*

I really don't know why sports records are kept. I guess because they're fun to remember and recount.

But as objective qualifiers, I believe they've done the opposite of what they're intended to do; instead of defining absolutes, they are used as opening proffers for comparison.

Sure, almost all records are generational. Some factors are substantive, others external. For instance, I'm more willing to debate the fact that Ruth only had 154 games each season. I'm less willing to debate the fact that Owens ran on cinder.

But what I won't allow is a change in terms of debate that create a lower threshold. As a fan, I can enjoy the competitive pursuit of a record even if that record stands after all legitimate attempts are exhausted. It's why I believe DiMaggio's hitting streak is perhaps the purest of all time.

Nothing I can say diminishes the relatively unchallenged domination of Woods. But I won't diminish the domination of golf's past heroes to sustain the insecurity that my generation is better than your generation.

Yes, I am referring to the Tiger Slam.

Additionally, Woods has been credited with breaking Nelson's streak of 113 consecutive cuts made. In Lord Byron's day, making the cut meant receiving a check and one had to finish in the top 20 in order to accomplish that. Modern golf has allowed making the cut to merely mean qualifying for the third and fourth rounds.

In 1945, Byron Nelson won 11 consecutive tournaments. No question mark, no quotations, or brackets. When he entered a tournament, he won.

Now, modern golf acknowledges Woods' [active] "streak" of 7 consecutive(?) tournaments.

Since last year's Open Championship, however, Woods failed to win the HSBC Championship and the World Match Play; over the weekend, he tied for third at Dubai.

How then is this an active winning streak?

Because modern fans are lazy and care more about apparent triumph than actual victory.

Don't even get me started on what I think about the fans at the 16th green at the FBR Open.