Jim McCabe

SOUTHPORT, England - For days leading into the 137th British Open, there were too many stories that revolved around the need to affix an asterisk to the results from Royal Birkdale.

I think the rationale had something to do with a certain player not being in the field. Kenny Perry perhaps? Or maybe it was Michelle Wie. It’s so hard to keep track.

But the point is what nonsense. Did we put an asterisk next to Horton Smith’s name at the 1934 Masters, signifying that Gene Sarazen chose instead to play an exhibition in South America and skipped the Bobby Jones party? Of course not. To even think of doing such a thing would be disrespectful.

Think about what some people were suggesting, though, when they indicated this year’s British Open should be noted as having been played without Tiger Woods. If they were serious, then why not take it a step further? Why not put asterisks next to all those major champions of 1998 and note that these were tournaments played while Woods went through some swing changes? Why not put a disclaimer next to the 2006 U.S. Open, because Woods was just coming back from a long period of mourning the death of his father? Oh, and why not throw the asterisk next to Trevor Immelman’s name so that it can be recorded for historical purposes that Woods putted like Sergio Garcia at the 2008 Masters?

The answer to all those questions: Be like Woody Austin and hit yourself in the head with a putter.

Woods played in 46 majors as a professional before he got hurt, and he won 14 of them. It’s a pretty good winning percentage. But it’s an even higher losing percentage, and there were plenty of major championships mixed in there that did not require the eventual winner to deal too much with Woods. (Did he impact the 2003 PGA Championship very much? Or the 2001 U.S. Open? Or the 1997 U.S. Open? No, no, and no. So, do you want to smudge the efforts of Shaun Micheel, Retief Goosen and Ernie Els?)

If you want to place an asterisk next to Padraig Harrington’s name as it relates to the 2008 British Open, then feel free. But what it should note is that he was the best player, but not necessarily the best story. Harrington more or less said it himself, not long after winning the claret jug for the second year in a row.

“I did say to him coming down 18 that I was sorry it wasn’t his story that was going to be told this evening,” said the Irishman, showing that in addition to his polished golf skills, he’s got a great deal of dignity and a firm grasp of history.

Of course, it would have been a marvelous story had Greg Norman won the British Open at the age of 53, some 10 years since he had pretty much walked away from full-time competition. The best player of his generation and a guy who made millions of dollars with every business venture he took on, Norman is also one of the biggest touch-luck losers the game has ever witnessed.

He won a lot, but should have won more. So overwhelming are the major championships he let get away that we tend to overlook the fact that he did somehow manage to win two British Opens.

MORE FROM GOLF

Golf Section Front

Tiger the host with the most by winning AT&T British Open-bound: Molder, Goydos and Snedeker Kaymer tops Westwood in playoff to win French Open Yi beats Pressel in playoff at Farr Creamer says she'll play at U.S. Open next week Latest golf videos Discuss: Sound off on golf at Newsvine.com Rotoworld: Latest player news, rumors and more Special section: Golf on NBC Tracking Tiger: News, features and more   Golf Section Front   Add Golf headlines to your news reader: