Everyone loves Tiger Woods.
OK, maybe not everyone, but there are few things that you can fault the guy on. He's the ultimate player in the clutch, giving not just golf fans, but sports fans in general, some of our fondest sporting memories. Who can forget that miraculous shot on the 16th hole of the 2005 Masters? Even my 89-year-old grandma stood up and cheered, but only because it was her favorite, Tiger Woods, hitting one of his best shots ever.
Oh, and let's not forget his squeaky-clean image. You could never imagine Tiger getting into a fight, or even getting angry—aside from smashing his club on the grounds of Augusta. He doesn't talk smack either; he just defends himself with his game.
He's going to be the king of golf before his time is up, passing Jack Nicklaus with the most majors ever won. He makes millions of dollars a year, is married to a Swedish model and has two adorable children. Although there is probably a lot of envy and jealousy of his life, he is humble enough for everyone to still really, really like him.
However, as much as I like Tiger, this past weekend I didn't want to hear anything about Tiger. Yet everyone kept talking about him.
For the first two days. it didn't bother me, knowing well Tiger can always make a run. Even when he seems the most down, he's not out. So I was OK with SportsCenter leading with Tiger. But it latched on to the story and would not let it go.
But they kept going with it.
They, and many other news outlets, kept leading with the same story, even when Tiger's hopes of winning were slim to none.
Sure, there's the drama of Tiger and Phil Mickelson going head-to-head on Sunday, something every golf fan revels in. But when there are seven players and seven shots separating them from the top of the leaderboard, the drama is just not the same. They're not in contention, they're not playing on Sunday for the green jacket; they're just playing for pride.
However, the media were only focusing on the spectacle of Tiger, not the spectacle of the Masters. That may be OK for some golf tournaments, but when you have a finish like Sunday's, you would hope that would be what sports sections and ESPN would try to get everyone talking about. Sadly, that was not the case.
Receiving a similar amount of coverage as Tiger was Angel Cabrera, Kenny Perry and Chad Campbell's incredible three-man playoff. Not just that, but paired equally with the Tiger coverage was the story line of Kenny Perry almost recapturing the major he lost in the 1996 PGA Championship, where he lost by bogeying his first hole, only to once again blow his chances at another major 13 years later. He had his shot at redemption and failed, a scenario that almost all sports fans enjoy, even if it is a bit disheartening.
I understand the nation's fascination with Tiger. I understand why, with all the hype of how Tiger will perform at his first major coming off of surgery, every sports broadcaster wanted to talk about Tiger. I understand why my grandma was glued to the screen during this year's Masters and let out expletives when he wasn't making his way to the front of the pack. But that cannot get in the way of telling the incredible story that was the Masters' finish.
Sportswriters need to not just cover the story they planned on covering. They need to adapt and switch to what the most important story is once an event actually happens.
And that's difficult because it's very hard to stray from the big story, especially when it's someone like Tiger. But sometimes we have to let go of the things we love, especially when there's better fish in the sea.
Share the same resentment of the national media's love affair with Tiger Woods? Talk to Gabe about it at ubatuba@wisc.edu.
