Open can prove its value without Tiger

The 137th Open tees off at Royal Birkdale tomorrow and you'd be hard pressed to imagine from the interrogation of competitors here that there have been at least, ooo, 124 previous editions which didn't actually feature the blessed Eldrick. And they presumably were all rubbish. Life before Tiger? Was there ever any?

Yesterday, Phil Mickelson, the world's No1 active golfer, had been asked precisely one question when a mischievous soul demanded of him: "No Tiger. People are saying that the Majors are being devalued. What's your thoughts on this?" Well, Mickelson's first thought was probably to wrap a pitching wedge around the questioner's ears.

His reply that, actually, he had no thoughts on Tiger's injury time-out seemed fair enough. After all, why should he have to dignify the idea that should he finally sip from golf 's most-prized trinket, it would somehow be soured because 'you know who' hadn't been around?

Personally, I'm with the voice of golf on this one. For after reading how one columnist had written off this Open as a lost cause simply because of one man's absence, Peter Alliss told a golf writers' dinner here last night - while trying to be as delicate as possible, naturally - that the very idea was "total b******s".

Hear, hear. You can't deny that grand sports occasions lose something when their marquee performer is absent - what spectator wouldn't want to see Federer at Wimbledon or Pietersen at Lord's? - and there's no question his absence gives this year's edition what Ernie Els calls a "very different feel".

Different but in no way devalued, though. For what these occasions never lose is the timeless nature of their challenge and the priceless nature of their prize. "I just hope they've taught the engraver how to put an asterisk on the trophy," was Geoff Ogilvy's perfect line in dry irony. This 2008 'asterisked Open' is one the Aussie would kill to win every bit as much as his 2006 'asterisked' US Open triumph, the one where Woods failed to make the cut.

Golf's problem with Woods being absent almost feels like one of a lack of self-belief. So heart-stoppingly dramatic was his farewell, hopalong tour de force in the US Open before the revelation that he'd be out for the rest of the year that it seems to have left the sport doubting its ability to thrive without his genius.

In a way, golf has learned to use Woods as its crutch, with sponsors, organisers and even his fellow competitors knowing they could always rely on him to generate the TV audience, the cash and global appeal. Yesterday, Els, sounding almost too reverential about Woods, deemed his absence a "big blow".

A blow to the Southport tourist board no doubt but surely not for players who, according to Nick Faldo last night, suddenly find themselves with "a great chance to step up and steal a few Majors before Tiger returns." Opportunity knocks deafeningly; Els believes up to 40 players in the field could win.

None, sadly, could be heard screaming about yet another question about Tiger and booming 'Stuff him, it's my time now!' but Lee Westwood should get marks for snorting: "Tiger makes no difference to me. If I win the Open, I won't give a monkey's if he was there or not."

Neither should any of them. There's a chance here for the sport to focus on new star potential instead of being forever in thrall to its Sun king. It's why there's been so much focus on Anthony Kim, the cocksure new Californian hope, even if the poor bloke has inevitably got stuck with the 'new Tiger' poisoned chalice.

What's been most indecent of all here has been the implication that there's nothing else which could now compare with the sort of sensational one-legged drama of Torrey Pines which Woods conjured. So good on Ogilvy for asking us to cast our mind back to the last time the Open came to these links when hardly anyone was left reflecting on Woods's charge for third place because they were too busy raving about the kid who'd earlier finished one place behind him.

"I'm pretty sure anyone who was on the 18th green when Justin (Rose) finished in '98 would say there was more electricity there than at Torrey Pines a month ago," noted Ogilvy, almost heretically. "But then you just don't know what story, like a 17-year-old guy nearly winning the Open, could happen. I mean, anything can happen in this tournament."

Quite right, Geoff. Want to bet that Woods won't be unduly missed? I'll see your Tiger and raise you a Jean Van de Velde.