The Tiger Chase Resumes

Let it be, man. Is it really bad if he fails, and really that significant if he succeeds? In Zen Buddhism philosophy, success and failure are the same. Americans think winning is everything. But wrapped in that philosophy is a fear of failure. Paradoxically, it relaxes you if you can accept defeat as readily as accepting winning. That relaxing of your mind makes you more able to win, since no one who is tense can win in such a game as golf.

Tiger knows that a tournament is 4 days and 72 holes. So he does not get shook when he "loses" on a given day. His vision is the total score after 4 days. He also is looking at total score in 20 years (19 wins). So he does not get shook when he loses a tournament. His attitude is more Zen than American. If he wins 19 majors, it will be due to this seemingly "un-American" attitude of accepting each defeat graciously while remaining confident and poised for a good try on the next one. Manny Ramirez is praised for this type of attitude. He could strike out 10 times in a row and still believe his next at bat is a fresh start, with no prior failures. Tiger Woods will break all records (if he does) due to this same attitude. I call it a Zen attitude. Sports need more of that Zen attitude in the good ole USA. Other good examples of sportsmen who embrace the same kind of Zen attitude: Kenny Florian (mma), Barry Zito (baseball), Bode Miller (skiing). These are elite athletes who are at peace with themselves despite other's opinions of them. You can criticize this attitude only if you view winning as the only option you have short of losing your peace of mind.

"Not only was he the youngest winner, at 21 years and several months, but he shot the lowest 72-hole score in the tournament's history, a 12-under-par 270, and won by the largest margin ever, nine strokes."

Mark, just a heads-up that 270 is 18 under par at Augusta. Tiger won by 12 shots in 1997...

This commentary keeps you in line with your usual ramblings about evil drug users and your holier-than-though assessments of atheletes as role models. You are hopelessly stuck in the past. Time moves on, attitudes change, and players get better. There is no logical argument that Oscar Robinson was better than Michael Jordan, and Jack Nicklaus is not a holy shrine - he's a merely great golfer who's records were meant to be broken and one who never won 4 consecutive majors. I sometimes suspect that you don't want anyone to acheive greatness now that you're all grown up - it would invalidate your antiquated notion that "life was better back then". I invite you to join the rest of us here in the 21st century. It really isn't a bad place, and the athletes are so much better than they were back in the 60's and 70's. Plus, today's athletes are much more human. Look at Michael Phelps - no one could ever argue that Marijuana was a performance enhancing drug, but look at what he achieved anyway. So, Mr. "Living In The Past", wake up and join the living, you'll like it, I promise.

Oscar Robinson...are you kidding me? I agree Michael Jordan was not the greatest basketball player ever...but you think Oscar Robinson may have been the best ever? Check the record books it was Wilt Chamberlin. How rediculous your comparison was. Not only does Wilt own every seasonal record...the NBA changed the rule books a few times because of him. How many times did the NBA change it's rules for Oscar Robinson or even Michael Jordan for that matter. How embarassing for you as a journalist was that comparison?