A most difficult game for Woods - diplomacy
By RON SIRAK AP Golf Writer
DUBLIN, Ohio (AP) - Honesty may not always be the best policy,
especially for an athlete whose every move is scrutinized by the
entire sporting world.
As a golfer, Tiger Woods has every shot in his bag. He lacks
nothing. Those immense skills are blended on the course with a
maturity and concentration far beyond his 21 years.
But sometimes his words expose the careless confidence of a
young heart. He makes a listener wince and wonder if there might
have been a more diplomatic way to say things.
As a politician, Tiger Woods is less a statesman of the '90s
and more a to-the-barricades child of the '60s. Maybe that is
part of the freshness he has brought to sports. Maybe he should
be more careful.
Saturday afternoon, following another mind-boggling round -
a 64 at the Colonial carved with breathless ease - Woods was asked
on national TV if he feared anyone on the leaderboard going into
the final round.
The answer dropped like a brick on the toes of every player
in contention.
"No," Woods said.
There is no doubt he meant it. And there is no doubt Woods'
rock-solid belief in himself is part of his greatness. But there
is a kinder way to break the news to his colleagues.
Something like, "Anyone on that leaderboard is capable
of shooting 64 tomorrow, so I'm going to have to go out and put
up a good number" would have worked.
That remark by Woods on Saturday followed a gentle shot taken
at him a day earlier by Brad Faxon who, after taking the 36-hole
lead at the Colonial, said he was playing with his "C-minus"
game.
That was a pointed reference to Woods' comment a week earlier
when he won the Byron Nelson Classic with what he called his "C-plus"
game.
To Woods' credit, he attached a grade to his effort only after
he was asked to rate his performance. And further to his credit,
he was correct.
The Tiger Woods who won the Byron Nelson was nowhere near the
Tiger Woods who won the Masters. That's a scary thought, and it's
probably not a good idea to rub it in the noses of other players.
Moreover - and this was Faxon's point - it was wrong to imply
that Woods is unusual in being able to win with his less-than-best
game. Great players win all the time without their best game.
That's what makes them great players.
Nick Faldo says constantly: "Golf is not about the quality
of your good shots, it's about the quality of your bad shots."
When Nick Price was on his roll in 1993-94 he always pointed
out that the key to winning was making one's inevitable bad round
in each tournament a 70 instead of a 75.
And Ben Hogan said he never played a round in which he hit
more than a handful of shots exactly the way he wanted to hit
them.
Golf is not a game of perfection, and maybe some of the new
fans Woods has brought to the sport don't know that.
And what Woods has to realize is that the perfect golfer he
envisions does not exist and never will. He may get close, but
purity is an illusion, always out of reach.
Woods must understand that he is competing against some very
talented, very proud men who deserve better than to be dismissed
with a curt "No."
Most of Woods' honesty, however, is right on the money.
Asked why he turned down President Clinton's request to join
him at a Jackie Robinson tribute, Woods said: "Why didn't
he ask me before I won the Masters."
Asked if he had completely forgiven Fuzzy Zoeller for his fried
chicken and collard greens remarks, Woods said: "I have a
problem with that tone from anybody."
Asked why he didn't go to the interview room after finishing
fourth at the Colonial over the weekend, Woods said: "I didn't
win, they didn't need me."
Nothing wrong with any of that.
But when asked about his competitors, the best thing to happen
to golf since Arnold Palmer has to remember that anyone who makes
a living on the PGA Tour is capable of being Tiger Woods - if
for only a day.
|
