SB Sunday and Golf is Biggest Sports Story, Yeah!

Maybe it's the surfeit of Yankees-Red Sox baseball games ESPN throws our way during the summer, but I can't get enthused about this Super Bowl.  Or maybe it's the fact that the best sports event of the day was in Arizona, not Indiana.  I'll watch the 4th quarter if I remember, but for right now, I'm watching the live online stream of Kyle Stanley's press conference.  What a difference a week makes!

What a great guy is Kyle "South Park" Stanley.  Gotta love how he was not cursing and slamming clubs last week.  (Leave that to the children, thank you very much!)

Last Sunday was a dark day for Stanley, but unbeknownst to anyone, redemption was but one short week away.  Golf is a beautiful game.

I know I should turn on the Super Bowl, but right now I just can't bring myself to care.

I wouldn't go that far, afterall it is just the west coast swing. The season doesn't really start until the matchplay (and furthermore it doesn't REALLY REALLY start until Augusta).

I do love that nickname you've given Stanley. When is Kenny "Butters" Cartman going to join the tour?

It's OK.  We all know that baseball games and the Super Bowl have nothing to do with golf.  Wait a minute, let me correct that.  We all know that except for you.

Gee, kinik, here I was thinking all three were sports.  Thanks for enlightening me (and everyone else in the world).

andrew, I know what you mean as far as the start of the season.  I think a lot of people see spring, Augusta, and their first trip to the driving range as the golf season kickoff.  So I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, just expressing another viewpoint.

That said, I think we find lightning where we find it.  If someone asks, "What is your favorite day of the year?" most people will respond with their birthday or a holiday or some other "officially-sanctioned" favorite day.  But it would be rare for one of those to truly rank as one of my favorite days.  Just because society hasn't come up with a "First Touch of Fall in the Air" greeting card doesn't mean that can't be my favorite day.

For Kyle Stanley, this week will be very hard to match.  Here's an example from last year: Is a 32-year-old winning a major a bigger deal than Jhonny Vegas winning as a rookie and changing his life forever?  Why is a major a big deal?  Because people have decided it is.  (Just as they, retroactively, decided which events are majors.)  Here's an example: for some fans -- I call this group "fans," with quotes -- the Frys.com was a bigger event last year than the Brit Open.  Another example: if a guy shoots 59, it's a big deal no matter when or where.

I recently watched "Moneyball."  Oakland didn't win the World Series, but they changed the very nature of baseball.

Triple-bogeying the final hole to lose, then bouncing back to win the next week is a big story, no matter when or where it happens.

This South Park nickname would be kind of mean, given yesterday's outcome, but Levin is kind of a quick mover...  Spencer "Tweak" Levin?  One thing that must be prevented: we can't let Cartman pass out any PGA nicknames.

I have to say that in many regards the Super Bowl trumps anything but the World Cup. But it was great theater in Phoenix. Great playing by Stanley, especially that hooded wedge out from under the cactus on 17. I was actually thinking about the difference between golf and about any other sport after the SB left me rather unfulfilled with it's outcome (I'm a Pats fan). What's so great about golf is that it's almost impossible to finish watching a tournament feeling empty. There really isn't an outcome that can turn you off, unless you're Lanny or Noko and Tiger wins going away. But think about it, Stanley's win, Rory at the Open, Clarke at the OC, Schwatrzel, Bradley. They were all one of multiple possible outcomes that would have been great stories. Great for Schwartzel, but would anyone have been disappointed if Adam Scott had pulled it out? Or if Dufner had won the PGA or Levin the WMPO? There are exceptions to anything but I love that golf gives lots of guys the chance to be hero and almost never the goat.

Manhorse, don't put words in my mouth.  Woods is who he is, and while I used to be a huge fan and saw him play in person a couple dozen times (is that more than you, I wonder), now I just don't care.  He's got his talent and is going to win tournaments, but don't fool yourself that I still care one way or the other about any particular result.  You see, I understand the Dr. Galea connection taints his record on one hand, and the fake image (with the aid of the media) taints his legacy on the other.  My commentary is only about Woods in that it shows the corrupt media is trying to push a fantasy image/golfer onto a naive (though growing less and less so) public.

Pump the brakes there Lanny. Not attempting to put words in your mouth, just an attempt at some humor. Sorry to have offended you.
Re: Woods. I'v only seen him play a handful of times. More in the sense that he happened to be playing at a tournament I was attending. I've never followed him in the gallery, preferring to set up a hole or two ahead and watch the circus come through. I actually prefer following other players that I'm able to see up close. If Woods has taught us anything it's that we need to take every photo shoot, commercial, victory speech and tearful embrace with a grain of salt. That goes for all players across many sports. As much as we fans want to identify with a player and feel like we're a part of their success, none of us really have a true assessment of the inner workings of the individual. As an example, Rory Sabbatini has been observed on a few occasions of being abrasivve, short and disrespectful to his fellow players. I've also heard secondhand stories (having worked at a tournament several times) that both he and his wife are demanding and sometimes rude to support and childcare staff at tournament venues. Yet with my own eyes I've seen him stand for over an hour chatting, signing autographs, giving away stuff and generally being a sweetheart to dozens of fans after shooting himself out of a tournament. Of course there's not a campaign out there to get us all to believe he's a great guy but still, if someone gets the snapshot and thinks they know the guy, they're wrong. There are a bunch of great guys out on tour but there are as many more whose private lives might not mesh with what some of us think is normal or right. I think most if not all the cards are on the table for Woods. He's robotic and doesn't say anyhting controversial or connect to his fans. He was the same when he was winning and pre-scandal. That's what we get and we all know it. I understand that some people (in general) might want that to change but I have a feeling it never will since Woods is trying to gloss over the past and move beyond it.

It seems far too many underestimate the resilient nature of youth!  Levin will be fine just as Kyle, maybe not in quite the same fashion or time frame but he's got a good solid golf game!

I do feel it's interesting that these professional tournaments are turn'n out record numbers in attendance and much of that is due to these young players who are become'n the ones to watch in any given tournament.

We still have some fine players of what we can call the "old guard" stay'n highly competitive but this is fast become'n the era of the young guns!!  I like it..I love it and I want some more of it!!!

Larry H;
No insult intended.  I just can't fathom how interview watching can be more exciting than Super Bowl watching. 

If someone asks, "What is your favorite day of the year?" most people will respond with their birthday or a holiday or some other "officially-sanctioned" favorite day.  But it would be rare for one of those to truly rank as one of my favorite days.  Just because society hasn't come up with a "First Touch of Fall in the Air" greeting card doesn't mean that can't be my favorite day.

My favourite day of the year is June 9th (no it's not my birthday or anything). That is my favourite because it is 6/9 and 69 is my favourite number. Haha, but seriously my favourite day of the year is always Sunday at the Masters, followed closely by Championship Sunday (not Super Bowl Sunday). If there is a greeting card about this day, I would like to receive one.

Here's an example from last year: Is a 32-year-old winning a major a bigger deal than Jhonny Vegas winning as a rookie and changing his life forever?  Why is a major a big deal?  Because people have decided it is.  (Just as they, retroactively, decided which events are majors.)  Here's an example: for some fans -- I call this group "fans," with quotes -- the Frys.com was a bigger event last year than the Brit Open

Clarke is 42, but I'm sure that was just a typo. Anyway, yes him winning a major is much much much bigger deal. For starters, ALL of the best players in the World will all be on the same golf course only 4 times a year, at the majors. Not even the WGCs can claim that since the fields are about double the size for the majors (The Masters not so much). One way of looking at golf, is that every tournament that isn't a major, is just a tune up for the next major (with a minor footnote for WGCs).

Let's say you had to choose between option A and option B. Option A is - you win 10 career events world wide; 8 of them are majors, and the other 2 are WGC events. Option B is - you win 50 career events world wide, but no majors and only 1 WGC. Which one would you take? Unless money is my only concern in life, then I'd take option A every time.

And also, if anyone paid more attention and cared more about the Frys then the British Open, then they are not a golf fan, and there is no arguing against that.

I recently watched "Moneyball."  Oakland didn't win the World Series, but they changed the very nature of baseball.

Great movie, but even better book (read it if you haven't). However one thing that was not mentioned once in the movie and only briefly in the book was this very simple fact; the Oakland A's of the early 2000s are bottom feeders if it wasn't for their pitching staff. They had 3 aces on that team in Hudson, Mulder, and Zito, and their 4th option (Rich Harden) would have been a great #2 on most teams. Also, the AL West has been a pretty terrible division for the last 12-15 years or so, if they were in the AL BEast they would have been an 80-85 win team at best. I have to bring that up since I am a Blue Jays fan and it kills me to see other teams successful, all while knowing if they traded places with Toronto, our records would trade as well.

Also, the reason those teams never won it all was because they had a team full of nobodies. Yea playing in a weak division with a star studded pitching staff can only get you so far, but it takes clutch and timely hitting to win a championship (see St. Louis Cardinals this past year). You can't expect the Scott Hattaberg's of the world to deliver in crunch time.

Triple-bogeying the final hole to lose, then bouncing back to win the next week is a big story, no matter when or where it happens.

Absolutley, but not nearly as big as the biggest sports story of the year (arguably) the Super Bowl.

This South Park nickname would be kind of mean, given yesterday's outcome, but Levin is kind of a quick mover...  Spencer "Tweak" Levin?  One thing that must be prevented: we can't let Cartman pass out any PGA nicknames

That is cruel, cue the "too much pressure" sound bite

I'm not trying to argue with you because I agree with about 90% of your posts, I just can't get excited about golf on a day when the entire country shuts down for a football game.

Okay, Manhorse, I follow, and I'm with you on the tournament viewing strategy.

I would like to add a couple words about Woods and phoniness.  I don't think it's necessary to write off all athletes as phonies just because of him.  Isn't it pretty easy to tell the difference, after all, between a personality like Woods' and a personality like, say, Ben Crenshaw's.  And has any other athlete in history tried so hard to sell a false image, and with such help from the media?

Fans of Woods were not naive.  Scandals stretch back as far as we can remember.  The Black Sox Scandal.  Pete Rose.  Art Schlichter.  Mike Tyson.  The list is long.  So it's not like people didn't know athletes often are not very good role models.  (Not to mention all the preachers and politicians who had scandals!)

But has the public ever had an athlete sold to them the way Woods was.  I remember early on hearing golf announcers going on and on about his "great smile," and telling us he was talented and handsome.  I was a huge fan, but even I thought he was kind of buck-toothed and lacking a chin.  I thought to myself, "Man, they are really pushing it with those comments," but I gave it no more thought.  But the image-making went far, far beyond generously describing an athlete's appearance (Woods is hardly the only one who benefited from that).

I could not tell you if Spencer Levin is married or has kids.  I have no idea.  Same with Kyle Stanley.  However, I remember when I first heard of Woods' marriage.  It was on network radio news at the top of the hour early one morning.  I was informed that Woods had proposed (to some chick I'd never heard of) while on an African safari.  This was all a very big deal in the media.  I remember the ring being discussed.  As was the marriage, the birth of his children.  It was covered in great detail in the general media, not just the golf or sports media.

Now compare that to Colin Montgomery a year or two ago.  If I recall, he had some kind of scandalous affair and his marriage broke up.  I don't really recall the details because I had no idea at the time (and no recollection now) of whether or not he was even married, had kids or anything else.  He could have married Elton John and I'd have thought, "Wow, I had no idea."  We certainly weren't informed when and where and how he proposed to his wife.  The American media focused on Woods, however, like the Brits do the Royals.

The more I think about it, the more I think those who made money (most indirectly) from this image of Woods would have said anything to build and prolong it.  Like the Madoff scam, it was good while it lasted for all who were profiting.

I think people just need to do a better job of picking out sports role models -- and not let the press create one and sell it to them.

kinik, it was mainly because I had no strong feelings one way or the other about the teams involved.  I did watch the fourth quarter and it was a great game, but I only recognized that on an intellectual level as I had no dog in the fight.  On the final play, I was thinking, hey, if the NE receiver grabs that ball before it hits the ground, wouldn't that be a cool way for the game to end?  I didn't care who actually won.  (Had it been a team I cared about, I would have been pumped up, I'm sure.)

As for the golf press conference, hey, that was good stuff!  I could identify with the guy.  Not in the arena of golf, and maybe not with the happy ending, haha, but it was a story more about human heart and perserverance (and luck and fate and who knows what else) than it was simply a golf story.

I wasn't thinking of Clarke when I said a 32-year-old.  I just pulled that age out of a hat.  I was really thinking along these lines...

Looking back to the 1990s, are Lee Janzen's two US Open wins more memorable to me than, say, Phil Mickelson winning the Phoneix Open as an amateur (or David Duval shooting 59 in final round to win the Hope)?  Absolutely not.  Someone is going to win a major every time it's played, after all.  A guy triple-bogeying the 72nd hole to lose a tournament then winning the very next week is rare.  Not to mention inspiring.  (Think Erik Compton winning an event this year would be a bigger story than, say, Jim Furyk winning another major?)

I'm not putting down the majors, and fully grasp their place in the golf lexicon, of course.  As well, Rory's Masters-US Open bounceback was much like Kyle Stanley's story, only under much brighter lights.  I'm just saying we don't always know where lightning is going to strike.  And if the golf media doesn't care to, or have a chance to, hype to the gills the unexpected lightning the way they do the Hallmark Card majors, that's their loss and golf fans' serendipity.

About Moneyball, the claim is that the Red Sox used the concepts of moneyball to finally win a World Series.  I don't personally know or have an opinion; I'm just repeating what I was told (at the end of the movie).  As for the AL West, I think Nolan Ryan has things fully under control now!

Woods is a pretty good chicken/egg example. He was tremendously hyped as an amateur but in contrast to many people who are hyped, he delivered on it and sustained the success. This generated even more hype and media coverage, which he in turn validated by continued success. However, because he wouldn't allow anyone in to his private life and only let people (fans and media alike) see what he wanted them to see, nobody ever questioned the kind of foundation they were building their empire upon. Combine that with the contined emergence of the 24 hour news cycle and insatiable thirst for a scoop and you've got your Woods wedding exclusive and yacht pictures and so on. It is/was the world we live in. There was a point where Woods almost couldn't be oversold because of his success. Once that dwindled the media, in their need to be out front on everything continued to predict wins and be breathless with every good round. There are a lot of layers to the Woods saga. Unfortunately the golf media was unable to remain separate from the gossip media during the scandal, having it's hand forced by the National Enquirer and other rags rather than maintaining some dignity.

I agree that Woods was pushed and pushed on the public, but the phoniness of his private life wasn't something the media was privy too. As such, how could they know they were pushing a phony when they're all thinking they've got the golden goose? Woods wouldn't allow himself to be questioned. One thing I haven't really heard reported much is the timeline of events. When did Woods flip? At one point prior to all his success he was just a kid and presumably had the squeaky clean image he was marketed for. Once that cat was out of the bag he always had to be the image he was advertised as, even if his tastes, libido changed.

As to other players, yes there certainly genuine and nice ones out there. As for role models, you're right, people need to do a better job picking. Success doesn't necessarily equate to virtue and vice versa. And it's rare that they combine in the same individual. After all, we're human and even the most virtuous among us are prone to flaws. Oh well.

Woods won seven times with one being a major in his first 2-1/2 years on tour; that's great, but hardly epic.  We have guys winning two or three events a year now, and people whine that we have "parity."  The hype came way before the performance.

Corporate America was determined to wring every last dollar out of the Woods bubble, and they are unwilling, even now, after his image has crashed and burned, to let it go.

Go read the early news articles on Woods from 1996-1998.  References to "handsome" (I'm sorry, but winning a few tourneys does not turn an Urkel into George Clooney) and "role model" are to be found everywhere; there is a pattern already in the those early days, well before the three majors in 2000.  The PR machine was not presenting this guy as a "good golfer" or "potentially as good as Nicklaus."  No, they were building a demi-god.

As for this hype being solely due to modern social media, ubiquitous blogs, etc., I want to point out that Woods turned pro before AOL converted to a flat monthly rate.  I mention this because it points out that very few people had anything other than painfully-slow dialup access in 1996.  There was no Twitter, Google, Facebook, and the myriad of other modern sources of hype, so it seems disingenuous for many to claim it's the nature of today's world.

(By the way, this comment was less a reply to your post than a general rant on some things I've heard in the past two years.  I don't mean to imply you said them or feel that way.)

Oh, one thing I left out.  There is a rather famous article (it might have been in Vanity Fair) in which the author painted a less than flattering portrait of the young Woods.  The media was immediately made aware that any reporters choosing to write such things would not have access to Woods.  John Feinstein had similar experiences and revisited this territory in an article last December.

Lanny Read most of the lengthy posts and strongly agree that Kyle Stanleys victory on Sunday after his tragic loss is one of golf and sports biggest story. It would have caught the eyes and ears of everyone in the golfing world, such a moving touching story that it totally eclipsed Levin's more tragic loss! Perhaps, none of the media writers bothered to focus on his story, unless he wins soon. Right now, the west coast swing is irrelevant, thus non- capitalized and even Tiger is not news yet till Thursday!! The World celebrates Kyle Stanley's win - this week! Tim

Tim,  I think you are getting a bit carried away. You have twice described  these golfers losses as being 'tragic' ????

   They might be a lot of things but tragic ain't one of them.

The social media storm mostly served, IMO, to bolster an already feverish Woods-centric media. If the large volume already being churned out in 1996-'99/'00 then even more must be better. It didn't create the Woods PR machine but certainly amplified it.

I think I've read the VF article and I've read some of Feinstein's articles on the subject and that environment created by Woods led nearly everyone covering him to think that it was better to be on the inside and be wron than to be on the outside and maybe be right. So many were blissful in thier ignorance that they never bothered to question Woods' social development or whether he was falling victim to some of the many trappings of success. Because Earl was still driving the truck at that point and was a better interview, most of what was said and written about Woods could be attributed to his biggest cheerleader. That fact that Woods never bothered to refute or temper any of the press generated by his own father left many to believe it must be true. For whatever contributions Earl Wood made to Tiger the golfer he bears a lot of blame for creating Tiger the person who is so deeply flawed.

Interesting post, Manhorse.  I wonder if Tiger ever felt like telling Earl to give it a rest.  Maybe he didn't want to tamper with a formula that was working so well.

The myth created by Earl also allowed Tiger to be awkward/taciturn in front of the press, hiding behind the myth.  He's special, golf media, so don't press him for meaningful answers to questions.