TIGER WOODS, WINNER OR CHAMPION?

Tiger Woods is undoubtedly a brilliant golfer, perhaps the best of all time. Still only 34, he has already won 14 of the coveted "majors" (the Masters, U.S.Open, British Open and PGA Championship), and is the only player in the game with a remote chance of overhauling Jack Nicklaus' record of 18. Since Nicklaus won the last 4 of these after he turned 38, the odds on Woods' setting a new record must be quite good.

However, although a prolific winner, is he a great champion? I think that there is a difference in sport. I should say up-front that that difference has absolutely nothing to do with Woods' marital problems, about which - to use my son's favourite phrase - I do not give a rat's arse. It's more a way of going about things, relating to spectators, grace under pressure, modesty in achievement. Difficult to define, but every sports fan knows it when they see it. And when they don't.

That difference was on show in the last round of this year's Masters, which finished last Sunday. After 5 months away from the game to sort out his private life, Woods started the day in contention at 8 under par, three shots behind two-time previous winner Phil Mickelson and four shots behind Englishman Lee Westwood, the world's fourth-ranked player but one who has yet to win a major. A fair gap to make up, but not beyond Woods if on form.

But while the last pair made solid starts, Woods dropped three shots in the first five holes. Surely he was out of it? And then he hit his second shot at the par 4 seventh straight into the hole for an eagle. That's like hitting a hole in one on a par 3; and two players out of contention on Sunday did exactly that at the 16th. Both times there were whoops and high fives and "hell, that won't happen very often in my life" grins all round. Tiger also managed a smile; but it was a loooooong time coming.

With birdies at the following two holes, he was up to nine under, back in the tournament, and all set for a famous charge on the back nine. But there was a petulant three-put on one hole, and sour faces - and a lack of an apology - when a wayward drive hit a spectator on the 11th. He finally finished fourth, on 11 under. But instead of being relaxed in the post-round interview in a "well, considering I haven't played for five months, fourth is pretty good" sort of way, he came across as petulant and slightly bitter, like a schoolboy who didn't get the last sweet in the bag. His "I entered this event to win, and I didn't get that done" set absolutely the wrong tone.

The contrast with Mickelson, the eventual winner at 16 under, and now a four-time major title-holder, was huge. Mickelson's somewhat doughboy face oozes geniality. You can imagine that in a round with Mickelson, he would make light of his skill, give you a couple of simple tips that improved your game 100%, ask you about your family, and have a beer with you in the bar afterwards. In short, it would be fun. A round with Tiger, by contrast, would be many things; but fun would not be the best way of describing it.

Some, including Woods himself probably, would say that his intense monomania is the reason that he has 14 majors and Mickelson, the best of the rest, still only has 4. I disagree. You can be a nice guy, and still be a winner. Roger Federer is the shining example, in tennis, holding the all-time record for Grand Slams, twice as many as (say) long-time world number one, the moody and grumpy Ivan Lendl. Pele was a champion footballer, Maradona was not. Fabian Cancellara is a champion cyclist, Lance Armstrong is not. There are examples in every sport.

Worst for Woods, so too was Jack Nicklaus. As for Tiger, the jury is still out. But if he continues as he is, there is a danger that he will be remembered as a serial winner rather than as a true champion.

Walter Blotscher