Posted on 04/14/2011 6:08:39 PM PDT by ejdrapes
BRANDEL CHAMBLEE Nowhere, as far as I know, does it say that a golfer must, after finishing his round, talk to the media. He has to show up on time, abide by the rules, sign his card and he is free to go. Of course, we want more. We want him to tell us the story, fill in the blanks and give us sound bites that are clever, free of clichés and do all this in a civil manner. Are we asking too much? After all, to quote Maximus Decimus Meridius from the movie “Gladiator,” “Were we not entertained?” I most certainly was. I was beyond entertained; I was engaged and my head was spinning with the maelstrom of birdies and eagles. Yet, I wanted more, I wanted Tiger to say, “Well Bill, it felt good to be in the hunt late on Sunday in a major and I hope Brandel is choking on his analysis of my swing. I hope he knows by now that my ‘faux’ finish is real and it works.” Better yet, he could’ve said: “I don’t know how this is going to end but I want to thank the patrons for their support this week and like the rest of the golfing world I’m going to go watch this tournament end and hope that I get to play more golf today. Nice talking to you, Bill.” Instead Tiger was terse and short, possibly distracted by thoughts of what might have been or angered by what might have been. Nonetheless, his chance to connect with the fans on any level other than a visceral one was missed. Why agree to talk if you’re not going to cooperate and what prompts Tiger to be so consistently smug, when he is interviewed? Most agree to talk after a round, either with TV or writers, out of a sense of obligation to their sponsors who pay them large sums of money for exposure and because there is much to gain by telling their story. Perhaps unfair judgments are made immediately, as to the intellect of the individual – whether he is nice, whether he is tough minded, whether he is bitter or emotional – but regardless, we all want to hear what they were thinking as they played. Having just jumped out of the fire it is understandable if players are not as interesting as their golf led us to believe, but we are a forgiving audience, who by and large, just want to know that the player is worthy of our interest. Arnold Palmer gave so much to the throngs of reporters and they loved him for it and continue to love him for it, evidenced by the fact that he is still one of the highest paid athletes in the world and hasn’t won on Tour since the early '70s. Jack Nicklaus was respectful of journalist’s jobs to tell the story and was always appropriate. Today, Phil Mickelson is good when dealing with the press, calls them by name, smiles and gives more than he is asked and when a question isn’t well phrased or isn’t clear he is accommodating, knowing that interviewers make bogeys from time to time too. Phil makes millions because of many things – because he wins, the way he wins and the way he answers questions, all of which make him a very attractive spokesperson for companies. CEOs of the companies he represents tell me he is worth every penny. Tiger, despite not winning last year and despite losing sponsors, made over $70 million and was the highest paid athlete in the world. What is he being paid for? Is it just to win? Perhaps it is and that is enough for his sponsors, but if he wins and then is rude, does the sponsor get what it is paying for? Does the sponsor get the positive association that they hope will bias a viewer to buy its product? Maybe it doesn’t matter what Tiger says after an interview or how he says it, but I suspect it does. It does matter and the millions Tiger is paid are for what he does after he wins, when we all want to connect the dots and figure out if he is worthy of our attention. He is free to be terse and short and smug but I suspect it will hurt him eventually, because skills fade, legacies endure and after the curtain goes down, companies pay for legacies. In the meantime I think Tiger should just say no and let his golf speak for him, because at least that gives us hope. Years ago, when enduring a long series of questions after a round, Ben Hogan said, “ I hope one day that a deaf mute wins the U.S. Open, so you guys will have to figure things out on your own.” I’m sure Tiger feels the same way, but since he is neither deaf nor mute, he should give his sponsors what they are paying for or give the money back. After all, he is not obligated to talk after a round; he is paid to.If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say ...
Bill Macatee is a friend of mine so when I watched him interview Tiger Woods this past Sunday on CBS at the Masters I was particularly interested in the exchange. With the tournament still going on and Tiger with a glimmer of hope hanging in the humid air, questions and answers were exchanged. Some didn’t like the questions, nobody liked the answers or the way the answers were given. Which got me thinking, what obligation does Tiger, or any athlete, have to talk with the media?
Tiger, despite not winning last year and despite losing sponsors, made over $70 million and was the highest paid athlete in the world. What is he being paid for? Is it just to win? Perhaps it is and that is enough for his sponsors, but if he wins and then is rude, does the sponsor get what it is paying for? Does the sponsor get the positive association that they hope will bias a viewer to buy its product? Maybe it doesn’t matter what Tiger says after an interview or how he says it, but I suspect it does.
It does matter and the millions Tiger is paid are for what he does after he wins, when we all want to connect the dots and figure out if he is worthy of our attention. He is free to be terse and short and smug but I suspect it will hurt him eventually, because skills fade, legacies endure and after the curtain goes down, companies pay for legacies. In the meantime I think Tiger should just say no and let his golf speak for him, because at least that gives us hope.
Sports figures are not paid to talk, they are paid to be bill boards.
I watched the Masters and was happy to see Tiger being asked some questions; it gave me an opportunity to make a much needed pit stop.
Now, I kind of wish I had watched his interview, on second thought...naw.
IMO, no one did more for golf as a spectator sport than Arnold Palmer, there were many others very close but he was most responsible.
Had it been up to jerks like Woods I believe the sport would not have caught on as it did but that's just me.
Tiger Woods has always been a horrible interview. He never has anything insightful or interesting to say, and always appears to be just enduring it until its over. He has a pat set of answers, and pulls out whatever one is appropriate at the moment.
Golf is not a sport. It is a game... like checkers, poker, or darts. A sport has EMS services standing at the ready on the sidelines for the men in the ring... not the gallery.
Tiger isn’t “obligated” to do anything except continue to try to be the best in the world at what he does.
I respectfully disagree. Sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature. With that definition, golf certainly qualifies.
Just as many people have to justify their job performance in year-end interviews with their bosses--if they want to receive a raise--professional athletes need to allow access to reporters to connect with their audiences. No audience = no interest, and no interest = no advertising dollars.
As someone else said, Arnold Palmer had a way of connecting with his fans, and has given countless interviews. In fact, he is an ambassador of the sport. He understands that continued success of the sport is not dependent upon people watching "good play" and finding it interesting. He knows it's important that players, especially top players, connect in some way with their fans. They do this through interviews, participation in pro-ams, and other ways.
Tiger is standing on the shoulders--and benfitting financially--from the Palmers, Nicklauses, Trevinos, Watsons, Stewarts, and Mickelsons of golf history. If Tiger wants to eventually go down as the greatest golf player of all time, he'll need to act more like Arnold Palmer, and less like Barry Bonds.
If any sponsor had demands for what he might say during post-game interviews, he would likely tell them to go find another fish. Meanwhile he fully takes care of what responsibilities he has toward paying sponsors, regardless of what detractors would like to see.
I could be wrong about this Lou, but I looks to me like the man just doesn't care much anymore - to his own eventual distruction, sad to say.
It looks to me like he wants to take his money and run, saying in effect, "To hell with the lot of them."
I hope for his sake I'm dead wrong. But, he looks like a wounded animal that won't act anything like his 'fans' might expect.
...and I am not obligated to buy Buick, or Nike, nor will I.
When I was a kid I lived next door to a semi-retarded guy in his 40’s who lived with his mom. Arnold Palmer was in town for some golf event—and this guy, who anyone could tell was not quite right, strode up to Arnold and shouted “ARNOLD PALMER! I’ve been looking for you!” And Arnold held out his hand and said in a loud voice “Well I’ve been looking for you, too!” What a prince that guy is!
Arnie was (and still is) a true gentleman and a fine role model. Tiger isn't fit to charge his golf cart.
Most certainly. I don’t disagree. Most games do. Lawn Darts for example. But compared to Football or Motocross it is quickly reduced to a game the whole family can enjoy.. even grandpa!
You said it better than I and it’s a shame because Woods is a great player but leaves a lot to be desired as a person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.