While we probably don't know all the facts, this situation is very similar to the experience several media members have had with Tiger over the years. If you write a critical article or question his swing changes on air, you're on his black list. Peter Kostis had some harsh comments about Woods' swing changes when the Great One started working with Haney, and suddenly found out world #1 would no longer do post round interviews with him. Several writers have had similar experiences.
Think about it. You're a member of the media. The biggest story in golf will cut you off cold if deign to be honest with your opinions. Think that has any affect on how they report?
I think for the most part Tiger handles himself well, and he represents his sport adequately. Nevertheless, he's no Roger Federer. He lacks any hint of humility, and while he's his own man, he never learned to lose with the dignity and grace Nicklaus consistently showed us. He does a lot of good work through his foundation, but would anyone say he has the generosity of spirit like Palmer?
Look at the way Woods left Fuzzy twisting in the wind after his dumb remarks at the 1997 Masters. Or that flap with Vijay over his caddy's "Tiger Who?" cap. He gets into these terribly small minded tiffs. Everyone remembers Trevino pulling out the snake and tossing it at Jack on the first tee of an 18-hole playoff. Did Jack make a big deal out of it, or blame Lee's antics for losing? Of course not. You never heard of Arnold having bad blood with anyone, in golf or business.
Tough acts to follow, but it is quite fair for someone of his stature should be held to those kind of high standards.
I don't want to sound petty or mean spirited, but IMO he simply lacks class sometimes. That's something you either have or you don't.
As for Faldo, while he did have his arrogant and surly days when he was the top dog, I think he has endeared himself to many the last few years. He has definitely mellowed, refined his self-deprecation, and has evolved into a public persona which is genuine and likeable. He's no saint, but I think this is kept alive by Tiger's reluctance to let it go, not any effort by Nick fanning the flames.
Incredibly biased post there.
Tiger has no hint of humility eh? Have you listened to him talk at all? Did you listen to him talk about Darren Clarke the other day? Have you listened to him talk about Jack and Arnold, for example? He's got plenty of humility; you just choose to ignore it.
As for the comment about Fuzzy. It may have been a joke, but at the time it sounded kind of mean-spirited to me. If Fuzzy didn't want to get grilled, he shouldn't have said it. Plain and simple. As for the nonsense about Vijay's caddie wearing the "Tiger Who?" hat. I don't recall Tiger making a big deal out of it. He and Vijay have never liked each other, and he simply went out and beat Vijay in match play that day. He didn't comment on it or throw a tantrum like you seem to think. Once again, you choose to ignore the facts so you can put up a good argument.
The reason Tiger does not trust the media, in general, is because of the GQ magazine article when he first came onto the scene. He made a dirty joke but told the guy EXPLICITLY not to print it, and the guy printed it anyhow...and the rest of the press made a big deal about it because it happened to be a racial joke. He's also the most famous current athlete in the world, so he's got more scrutiny on him than anyone else. No one's perfect, and Tiger has plenty of flaws (namely his cursing on the course), but I think you're overexaggerating in your little rant against Tiger.
Faldo turned 49 on Tuesday, and he was asked again about his criticism of Woods at the Buick Invitational last year. Woods was leading by one shot on the final hole when he fanned a 2-iron that narrowly missed the water, and went on to make birdie. "A complete fan and a miss," Faldo said.
"I was just doing what I was paid to do," Faldo said. "If I compliment him, nobody says anything, do they?"
I read that Faldo had criticized Tiger's new swing and that was at the root of Tiger's alleged animosity towards Faldo. It isn't match play and I don't think it will affect eithers play come Thursday.
That's what I had heard as well. If you'll notice Butch has been VERY careful about what he has said about Tiger's new swing.
I believe the "tiff" is blown out of proportion a little here. Perhaps Tiger didn't enjoy Faldo's critique, and their relationship might never have been cozy, but I doubt that they'll pass on the normal pre-and post-round handshake.
Yes, we have to remember the tabloids over there will do anything to sell papers. Look how they almost destroyed their own Paul Casey!
the worst press and newspaper's in the world, most notably The Sun. id rather watch the news than read through a paper, you can't believe nothing in there. its probably the same all over the world though, but we are known for blowing thing's out of proportion and even making up stories. the only paper i buy is the RacingPost and that isn't a newspaper.
the worst press and newspaper's in the world, most notably The Sun. id rather watch the news than read through a paper, you can't believe nothing in there. its probably the same all over the world though, but we are known for blowing thing's out of proportion and even making up stories. the only paper i buy is the RacingPost and that isn't a newspaper.
I wonder if Dan Rather trained over there...he seems to have a penchant for fabricating news.
Sorry to throw in that non-golf statement, but I couldn't resist.
I think Tiger has become very careful about who he trusts and who he avoids. I'm not saying Nick is someone he feels he should avoid, but he may not want to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call. Just my opinion.
In my opinion I wrote a well reasoned and balanced view of the greatest golfer of our generation.
To call it a rant is quite a stretch indeed.
Apparently Woods is not the only one who is thin skinned.
You and I can agree to disagree.
I thought your post was great BPC. You expressed my sentiments about Tiger nearly to a tee, though saying he has no class was a bit of a stretch. TTU is one our most insightful and eloquent posters... he is also our biggest Tiger fan aside from possibly Donna. Though Tiger has matured over his many years in the limelight, he still seems rather thin-skinned and tends to hold onto his grudges dearly. Nick, on the other hand, apparently likes to use the needle, while Tiger seems to resent it. There is great fun in needling someone who doesn't take it well. Is that childish on Nick's part ? Possibly, but that is part of Nick's appeal. He has a sharp and ready wit and isn't reluctant to use it. As far as, I think it was Donna's comment to the effect that it isn't wise for Faldo to upset the 1# golfer, well Nick really isn't competitive anymore. He also doesn't do the interviews so no worries there. Tiger's talents will fade, but Nick's are timeless and I suspect will continue to serve him well during a long and lucrative career in the booth. Ruffling feathers sure hasn't hurt Miller's career in the booth and I doubt it will hurt Nick's.
Though Tiger has matured over his many years in the limelight, he still seems rather thin-skinned and tends to hold onto his grudges dearly.
Reminds me of another guy who was pretty decent at his chosen sport in his own right - Michael Jordan. I remember when Dennis Scott of the Magic said during the playoffs that "45 can rev up, but he can't take off like 23 could" (remember after Jordan came back mid-season and had the number 45?). Well, next night out, MJ had 23 on and scored 50-some odd points. I also remember when Van Gundy said something about him in the press during the playoffs - just ask the Knicks how well that worked out for them.
Update: I researched the Van Gundy thing, this is what he said: "Michael Jordan is a phony and a con man, a player past his prime who has to resort to schmoozing opponents and deluding them into false friendships to gain an edge on the basketball court."
Jordan dropped 51 on the Knicks the next night and famously walked over to Van Gundy and lit into him during a TO in the final minute of the game.
Anyway, I think guys like Jordan and Woods use slights - beit real or perceived - as motivation. Aside from the fact that MJ and Tig might be juuuuuuuuuuust a wee bit more competitive than your average fella.
Last edited by mr3856a : July 19th, 2006 at 04:24 PM.
I thought your post was great BPC. You expressed my sentiments about Tiger nearly to a tee, though saying he has no class was a bit of a stretch. TTU is one our most insightful and eloquent posters... he is also our biggest Tiger fan aside from possibly Donna. Though Tiger has matured over his many years in the limelight, he still seems rather thin-skinned and tends to hold onto his grudges dearly. Nick, on the other hand, apparently likes to use the needle, while Tiger seems to resent it. There is great fun in needling someone who doesn't take it well. Is that childish on Nick's part ? Possibly, but that is part of Nick's appeal. He has a sharp and ready wit and isn't reluctant to use it. As far as, I think it was Donna's comment to the effect that it isn't wise for Faldo to upset the 1# golfer, well Nick really isn't competitive anymore. He also doesn't do the interviews so no worries there. Tiger's talents will fade, but Nick's are timeless and I suspect will continue to serve him well during a long and lucrative career in the booth. Ruffling feathers sure hasn't hurt Miller's career in the booth and I doubt it will hurt Nick's.
Actually, it seems to me as though Tiger is thin-skinned to a point. And that point is if you don't know him well. He is apparently a practical jokester and "needler" behind closed doors IF you know him well. That's how O'Meara, Gretzsky, Barkley, Jordan, and his other good friends describe him. Faldo, in my opinion, is just a hilarious guy. I love sarcastic humor and he's very good at it. I've never had any problems with any of his comments about Tiger. He seems pretty fair to me, and as I said before, he's downright hilarious. The other cool thing about him, like Johnny Miller, is that he's been there and done that. They both have a lot of credibility in my book, so if they criticize even Tiger, it's fair game in my book. Even if Tiger and Phil have done more than Miller (majors wise), I still think proven announcers like Miller and Faldo can say the cold, hard truth if they want to. There's nothing wrong with *not* sugar-coating things.
Last edited by TTUfirebird2008 : July 19th, 2006 at 04:26 PM.
The scoring average back in Nicklauses time verses today, is not very different(less than 2 strokes). The balls and equipment are very, very different. Remember the wound, balata balls that felt like hitting rocks compared with todays balls. Remember how the greats of that generation - not just Nicklaus - worked the ball - the distance they got with the equipment they had - I do and if you took todays greats and had them play with the old equipment, I'm willing to bet they couldn't come close to doing what they did then.
The scoring average back in Nicklauses time verses today, is not very different(less than 2 strokes). The balls and equipment are very, very different. Remember the wound, balata balls that felt like hitting rocks compared with todays balls. Remember how the greats of that generation - not just Nicklaus - worked the ball - the distance they got with the equipment they had - I do and if you took todays greats and had them play with the old equipment, I'm willing to bet they couldn't come close to doing what they did then.
Talent is talent regardless of what equipment you're using. If you had the greats from today switch without a chance to practice with the older equipment they'd struggle. If the old equipment was what they used to practice with daily like the player's from an earlier era, then they'd be just as capable as the players from back then. I also believe if Nicklaus was playing in his prime today, he's competitive enough that he'd not allow anyone to continually beat him and work hard enough to be one of the top 3 players in the game if not the top.
The scoring average back in Nicklauses time verses today, is not very different(less than 2 strokes). The balls and equipment are very, very different. Remember the wound, balata balls that felt like hitting rocks compared with todays balls. Remember how the greats of that generation - not just Nicklaus - worked the ball - the distance they got with the equipment they had - I do and if you took todays greats and had them play with the old equipment, I'm willing to bet they couldn't come close to doing what they did then.
It's hard to compare. The courses now are much longer, and the greens are much faster. Oh, and the balata ball was not like a rock, it was extremely soft. The Surlyn Top-Flites were the rocks.
July 19th, 2006, 01:05 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
