Odd little juxtaposition I noticed in the NY Daily News' Sunday sports section, regarding Tiger Woods. Mike Lupica wrote the following:
"For a couple of gripping hours last Sunday, as Tiger Woods was trying to come back against a career golf plodder named Angel Cabrera, we were once again reminded that Woods is the biggest star in sports...
Even running second, even losing a major to Cabrera... Woods was a better show than all four games of the NBA Finals.
As a time when we're told that TV ratings for sports events, at least sports events that aren't the Super Bowl, go down every year, Tiger made the U.S. Open ratings jump 37% from last year, when he missed the cut at Winged Foot.
NBC had a 7.0 rating and a 17 share late on a Sunday afternoon.
The last game of the NBA Finals between the Spurs and LeBron had a 6.2 rating and 11 share and the ratings for the whole thing were down 28% from last year."
Bottom line, people watch golf when Tiger Woods is in the hunt. But the question is why? Maybe this column by Daily Newsscrubscribe Bob Raissman a few pages later provides a hint:
"Dude of the Week: Angel Cabrera.
For not only winning the U.S. Open, but making it watchable. While America's putt-heads are obsessed with Tiger Woods, a stoic automaton, those looking for a good story and real emotion salute the Argentine. Despite NBC Sports - as usual - morphing into Tiger TV, the Peacock was forced to show plenty of Cabrera, from smiles to concern and even some nervous puffs on a cigarette. Guess their are some regular guys on the tour after all. This came as news to all network suits who believe the PGA Tour consists of one player."
Sigh. Where do we start? First off, the PGA Tour does consist of one player, and a bunch of players chasing that one player. So those "network suits" are probably more intelligent than Bob Raissman (which explains why they make the big money, and Bob just writes about what they do instead of making the decisions himself). Second off, Tiger Woods is always a good story. His domination of golf is probably the biggest sports story of the last 10 years. Barely anyone would even care about golf if not for Tiger Woods. And when did smoking cigarettes become a good characteristic?
What this really shows is that there are different reasons why people are watching Tiger Woods and golf. Some people watch it to see if Tiger can win another one. And some people watch it to root against Tiger Woods, hoping he goes down.
It kinda makes sense, right? Though normally I root for Tiger, I found myself rooting for the Argentine, because it would just add golf as another sport we are better than the U.S. at (along with soccer, basketball, tennis, etc.). No, seriously, isn't that what the backlash against guys like Tiger Woods, and Barry Bonds, really is? Maybe because I consider myself a bit of an outsider, classifying myself as Hispanic, or Argentine (half, anyway - my mom is a different Latino), I never totally understood what this was about. But now it's starting to make sense a bit to me - you have your white Americans, your black Americans, right? Much like I root for Argentina to win in international tournaments against other countries (f*ck you, England), white Americans want their "stars" to win in national competitions against black Americans.
I remember being young, and my Puerto Rican boys would argue with my Dominican boys about who is the better baseball players. I would chime in with the Cubans, of course (I have some Cuban family)... Tino Martinez, yo! Whatever you are, chances are that's who you are going to root for in these kind of sports. And in individual sports, where there aren't any team allegiances - tennis, too - more (white) people seemed to support Hingis than they did the Williams sisters. That's cool. I'm fine with that, I think everyone does that.
But when the press, who is suppose to be "objective", gets into that... that's where it gets kinda ugly. Remember all the bad press the Williams sisters would get, especially because of their dad (Richard Williams)? Didn't it seem absurd, considering most tennis fathers are overbearing and annoying to begin with?
Doesn't it seem absurd to write about how Tiger Woods is a "stoic automaton", how it's not a "good story" when Tiger wins? Don't be surprised if the Tiger backlash from the press gets worse - it will as he becomes more and more dominant, in historical terms. And that's when the (white) press might slowly try to make Tiger Woods into a Barry Bonds like figure of derisiveness....
Leave a comment
|
8 Comments
Comments
Hey Erin,
Thanks for the comment. I don't think all people who don't like Tiger Woods are racist. Or that they don't like him because he's black. But there are some who root against him because he's not like them. This guy's comments really struck me as blatant - he's openly rooting against Tiger, because he's "automaton" like?
Roger Federer wins all the time in tennis, right? He's even more dominating that Tiger, winning three majors every single year (although, to be fair, it's easier to beat everyone one-on-one, as in tennis, than to beat everyone at once, as in golf). No one seems to care too much about him. No one is tuning in to watch him lose (or win). If he lost a match to an black underdog, I don't think they would be so happy about it.
Tennis, historically, has been more popular than golf. Yet now golf is popular, and we know why - Tiger. But what is it about Tiger that makes everyone watch when he is contention?
Some watch, like me, to see what will happen. Some watch because they want Tiger to win. Some watch because they want Tiger to lose.
Here's my point: who do you root for, or cheer for, maybe a little more than everyone else? I know I cheer for my Argentine players in the NBA. Some people cheer for David Lee at the Knick games more than they do Marbury. It's natural, right? Some people cheer for Marbury because he's from Brooklyn, because he made it out... those people are generally not represented in the crowd at MSG, but if they are, they are the ones cheering for Marbury, right?
Now look at the press, and the sports bloggers, too. They are not very diverse. Not at all. They have their favorites, too. They like David Lee, not so much Marbury. They like Phil maybe a little more than they like Tiger. Fine. Nothing wrong with that.
But then comes the point where sometimes they want to push their favorites, and they lose their objectivity. That's what happens in the press. So if David Lee is battling Renaldo Balkman for playing time, they might harp on Balkman's poor ballhandling ability, while neglecting to mention that Lee's leg injury is still bothering him. Subtle. Happens all the time. They'll bash the Williams sisters, yet give Hingis a pass. Happens more often than it should, in my opinion...
TIGER vs. ROGER - Who is more DOMINANT? Golf and Tennis have 4 majors every year. Tiger won his first major in 1997. From 1997-2007 he has won 13 out of 44 majors. A wining percentage of 29.54%. Tiger is age 31. Roger won his first major in 2003. From 2003-2007 he has won 12 out of 20 majors. A wining percentage of 60%. Roger is age 26. Look at the stats and tell me who is more DOMINANT. In 2007 Tiger won 1 major. In 2007 Roger won 3 majors and made it to the finals of the 4th. Tell me who is more DOMINANT RIGHT NOW? In 2007 Roger won WIMBLEDON for the 5th year consecutive year in a row and you golfers thought Tiger was dominant on Grass? That's like Tiger wining the Brithish Open 5 years in a row. In 2008 Roger could become the All Time Grand Slam Champion if he wins 3 more majors. TIGER CAN'T he still needs 6 more to pass Jack N. record of 18. Finally Tiger himself along with Pete Sampras called ROGER FEDERER THE MOST DOMINANT ATHLETE ON THE PLANET. Neither you, your golf buddy, or any sporswriter know more about being dominant in a sport than Tiger or Pete. Who would you bet on in 2008 to win more majors Tiger Woods or Roger Federer? I think I made my point!
GOLF vs TENNIS. Both sports have 4 majors every year which are played against the best in the world. Play 4 rounds of Golf and you can win a Major. Play 7 rounds of Tennis and you can win a Tennis Major. Have a bad round of golf, DON'T WORRY your total scores are added. Have a bad round of Tennis and YOUR OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT. A tennis ball can move over 140-mph and you have to swing and move your feet in all directions to get it back. A golf ball moves at 0-mph and you are practically standing still before you hit it. Golf is played on grass. Tennis is played on Grass, Clay, Hardcourt, and Synthetic Carpet. When Tennis Player's get to old and out of shape to play Tennis, a lot of them play Golf. When Golfer's get to old and out of shape to play Golf THEY DON'T PLAY TENNIS! Golfer's argue that Tiger has to play the Field? The Field never gets eliminated no matter how bad of a round you have. Tiger's match play record as a pro is NOT GREAT. If he played a 7 round Match Play elination format like they do in Tennis, he would not have as many majors today. Finally you Golf CHEERLEADER need to state the facts and not your pointless opinions. NEED I SAY ANYMORE? Apples and Oranges NO! Roger more dominant in tennis than Tiger is in golf YES! even he will tell you.
WTF IS WRONG WITH HIM?? NOTHING!!! Tiger Woods is awesome!
IN REPLY TO: THE TRUTH,
I really think that you should just calm down on the whole statistical part of your argument, as i and i'm sure many others agree that what your coming up with is very weak!
I see tennis as the soccer premiership. Chelsea and Man utd pretty much dominate every year with the possibility of a side like Arsenal coming up with 'the goods'. This is in relation to Federer, Nedal and the possibility of lets say, roddick. lets face it, theres not much competition!
Tiger woods however. douzens of players with the quality of realisticaly beating Tiger face up against him and he still manages to come away with a major. This underlines him as a 'real champion'.
When tennis players begin to come up the ranks and begin to give more competition to roger, i think Tiger, in my opinion, is leaps and bounds ahead of any dominating person in any individual sport.
Keep going Tiger!!!
tiger is a feakin' beast. He is a machine when it comes to winning. No one can beat him even when is ACL is busted up. Federer has nothing on Tiger. And besides, no one plays tennis just to beat him. On the other hand, the whole field is playing golf just to beat Tiger. Tiger has more competition and he still wins more.
I like golf. And I like both Tiger and Phil. And I'm white.
I think Tiger does tend to not display emotion until something good or bad happens, which is pretty true about everyone. I don't know that his skin color has a lot to do with the backlash, though. It might just be that people are sick of seeing him win everything.
People hate the Yankees for the same reason, and no one is accusing Yankee haters of being racist.
I mean, Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer played at roughly the same time, right? So there was, ostensibly, more competition. But these days, there are polls on ESPN that ask who you think will win a certain event, and the choices are "Tiger Woods" or "the field."
I just like to root for Americans, especially (obviously) in events when people are representing their countries. Like the Olympics. I don't care what the skin color of the athlete is.
I hate the Williams sisters, and it has mostly nothing to do with their father. They just rub me the wrong way for some reason. Especially Serena. And I feel the same way about Justine Henin Hardenne, who is possibly the whitest woman alive. Don't like Hingis, either, for that matter.
And I know my hatred of Barry Bonds has nothing to do with his skin color, mostly because I'm pretty sure I hate Mark McGuire more. And maybe even Jason Giambi, too.
I can't speak for everyone, obviously, so these are just a few of my examples. I know my people (meaning my friends and family) don't care about skin color when it comes to their athletes (or when it comes to anything, actually). Maybe my grandparents' generation cared, but as long we're generalizing, I'd say that's where it ends.
Although middle America could be a different story altogether.
Sorry. This is a very long comment.