Tiger Woods: Two views

Well, so much for NewMexiKen’s attempt at initiating a discussion about Tiger Woods. One comment. (Thank you, Emily.)

Here are excerpts from contrasting opinions by sportswriters — both columns merit reading in full.

First, John Feinstein:

Woods already holds many records. One of them, which is unofficial, is that he has been fined for using profanity publicly more than any player in history. While using profanity in the crucible of competition is hardly a great crime, it is indicative of Woods’s attitude that, rather than try to curb his use of language, he has complained that he is being treated unfairly since there are always microphones following him when he plays. Last month, during the U.S. Open, Woods missed a putt and childishly dragged his putter across the green, damaging it as he did so. When he was asked about the incident later, he shrugged and said, “I was frustrated,” (no apology) as if he was the only player among 156 dealing with frustration. In recent years he has allowed his caddie, Steve Williams, to frequently treat spectators and members of the media rudely, not only defending him but also appearing to sanction his misbehavior.

Woods is extremely popular with the golfing public, in part because of his extraordinary play and in part because of a carefully crafted image built around a series of commercials that show him to be a funny and friendly guy. Sadly, that’s not the Woods most people encounter. He is the master of the TV sound bite, but he rarely shares any of his real thoughts with the public.

Second, Michael Wilbon:

Feinstein criticizes Woods for not trying to curb his language, which can get pretty foul when he misses a putt or hits a bad shot, just like most of us. And because Feinstein is a golf historian, I know he knows that Nicklaus, whom he justifiably praises to the high heavens, could have cursed up a storm if he wanted in 1962 or thereabouts without it reaching the television because he wasn’t followed everywhere with sound men holding frighteningly high-tech boom microphones so close they can pick up the sound of his stomach churning. So, apparently, to Feinstein and Plaschke (and I know they are joined by a great many) it’s not enough to win major championships, to win so much and with such style it revolutionizes the entire game and elevates the profile of the profession — no, he’s got to smile the way they want him to smile, accept only as much money from Coke and Nike as they want him to accept.

They both say he isn’t beloved, which to me is clearly ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. They and lots of others may not find Tiger beloved. But millions of people, perhaps people who don’t register with Plaschke and Feinstein, adore Tiger.

…

Tiger may not strike you (or them) as a typical black man in America because his mother is Thai and he’s rich beyond most people’s wildest dreams. But Tiger, as he explained the day we talked, knows his father Earl played baseball at Kansas State but couldn’t stay with the team when it traveled to Norman, Okla., because the hotel was “whites only.” Tiger was called “nigger” at the Navy golf club when he was a little kid.

On his first day of kindergarten at a school where he was the only child of color, Tiger was confronted by a group of sixth-graders who tied him to a tree and spray painted “Nigger” on him and threw rocks at him. I bring this up because the things that shaped Tiger Woods, that cross his mind, that make him angry when he wakes up, didn’t shape Nicklaus or Ernie Els or Phil Mickelson or Colin Montgomerie, or for that matter, Feinstein or Plaschke.

He doesn’t need to wave like Jack or be like Jack. Tiger Woods is 29, a champion already and an icon. Can you imagine how the game of golf would be reduced without him?

The Bill Plaschke column mentioned by Wilbon: He’s Too Good to Be Truly Loved, and That’s Too Bad.