The only facts quoted in the article are: Tiger woods in dominant, and "[w]hen the superstar entered a tournament, every other golfer took, on average, 0.8 more

The only facts quoted in the article are: Tiger woods in dominant, and "[w]hen the superstar entered a tournament, every other golfer took, on average, 0.8 more strokes. This effect was even more pronounced when Woods was playing well." Based solely on the above they draw their conclusions. I'm just pointing out that there is a simpler and more rational conclusion one could draw.