There's Just No Match for Tiger

We've heard a lot of talk over the past year - or, really, over the past three years, dating back to Phil Mickelson's win at the 2005 Masters - that perhaps Tiger Woods is no longer the best golfer in the game. That maybe, just maybe, Mickelson has caught Woods - or even surpassed him.

I mentioned last week how Mickelson's short-game coach, Dave Pelz, had remarked that "When Phil's at his best, I'm thinking nobody can beat him." (And I mocked the comment.)

Now I'd like to suggest a moratorium on speculation that any current golfer is as good as Tiger Woods. At least until or unless someone else can play at a "Tiger-esque" level for at least a full year.

Let's face it a - Mickelson has never done that. Nobody in the Woods era has, with the except of Vijay Singh in 2004 (and, arguably, David Duval in 1998-99, although Duval failed to win a major during that period), when Vijay posted nine wins including one major.

Mickelson has never had a "Tiger-esque" season. In fact, Mickelson's best year would only be Woods' fifth or sixth - or maybe even seventh - best year. Heck, Mickelson has never come close to having a year like Woods is having this year (5 wins so far, including two majors).

This isn't meant as a knock on Mickelson, who is a truly great golfer, and who has, for brief periods, outplayed Woods. He just has the misfortune of playing concurrently with the greatest golfer who ever lived. If Mickelson's fate is to be Arnold Palmer or Lee Trevino or Tom Watson to Woods' Jack Nicklaus, well, there are much worse fates than that.

Mickelson is great, but Tiger Woods at his best isn't just a little bit better than Mickelson or Singh or Ernie Els or anyone else, he's a lot better.