| AP Sports Headlines |
Friday, July 19, 2002
By JIM REEVES
c.2001 Fort Worth Star-Telegram
GULLANE, Scotland - Pick a side, Tiger. Any side on any subject. Just for the heck of it.
We all love Tiger Woods, right? Why wouldn't we? He's the greatest golfer of our time, maybe of all time, and we love winners. We love 'em like we love nice new cars, and ice cream and vacations at the beach.
If only we knew something real about Tiger besides his sweet, sweet swing.
He seems like a nice enough guy, right? Good looks. Great smile. Nice clothes. Invariably polite.
Shows up at the interview room on time, just like after Thursday's 1-under-par 70 in the opening round of the 131st British Open. Says all the right things.
And generally manages to say nothing at all.
Charles Barkley he's not.
What, really, do we know about Tiger Woods?
I'm not talking about superficial stuff here, or even golf. I'm talking about Tiger, the man; Tiger the personality, which, I'm sorry to say, may be something of an oxymoron. I'm not saying he doesn't have a personality, but how would we know? It would be nice if he actually showed it once in a while.
He is, after all, arguably the most influential athlete of the day, right there with the almost equally bland Michael Jordan. Woods peddles cars for Buick and sports apparel and golf balls for Nike, and makes the Rockefellers look like street panhandlers.
But other than that, who the heck is he?
"He's totally guarded, totally protected, totally under control," veteran golf writer and Fort Worth raconteur Dan Jenkins said Thursday.
It would be nice if we could say that Tiger is a self-made man, but even that's not true. He's a well-coached, well-trained product of the IMG stable.
Does he believe in animal rights? Don't know.
Does he think gays should serve in the military? Don't know.
Is he a proponent of the death penalty? Don't know.
Does he support women's rights? Maybe, but it was difficult to figure that out earlier in the week when someone brought up the fact that Muirfield, like Augusta National, is an all-male club. Women can't join, though they can play if they're guests of another member - male, of course.
Did Tiger declare his disgust at such blatant discrimination? Did he step forward to espouse equal rights for all? Take a stand for what's good and right in America?
Not really. Basically, all he did was shrug.
"They're entitled to set up their own rules the way they want them," he said, doing his IMG-best to be noncontroversial. "It would be nice to see everyone have an equal chance to participate if they wanted to, but there is nothing you can do about it."
Oh, really? Come now. You think even tradition-rich Augusta, even staid old Muirfield, wouldn't cave in like a sand castle on the beach if Tiger Woods refused to play at clubs that discriminate against women? He is arguably the most powerful athlete in the world. Of course, they'd change. They might hold the line briefly, but the mounting pressure would eventually be too great.
"It's a no-win situation for him," offered Jenkins, who found no fault with Tiger's answer. "What he should have said is, `That's a good question; let me get back to you on that.' "
But what if it was African-Americans who were banned? Or Asians? Or Hispanics? Would Tiger be so apathetic then?
"Yes," he said. "It's unfortunate that it is that way, but it's just the way it is."
Thank heavens Abraham Lincoln didn't take the same tack back in 1861.
This wormy, political correctness is nothing new for athletes today. It's the way they're trained, polished and turned out by IMG and other sports management groups. The Rangers' Alex Rodriguez is much the same way, bland as unflavored yogurt.
It's smart, and it's good business. Corporations looking for spokespeople want nice smiles and glib answers, not controversy.
These say-nothing athletes are happy to wax poetic about the games they play, and that's fine, but life's tougher issues? Taboo subjects.
What if Tiger were to announce that he supports women's rights to have abortions? Would pro-lifers stop buying Buicks? If he said he believes in the death penalty, would opponents cancel their American Express cards?
Rest assured, some would, and that's a risk these plastic men can't, and won't, take.
The women's issue here and at Augusta isn't the first controversy Tiger has ducked, and it won't be the last. He almost fainted a few years ago when someone confronted him about the Confederate flag issue in South Carolina.
In a way, it's a shame. Tiger Woods, without question, could be a force for positive change in this country. He could change not just stupid rules, such as Muirfield's on women members, but social attitudes as well.
But who needs the aggravation, right? Why take a stand when you can safely ride the fence?
It occurs to me, by the way, that while Tiger would beat me to a pulp on the golf course, he'd have a difficult time being a sports columnist. This job requires opinions, and Tiger avoids those like he does bogeys.
It took time, but Muhammad Ali's refusal to fight in the Vietnam War eventually helped all of us take another look at that war and religious freedom. It cost him his heavyweight championship, years of his prime and almost sent him to jail.
Don't expect anything like that from Tiger.
The only place he's going where they lock something up is the bank.
He might well win this British Open. He'll probably capture golf's legendary grand slam in a calendar year, becoming the first to do so in 70 years.
But he'll do it without most of us really knowing who he is or what he might stand for, if it didn't cost him money.
And that's unfortunate because it just might be a pleasant surprise.
|
|
 |
© 1995- The E.W.
Scripps Co. and the Abilene Reporter-News. All Rights Reserved. Site users are subject to our User Agreement. We also have a Privacy Policy. |
