Wednesday Thoughts

The golf media has apparently become self-conscious about their constant obsession over Tiger Woods. Gary Williams recently brought up the matter on Golf Channel’s Morning Drive. He even referenced “the cameras on the parking lot” on Golf Channel last year.  Geoff Shackelford happened to be a guest that day, and Williams asked him about over-coverage of Woods.  Shackelford suggested it was okay and said it gave his readers an opportunity to discuss matters like Woods’s age and injuries. (That was amusing because just last week I had a comment “disappeared” at his website that said, from memory, “I find Woods’s struggles mind-boggling. I’ve followed sports for decades and not once have I heard of a case of an athlete performing worse at age 40 than age 25.”)  Another topic I’ve seen Shackelford’s commenters mention is PED usage, but he didn’t feel the need to mention that one to Williams. At any rate, there’s also been a rash of articles about the media’s obsession with Tiger Woods (a couple of which I’ll mention later in this column).  The best I’ve seen is the one in the L.A. Times I mentioned a couple of days ago.

Of course, you and I both know as soon as Woods returns to play and breaks 80, the golf media will revert to their “Tiger’s Back!” articles.  As true golf fans, we need to keep the pressure on them. They may continue to try to ignore reality, but it’s obvious they have noticed a large portion — I personally think it’s a clear majority now — are sick to death of the Woods nonsense they keep shoveling at us.

It is rather ironic that Ian Baker Finch is now offering advice on golf psychology to Tiger Woods.

We are hearing a lot about the “Tiger and Phil Era” now that they appear to be in a dual downward spiral. We can’t expect to see anything like this again, we are told.  But, if they weren’t so hellbent on pushing their Death of Golf narrative, they would see  Rory and Kaymer (who are separated in age by the same number of years as Woods and Mickelson) have more total majors at this point than Woods and Mickelson did. Recall that until he reached age 34, the golf media wondered if Mickelson would ever win even a single major. The media would have you think Woods and Mickelson had 19 total majors the day they turned pro. One golf writer earlier this year, doing “analysis” of the field at the Tournament of Champions, literally did that, crediting the participants in a past field with their career majors rather than the far smaller number they owned at the time.

Billy Horschel has remarked that when Tiger Woods withdrew from the San Diego Open, the gallery following their group shrank from 600 or 700 people to 50. This was intended to be a statement of Woods’s great attraction to fans. 700 people? That can’t even be 10 percent of the total number of spectators. And those in the gallery who left would mostly have been following that group specifically for Tiger Woods. Does Horschel think they went home after Woods withdrew, or do you think maybe they decided to head over to the South course and watch Mickelson. (After all, many people following Woods have only heard of two golfers.) Or maybe they figured they’d seen enough of Horschel and Rickie, and wanted to catch Spieth or Koepka or any of the other 140 players in the field.

I’m okay with hard-hitting journalism. Period. But I can’t help but notice the contrast between the golf media going after Patrick Reed and the manner in which they have covered Tiger Woods. With Reed, “Patrick Reed said this, and his wife said that, but we call bullshit.” With Woods, it has always been, “Tiger denied it, his paid legal counsel denied it, and his paid coach denied it. That settles it!”

Here’s another example of the media admitting to Tiger Woods obsession. a piece entitled “Tiger mania must end” by Alex Miceli.

The best barometer will be TV coverage. When we stop seeing all 18 holes of Woods’ round – whether he is on the leaderboard or not – you’ll know that the public’s attention span has shifted.

And maybe that would be the best thing for Woods. He could enjoy some measure of privacy and maybe reclaim his game without the world watching.

Two things: (1) The public doesn’t make the call if all 18 holes of Woods’s rounds are covered. That’s you guys, the media. The same guys who decided Kim Kardashian is one of the most fascinating human beings walking the face of this planet. (2) Miceli’s expressed corn is in what is “the best thing for Woods,” not the best thing for golf fans.

By the way, here’s a synopsis of Miceli’s article prior to the one on ending Tiger mania: Several comments on Woods’s glutes, detailed analysis of what tournaments Woods might or might not play,  a quote of Woods, speculation about Woods’s back.  So, Miceli goes all Tiger manic on us right before saying the Tiger mania must end.

I doubt many of the current golf media members will ever be able to move on.  They are like a married couple that bickers about the same things all the time.  It’s the only way they know to fill the silence.  The golf writers who went all-in with Woods will have no choice but to divorce.  I mean, retire.

Yesterday, I took a (mild) shot at Rick Morrissey.  He had it coming.  That said, from the same article I skewered, I found this diamond in the rough:

I’m guessing many of you are happy that Tiger is in the background competitively. It has meant the end of golf being covered as if only one player mattered.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Wednesday Thoughts

  1. JoseyWales says:

    Lanny…Shackelford “cleanses” his site…anyone who criticizes him gets deleted…so he ends up with all the posters sounding the same. He is an overly paranoid guy for several reasons.

    • lannyh says:

      I can’t recall if it was you or not, but, yeah, someone warned me. I assumed the posters had it coming, i.e., used coarse language or made personal insults. Mine was just a general sarcastic remark on the avoidance of discussion of Woods’s age and injuries, aimed at no one in particular.

      I thought I had a comment there removed once before, but I questioned whether I had neglected to hit “Post” or something, so didn’t give it much thought. After this one, though, well, that’s why I started this website: So I don’t waste time writing comments that never see the light of day.

      It wasn’t like I was spamming or anything. That comment that got deleted was just an attempt at a funny little jab at Woods and his apologist media and fans, really. I can’t imagine why it was seen as inappropriate. It’s killed much of my interest in his website. I mean, face it, every golf blog out there — excluding me, of course! — has the same asinine YouTube clips and annoying-as-hell animated GIFs. You’re not going to miss anything by reading one over another. So you might as well read the ones that you have the most fun at.

      Say what you will about Porter and CBS, but they don’t seem to delete posts unless it’s for vulgarity or abusive spamming or whatnot — something everyone sees as an obvious reason. I think I’ve had two deleted there that I questioned, and upon reflection, I think I used the word “troll” in both of them. I have not run a test, but maybe that’s an auto-delete word. Anyway, I’ve actually taken some shots at Kyle that, after I posted, thought they’d be justified in deleting, but they didn’t. Kyle has pretty tough skin. (I say that not because of anything I’ve written, but because of some of the guys who endlessly bash him.) Another benefit of CBS is if you get bored with golf, you can post about football or some other sport.

    • lannyh says:

      I should add that I still think Shackelford is an important voice regarding the damage “advanced” equipment has done to the game, particularly to older golf courses. Very few people are willing to go against the golf equipment industry, so I admire him for that. I do think he tones down a lot of his opinions due to relations with Golf Digest and Golf Channel (who stay afloat thanks to equipment makers). An recent example would be about the Weiskopf makeover at Phoenix. On his website, he criticized the white sand in the bunkers; on Golf Channel, he criticized the white sand, but quickly softened it by saying it was only something golf course design nerds would care about, seeming almost apologetic for even pointing it out.

      Still, at least he’s a semi-rebel, and that puts him head-and-shoulders above most of his peers.

  2. JoseyWales says:

    Shackelford works for Golf Digest, or as some call it “Payola Digest”…everything is bought and paid for there…about as corrupt as it gets…and he also reports for Golf Channel which is a close second. Shackelford would like you to think he’s a “rebel”, but in reality he’s selling out to the Tiger Woods crowd because that’s where the $$$ is.

  3. Sports-realist says:

    Reed recently signed with IMG in January of 2015, so we’ll see if any ‘nudging’ goes on at the golf channel on their coverage…..There has to be some INTENTIONAL dialogue, telling these people NOT to say certain things about Woods ect….How can you have HOURS of so-called ’round table’ discussions, and NEVER bring up ped’s or age? I mean it’s as rigged as any type of coverage we’ve EVER seen….

    • lannyh says:

      I did not know that. Yes, it will be very interesting to see how they cover Reed now. Can’t wait to hear, “You’ll see every shot of Tiger Reed, dressed in his traditional Sunday red and black.”

  4. JoseyWales says:

    Golf Channel and Golf Digest are both basically “on the take” to the highest bidder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s