When the leader board of a golf tournament is displayed, standard protocol for arranging the order of those players who are tied is to list the competitor who has completed the most holes first. But apparently this does not apply to Tiger Woods during network coverage of golf as he is always the first player listed when tied with others. The practice was ever-present as usual last weekend during coverage of the US Open.

Now, this has been going on for many years and is no outrageous sin as he is arguably the most recognizable athlete in the world and the most popular golfer so it behooves TV to keep viewers aware of the great one's position.

But it also, unfortunately, represents the relentless effort by the media to force and manufacture the narrative of the major golf tournaments, thereby robbing a moment or event of true, organic drama.

For better or worse - and I'd say well worse - we still inhabit the Age of Jordan (Michael) where a sport - even a team sport such as the NBA - decides to focus on one player to sell the product. Of course golf is an individual game so it's a bit less of an egregious digression, risking such a strategy. But it does nothing to ensure the long term health of the sport and in fact puts it at risk. Just look how long it took the NBA to recover after Jordan's exit.

Even when Tiger was 10 shots behind in the third round, there was an obscenely inordinate and insulting amount of time spent by the coterie of NBC and ESPN commentators as they exhibited near prayerful desperation when pondering the chances of a Woods comeback. Beyond being wishful thinking it was an affront to anyone who follows golf.

For it'd be one thing if Tiger had previously managed some miraculous comebacks in the four majors to give such salivating ruminations some validity. But Tiger has still never come from behind on the last day to claim a major title. There was simply no evidence to suggest that such a comeback was remotely possible.

The very recent past bears this out to even the most casual observer of golf. At both the Masters and US Open in 2007 Woods was well positioned in the final round to come from behind and win against seemingly inferior competition. At the Masters that year, Woods, the four time winner of the most prestigious of all tournaments, was only one shot behind Stuart Appleby heading into Sunday. But Zack Johnson, who himself was two shots back of Woods, claimed the title.

And then two months later at the US Open, Tiger again seemed ready to make a charge in the final round at Oakmont. Woods was two shots off the lead and paired with the leader Aaron Baddelay. But failures to convert on the back nine allowed a surging Angel Cabrera, who was two shots behind Woods to start the round, to capture the first of his two major titles.

Aside from the always entertaining, enlightening and outspoken Johnny Miller one could actually feel the desire on the part of the other announcers for Woods to make a move. Wasn't it enough that Phil Mickelson was closing in on the lead before his all-too-familiar back nine breakdown?

There is the oft-drawn analogy, comparing the extraordinary accomplishments and genius of both Roger Federer and Tiger Woods. The two are good friends and both are vying for "best ever" status in their respective sports. But as of this moment there are asterisks aside both their names for those who argue otherwise.

As I've expostulated before, there is a strong argument to make for Federer not being regarded as the finest player of all time because his one and only main rival has a dominating record against him.

And for Woods there is that issue of never coming from behind to win. There's no doubt that the man Woods is most often compared with, Jack Nicklaus, had much stronger and more consistent competition. The average pro golfer may well be superior to those who played in the 1970's but there's no question that the strong players Nicklaus had to fight off to retain supremacy over his golfing kingdom - Palmer, Player, Trevino, Miller, Floyd, Watson, Norman - were of a higher caliber, both technically and competitively, than the group that resides just below Woods today.

Just as with Federer who has had no one but Nadal to push him these last five years, this is no fault of Woods obviously. He's likely going down as the greatest golfer of all time. He already has 14 majors and still has several prime years left. He beats who he has to.

But, being that the competition is less intense, one would think that the prodigy turned man-genius would have defeated Johnson, Cabrera or a host of others on the final day of a major.

The announcers often talk of the "roar" from Tiger after he's made a few consecutive birdies or the fact that he's "on the prowl" and the other players are likely getting intimidated. But are they really? From the looks of it, as long as he's not out front, Tiger is not to be feared on Sundays.