I think you're probably right, it's not a great comparison, the point i was trying to make though is that Tiger, not unlike Federer, might find he never wins again, but is capable of competing with merit for years to come.
I actually think St Andrews could be his best chance funnily enough, but the recetn evidence suggests you boost your prospects by playing the Scottish open a week before, and its doubtful Tiger will do that.
I think the idea that the weight of numbers is on Tigers side is really a reflection on the speed with which tournaments come at.
He's 38 now, say he's competitive until 44 (doubtfull in itself given that his body could be packing up) that's 5 years plus this years PGA = 21 shots provided he stays fit
Rory is 25 and gets about 19 attempts at a Masters on the same logic
If you're in the Rory camp of course, then you're discounting Woods from Augusta anyway (by very definition you have to) so you're actually saying he gets 3 shots a year
Now whose to say Mickelson won't the US Open and trump them both!