Special Column by Lorne Rubenstein Updated September 5, 2000 Tiger Woods is at the Glen Abbey Golf Club for the Bell Canadian Open and everybody is conceding him the tournament. But he doesn't win every time. Nobody does. Not even Tiger. Check the record. Tiger has won 18 of his last 29 tournaments around the world. That's impressive; no, it's astounding. The young man himself has said that a golfer who wins one out of every five times is doing tremendously. He's right, too. And here he's been winning more than 50% of his tournaments, including three of the four majors this year. But it's also true that Woods hasn't won 11 of his last 29 tournaments. Somebody else could win even when he plays. It's ludicrous to think otherwise. Jack Nicklaus won 71 PGA Tour events in his entire career and was-quite rightly--voted the golfer of the last century in every poll taken. Yet Nicklaus lost far more often than he won. It's the nature of the game. Somebody can always play better. That's what happened to Woods when he was up against Hal Sutton in the Players Championship last March. The tournament is just a rung beneath the majors in prestige. It's the PGA Tour's flagship event and annually has the best field of all the tournaments. But Sutton beat Woods, nearly seven months after he won the Canadian Open. By beating Woods Sutton sent a message to his fellow golfers. The message: Tiger can be beaten. "I think you need to have the confidence that you can beat him," Sutton has said. "If you are going to praise him all the time and tell him how great he is and that his game is superior to everybody's you have ever seen in your life, well, it doesn't matter how good yours is. You have just said he's better than you." But that was then, and this is now, after Woods has won the last three majors and followed with an 11-shot win in the NEC Invitational at the Firestone course in Akron, Ohio. Never mind. Sutton would say the same thing and no doubt will during the week of the Canadian Open. And he would still be right in doing so. "I'm not going to be foolish and tell you that if we played ten times that I am going to beat him eight out of the ten times," Sutton said. That's reality speaking. Sutton is 42. Woods is 24. Still, Sutton is one tough guy and he's gone head to head with Woods and won. He also won the 1983 PGA Championship by beating Nicklaus, by one shot. Sutton doesn't fear going against the best. "On a given Sunday he could be beat," Sutton said of Woods early in the week of the Players Championship this year. Then he went out the next Sunday-okay, it was Monday because poor weather forced play to be carried over one day. But he took Woods's measure the last round. That too is reality. And who's to say it won't happen this week at Glen Abbey. Woods is in the field, true. But that doesn't mean he's an automatic winner. As they say, let's be real. And the reality is that in golf even the best lose more often than they win. Column 9 As frequently as his fellow golfers praise Tiger Woods, there's also plenty of jealousy going around. That's been the case with Woods since he turned pro four years ago. Golfers quickly tired of all the attention he was given, but most came to see that his presence and play were putting extra dollars in their pockets and that the attention, if exaggerated at times, was for the most part warranted. Four years later, during a summer in which Woods has won the last three major championships, it's impossible not to keep one's eyes on the virtuoso. He handles the spotlight well and, for the most part, gracefully. Some of his colleagues, meanwhile, continue to be rather chippy when he comes up in golf talk. And when doesn't he come up in golf talk? Thomas Bjorn, who finished second to Woods in the British Open in July-by eight shots-showed his own thin skin recently. He said some things about Woods that were really rather foolish. "When the pressure's on, he's not as impressive as he was in the other two majors and he's running away with it," Bjorn said with reference to Woods's play in the latter stages of the PGA Championship two weeks ago, which he won in a playoff over Bob May. That followed Woods's win by 15 shots in the U.S. Open in June and the aforementioned British Open win by eight shots. "He pulled it off in the end," Bjorn said about the PGA Championship, "but he hit a lot of poor shots coming down the stretch and especially in the playoff." That's true. Woods did hit some poor shots. But he did win the tournament. He won it while not playing his best. That's more impressive than it is an indication of frailty under pressure. "He'll run into trouble," Bjorn expostulated. "He'll start losing tournaments. When he starts losing major championships that's when we're going to see what he's made of. He's going to be out here a long time. I don't think that over that long a period of time you can keep dominating the game as he has." That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Greg Norman, the winner of two British Opens and a man who has had no small amount of attention over the years, has also weighed in on Woods. He too thinks that too much is being made of the young man, despite his winning 15 of his last 29 tournaments. "Tiger has a great streak going and it's impressive to watch," Norman says. "But we are all getting caught up in this moment when, in fact, other players have done the same thing in relative terms. He is not a phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination." "It's just unfair to the rest of the field," Norman continued. "He's playing great golf right now but no one just wants to see the Tiger Woods Show." Actually, everybody does. Television ratings skyrocket when Woods plays a tournament. Royal Canadian Golf Association officials are hopeful that Woods will play next week's Bell Canadian Open because they know he'll make the tournament sizzle. Woods is simply the star attraction these days. The superstar attraction. Human nature being what it is, it's not surprising that some players resent Woods. But if he keeps winning-and there's no sign he won't-even his detractors will come around. Otherwise they'll be very lonely people, arguing against an unassailable body of work-Tiger Woods's work, as he continues to dominate the world of golf. Column 8 Paraphrasing that fine golf scribe William Shakespeare, one can say that there are more fine golfers in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy-or mine for that matter. Scott Dunlap made a run for the PGA Championship that Tiger Woods won on the weekend. Scott who? Bob May took Woods to the third extra hole Sunday before succumbing. Bob who? Exactly the point, which is that "Bob who?" or "Scott who?" shouldn't be the question. There just aren't any no-names at the highest levels of the game. Any golfer who has his or her tour card can play golf exceedingly well. It's often not a case of a golfer being a no-name. It's a case of the golfer not having yet come to our attention. Think about Canada's Mike Weir. He was a so-called no-name to most people around the world until he hooked up with Woods in the last round of the 1999 PGA Championship; Woods won, as you will no doubt recall. Then Weir won the Air Canada Championship in Surrey, B.C. three weeks later. Weir hadn't been a no-name in Canada for some time. But he was elsewhere. He's not a no-name now, though, if you get my drift. An American fellow brought up his name at dinner last night, perhaps because he was talking to a Canadian. But the fellow wouldn't have known of Weir when he was winning only on the Canadian Tour. We could say the same of how people thought of-or didn't think of--Dunlap and May. Close observers of the golf scene might have known that Dunlap had won on the Canadian Tour and in South Africa. Golf-watchers who follow the European Tour might have known that May won the British Masters last year, and that he has been a solid world player for some time. Woods knew about May, given that May had won junior tournaments in Southern California. Woods, a Californian, was aware of him. But most people weren't, at least until he took Woods to the limit. A no-name? No more. Ask yourself the following question should May play the Bell Canadian Open at the Glen Abbey Golf Club in Oakville, Ontario next month. Would you have made a point of watching him before his accomplishments in the PGA Championship? Probably not. Surely not. Does that mean May was a no-name, or that most of us lack knowledge of and respect for tour golfers the world over? Tom Lehman was to many golf fans a no-name until he started winning on the PGA Tour, even though he was doing well for quite some time before he broke through. Stuart Appleby was winning tournaments around the world before he came through on the PGA Tour. Paul Lawrie was a quality player on the European Tour before he won the 1999 British Open. Maybe it's the media's fault that too many golfers are considered no-names and no-hopes for far too long. It would be preferable to think of them as golfers making their way forward. Look hard during any one tournament and you can spot a few players who will win, and likely win big. Then you can feel you knew the golfer when….when most unsuspecting people felt he was a no-name. Horrible term, that. Let's banish it from our golfing lexicon. Please. Column 7 The oddsmakers have Tiger Woods at nearly even money to win the PGA Championship this week. Every time he plays a tournament Woods generates the shortest odds ever given on a golfer to win. He's justified it, too, winning three of the last four majors he's played, including the 1999 PGA Championship and this year's U.S. and British Opens. But wait, he can't win another major, can he? Well, sure he can. But maybe we shouldn't discount other players either. Whether they win or not, it's going to be interesting to follow some other golfers. We can start with Ernie Els, who has won two U.S. Opens. Els is a tremendous golfer who has been in Woods's shadow this year, as has every other player. He's headed for a strange sort of Grand Slam, given that he's finished second in each of the three majors played so far this year-the Masters, U.S. Open and British Open. We know Els can win majors, and his game has been coming around recently. He won the Loch Lomond tournament in Scotland the week before the British Open; it's a PGA European Tour event and an important one. And then Els went on to win the International, a PGA Tour event near Denver. He's on form and on track to win another major. You'd think so anyway. Then there's Lee Westwood, the Englishman who has won four of his last nine tournaments. Westwood has beaten Woods head-on before, in the German Open, and doesn't speak as if he's afraid of him; instead Westwood, 27, says he admires Woods and feels he can learn from him. In this context we might also think of the Northern Irishman Darren Clarke, who defeated Woods in the finals to win last winter's Andersen Consulting Match Play Championship. Westwood and Clarke are certainly in with a good chance of winning the PGA Championship. Two more possible winners come to mind for Valhalla: Phil Mickelson and Colin Montgomerie. Here are two players you'd think would have to win a major during their careers. Montgomerie has twice lost playoffs in majors-once in a U.S. Open and once in a PGA Championship. And Mickelson has done everything but win a major himself; he came second to the late Payne Stewart at the 1999 U.S. Open. One more possibility while we're on the subject: Greg Norman. The Great White Shark is feeling healthier than ever after some recent hip surgery. He's feeling comfortable physically for the first time in a decade, and finished fourth in the International two weeks ago. Norman has been itching to play competitive golf again for some time and although he's 45 he seems fired up more than in recent years. It's possible that other golfers could win also, of course. But the players mentioned above should be in with a chance. Mickelson and Norman are playing together the first two rounds also, which should make for excellent alternative viewing. Alternative, because CBS is sure to focus on Woods. Still, there are other players. Aren't there? Column 6 When it comes to petty conflicts the clash between Nick Faldo and the 1999 European Ryder Cup captain Mark James must rank very high indeed. James is the one at fault here, at least in my opinion. He wrote a book after the Europeans lost the Ryder Cup last September. He trashed Faldo and he thrashed him and he was mean-spirited in doing so. James also wrote that he had thrown a letter into the garbage that Faldo, who didn't make the Ryder Cup team for the first time since 1975, had written the team. He wished the players good luck in the letter. James's action in tossing the letter, in full view of his team, was childish in the extreme. How could a supposedly mature man engage in such a petulant action? Maybe it was his way of letting the world know that he didn't think much of Faldo, who has played much of his pro career on the U.S. PGA Tour. It seems that James wanted Faldo, an Englishman, to play in Europe more often. But wait a minute. Faldo won three British Opens. He brought credit to the European game and was instrumental in Europe's Ryder Cup wins these last two decades. Sure, he's been petulant himself from time to time. But never has he stooped as low as James did in tossing Faldo's well-meant letter-"binning" it, was the way he put it. Yet there's more. The 2001 European Ryder Cup captain Sam Torrance had some time ago named James as one of his vice-captains. The Ryder Cup is far and away golf's biggest international team event, so when James's book Into the Bear Pit Came out a storm ensued over whether he should resign as vice-captain. He had shown himself to be irresponsible; maybe it was time to go. James wouldn't leave and Torrance wouldn't insist his friend and colleague depart the scene he had soiled. Sponsors of European Tour events were more than a little irritated that the Ryder Cup storm was taking precedence over their events. Something had to give. Or somebody. Would James be that "somebody?" The European Ryder Cup committee met on August 1 and suggested he resign. Torrance, who was at the meeting, heard the suggestion loud and clear. He spoke with James. Presto, consensus. James resigned from his vice-captaincy. He'd waited too long to do so, but at least he finally did the right thing. The Ryder Cup should be about competition, not controversy that won't stop. "Mark and I agree that there seems to be no end in sight to the controversy," Torrance said. "The most sensible course of action for all concerned is for Mark to stand down, which he agreed to do." About time, too. Maybe all concerned can get back to preparing for the 2001 Ryder Cup team. Maybe James and Faldo will each make the team. Wouldn't that make for a friendly locker room? Column 5 St. Andrews, Scotland Okay, maybe it’s a long shot. But I didn’t make the observation. It was Sandy Jones, the executive director of the European PGA, who told me yesterday that he fancies-his word-Nick Faldo in the British Open this week if the conditions stay fast and dry. Huh? Faldo? The same guy who has hit more errant shots in the last couple of years than in his previous 20 years or so as a professional? Yes, that Faldo. Well, not quite. The Faldo of whom Jones spoke is a rejuvenated Faldo. He’s a happy Faldo. He’s not quite the Faldo who has won three British Opens and three Masters, but he did tie for seventh in last month’s United States Open and ninth in the Standard Life Loch Lomond tournament near Glasgow on the weekend. I couldn’t and wouldn’t argue with Jones, who knows Faldo well. I also shouldn’t forget that Faldo won the 1990 British Open here at the Old Course, and that he is coming here feeling better about his game than in a few years. That year Faldo played about the most accurate golf imaginable. Jones said somebody who watched Ben Hogan destroy the field in the 1953 British Open at the Carnoustie Links not far away said that Faldo "Hoganized" his opponents in 1990. He did just that. But that was then and this is now. Yes, Faldo did win the 1992 British Open and the 1996 Masters. He overcame a six-shot lead the final round of that 1996 Masters, overpowering third-round leader Greg Norman in the process. He seemed invincible, and went on to win the 1997 Nissan Open in Los Angeles on the PGA Tour. But a week later, as he has said, "it all went wrong." But you have to hand it to Faldo, a driven golfer if ever there were one. He’s put in his time on the practice range-plenty of it. The 43-year-old has changed teachers, fiddled with his swing, spent time with golf legend Sam Snead, and in the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach had a caddie on his bag who wrote a book called Quantum Golf. That would be Kjell Enhager. He’s not working for Faldo this week, not as a caddie at least. But Faldo learned a lot from him. Enhager advocates a way of playing he calls "Superfluid Golf." The idea is to rid oneself of too many mechanical thoughts and concentrate on swinging smoothly through the ball. Faldo admits he became more tied up in swing thoughts than was good for him. Now he’s trying to get away from that by playing superfluid golf. His visit with Snead also helped. He asked Snead how he got out of slumps and Snead told him he never worried about slumps or even had them. He simply accepted that he was a human being and got on with his next shot. "As simple as that," Faldo said at the Old Course this week. "Things have started to turn around," Faldo added. "The ultimate goal is to get in there (in contention) and see what happens." What happens, he hopes, will be superfluid golf. He’s been playing some of that recently. Now we’ll see if he can carry it into golf’s biggest championship, in which he has so distinguished himself in the past. Column 4 Week after week I receive inquiries and calls about Mike Weir, Canada's top professional. With the British Open about to be played at the Old Course in St. Andrews, Scotland-the championship starts July 20th-I'd like to get one thing out of the way. And that is, simply, my belief that Weir has what it takes to win the Open. Now, I'm not saying Weir will win the Open this year. Or next year. But he has the game to win it. Weir can get into contention at a major championship; he was tied for the lead with Tiger Woods going into the final round of the 1999 PGA Championship last August. Yes, Weir shot 80 and finished 10th as Woods won. But he learned from that experience and three weeks later won the Air Canada Championship in Surrey, B.C. That was his first win on the PGA Tour. Weir learns from his tough experiences-that's a key to understanding his potential. Many people felt Weir would lose heart and confidence after that last round at the PGA Championship. Not at all. But the British Open is a different kettle of major, right? It's played on the usually fast and firm ground of a links course. A golfer has to use his imagination. It's not just a matter of calculating the yardage to the hole and then hitting the ball high in the air and watching it stop dead on a soft green. In links golf the ball bounces. And bounces some more. Weir knew that when he came over to Scotland a year ago to try to qualify for the British Open at the Carnoustie Golf Club. Well, he knew it intellectually, but not in his golfing bones. His lack of experience in links golf showed the first round of the 36-hole qualifier, when he shot 71. He would need a low second round to get through. I arrived at the course just as Weir stood over a two-foot putt on the final green, after flying to Glasgow and then driving the three hours to Carnoustie. Weir was taking his time with the putt. It obviously meant something, and it went in. "What did you shoot?" I asked Weir when he came off the green. "Sixty-six," he answered. "That should get me in, but let me tell you. That was an un-Weirsy round." Weir had missed many fairways. His drives were bouncing through on the firm turf. "But," he said, "links golf wasn't going to beat me," he explained. "If I had to get it up and down I'd do that." And so Weir got into the British Open. But he shot 83 the first round on a very tough day on the punishing Carnoustie course. The next day? Weir birdied two of the last five holes to shoot 71 and make the cut right on the number. He holed a six-foot putt for par on the last green, knowing he had to do so to make the cut. "I didn't want to come all the way over here and not qualify and then not make the cut," Weir said. He shot 72-75 on the weekend to tie for 37th place, a good finish for his first British Open. More to the point, he learned about links golf. And he's been looking forward to the Open at the Old Course. Watch Weir; he could do something in St. Andrews. Column 3 While everybody seems to be talking about making courses longer so that they can challenge today's long-hitters I'd like to put in a word for shorter courses. And I mean substantially shorter-all the way down to par-3 courses. Think of it like this: There's only one Tiger Woods, although most younger golfers are hitting the ball miles. But the vast majority of golfers aren't long hitters. Besides, smaller courses cost less to build and help golfers develop their short games. Last I looked, the short game matters. Even Woods works long hours on his short game. The defending British Open champion Paul Lawrie has built a short game practice at his home in Aberdeen, Scotland. Greg Norman has a green and bunkers at his home in Jupiter Island, Florida. Clearly, keeping it short is a sensible idea. I'm in Dornoch, Scotland, in the northern Highlands, and playing at the Royal Dornoch Golf Club. The club has a well-placed practice green, bunkers and fairway just a minute's walk from the clubhouse. I plan to spend plenty of time there. I'm also playing the short Struie course at Royal Dornoch-so named for the Struie Hills that frame the course. This 5,438-yard, par 69 course is tighter than the main course. The brambly gorse will swallow an errant shot. Meanwhile, the course's length means that most golfers can hit middle to short irons into the greens. It's possible to get a pleasant walk in during the two and a half hours-or less-that it takes to play the course-and almost inadvertently work on one's short game. Five new holes are currently being added to the course, which will increase its length. But the "short" motif will remain, as a three-hole practice loop will emerge. As it happens, I retain a deep affection for short courses. I grew up a mile or so from the De Haviland golf centre in north Toronto, which comprised an 18-hole par-3 course lit for night play, along with a massive practice putting green. You'd think I'd have a magical short game because of all the time I put in at DeHaviland. Well, let's just say I still enjoy working on all the little shots that golf in its infinite variety demands. Those little shots can make the difference between a decent score and poor one. Somebody once said that the art of scoring in golf is that of turning three shots into two. Short courses are ideal for learning how to increase one's chances of making that happen. The new short course across the street from The Globe and Mail's office building in downtown Toronto is a smart addition to the golf scene in the city. Last year I visited a very fine short-game facility in Winnipeg. Such places are springing up in many places. Watch whatever tournament you want this week. I guarantee you this: The golfer who wins will do it with his short game. So let's have more short courses, and shorter full courses. Join the crusade. Please. Column 2 Richard Zokol once said there are as many stories in any one tournament as there are players. The 42-year old British Columbia touring professional was one of those stories--during the recent U.S. Open that Tiger Woods won. Is Zokol, who won two PGA Tour events, on his way back to the PGA Tour? His play at the Open certainly suggested that. Zokol, who is playing the BUY.COM Tour and a handful of PGA Tour events this year, tied for 32nd in the Open at Pebble Beach. That was a more than decent result for this golfer who is hoping to finish in the top 15 money-winners on the BUY.COM this season and thereby regain the right to play a full PGA Tour schedule. He missed a BUY.COM tournament to play the U.S. Open, mind you. But who wouldn't? In the way of the world, or at least the world in which Zokol is living these days, he had to qualify for the U.S. Open. His fellow Canadian Mike Weir, who is playing beautifully again this year on the PGA Tour, got in automatically. Zokol did manage to secure an exemption from local qualifying for the U.S. Open-the United States Golf Association granted him one as an international player--and went directly to a final 36-hole sectional-qualifying event. Here Zokol found himself at a course he had never played simply because he didn't have time. Now he had to try to qualify for the U.S. Open-one of golf's four majors-without having had a practice round. "That was really nerve-wracking," Zokol would say later. But he played well and, alas, got into a 13-man playoff for 12 spots. There wasn't enough light left in the day to conduct the playoff so he had to wait until the morning. Twelve golfers parred the first hole and one golfer bogeyed it to miss out on the U.S. Open. Zokol wasn't that sad-sack golfer. He got in. Zokol made the halfway cut there at the Open. And on Sunday, in the last round, he tied the U.S. Open record for the front nine at Pebble Beach, shooting five-under par 30. He double-bogeyed the 10th hole after losing his concentration and bogeyed another hole coming in. But he still shot 69. He said he didn't need that sort of low round to prove to himself that he was on track, but perhaps other people needed to see it. "My goal is to play cold-blooded golf," Zokol once said. "I don't want to get excited after a good shot or depressed after a bad one." He does that very well, and pays close attention to how he is performing. He counts what he calls "units of execution" rather than golf shots. That is, how well did he execute a shot? That's more important than how it turns out sometimes, given the way a golf ball can bounce. Or sometimes he might aim away from the hole to avoid trouble but finish near the hole. That wasn't the swing he meant, and so he doesn't give himself high marks for execution. Don't count Zokol out. Many Canadians think he's finished. He's not, as his U.S. Open play showed. Cold-blooded golf may yet win the day for this intriguing and always thoughtful golfer. You heard it here first. Column 1 The golf world has been all abuzz since Tiger Woods won the United States Open on Sunday at the Pebble Beach Golf Links by the nearly-unbelievable amount of 15 shots. And earlier in the memorable week, while Woods was taking control of the tournament, the golf world was taken with Jack Nicklaus’s departure from the U.S. Open—forever, that is. And so it’s a good time to ask: Is there any single quality above all that these two golfers have in common? Nicklaus was playing his 44th consecutive U.S. Open, and had won four of the championships. At 60, he missed the halfway cut and when he left the final green he told his wife Barbara, barely getting the words out, "That’s the end of it." It was quite a moment. Woods, meanwhile, went on to shoot 12-under par 272 to win the his first U.S. Open. At 24, Woods is only beginning what is shaping up to be a career of Nicklausian proportions, or perhaps even better. And, like Nicklaus, he seems to be approaching it in a fascinating way—without sentiment, that is. That’s the quality I think Nicklaus and Woods share—a lack of sentimentality about what they do or have done in the game. Nicklaus played the first two rounds at the Masters this year with Arnold Palmer and Gary Player. Asked if he thought much about the occasion while he was playing, Nicklaus said he didn’t go in much for that sort of thing. He was trying to play golf as best he could, and wasn’t interested in anything else. That was also the case at the U.S. Open. Sure, Nicklaus was momentarily reflective when he sat on a ledge behind the 18th tee and looked out over the ocean. He figured it would make for an attractive photo and that somebody would surely take it, and that he would get a copy later. But Nicklaus thought of nothing during his round but playing golf. He wasn’t replaying his 1972 U.S. Open win at Pebble Beach, that’s for sure. "I don’t think much about that kind of stuff," Nicklaus said. "I really don’t." That’s also true of Woods. He had no idea he had set a bunch of U.S. Open records until everybody mentioned it later. Woods had but one goal, to play a bogey-free round. He was focused on the task at hand. Nicklaus has always been that way and Woods is that way now now. Nothing else but playing the shot seeps into their minds while they compete. They are immersed in the act of hitting the golf ball. Sentimentality? It’s not for them. And it’s one reason, a primary reason, I think, that Nicklaus was the greatest golfer of the 20th century and why Woods could well become the greatest of this century. The Canadian professional Richard Zokol, who finished 32nd in the U.S. Open, once said his goal was to play "cold-blooded golf." That’s what Nicklaus and Woods do so well. Surpassingly well.