Tiger tees off on Dan Jenkins

[Boom_70]

It was a terrible idea to begin with (and horrendously executed) and then the editors dropped the ball by not telling the writer to come up with something better.

Agreed. If Golf Digest / Dan Jenkins is willing to pull lame stunt like this to
regain relevancy then we can't be too far away from heckling golfers on the
green as they putt.

 

[CD Boogie]

It was a terrible idea to begin with (and horrendously executed) and then the editors dropped the ball by not telling the writer to come up with something better.

Agreed. If Golf Digest / Dan Jenkins is willing to pull lame stunt like this to
regain relevancy then we can't be too far away from heckling golfers on the
green as they putt.

That might actually make it a sport....

 

[old_tony]

The Jenkins "parody" was awful, uninteresting and spiteful.

That being said, Tiger shouldn't care. Stop being a baby.

I couldn't get past the first page of Jenkins' piece. Not funny, not interesting. If you're going to do something like that it better be hilarious.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Feherty backs Tiger.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/feherty-supports-tiger-says-parody-was-mean-spirited/

"I think I would be upset," Feherty said on the "Dan Patrick Show". "It was mean-spirited and not particularly funny."
On Tuesday, Woods penned an impassioned response to the parody, which he described as a "grudge-fueled piece of character assassination."
Feherty came to the former world No. 1's defense, saying that Woods has granted more interviews than any other player over the past two decades, answering a barrage of questions from the "forest of idiots," himself included.
"Seeing him go through that after every round, we just wore him out with it," Feherty said. "His remarks taken out of context and used against him and all sorts of things.
"He was never particularly good at representing himself. I would love to be able to show the side of him that I know to people. … He's been badly represented and he's not great at representing himself. He's good at a lot of things, (but) it's not that."
Feherty said that Golf Digest never would have published the piece six years ago – when Woods was still a playing editor for the magazine – because "it wasn't in their best interests at all." He added, "I'm not sure if it's in their best interests now."

 

[Double Down]

Big shock that Feherty defends his guy. As predictable as journos defending Jenkins.

 

[2underpar]

I would take issue with Feherty that Tiger has granted more interviews than any other player in the past two decades unless that includes him coming into the interview room or the bullpen after each round. To me, that's fulfilling his obligation as the No. 1 golfer in the world rankings. Granting an interview would be me calling "Steiny" and getting a one-on-one with Tiger. How often has that happened? My guess is rarely.

 

[LongTimeListener]

He does touch on one highly relevant and intersting matter.

Feherty said that Golf Digest never would have published the piece six years ago – when Woods was still a playing editor for the magazine – because "it wasn't in their best interests at all." He added, "I'm not sure if it's in their best interests now."

What is Tiger's power? He is still the biggest marketing engine in golf, by a great margin, but what does that mean? Guess we'll find out.

 

[Flip Wilson]

Big shock that Feherty defends his guy. As predictable as journos defending Jenkins.

There have been a lot of folks on here -- many of them journos, I assume -- who have not been defending Jenkins.

 

[Double Down]

The idea that anyone didn't realize it was fake is stupid. If you believed it was real, look in the mirror at your gullibility. Anyone who pays attention to golf media (a place where this appeared) should be familiar with Jenkins and his style and probably his Twitter account, which is often funny and always satire.

Was the piece hacky? Yes. Mean? Maybe a little. Oh well. Jenkins has earned the right to whiff every so often.

The criticism I have here is how poorly Tiger and his cadre if sycophants understand PR. No one would given a shirt about this hack piece had he not thrown this tantrum. I follow the heck out of golf and I wouldn't have even read it. The idea he had "clear it up that it wasn't true" is moronic. People parodied by Frank Caliendo might as well start issuing statements saying "that's not actually me."

As for the issue of whether or not GD would have run this back when he "worked" for them, of course not. But holding up GD as a place that has high ethical standards is hilarious. Let me know when they run ONE piece in any of their equipment issues that says "This isn't a great club. It won't help you hit 17 yards further with your same swing. Save you money." In 10 years as a reader, I've never seen any release from a major equipment company get anything other than a blowjob rating. I like the magazine for what it is, but it has blown Tiger and Phil to a hilarious degree over the years. The idea it has somehow treated him unfairly, overall, is hilarious.

 

[Riptide]

Rick Reilly has "evolved" the same way Dan Jenkins did.
Both of them were the best around, and after that it was shirts and giggles.
I'm generalizing, but they both gave up working big stories for the easy life.

 

[gravehunter]

Maybe I read of the "interview" that was different than what others saw. The one I read said it was fake in the headline.

Anyway, I found the piece mildly entertaining at the beginning but it went way too long.

One thing that bothers me (now) about Jenkins is that (according to ShermanReport) when Jenkins tried to get a one-on-one with Tiger, he offered to let Tiger's people read the piece before it went to print...and "take things out."

I could never see myself making a deal like that with anyone that I wanted to interview. That would have made him no different than one of Tiger's PR hacks in my eyes.

http://www.shermanreport.com/in-retrospect-maybe-tiger-woods-should-have-gone-to-lunch-with-dan-jenkins/

 

[Alma]

Feherty backs Tiger.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/feherty-supports-tiger-says-parody-was-mean-spirited/

"I think I would be upset," Feherty said on the "Dan Patrick Show". "It was mean-spirited and not particularly funny."
On Tuesday, Woods penned an impassioned response to the parody, which he described as a "grudge-fueled piece of character assassination."
Feherty came to the former world No. 1's defense, saying that Woods has granted more interviews than any other player over the past two decades, answering a barrage of questions from the "forest of idiots," himself included.
"Seeing him go through that after every round, we just wore him out with it," Feherty said. "His remarks taken out of context and used against him and all sorts of things.
"He was never particularly good at representing himself. I would love to be able to show the side of him that I know to people. … He's been badly represented and he's not great at representing himself. He's good at a lot of things, (but) it's not that."
Feherty said that Golf Digest never would have published the piece six years ago – when Woods was still a playing editor for the magazine – because "it wasn't in their best interests at all." He added, "I'm not sure if it's in their best interests now."

Ah Feherty...does he actually believe the side he knows is a side that would be interesting to most golf fans?