I THINK MIKE HOLDER is on to something in his comments regarding Tiger being a barrier-breaker in the same way that Roger Bannister was in track & field. But where Holder doesn't ever allude to exactly what barrier it is that Tiger broke - I think I've come up with an important one - the Next Jack Nicklaus hype. Prior to Tiger, every young player with big-time potential started out of the Tour with the weight of Nicklaus' legacy on their shoulders. Hal Sutton had it, Bobby Clampett had it, Phil Mickelson had it - and all failed (relatively) perhaps because the expectations and pressures that came with it of living up to Nicklaus was too much for them. But when Tiger came out on Tour, he was already his own legend (because of his amazing amateur record) and succeeded so quickly, and to such a high degree, that he established his own legacy before anybody could start labeling him the Next Nicklaus.



And the players since Tiger? Well, doesn't it seem a bit silly now to try and label Charles Howell or Bryce Molder or Matt Kuchar or Ty Tryon as the next Nicklaus, when in all honestly, being Nicklaus with Tiger around might not mean very much? Tiger appears to have taken what was previously an albatross of a label that carried such incredible pressures with it - and made it wholly irrelevant in a matter of a few years.