I think Nick O’Hern did the impossible this last weekend: He got inside Tiger’s head.

As everyone in the free world surely knows by now Nick O’Hern beat Tiger Woods in a match play event for second time (O’Hern topped Tiger two years ago at La Costa) at the World Match Play Championships. Tiger was down early in the match, but fought his way back to take it to extra holes. And then he missed a four footer.

Afterwards, everyone was talking about the putt. Tiger, in a state of denial, seemed in his press conference to be saying that he hadn’t really missed the putt; that an untended ball mark had marred his otherwise perfect stroke and line.

But for me, that wasn’t the story at all. The story was that for perhaps the first time, someone had gotten into Tiger’s head rather than the other way around.

I—and probably everyone else—could tell that Tiger was going to lose early in the match. O’Hern never trailed a hole, and Tiger was struggling to keep it close. The striped one was wild, playing as much from the cacti as from the fairway. To me, that was a sign that he was pushing too hard; thinking too much.

The sad thing was that he didn’t have to. Granted, O’Hern is ranked sixteenth in the world, but he’s not really in Tiger’s league. O’Hern is 137th in driving distance; 176 in driving accuracy; 191 in greens in regulation. He’s a dangerous putter (2nd in putts per round), but that’s about it.

I think that the advantage that O’Hern had was that he had beaten Tiger before ... and Tiger was thinking about it. Simply put, O’Hern was in Tiger’s head.

The best case for that comes in Tiger’s own words:

“It’s not the streak,” Woods said. “It’s the fact that I’m disappointed I didn’t pay attention to detail, something so simple. Something so simple like that just escaped me.”

That “something so simple” was fixing the ball mark. He simply forgot. When he stepped up to that final putt, Tiger was thinking about putting away the pesky Australian, and not paying attention to details. There was something else on his mind ... and that was O’Hern.

Its good to see that Tiger is not superman.

I am, however, a bit disappointed that Tiger didn’t win. I am dreading all the second-guessing about whether a match play event really counts on Tiger’s win streak. It would have been far better for him not to have finished first in a regular event. Then we could have put it to rest once and for all.

The GolfBlogger’s Thesis that Tiger Woods is ultimately bad for the Tour is spreading. Quoting the same sources, today’s edition of Cybergolf International offers the same thoughts as the GolfBlogger’s Monday column.

It’s good to be ahead of the crowd.

Here’s a clip from NBC which in part blames Tiger—of the lack of Tiger—for the death of the International. 

The Denver Post also makes the implication in an article on the demise of the tournament:

Tiger Woods only played twice, the last time in 1999 when it was played a week after the PGA Championship, and that became an issue with Vickers. He often lamented the absence of golf’s top draw, and he continued to ask the tour for different dates. It moved from a week after the PGA Championship to two weeks before the final major, then the week before the PGA.

The AP’s Arnie Stapleton echoes the thought:

Yet the biggest factor was the absence of Woods, who hadn’t played in the event since 1999.

“I’d have to say, yeah, if he shows, everything changes,” Vickers told The Associated Press. “But I also know, in fairness to him, he can’t be everywhere. He can’t be everything to everybody.”

Vickers said he was unsuccessful in getting a commitment from Woods, who didn’t come when the event was held in August because it was so close to the PGA Championship, and that prevented him from closing deals with companies he was courting.

“On the one hand, the Tour’s asking for a new five- or six-year commitment and you’ve got a one-man show out there right now that is the big difference,” Vickers said. “And I’ve tried to get an expression, ‘So let’s be honest with each other. Just tell me, if it’s no, it’s no. But I’d like to know if out of six years, you’d play a couple years, even three years. I’d be happy as a lark.’ But I can’t get any commitment.”

It’s an interesting thought. And while exaggerated, it falls in line with my thesis that, increasingly, Tiger is BAD for the PGA Tour. Or perhaps, that Tiger can be bad if the Tour lets it get that way.

Yes, I know that Tiger is single handedly responsible for the exponential increase in purses and interest in golf. But I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing.

There clearly are now two classes of tournaments in golf: not majors and regular Tour events, but Tiger and Non-Tiger events. In the current financial structure, if the Blessed Saint Tiger decides to grace you with his presence (or at least holds out the chance that he will), your Tournament will do well. If not, you may struggle. 

SI’s Michael Bamberger has a humorous piece on how Jack Nicklaus ruined it for Tiger—and by extension guys everywhere—with his “family first” attitude. 

On his 31st Birthday, Tiger Woods has announced that wife Elin is pregnant.

Congratulations!

Now we know what he’s been doing with all of that time off.

The baby apparently is due sometime between the US Open and the British Open Championship. But knowing how babies—especially first ones—come on their own schedules, I wonder if he’s got a plan if the bambino is early or late. Is he going to wear a beeper and threaten to leave the tournament early if paged, like Mickelson?

I doubt it. My guess is that it’ll be born via c section so it will be on his schedule.