Does golf need someone to give Tiger Woods a run? Does Woods himself need a rival, the way Arnie had Jack and Jack had Arnie?
The answers are "no" and "no." But don't take my word for it. Check out the ratings for the Masters next week. It won't matter how close the race is or who is chasing, if Tiger is in the lead, people will watch. As much as those of us who are involved with sports love to see competition, I have come around to believing that Tiger is above and beyond rivalries.
This is neither a good nor a bad thing, it just is. It did come to mind in reading Ian O'Connor's outstanding new book, "Arnie & Jack: Palmer, Nicklaus & Golf's Greatest Rivalry." The book opens with the author getting a few minutes alone with Woods (itself a major championship) and asking if he felt cheated that he doesn't have a classic competitor the way his two idols did. Woods just smiled and told O'Connor "No."
Palmer and Nicklaus pushed each other and struck different chords with the public. Palmer was the people's hero, Nicklaus was the one who raised the bar. Together, they lifted golf and helped clear the way for Tiger.
Woods doesn't need pushing. He is as self-motivated as any athlete I ever have seen. And he doesn't need an alter ego. He has Palmer's popularity and Nicklaus' excellence. In fact, he has outdone each of them at his own specialty.
As much as fans like Phil MIckelson (and I always credit the crowd at Bethpage for making him at least favorite No. 1-A), TV ratings indicate that there is no one in Tiger's realm. The American public simply likes to watch him succeed, and I don't think it will be disappointed with the goings-on at Augusta