Tiger Woods is getting back to playing golf. He’ll be participating in the Masters 2010 in Augusta, Georgia beginning April 5. I know a lot of people are happy about that, because they like to watch him play, and without him, the interest in golf apparently diminished, with enterprises associated with audience interest taking a great financial hit since he’s been away from the game.
Frankly, I don’t care one way or the other.
Nonetheless, NYDailyNews.com had a lengthy article focusing on Tiger’s “confessions.” Evidently, he said he “was living a lie.” Well, that’s true. He was making lotsa money presenting himself as a clean-cut family guy, all the while arrogantly flying girls around the world to meet him for “sex breaks.”
He also said “Yeah, I tried to stop, and couldn’t stop.” WHAT??? Where does the word “couldn’t” come from? The only irresistible impulse is one which is not resisted. He enjoyed that very enticing perk of fame and money: the adoration of women and lot of varied sex. There’s nothing new here in the history of mankind.
Once you cross that line, however, it gets easier and easier to feel as though you are safe and entitled, and it becomes a bigger and bigger part of your everyday life – whether your obsession is sex partners or donuts.
I’m disgusted that Tiger Woods is being yet another bad role model (“the devil made me do it, and I had to exorcise the devil in rehab”). To me, he is still lying. He could control his impulse any time he wanted to, but he didn’t want to. The risk-taking was exciting, and the orgasms and feeling of sexual control over women was way too thrilling for him to decide to give up. He’s giving it up now because it ended up costing him big-time. See? The decision was made when the math came out different from before.
In my book, Tiger Woods won’t change until he takes responsibility. In his comments, he also said that “stripping away denial and rationalization, you start coming to the truth of who you really are, and that can be very ugly.” True enough. And he should say the truth: that he enjoyed the perks, but that the trade-off ultimately wasn’t worth it.TrackBack URI
Big news late last week: Tiger Woods was named Athlete of the Year by the Associated Press. Not only did his “sexcapades” not limit his votes, but more than half of the 56 votes came in after the scandal made news. I guess the AP-types got confused – maybe they thought they were voting for the “Sexual Athlete of the Year.”
It’s too late now, but it is interesting that the question is being asked after the fact, as to whether or not he should receive this honor. First of all, “Athlete of the Year,” is not based on anybody’s character – just athletic achievement (unfortunately). So, the next question is: is golf an actual athletic sport? Truly, there is no physical hardship. Players might get a little winded from walking the course or get sweaty on hot days, but that’s about it.
Someone responded to the question of whether golf is actually athletic or not by pointing out that Tiger was in good shape, and another retorted with “You also have to be in shape to bowl and even to shoot billiards, but to compare those and golf to baseball, soccer, basketball, football, rugby, track & field, cycling, boxing, tennis and wrestling is silly. Golf requires skill – not athleticism. Having played it myself…”
Additionally, yet another comment pointed out the veracity of many accolades these days: “Al Gore got an Oscar, Obama got a Nobel, Bill Clinton got a Grammy. Nothing is real any more.”
Well, let’s look at the runners-up for “Athlete of the Year:”
1. Lance Armstrong – cancer survivor; won Tour de France six times in one decade. He came in second with 33 of the possible 142 votes.
2. Roger Federer – more grand-slam singles than any other man in history. He came in third with 25 votes.
3. Michael Phelps – record-setting Olympic swimming champion. He came in fourth with 13 votes.
4. Tom Brady: New England quarterback. He had 6 votes.
We all know why they gave it to Tiger Woods: He’s made them more money than any other person in something considered a sport. Because Tiger is good-looking (as all his bimbos also know) and a terrific golfer, the media turned him into a sensation, and more people showed up to golf tournaments (ka-ching), more photographs and stories were printed about golf (ka-ching), more shoes and stuff with his name attached were sold (ka-ching), and so on. Just follow the money. He is a huge money-maker for everyone, and that’s why he got the award.
I agree with the critics who say golf is not athletic. Lance Armstrong and Roger Federer are better qualified for this honor, but it’s not an honor anymore. It is recognition of “Ka ching” Power.TrackBack URI
I understand that the list is now at 14 distinct dalliances by Tiger Woods, and the count is likely to grow. One of the reasons the legal types are interested in this situation is the precedent for “alienation of affection” suits, which can be filed when an “outsider” interferes in a marriage. These suits are allowed in seven states: Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. Why these suits are disallowed in all the other states is a curiosity. Perhaps lawmakers in those states were being pre-emptively self-protective. Who knows?
However, it doesn’t matter that Woods lives in Florida, a state where alienation of affections suits aren’t allowed. If any of Woods’ professed affairs took place in an alienation of affection state, Mrs. Tiger Woods could sue. According to my research, the suits rarely make it to trial – usually the threat of such an embarrassing lawsuit is enough to have it end up in an out-of-court financial settlement.
On my radio program, when I discuss with the “wronged” spouse their pain and desire to get revenge with the “other woman or man,” I remind them that it is their spouse who breached vows. The other individual was just the means to that sad end. When people don’t wish to leave their marriages, they often focus their rage on that other person to protect their spouse from their rage. However, I believe it ought to be common understanding that the vows include a warning to others: “let no man turn asunder” means that no one should interfere with the married couple’s intimacy. All society has really taken that vow. Therefore, I believe it is fair that there be some consequence, and perhaps compensation, for the hurt caused.
I think all states should allow such lawsuits, as they respect the sanctity of marriage.TrackBack URI
My comments today are short and to the point.
With respect to Tiger Woods:
He is the best golfer ever.
He is a philandering spouse of major proportions.
Should that matter?
It was posited to me that what a celebrity does outside of his or her “famous” activity should not matter to anyone.
I thought about that for about an hour, and then decided this:
That statement is correct, unless that celebrity makes hay (or money) on the issue of TRUST, which Tiger Woods does by using his name and image as a “nice guy” to sell products. He is untrustworthy…plain and simple, and therefore, should not be representing anything or anyone, because his word means nothing.
He is a great golfer.
He is not a great man/father/husband.
End of commentary.TrackBack URI