The Open 2012: golf is fine without Tiger Woods winning everything. That's the game The downfall of Woods lies at the heart of this debate. His blessed period of domination has cast this recent conveyor belt in a cruel light. Golf was spoilt by Tiger. From the margins, the sport was hurtled on the back pages by one man who redefined what was and was not possible. The crash of his car and his reputation ensured golf moved up to the news pages. And then rose the golfers from Great Britain and Ireland, with Padraig Harrington, Graeme McDowell, Rory McIlroy and Darren Clarke breaking the major void which stretched back to the end of the last century. With Luke Donald and Lee Westwood at the head of the rankings the stage was set for a British golden age to rival that of Faldo, Lyle and Woosnam. As yet they have not delivered at one of the big four. And with Justin Rose, Paul Casey and Ian Poulter also continuing to fall short, Britain's blank has become a recurring theme, particularly when put alongside Keegan Bradley and Webb Simpson rising above their standing to win the US PGA and US Open. How can Donald be the world No 1 without a major? How can the top three in the world boast one major victory between them? The truth is the gap between No 1 and No 100 can be flipped on any given week. This is not new. In the 1990s, there was also a streak of 15 different major winners. Champions such as Tiger Woods come along once every couple of generations and in the gap years the cry always goes up: "Golf is at crisis point." What may be different this time is that technology is bunching the field. This is a live and present danger, but it can still be fixed if only the governing bodies would take control to ensure the equipment does not negate the competition. But even then, golf would still experience eras of fluctuation. For some reason the naysayers want certainty in their sport. In this case golf is not for them; certainly not links golf. As McIlroy says: "Embrace the madness."