Andy Capostagno GOLF
The Masters is just around the corner and, as has become the norm, it’s a case of who can possibly beat Tiger Woods. The hottest golfer on the planet has made fools of the odds makers so regularly that he is as low as 125-1 to win not just the Masters, but the whole grand slam this year. To put that figure in perspective, when he won the Masters in 1997 he was quoted at 1000-1 to win all of the other three majors in the same year.
So what happened? Did the bookies get scared, or did Woods get better? The latter. Quite definitely the latter. In 1997 he overpowered Augusta National with his astonishing long game and wonderful putting.
Since 1997 the putter has remained hot more often than not, but in addition Woods has worked assiduously on in-between wedge shots from 100m and closer to the green and he has persuaded himself that the driver is an ace to play when necessary, not an indispensable expression of machismo.
As a result, instead of being in contention on a regular basis, now he wins on a regular basis. But he is beatable. This year Phil Mickelson beat Woods into second place at the Buick Invitational and Darren Clarke beat him 4 and 3 in the final of the Andersen Consulting Matchplay. And Hal Sutton beat Woods in the Players’ Championship last week.
Since 1997 Tiger has been a shoo-in at the Masters, but in 1998 his great friend Mark O’Meara won at the age of 41 and last year Jose-Maria Olazabal won for the second time at the age of 33. Both were entirely discounted before the tournament, O’Meara because he was too old, Olazabal because his wayward driving put him in too many impossible positions per round.
Other unlikely winners have emerged in the past few years – and if Hal Sutton can beat Tiger, so can a lot of other people.