gaudy world ranking, has NEVER faced a historically top-level competitor who was in his prime and, for all we know, he, who does not have the longest fuse out there, might disappear into a cloud of cuss-words if he had to face challengers like the ones that Nicklaus had to beat. Perhaps, Tiger is the best ever, but all that I can say for certain is that he is the least-tested great golfer ever.
Posted by: gustavo millan | Jul 4, 2008 10:37:07 AM
Es lo mismo que Nadal gane Wimbledon sin Federer, o Federer gane R. Garrós sin Nadal? Obviamente que nó! Los majors son los más grandes torneos, por su historia y por quiénes compitieron en ellos. Si Tiger (posiblemente el mejor de la historia)no participa, evidentemente no es lo mismo!
Posted by: palminster | Jul 3, 2008 10:27:22 PM
Perhaps we can apply the asterisk on the lugnut who attempted to sell on Ebay the apple core which Tiger dumped during the U.S. Open.
Posted by: palminster | Jul 3, 2008 10:26:22 PM
Perhaps we can apply the asterisk on the lugnut who attempted to sell on Ebay the apple core which Tiger dumped during the U.S. Open.
Posted by: Baj | Jul 3, 2008 1:37:55 PM
The article is not stupid. The fact of the matter is this: It's easier to win without Tiger in the field. Should there be an asterisk? Of course not. But it will be like the Oilers w/o Gretzky or the Bulls w/o Jordan; in other words the 'W' in both of those tournaments will come easier with no Tiger to deal with.
Posted by: hanuska | Jul 3, 2008 12:13:37 PM
Give it a rest, this is just plain dumb. Tiger hasnt won every tournament he's entered, major or not. If he's not in the field and someone else wins, its not any different when he's been in the field and hasnt won. Geeze.
Posted by: Russ Vance | Jul 3, 2008 10:35:42 AM
Proper credit should be given to anyone who can win a major tournament at any level. Skill, health & heart are required to win any sport at any level. Tiger cannot compete with Phil, Ernie or whomever right now. No asterisks required.
Posted by: DOUG CULBERT | Jul 3, 2008 3:08:03 AM
It's a dumb article. Are there any asterisks after Ben Hogan's victories after Byron Nelson retired?
Posted by: Clifton | Jul 3, 2008 2:54:13 AM
I feel pitty for the guy that wins the next major!He will forever have to live with the fact that Tiger was not in the feild.Hope its not Phil Mickelson it will just make it worse......
Posted by: JP | Jul 3, 2008 12:07:23 AM
Then we actually need to credit Tiger for every major he's played in, but lost. In those, he didn't lose...he just beat himself!
Posted by: JP | Jul 3, 2008 12:05:43 AM
Then we actually need to credit Tiger for every major he's played in, but lost. In those, he didn't lose...he just beat himself!
Posted by: Ronald Montesano | Jul 2, 2008 6:54:22 PM
So Tiger goes and plays on his wrecked leg...do we call it a not-100%-Tiger major? Are we going back to the late 1940s to revisit the Hogan-less majors? Your golf pundit friends didn't think this one through, John. A major is a major is a major, regardless of the field.
Posted by: Rob Peterson | Jul 2, 2008 5:35:53 PM
There will be two major championships won, but guess what?
Tiger Woods did not play!