Tiger Woods roared from two shots back on Sunday to win the Buick Invitational in San Diego, California, beating Charles Howell III by two strokes. His surge was an impressive display of power, touch and consummate skill under pressure. In other words, it was typical Tiger Woods. He closed with a six-under par 66 and claimed his seventh consecutive PGA Tour victory, dating back to his win in the Open Championship at Hoylake last July.

This is the second-longest winning streak in PGA Tour history, bettered only by Byron Nelson, who won 11 straight in 1945. Before he sank his par putt on 18 to seal the victory, Tiger's run of six-in-a-row tied him for second-place in the record books with Ben Hogan's feat in 1948 and his own of six straight wins over two seasons in 1999 and 2000.

Still, this unrelenting pursuit of perfection has caused a minor controversy among some golf fans, similar to the debate over what to call his string of four straight majors victories in 2000-01. Then, it was whether or not to call Tiger's achievement the Grand Slam, a term coined by O.B. Keeler to describe Bobby Jones’ wins at the U.S. and British Amateur Championships and the U.S. Open and Open Championship in 1930.

Many traditionalists claimed that to be labelled as such, the true Grand Slam had to be achieved in a calendar year. Others said that winning four consecutive majors was the criteria, regardless of whether the feat was achieved in a single calendar year or over the course of two seasons. Thus, the Tiger Slam was born.

Now, many of these same "traditionalists" are arguing that Tiger's streak ended last year, either when he lost in the first round of the HSBC Match Play last September or when he finished in second place in stroke play events in Europe and Asia. Those who defend the streak say that, as with Byron Nelson's 11 straight wins, the streak only applies to PGA Tour tournaments.

Both sides present cogent arguments. The traditionalists say that Nelson's run should stand alone, regardless of how many consecutive PGA Tour tournaments Woods wins, because Nelson's feat was not interrupted by losses in non-PGA Tour events. They argue that those who claim the run is now at seven are, in effect, giving Tiger a "mulligan".

They have a point, but the fact that Nelson's record included a victory at the Miami Four Ball, in which he teamed with Harold (Jug) McSpaden to win four matches, simply highlights the fact that comparing the PGA Tour in 1945 to the PGA Tour in 2006-07 is an impossible task.

Defenders of Tiger's streak claim that it applies to PGA Tour tournaments, and that, by definition, he has now won the last seven PGA Tour tournaments in which he has competed. The PGA Tour does not recognize Woods' non-tour victories in its official records and statistics, so how then can non-tour losses be counted against a PGA Tour winning streak? In that sense an analogy can be drawn to a Major League Baseball player who, after hitting in 30 straight MLB games, plays a few exhibition games in which he goes hitless. When he returns to MLB play, his hit streak would still stand at 30 games.

For what it's worth, Tiger himself claims that his streak ended at six last year, which suggests he is not particularly concerned what others label his current run of stellar play. He is focused on doing what he does best, winning tournaments and adding to his already considerable legacy.

Golf's finest player started 2007 the way he ended 2006, playing great golf and poised to resume his assault on the sport's record books. He is far and away the best in the game today and probably the best golfer of all time. I would hope that is something on which both sides in the "streak debate" can agree.

Is Tiger Woods the greatest golfer the world has ever seen? Let Sportingo have your views.