Tiger Woods says he’s still trying to get fit for The Masters next month, but he knows the clock’s not exactly on his side.

He made his golf comeback with Jupiter Links GC in Tomorrow’s Golf League, teaming up with Tom Kim and Max Homa. It’s been a while since Woods last played TGL in February 2025, when he tore his Achilles and had disc replacement surgery in his back. So, yeah, it’s been a rough road.

After his return on Tuesday, Woods didn’t sugarcoat things. He gave a pretty honest update about his chances at Augusta this year. You can tell he’s been keeping the door open for the 2026 Masters, but honestly, his appearance for Jupiter Links might’ve shaken up those plans.

Things actually started off looking good. Woods smashed a 279-yard drive on the second hole; it felt like a flash from the old Tiger. But that faded fast. His game unravelled, and by the seventh hole, he missed a three-yard putt, slammed his club into the ground, and his frustration was obvious.

Woods and his teammates just couldn’t keep up, and Jupiter Links ended up losing 9-2 to the Los Angeles Golf Club trio of Justin Rose, Sahith Theegala, and Tommy Fleetwood.

Afterwards, Tiger didn’t hold back: “We got our arse kicked. Three eagles in a row… I missed a short one to give them momentum, and we never got it back.”

Reporters quickly shifted the focus to The Masters. Even after a disappointing night, Woods still wants to play at Augusta National. “I want to play. I love the tournament. I’m going to be there either way with The Loop that's going up there, as well as the champions dinner. We’ll see how it goes. I’ll be practising and playing at home this week and keep trying to make progress.”

Honestly, it’s obvious why Woods wants to tee it up at Augusta. He’s won The Masters five times (1997, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2019) and made the cut a record 24 times. Looking at how things went in his latest outing, though, it’s hard to picture him adding to those numbers in a few weeks. But if anyone can surprise people, it’s probably Tiger.

The debate around who stands as the greatest scorer in basketball never really fades. Whenever rankings or metrics include Michael Jordan, the basketball world spins back into that familiar conversation. Recently, Bleacher Report stirred the pot again by placing Stephen Curry at the top of their list of the 15 purest scorers ever, with Jordan coming in third.

The response was immediate and intense. Metta Sandiford-Artest, known to many as Ron Artest or Metta World Peace and a former Lakers champ, didn’t hold back.

Taking to social media, Artest made his stance crystal clear. He dismissed the idea outright, highlighting Jordan’s rookie year average of 28 points, six championships, six Finals MVPs, and nine scoring titles, repeating the last figure for emphasis: nine scoring titles no one else has reached. For Artest, those feats put Jordan on a level that shouldn’t even be debated in these terms.

You can hear the passion in his words. Artest built a reputation as one of the league’s fiercest defenders and claimed a title with the Lakers in 2010. His perspective carries weight, reflecting a deep respect for Jordan’s place in history.

So, what did the list actually say? Bleacher Report based its rankings on three advanced stats: points per 75 possessions, relative true shooting percentage, and free-throw attempt rate. They aimed to reward scorers who performed efficiently without over-relying on free throws. This approach separated the rankings from more conventional views.

Jordan actually had a higher points per 75 possessions rate (30.3 versus Curry’s 26.7), but his greater free-throw attempt rate (35.8 compared to Curry’s 24.2) dragged his rank down. Plus, Jordan placed 29th in relative true shooting percentage among the players considered.

Bleacher Report didn’t ignore Jordan’s dominance; they noted his eight seasons averaging over 30 points and his ten scoring titles. However, they argued that Jordan’s scoring combined volume with a certain forcefulness rather than ‘pure’ scoring. In contrast, they praised Curry for mixing high volume with efficiency, relying on contested long-range shots, movement-based scoring, and underrated finishes at the rim, which they deemed a more ‘pure’ form of scoring.

It’s a solid argument. Curry revolutionised what scoring at the highest level looks like, hitting shots from distances that previous generations didn’t even consider practical options. This makes direct comparisons tricky.

But Artest’s points stand strong, too. Jordan put up his numbers against rugged, physical defences in an era where hand-checking was permitted, and officials allowed a level of contact unseen today. His scoring came amid the most persistent defensive pressure.

On the flip side, Curry is arguably the greatest shooter ever. The difficulty and uniqueness of his shot-making defy full capture by stats alone. He forced defences to rethink their positioning, influenced team-building strategies, and maintained highly efficient scoring over nearly twenty years.

As for Curry, he never asked for this ranking or the controversy it sparked. The list isn’t going to settle the debate, and Artest’s fiery reaction shows it won’t be without pushback.

What this conversation does highlight is the serious regard for Curry’s role in scoring history. He’s a player who has fundamentally altered the game, pushing the evolution of how scoring itself is measured.

Jordan remains Jordan, an icon beyond debate. Yet, what Curry has done to basketball is unprecedented. The argument will continue, but just having it underscores the remarkable place Curry holds in the sport’s story.