Swango1980
Well-known member
I think you answered your question in that sentence. Many fans are drawn to certain sports people primarily by what they do in their sport, not necessarily how they are as a person. I agree, the likes of Tiger Woods or Lewis Hamilton are not engaging in interviews, and they may not be the sort of characters who I'd be mates with if the opportunity arose (although many of us have friends who are not brilliantly charismatic, or have friends that other people would not find likable).Good post
Why is Tiger so liked? I’ve just read Hank Haney’s (his former coach) book on him and doesn’t seem likeable as a person - even in his regular interactions with former college teammates, regular people and I’m aware of the documentary and other book detailing all of those serial affairs
He has perhaps the least charisma and personal charm that I’ve witnessed from any sports star I’ve ever seen interviewed…and he’s not remotely funny nor engaging
Sure, he’s indisputably one of if not the best golfers ever…but I’d still argue that (like Rory) he and Phil dominated when his key rivals were Jim Furyk, a generally past his best Singh, and Els.
The strength of the elite rivals in the late 80s early 90s and the post 2016 years is far greater than the years 2000-2015..
Of course, I did want him to win down the stretch in 2019 and I’m glad he did it. But apart from a bit of focus on him this year-it clearly is a story that he may be playing this year at Augusta - I want the media to focus on the best golfers who are challenging for wins…I couldn’t care how marketable Scottie Scheffler is or isn’t — if he’s challenging at the Masters for a win and he’s No 1 in the world then I want the sports news to focus on him
According to Haney in The Big Miss, Tiger always played percentage golf and would win through consistency and consistently scoring 68,69,70 etc, rather than the heights of 63 — so to me, when people talk of the excitement and thrill of Tiger’s golf, I don’t understand it (relative to Seve / Greg Norman’s ability to go very low and play mesmerising golf etc)
If Tiger is not an interesting, engaging nor charismatic and obviously not nice person, and his golf isn’t as ‘exciting’ (but generally avoiding big mistakes) then why all the knicker-wetting?
Also, I don't know what the comparison is between Woods and Greg Norman or Seve. Woods usually played a restricted schedule, and I think has shot 9 rounds 62 or lower. However, that is not really the point. For me, excitement in golf is nothing to do with how low a golfer scores. McIlroy may scrape the cut, shoot 4 over on a Saturday and then shoot a 60 on the Sunday to finish 5th. The 60 is a great round, but certainly does not fill me with excitement. I am much more drawn to the players that are at the top of the leaderboard, and how they fight their way to finish there. There have been many legendary rounds were a golfer has shot a higher score, but finished top. Tiger was able to do it consistently. Nearly every time he played, he was pretty much always up there when he was at the top of his game. It was fascinating to watch. We all know how we crumble when the pressure gets to us in our monthly medal after a good start. Fatting an approach shot at the wrong time, thinning a chip, missing a couple of 4 footers, etc. We see the same things happen to the pros (well, relatively speaking, not quite as horrific as us). So, it was something to behold to watch Tiger in his day, with all that attention on him, hold his nerve and execute those big shots time and time again.
There is no doubt all the current players who are top of the world will get plenty of attention going into the Masters. There will be plenty more attention on Scheffler than he is used to, even if Tiger is playing. But, Tiger is a legendary figure in the game, and legends always get media attention.