Glenn Spencer,
Per Wikipedia, here is what Tiger-proofing is defined as.
Early in Woods' career, a small number of golf experts expressed concern about his impact on the competitiveness of the game (and thus the public appeal of professional golf). This issue was most prominent from 1999-2002, when Woods was at his most dominant. Sports writer Bill Lyon of Knight-Ridder asked in a column, "Isn't Tiger Woods actually bad for golf?" (though Lyon ultimately concluded that he wasn't [13]). At first, some pundits feared that Woods would drive the spirit of competition out of the game of golf by making existing courses obsolete and relegating opponents to simply competing for second place each week. Many courses in the PGA Tour rotation (including Major Championship sites like Augusta National) even began to add yardage to their tees in an effort to slow down long hitters like Woods, a strategy that became known as "Tiger-Proofing". However, Woods was unable to maintain his pace after 2002. Also, the increases in PGA Tour television ratings and prize money since Woods arrived on the golf scene have largely discredited his detractors to the point that, as of 2005, the complaint is rarely heard. The current mainstream view is that Woods' success is one of the most positive things that has ever happened to golf.
I don't think it is something is specifically targeted at Tiger, but just the prodigious gains in length the tour players were getting over that period and it has been slapped with that label because he is the face of professional golf currently. I do find it ironic that the most drastic changes occur on courses after Tiger wins there (Torrey Pines and Augusta as example). Also, whenever anyone talks about lengthening a "championship" course or some other factor that makes it more difficult they always say something to effect of "We just wanted to make this course more relevant today and challenge the Tiger Woods of the world."