Can The Open be taken seriously without Tiger Woods in the field?
Why are we asking this question?
Well, Tiger Woods is Da Man when it comes to Major titles in the modern era. Since he came on Tour in 1996, the Great One has triumphed 14 times in the biggest test of all, the arena of Major Championships. There are only four each year -- the Masters, US Open, Open Championship (aka 'The British Open' to non-Brits) and the USPGA Championship. Tradition dictates these are the 'Grand Slam' tournaments by which the greats are defined.
Jack Nicklaus is the all-time record holder with 18 professional Majors. Tiger's recent US Open win at Torrey Pines brought him to 14, only four shy of Jack. Had he played at Royal Birkdale this week, Tiger would have been the hot favourite, but his heroic play-off victory over Rocco Mediate in the US Open was achieved with serious knee and leg problems, so he's out of action. A Major without the Tiger playing and in the hunt is a rarity.
Before we go any further, is there any other player who can match or beat Nicklaus' record?
Eh, nope. Walter Hagen (11), and Ben Hogan (9) have long since passed on to the Great Golf Course in the Sky. Gary Player (9) is 73 on November 1. Tom Watson (8, five of which were British Open wins) teed up at Birkdale, but he's 58 and plays on the Champions tour.
History beckons Tiger and he must be gnashing his teeth at missing the Open at Birkdale and the forthcoming USPGA in Oakland Hills, venue of the 2004 Ryder Cup.
Would Mr Nicklaus be concerned at losing the record to Tiger?
Nicklaus's achievement was testimony to his undoubted greatness and no matter what, Jack will stand out as long as golf is played as a true champion.
However, you don't amass 18 Major titles without a drive to succeed and an ego to match, so you can believe Jack set a target that in his heart he must have doubted anyone could reach. That said, he is also a great ambassador for golf, generous in victory or defeat -- he had more defeats than wins in Majors -- and if anybody could relinquish an amazing record with grace, it's Jack.
So, the Open Championship is useless without Tiger then?
Before we jump to hasty conclusions, let's first consider the tournament.
The Open Championship is the oldest Major in world golf. It is the Great Grandaddy of them all and as such enjoys a special place in the annals of the game. Also, players have come, players have gone generation after generation and the Open's Claret Jug is still arguably the most prized Major trophy in the game.
Over 200,000 spectators are expected in the Sefton Council area near Liverpool where Birkdale is situated, and the tournament retains its huge self-created charisma. If anything is likely to affect attendances, it's the weather.
Yeah, fine, but no Tiger. Doesn't that make it easier to win this Open?
Don't say that too loudly around Jim Furyk or Padraig Harrington.
Tiger's fellow pros respect Tiger. Some may even fear him when they're in contention on a Sunday in a Major's final round, but these guys are no mugs. They have their own pride and talent.
Harrington keeps it simple: "I worry about one golfer -- myself."
Furyk's view is: "Whoever wins here, 20 years from now, they're not going to say, well, 'he was the British Open Champion in 2008, but by the way, Tiger Woods wasn't there'. It's not going to go down in history that way. It's kind of a chicken attitude to walk up and say, 'well, he's not here, now I've got a better opportunity'. I'd have a tough time looking at myself in the mirror each morning if that was the way I was thinking."
Ah, come on. Somebody must be secretly pleased that Tiger's safely tucked up in his Florida mansion?
Funny you say that. One pro has stuck his neck out and given a comment that probably more players would echo in private.
Step forward Colin Montgomerie. What you see with him is what you get, and he's generally pretty open and honest when he's not glaring at spectators or clashing with photographers.
"The door is a little more wide open than it has been, and it's given a lot of players on form the opportunity of winning a major that possibly they wouldn't have felt that confident about before," he said.
"When Tiger's name appears on the scoreboard something happens out there. It does affect everyone else on the leaderboard. Of course it does. It was a weird feeling at the US Open in 2006 when he'd missed his one and only cut in a Major, because you knew that weekend he wasn't a factor. You felt like you didn't have to look over your shoulder every hole."
What about TV ratings in Ireland, Britain, and the rest of the world?
That's not really a big problem. The Open will be viewed by millions around the globe. They're not going to turn off the telly when the Open is on just because one player is not at Birkdale, even though its a superstar of Woods's calibre.
The BBC won't know how their viewing figures will fare until after Sunday's final round but they're confident, pointing out that figures for the Harrington-Garcia play-off at Carnoustie were as good as any year.
Where does that leave American TV?
There could be an issue in America where a huge section of their golf viewing public are completely Tiger-obsessed. In 1997, Tiger's first full season, and the year he won his first Major, which was the Masters at Augusta, the 'Tiger effect' was staggering. Viewing figures for the final round of the four Major Championships were up worldwide by nearly 59pc from 57.6 million homes to 91.5 million.
Since then they've risen when Tiger was in contention but dropped by 50pc when he was an also-ran. TV star Jay Leno joked recently: "Mathematicians at Stanford (where Woods went to College) have calculated the smallest number known to man. It's the viewing ratings golf will get without Tiger Woods." Boom Boom!
Who can be the winners and losers from the 'Woods-less Open?'
In playing terms, whoever hits the back nine on Sunday with a lead or a chance of winning, won't have to worry about the likelihood of a charge by Tiger, so that's a plus for the field.
Also likely to make a few bob are punters who can spread their money around other potential champions without fearing they're wasting their time because (a) Tiger is usually in the mix and (b) you can't get decent odds on him. Losers will include Woods' sponsors Nike, who it is estimated, could lose €35m worth of free advertising exposure and a possible loss in sales of €20m.
- Martin Breheny
