Tiger Woods is a phenomenon. Quite apart from his golfing ability, it is his effect on betting in golf that distinguishes him. As the table shows, the odds on Woods prior to the start of each major generally tumble, and in this year appreciably so. Next week at Valhalla, when the final Major of the season is contested, the US PGA championship, the American will start at a shade over even money. Depending on the bookmaker, Woods may be backed at 6 to 4 or 7 to 4. This is unprecedented for a major tournament. As Paul Ryan of Paddy Power Bookmakers conceded: "In the next 12 months Tiger Woods will start a tournament as an odds-on favourite.
"It won't be a major, but for one of the tournaments in the US he will start odds-on, I'm certain." But arguably the most staggering statistic is that Woods is being quoted at between 33 to 1 and 40 to 1 to complete the Grand Slam of the four Majors in 2001. At the start of this season, Woods could be backed at 500 to 1 for the Grand Slam. Putting that in context, one bookmaker declared that "you could add five zeros to any other player you care to name to achieve the same feat". This is only a slight exaggeration.
It is the manner of his victories this year in the US Open and the British Open more than winning itself that sets him apart in the betting stakes. He simply decimated the highest quality fields, rendering both events a procession. With 10 holes remaining in the US Masters, Woods was in contention for the title and could reasonably have been heading for Valhalla chasing a Grand Slam this year.
Despite his dominance this season, Woods has far from killed the betting market; indeed the opposite is the case. Donal McCarthy of Ladbrokes explained: "You might think that his (Woods') dominance, along with the low odds offered wouldn't interest many punters, but that's not the case. People are still supporting Woods with their money and that is reflected in the price. If there was no interest in him, then we would have to offer longer odds."
One ancillary benefit for those wishing to bet is that the low odds which Woods attracts ensures great each-way value. The next best priced player at the recent British Open was 16 to 1 and the trend suggests that the opposition will drift further out in the market. The value for money at the aforementioned tournament, in terms of each-way bets, is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Padraig Harrington was available at 80 to 1. McCarthy conceded: "If he had won, we would have lost a serious amount of money." Woods' dominance at St Andrews forced bookmakers to conjure other means of persuading people to part with money.
In effect, they offered prices without Woods. For the final two days one bookmaker laid odds against anyone but Tiger, which means that punters were effectively backing for second place. The categories of top European to Irish to Scandinavian, etc., attracts decent money, but for those who want to wager on who will finish as the top American at a major they must do so without the name of Tiger Woods.
The price is simply too short and would appeal to negligible numbers. Woods has carved his own niche in bookmaking parlance. Many firms offer odds on the basis that the great young American golfer is not included in the betting. Nevertheless there remains a groundswell of support for him in betting offices with punters including him in multiple bets.
And then there are the "serious" wagers in which Woods has carried sums ranging from £5,000 to £100,000 in single bets. Ladbrokes took in over £100,000 after offering 5 to 4 that Woods would not win a major this season. Few would bet against him not winning one next season. On current evidence, Woods edges ever closer to re-writing the history books on and off the course.
