Tiger 2.0

tiger is gone. we won't get another real take on him.
maybe when he's an old man - and does an autobiography.
or somebody in his inner circle steps forward.


SI's lack of access says less about Tiger than SI. 30 years ago that wouldn't have happened.

 

The problem is, MH, that Steve and Bryon will not talk. Period. Nobody in Tiger's inner circle talks because if they do, they're not in Tiger's inner -- or outer -- circle anymore. There is a code of omerta taken by those who can add the best information to a Tiger story that would put anything by the old-school mob to shame.

About 10 years ago, I had the opportunity to talk to Jerry Chang (Tiger's former Stanford teammate and the best man at his wedding) at the first stage of Q School. The conversation was going great... until I brought up Tiger and what it was like to go to school with him, play golf with him, what kind of anecdotes he had on the golf course with him, etc. At that, Jerry's once pleasant demeanor disappeared and the rapport built up went shortly thereafter.

And Elin? You'd have a better chance getting a meaningful interview with another gorgeous, famous and silent Swede... Greta Garbo.

 

After reading some of the comments on this thread, I was expecting to find something better suited for SI For Kids.

I didn't think it was bad, or even disappointing. But just another Tiger story. Wish he hadn't made such a big deal out of the ten minutes...it seemed self-indulgent.

A couple observations:

--If this is the best quote you can find to use on the cover of SI, ('I hate sitting still,' he says. 'I hate being stale. I've always got to be moving. I've always got to be challenged.') you might want to think about going without the quote. Unless you add an asterisk with 'Duh...' at the bottom of the page.

--Version 2.0 came and went years ago....if Tiger 1.0 was the grinning boy who won the Masters in 1997, we've been through at least two other versions since. Probably another thread, but I'd say this is Tiger 4.0.

-- Regarding whether this was worthy of the cover (it was), Verducci's umpire story might be a better and fresher read, but you don't sell magazines by putting umpires on the cover, especially when you can choose between Opening Day, Final Four, and the Masters.

 

Garrity's story should have been spiked, or downgraded into one of those half-page sidebars in GolfPlus. Not a doubt in my mind. Not Garrity's fault---it's SI's fault for having way too much pride and trying to fake chicken salad out of chicken----.

 

They weren't choosing between those three things for this cover. They will be choosing between two of them this week.

That said, Tiger was the logical choice for the cover. It's just that a Sports Illustrated cover story on one of the great all-time athletes needs to be better than this one was. And it needs to be about the subject, not the writer's experience covering the subject. Such first-person writing doesn't take the reader closer to the story; it makes the reader realize how little they care about John Garrity's experiences trying to write about the subject they wanted to read about. As a reader, I found myself asking "Who is John Garrity, and why should I care? I came to read about Tiger Woods."

I don't agree with those who said the story should have been spiked, especially with some of the self-indulgent, mediocre, athlete ass-kissing stuff that has run in SI in recent years (take a bow, Peter King and Karl Taro Greenfeld). But it's perfectly fair to have high expectations for such a story, considering SI's stature (and Tiger's, for that matter).

 

Agree-- I was responding to the earlier sentiment that Verducci's umpire story should have had the cover.

 

That piece was better suited to running in Rolling Stone than Sports Illustrated. That's where I go when I want self-indulgent, bullshit stories that are more about the writer than the alleged "subject" of the piece.

My beef isn't with Garrity. He did the best he could with shitty material — namely 10 minutes of actual face time with the subject of a 5,000-word takeout. My beef is with Sports Illustrated for having the gall to promote that piece on the cover and then two or three more times inside knowing it was a big old, steaming pile of crap. If they could leverage six holes of golf with Tiger at a Pro-Am and chartered private jet flights across the planet for Garrity, you'd think they could strong-arm Tiger's PR contingent into a few meaningful sit-downs. Maybe Garrity can get him to open up and get past his typically robotic platitudes, and maybe he can't — but at least give him a shot.

Without access to Tiger — which Garrity makes pretty clear from the outset he never got — this piece is just six pages of Garrity's rambling observations about the world's best golfer. Hell, just about any writer on this web site could have fashioned that piece after watching Tiger play on TV and hearing a few interviews. It just wasn't worth the hype.

 

I had high hopes for the story after reading Terry Mconell's note from editor in front of magazine. He mentions how John Garrity followed Tiger around for 6 months and logged 30,000 air miles.

Given the time put in it seems like there should have been more to the story. I've been spoiled by the New Yorker.

 

That was the most revealing item in the story. And SI's lack of self-awareness is shocking, to put it mildly. The People-ization of SI is complete and there's no going back.

 

If that was Tiger's last "major" interview, then so be it. He seems kind of an average guy (a tremendous golfer, of course) and not especially interesting to read about. Of course, he might be, but he'll never let anbyone outside of his circle see it. That's his right.

Many people don't like VJ but his story is far more interesting and compeling than Tiger's, or almost anyone else playing professional golf. He's an interesting, complex individual.

And VJ, with his quote about Sorenstam before the Colonial several years ago, and Phil, with his quote of Woods using inferior equipment, were more candid and forthcoming in one sentance than Woods has been in an entire career.

So I'l marvel at his golf, continue to hope he loses every week and hope that he can instill the values to his forthcoming child that his family instilled in him and his child can somehow not be overindulged and have an appreciation for reality while growing up as sporting royalty with more money than anyone would ever need in 20 lifetimes.

 

And they both got crucified for those statements, which is why Phil is not nearly as candid as he used to be and why Vijay keeps the media at Yao Ming-wingspan length.