"The Internet Writer of the Year says four more majors is a tall order even for a man as good as the world No 1"

I'm having a hard time imagining the New York Times touting an award won by their golf writer in a sub-headline, but that's what The Times does for John Hopkins' latest Spike Bar column. Perhaps it's a British thing to be so humble. You know like the Queen and Phillip so modestly giving Barack Obama a signed photograph of themselves, as they do with all visiting dignitaries.

Either way, "The Internet Writer of the Year" is sticking to his guns and suggestions he's not going to wager on Tiger Woods winning more majors than Jack Nicklaus.

No, it was not an April Fool's Day piece, I'm sad to say.

My view is constant on this and always has been. I will not put any money on Woods even equalling Nicklaus's record.

You mean betting on the sport you cover isn't against company policy? Love those Brits!

My money is still on Nicklaus. Woods's injured leg does appear to have recovered but say he attracts another injury, this time to the other leg or to an arm. Say he is injured in a car accident as Ben Hogan was or, dare one say it, physically attacked? What happens then?

Dare, dare. And wow, what an uplifting thought. Perhaps you'd like to detail this more? Are we talking a Monica Seles thing here? How lovely.

And you wonder why Tiger has a boat named Privacy.

Comments

[Stephen W]

I enjoy your columns every day but enough of the anti-Brit comments already!

[Styles]

Geoff is getting precious because he knows Rory McIlroy is going to win 30 majors and he missed his arrival

lol!

[Jack]

If you can't be anti-Brit what's the point of waking up in the morning?

[thusgone]

the usa was founded on anti-brit sentiment. geoff's just being a good american.

as for hopkins, i suspect he is just taking a contrary position, ala a good brit tabloid columnist (see chris hitchens). i think the brits call it 'bloody mindedness.'

nobody will remember when he is proven wrong, but if he's right, he'll be hailed as a visionary (unless they recall that his column planted the 'personal attack' idea in the nutjob's head who injures woods).

[Geoff]

Normally Stephen I would take your comment into consideration, but when a writer in your nation's supposedly finest paper suggests that Tiger Woods might not surpass Jack Nicklaus because he could just be physically attacked, I start to think that maybe I go a little easy on your countrymen.

[styled]

Wow. To suggest a physical attack might be out there is irresponsible in the extreme. Reminds me of when Hilary Clinton, in a last desperate attempt to secure nomination, suggested that she was hanging in there because some ill fate at the hands of a madman might befall Barack Obama.

There are artful ways of suggesting this. And there are ham-handed ways, too. BTW, Clinton quickly and correctly apologized for her remarks. If the Woods' camp reads this, they should earn their money and let the Times publisher know of their profound disappointment that this is the best its columnist could do.

[Sharkbait]

I don't know that the idea of Woods being physically attacked is so far off beam.

There will be plenty of Victorian taxpayers later this year who will be tempted to have a pop, especially if the ticket prices for the Aus. Masters are too pricey.

[G]

After every tournament Tiger wins, my crazy stepdad calls me up and swears that this is the last one. I fully intend to keep reminding him of the dozens of times he's been wrong, and I suggest this guy's readers do the same.