Well, just when golf is getting non-existent at the recreational level (see: weather) and boring at the professional level, Tiger comes to our rescue, as we always hope he will.<\/p>\n
This time, it\u2019s his prickly (putting it mildly) response to Dan Jenkins\u2019s mock interview<\/a> with Woods that is on the newsstands in the December edition of Golf Digest<\/em>. <\/p>\n Jenkins is a serious golf writer whose side job is as a devastating satirist of the sports world. All Jenkins did is (a) ask Woods a few questions, questions we would like to ask Tiger ourselves, and since Tiger wasn\u2019t there to answer the questions, (b) made up Tiger\u2019s answers. <\/p>\n These answers are not, of course, what Tiger would have said had he actually been asked the questions, but they are the real answers to the questions. <\/p>\n Which upsets Tiger greatly. Mark Steinberg, too, but more on him later.<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s a really funny interview, and any other subject would too. But not Tiger. The Woods image, or what is left of it, is sacrosanct and is not to be trifled with without his permission. <\/p>\n But Jenkins went ahead anyway, the little imp.<\/p>\n Now assuming you paused at the top of this post to read the interview (go ahead, the link\u2019s right there, I can wait), please tell me what is off? What doesn\u2019t hit home? <\/p>\n About the only thing we don\u2019t know is for real is the comment about what a lousy tipper Woods is. But if that\u2019s it, what is all the fuss?<\/p>\n Like Woods writing a 600-word invective<\/a> (OK, I just assumed Tiger wrote it). In a moment of great irony, Woods said “the concocted article was below the belt.” <\/p>\n Below the belt, yeah, but it wasn’t Jenkins’s article that was below the belt. It was you and Rachel Uchitel, Jaimee Grubbs, Jamie Jungers, Mindy Lawton, oh, you get the point. <\/p>\n Like Steinberg, his agent, releasing a letter<\/a> complaining about the abysmal journalistic standards GD<\/em> sunk to by printing the \u201cinterview\u201d and demanding a formal apology.<\/p>\n Good grief. Woods and Steinberg still think when they say \u201cJump,\u201d people are still saying \u201cHow high?\u201d All that was over in November 2009.<\/p>\n You know the irony of all this, that Woods and Steinberg are just too self-righteous and opaque to get? That if they had ignored it, there would have been no controversy and in two weeks the interview would have been lost to history. <\/p>\n But just like Jennifer Lawrence, who made a stink about the nudes of her being published online so everyone would know they could be found and went to stare at them for an hour, while the other three women who also had nudes posted of them by the same hacker and said nothing and I\u2019ll bet you don\u2019t even know what their names are, W&S elevated Jenkins\u2019s work to the front pages. They did his PR work for him! <\/p>\n Talk about a pair of boobs. <\/p>\n Tiger Woods. I just love this guy. He so doesn\u2019t get it. He\u2019s grist for every writer\u2019s mill.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Well, just when golf is getting non-existent at the recreational level (see: weather) and boring at the professional level, Tiger comes to our rescue, as we always hope he will. This time, it\u2019s his prickly (putting it mildly) response to Dan Jenkins\u2019s mock interview with Woods that is on the newsstands in the December edition … Continue reading Tiger Woods, Media Critic<\/span>