Cost the sports books millions. I see an $85,000 bet made 1 person $1.19 million. I bet a lot of sports books are wishing they hadn't given Tiger the odds they did to win the Masters.

He should have been longer than 13-1, not shorter, based on his recent record. Tiger is always gonna take Vegas money cuz his name is Tiger....so he's always gonna be an underlay. All they have to do is wait for the next 3 tournaments where Tiger goes off at 5-1 (way too low, but people will take it cuz it's Tiger) and when he doesn't win.....they're raking in millions.

The house always wins in the long run.

He was great Sunday.....but people need to put the brakes on if they think this is the return of the old Tiger. This wasn't Tiger taking the tournament by the throat...it was a smart Tiger taking advantage of Molinari giving the tournament away. He doesn't win if Molinari doesn't hit it in the drink twice. Tiger is now one of many elite players you have to watch out for--he's not the Tiger of 2003 anymore.

Definitely not the "Tiger vs. the Field" days, but I would bring him back into the top tier discussion where he should be among the favorites for the next few years at least. He did reignite the "will he catch Jack" discussion though. If he remains healthy, I think there's a chance.

Agree that he has a chance....and i said 2 years ago (really, you can ask my golf buddy at work ) that he would win another major......do i think he catches Jack? I don't. But i won't be shocked if he gets to 17. And he is definitely in the DJ, Koepka, Rory, Molinari (yes, i said Molinari......i truly believe he is now in that group) group now......he's just not in his own group anymore.

Molinari was my 1st pick in a Masters pool i have with a couple of buddies.

well, we don't know if he doesn't win if moninari doesn't hit it in the drink twice, plenty of other obstacles that can cause him to go over par on individual holes...the same ones wood's had to play around, and not go in to...tiger played smart, tiger played his game, tiger won...

he may not be the tiger of old, but he did enough to win.

He did enough to win. Molinari gave the tournament away. I believe that's what i said.

And he managed to avoid the plenty of other obstacles on the other holes....without going in the drink on 12 and 15, he wins. So....i really don't see where any of my analysis is off.

you make it sound as if he went through the motions and the other guys just handed it to him.

I said he was "great" and "smart". That doesn't change the fact that i believe (and i think most golf fans thinking with their heads and not their hearts believe the same thing) that if Molinari didn't throw up on 12 and 15, it wouldn't have been enough.

My point wasn't (and i believe i was pretty clear on this) to put down Woods (again, see "great" and "smart"), it was to say that 2003 or 2005 Tiger would have mopped the field by 10......so any ideas that this is 2003-2005 Tiger 2.0 is premature.

He won a major like 90% of guys wins majors......there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not what vintage Tiger had to do to win one.

yeah, 13 under par is a pretty bad performance to win a golf tournament. only 8 other times has there been a score of greater than 13 under in the masters, of which Tiger holds one already. and the 2005 Woods had to win a playoff. the 2003 Woods finished 2 over in 15th. so yeah, i certainly see your point.

So happy to have had this conversation with you Happy....it was enlightening as ever .....thanks!!

P.S. you can close your google search now.

He will pass Snead this year for all time wins and Jack's record of majors is in reach. He has beat 3 generations of the best.

C'mon man!

C'mon man what? Tiger is the man....he definitely has a chance to catch Jack (look above--i said so). Please refer to the point i was making--that 41 (or 42, whatever he is) year old Tiger isn't 25 year old Tiger. I'm comparing Tiger to Tiger. No one in his right mind would say that he isn't the best or 2nd best golfer of all-time.

Ernie Els shot 31-under at the 2003 Mercedes Championship. Woods was cut.

I do not see any of this group doing that (and even a 2003 Tiger)

-23 that would be good feat.

Best golfer? possibly, but the equipment is different every few years so it makes comparisons difficult.

Tiger was the best in his prime vs others at the same time. There is no doubt of that.

no matter what the equipment advances, only chance i have of breaking 100 is at putt-putt...and sometimes that is a challenge! those dang windmills on the 18th stump me all the time.

you need to putt with one of those hockey stick shaped ones.

he probably putts with his feet and calls it football

funny you mention that, in NOLA there is a golf course that was converted to foot-golf, where you kick a soccer ball around the course. it is sold out on weekends months in advance.

Don't try that in New York!