In previous debates, GOLF.com has attempted to identify the greatest of all time (Tiger or Jack?) as well as the greatest Texan (Hogan or Nelson?). This week, Jim Gorant and John Garrity take on a new greater-than debate: Tiger 2000 vs. Tiger 2006. Which year was more impressive, and which model Woods was the superior player? Read what they have to say and tell us what you think in our forum.
On the surface it's a tough position to take, Tiger 2006 over Tiger 2000. In 2000 he had nine wins, three of them majors, two of which were convincing blowouts. He was young, dominant and machinelike. Awesome in every way.
In 2006 he had only eight wins and two majors, pretty impressive, but nine and three still beats eight and two. At least on paper. But the 2006 season wasn't played on paper, and what was most notable was the way Tiger emerged as a real person. He spent the off-season with his ailing father, Earl, and didn't touch his clubs. When Woods showed up on Tour, he was rusty and distracted, but he still won the Buick Open in his first start of the season. He followed that up a few weeks later with a victory at Doral.
As the Masters approached, Earl took a turn for the worse, and Tiger clearly had other things on his mind when he arrived at Augusta. Still, he rallied to tie for third, and the only thing that kept him out of the green jacket was a flat stick gone cold at the wrong time (33 putts on Sunday).
On May 3, 2006, the man who introduced Tiger to the game, and who was the dominant force in his upbringing, died. Woods disappeared for six weeks to mourn. In doing so he distanced himself from his image as some sort of supernatural golf conqueror and became more human in the eyes of many. When he finally returned for the U.S. Open, his suffering was obvious and he missed the cut, something he'd never done at a major since turning professional in 1997.
That made what happened next even more amazing. At the British Open, a rejuvenated Woods bunted the ball around a hard, fast Hoylake course to win by two. On the 18th green, he was overcome by emotion. That Tiger could go on to finish with five more victories, including the PGA Championship, and the lowest stroke average on Tour (68.11), all while mastering a new swing and dealing with the loss of his father, is the most impressive thing he's ever pulled off. Yes, the 2000 season maintains a quantitative edge, but what Woods did in 2006 goes beyond numbers.
Still not buying it? One of those hard-hearted statisticians who want to tally everything up in columns and cast aside any notion of emotional triumph? Fine. In 2006 Woods won eight times in 15 tournaments, or once every 1.875 starts; in 2000 he was nine for 19, a rate of one win for every 2.1 starts. An even more impressive statistic: over his last six starts of the year, all victories, he had a stroke average of 66.79. That's 24 rounds without once bringing home a score higher than 72. And that streak includes the two majors and two World Golf Championship events. If that's not one of the most impressive runs of golf ever, than what in the name of Byron Nelson is?
