I get it that Tiger's a terrible husband, maybe not so great a dad, this is all his fault, blah blah blah...
But, to hear the reaction from Tiger's withdrawal from TPC, you'd think he has a history of quitting on the golf course. This couldn't be further from the truth. He has always grinded it out, trying to make tough pars even when he didn't have his best game. The fact is, golf is hard, and no one, even Tiger, can master it.
Tiger didn't get to be the most dominant golfer of his generation by being a quitter. In fact, there aren't many quitters who are at the top of any field.
It's reasonable to believe that Tiger is distrustful of the media given his recent experiences in having his dirty laundry aired in front of the entire world. You can say it was his fault to begin with, but you can also understand why he's hesitant to share everything with them now. Not to mention there's also a culture of athletes not to disclose any injuries unless you have to. Besides, who's to say he really thought it wasn't that bad up until the last minute when it became unbearable.
For all Tiger has done wrong, he should have done enough to earn a reputation on the course that is beyond reproach.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Who's running Tiger's life?
So, Tiger posted a new blog at his website just recently. In it, he congratulates Phil on winning the Masters, and apologizes for using profanity on the course.
Who is this guy? It's obvious his handlers are trying to remake his image. Thing is, I like Tiger for who he is and who he has always been. Family issues aside of course, I'm not married to him. Sure, he's a terrible husband, but he's cold-blooded on the course, and that's what I've always liked. If he turns into the image conscious golfer who congratulates his main rival on victories and apologizes for his intensity, that might be enough for me to fall off the Tiger bandwagon.
Just stick to your guns, Tiger. Play golf, win tournaments, and screw what everyone else thinks.
Who is this guy? It's obvious his handlers are trying to remake his image. Thing is, I like Tiger for who he is and who he has always been. Family issues aside of course, I'm not married to him. Sure, he's a terrible husband, but he's cold-blooded on the course, and that's what I've always liked. If he turns into the image conscious golfer who congratulates his main rival on victories and apologizes for his intensity, that might be enough for me to fall off the Tiger bandwagon.
Just stick to your guns, Tiger. Play golf, win tournaments, and screw what everyone else thinks.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Why did Tiger choose the Masters?
Interesting to me that Tiger is choosing to come back and play the Masters instead of playing a tournament before that as a "warmup." We all know that in the past, Tiger has always made it clear that whenever he plays any tournament, he's playing it to win. But, I believe it's also true that he believes his best chance to win a major tournament requires being able to come into that tournament competition tested. For this reason, I have to question why he's not playing another tournament before the Masters.
My thoughts all along were that he would play the Bay Hill tournament, or what is commonly referred to as Arnie's tournament. I can't help but think that perhaps Palmer himself made it clear to Tiger he shouldn't play at his tournament as his first one back. On one hand, sure, there are people who would have loved to have seen him there. NBC for one, advertisers just interested in getting more viewers and certain segments of the media.
Some may even say Arnie would want him to play there. I'm not so sure. Tiger and Arnie have always seemed to have a good relationship, evidenced by Arnie's warm congratulations each time Tiger walked off the 72nd green as winner at Bay Hill. However, I thought it was notable that at no time during Tiger's exile from golf did we hear from Palmer. At least I don't remember hearing his thoughts. This always made me wonder if his true, honest thoughts about the situation would have been less than flattering for Tiger, e.g. he was disappointed in his personal lifestyle choices. I also wonder if, when Tiger started making plans to play, he initially planned on playing Bay Hill like he always had, but then Arnie gently persuaded him not to play. His tournament will have plenty of attention anyway, and Arnie probably wanted to avoid all the extra media attention. If Tiger would have played, I imagine the tournament host would have had to answer a ton of questions about Tiger. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to me that behind the scenes, Arnold Palmer could very well have let Tiger know he'd prefer he didn't play his tournament just this one time.
My thoughts all along were that he would play the Bay Hill tournament, or what is commonly referred to as Arnie's tournament. I can't help but think that perhaps Palmer himself made it clear to Tiger he shouldn't play at his tournament as his first one back. On one hand, sure, there are people who would have loved to have seen him there. NBC for one, advertisers just interested in getting more viewers and certain segments of the media.
Some may even say Arnie would want him to play there. I'm not so sure. Tiger and Arnie have always seemed to have a good relationship, evidenced by Arnie's warm congratulations each time Tiger walked off the 72nd green as winner at Bay Hill. However, I thought it was notable that at no time during Tiger's exile from golf did we hear from Palmer. At least I don't remember hearing his thoughts. This always made me wonder if his true, honest thoughts about the situation would have been less than flattering for Tiger, e.g. he was disappointed in his personal lifestyle choices. I also wonder if, when Tiger started making plans to play, he initially planned on playing Bay Hill like he always had, but then Arnie gently persuaded him not to play. His tournament will have plenty of attention anyway, and Arnie probably wanted to avoid all the extra media attention. If Tiger would have played, I imagine the tournament host would have had to answer a ton of questions about Tiger. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to me that behind the scenes, Arnold Palmer could very well have let Tiger know he'd prefer he didn't play his tournament just this one time.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Quick hits
- Golf: so, there was the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines this past weekend. Ben Crane, most known for slow play and maybe but probably not saying something derogatory about Tiger, was the big winner. The favorite subject of writers and other media during the week, though, had to do with Phil and his non-conforming, old, Ping Eye2 wedge. Of course, some other players came out and said it was against the rules, and notably, Scott McCarron apparently called Phil a cheater.
Look, here's my take. First of all, McCarron is one of many golfers who use a long putter. There are many in the game that would say that is against the "spirit" of the game. Is he really in the best position to be criticizing others? Then, there's this thought: Essentially what the critics are saying is that even though by the letter of the law, the use of the old wedge is legal, players shouldn't use it because it just isn't right, or is against the spirit of the game. That may or may not be true, but then, when have the rules of golf had any room for a "spirit of the game" argument?
There are many examples of golfers dq'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, or penalized strokes when their ball just happens to move. Did the player gain an unfair advantage in these instances? Of course not, but by the black and white letter of the law they were penalized. It seems to me that in the case with the Ping wedges, by the strict interpretation of the rules, they are legal. And golf has always used a strict interpretation of the rules. I'd say that by the "spirit of the game," it shouldn't matter that Michelle Wei or Sergio Garcia signed an incorrect scorecard. It was an honest mistake and they didn't gain an advantage by it. So, I say let them keep using the old wedges, until the rule, (or, loophole) is actually changed. Until then, any criticism is unfair.
Look, here's my take. First of all, McCarron is one of many golfers who use a long putter. There are many in the game that would say that is against the "spirit" of the game. Is he really in the best position to be criticizing others? Then, there's this thought: Essentially what the critics are saying is that even though by the letter of the law, the use of the old wedge is legal, players shouldn't use it because it just isn't right, or is against the spirit of the game. That may or may not be true, but then, when have the rules of golf had any room for a "spirit of the game" argument?
There are many examples of golfers dq'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, or penalized strokes when their ball just happens to move. Did the player gain an unfair advantage in these instances? Of course not, but by the black and white letter of the law they were penalized. It seems to me that in the case with the Ping wedges, by the strict interpretation of the rules, they are legal. And golf has always used a strict interpretation of the rules. I'd say that by the "spirit of the game," it shouldn't matter that Michelle Wei or Sergio Garcia signed an incorrect scorecard. It was an honest mistake and they didn't gain an advantage by it. So, I say let them keep using the old wedges, until the rule, (or, loophole) is actually changed. Until then, any criticism is unfair.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Media coverage for Tiger is overblown
I was originally going to post this as a comment on another blog but decided to just post it here. It is in response to this post about the coverage of the Tiger story.
I agree with the SI editor in his criticism of TMZ and their tabloid journalism.
One of the most interesting things to recall about the story is that when TMZ published their report about the most outlandish and dramatic version of events, that's the story that everyone chose to believe. Some bigger publications even gave credit to TMZ in reporting on what actually happened.
However, if you'll go back and look, when Gloria Allred canceled her scheduled news conference, TMZ reported the reason was nothing more than Rachel Uchitel deciding not to spread her story b/c she knew it would possibly have negative consequences for those involved. Then, a report came from somewhere else that Allred's daughter said that based on her experience working with her mother in the past, she believed that her client got paid and that's why they dropped the news conference. Yet, the story that was repeated by other websites was the one stating Uchitel was paid by Tiger to not tell her story. That is an example of how this story has been skewed toward the most sensationalized version of events that could have possibly have happened, without regard to whether the reports are true or not. I recall specifically seeing the story on golf.com leading one to believe that it was fact that Uchitel was paid. Meanwhile, TMZ, who previously had everyone believing their incredible version of events,was still reporting she wasn't paid and dropped it merely b/c she wanted to avoid the publicity.
This is Exhibit #A as to why the reporting on this story is nothing more than tabloid exploitation at its worst. Thankfully Tiger, so far as we know, wasn't photographed on a yacht with four nude women, while his wife was at home in the hospital. No, that was just a highly revered former president. I bet Tiger wishes he was just a superstar in basketball like Shaq, who can be at the top of his sport, a highly paid endorser, get caught with other women and have his story ignored.
I agree with the SI editor in his criticism of TMZ and their tabloid journalism.
One of the most interesting things to recall about the story is that when TMZ published their report about the most outlandish and dramatic version of events, that's the story that everyone chose to believe. Some bigger publications even gave credit to TMZ in reporting on what actually happened.
However, if you'll go back and look, when Gloria Allred canceled her scheduled news conference, TMZ reported the reason was nothing more than Rachel Uchitel deciding not to spread her story b/c she knew it would possibly have negative consequences for those involved. Then, a report came from somewhere else that Allred's daughter said that based on her experience working with her mother in the past, she believed that her client got paid and that's why they dropped the news conference. Yet, the story that was repeated by other websites was the one stating Uchitel was paid by Tiger to not tell her story. That is an example of how this story has been skewed toward the most sensationalized version of events that could have possibly have happened, without regard to whether the reports are true or not. I recall specifically seeing the story on golf.com leading one to believe that it was fact that Uchitel was paid. Meanwhile, TMZ, who previously had everyone believing their incredible version of events,was still reporting she wasn't paid and dropped it merely b/c she wanted to avoid the publicity.
This is Exhibit #A as to why the reporting on this story is nothing more than tabloid exploitation at its worst. Thankfully Tiger, so far as we know, wasn't photographed on a yacht with four nude women, while his wife was at home in the hospital. No, that was just a highly revered former president. I bet Tiger wishes he was just a superstar in basketball like Shaq, who can be at the top of his sport, a highly paid endorser, get caught with other women and have his story ignored.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Watson for President's Cup?
So there's an article, blog posting, editorial, or whatever you want to call it on golf.com in the form of a petition to Fred Couples asking him to pick Tom Watson for the President's Cup. Seriously. Even though the guy a month from 60, and is only competitive on the Champion's Tour a few times a year. Sure, he made for an entertaining British Open, but let's be honest, that was on a course he had won before and knew probably better than anyone else in the field. It was not super long, and being a links course, required a different style of game than any other tournament in the States. And, oh yeah, he didn't win. He couldn't get up and down for par from just off the green on the 72nd hole, and then got embarrassed in the playoff by Stewart Cink.
So, why in the world should he be on the President's Cup team? Are you telling me he should take the place of a much younger player who actually competes on the real tour throughout the entire year? Whoever penned that article for golf.com is taking his fanhood a bit too far in this case in thinking Watson should even be considered for the President's Cup. Let's hope Freddy is smart enough and realistic enough to know picking Tom Watson would make absolutely no sense.
So, why in the world should he be on the President's Cup team? Are you telling me he should take the place of a much younger player who actually competes on the real tour throughout the entire year? Whoever penned that article for golf.com is taking his fanhood a bit too far in this case in thinking Watson should even be considered for the President's Cup. Let's hope Freddy is smart enough and realistic enough to know picking Tom Watson would make absolutely no sense.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Libel, or Not?
Just a few thoughts on some recent blog postings I ran across. I don't intend for this to be an exhaustive article, nor have I comprehensively researched the issue. I merely want to address the posting at TheBigLead, in which the author, Jason Mcintyre stated that "[O]ur money’s on her jilted ex-boyfriend being somehow connected..." in the Steve McNair case.
I ran across this posting by Spencer Hall, of EDSBS, in his SportingNews column. In it, Hall blasts Mcintyre of TheBigLead, saying his column "totally is" libelous (according to the attorneys he "talked" to). Then, I ran across this post, at deadspin.com, which also heavily criticized TheBigLead, as well as SportsbyBrooks, for expressing their speculations and posting photos of the victims. The author of the deadspin.com post, Tommy Craggs, wrote that Mcintyre's column was "straight-up libel."
Ummm, hold on a sec. Not so sure one can say that the statement definitely was libelous. Generally speaking, for a defamation claim, you must have 1) a false statement, and 2) an injury. Obviously, the imputation of committing a crime can be defamatory if proven false. However, Mcintyre's statement was clearly not intended to be taken as fact. He's merely expressing his opinion that, based on the circumstances, the guy may be involved. Besides, where is the injury? Are you going to tell me this guy suffered public ridicule for some blog posting on the internet that only a few thousand people probably even saw? It seems to me the guy has more things to worry about than some blogger guy speculating on whether he was involved.
My question is, how do Mr. Hall and Mr. Craggs think they are exempt from the very law they accuse another of breaking? Spencer hedged his bets by relying on the advice of others, but the statement on deadspin.com that it was "straight-up libel?" Well, that is arguably false. And, it likely caused injury to Mcintyre by decreasing the readers of TheBigLead. That seems to satisfy the two components of a defamation claim. So, who should "buckle up," TBL for expressing his opinion, or other bloggers for accusing him of defamation?
Now, as a disclaimer, this is not intended as an exhaustive research of the law. While I am a lawyer, I do not practice in New York, where jurisdiction would presumably lie. I am not giving legal advice to anyone, and do not claim to practice regularly in the area. I sure would like to see someone tell me why I'm wrong, though.
I ran across this posting by Spencer Hall, of EDSBS, in his SportingNews column. In it, Hall blasts Mcintyre of TheBigLead, saying his column "totally is" libelous (according to the attorneys he "talked" to). Then, I ran across this post, at deadspin.com, which also heavily criticized TheBigLead, as well as SportsbyBrooks, for expressing their speculations and posting photos of the victims. The author of the deadspin.com post, Tommy Craggs, wrote that Mcintyre's column was "straight-up libel."
Ummm, hold on a sec. Not so sure one can say that the statement definitely was libelous. Generally speaking, for a defamation claim, you must have 1) a false statement, and 2) an injury. Obviously, the imputation of committing a crime can be defamatory if proven false. However, Mcintyre's statement was clearly not intended to be taken as fact. He's merely expressing his opinion that, based on the circumstances, the guy may be involved. Besides, where is the injury? Are you going to tell me this guy suffered public ridicule for some blog posting on the internet that only a few thousand people probably even saw? It seems to me the guy has more things to worry about than some blogger guy speculating on whether he was involved.
My question is, how do Mr. Hall and Mr. Craggs think they are exempt from the very law they accuse another of breaking? Spencer hedged his bets by relying on the advice of others, but the statement on deadspin.com that it was "straight-up libel?" Well, that is arguably false. And, it likely caused injury to Mcintyre by decreasing the readers of TheBigLead. That seems to satisfy the two components of a defamation claim. So, who should "buckle up," TBL for expressing his opinion, or other bloggers for accusing him of defamation?
Now, as a disclaimer, this is not intended as an exhaustive research of the law. While I am a lawyer, I do not practice in New York, where jurisdiction would presumably lie. I am not giving legal advice to anyone, and do not claim to practice regularly in the area. I sure would like to see someone tell me why I'm wrong, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)