It’s a legitimate question. Vijay has gone on a tear in 2004, and absolutely dickwhipped the rest of the PGA Tour, just as Tiger did in 2000. But I think Doug Ferguson reaches the right conclusion, too… that 2004 Vijay can’t compare with 2000 Tiger.

Vijay broke Tiger’s single-season money record, sure, but… a lot of that has to do with the inflation of tournament purses, caused in no small part by Tiger’s absurd run in 2000. If Tiger won the same tournaments in 2004 that he did in 2000, they’d have been worth $13,336,532… instead of the $9.1 mil he actually did get.

Also, Vijay’s won only one major this year, with Tiger won 3 in 2000. Tiger won 9 of the 20 tournaments he played in 2000. Vijay currently also has 9 victories in 2004, but it took him 29 tournaments to get there, and some of them were against weaker competition.

No one’s saying that Vijay isn’t a bad, bad, man… he just isn’t 2000 Tiger. Of course, it’s just something to talk about… while the real question is who will be better, 2005 Tiger, or 2005 Vijay? And how awesome would it be if Vijay, Tiger, Ernie, and Phil were all on top of their game at the same time?