Why does Tiger matter?

That's just sad, seriously.

 

The first time I ever heard my dad use the word "whore," he was talking about Zsa Zsa Gabor. He also used it to describe Elizabeth Taylor about the seventh time she got married.

 

Welcome backNatalie, Mert

 

If Tiger wasn't the biggest sports story on Friday, what was? I am just curious to know what is a bigger deal on a Friday in February? The Winter Olympics? Men's figure skating? US hockey? Lindsey Vonn or Julia Mancuso?
It's the dog days of the NBA. The NHL is on hiatus. College basketball doesn't get interesting until March.
Tiger, in my opinion, was the most interesting and newsworthy story of the day. Perhaps if Tiger decided to do this in January, during NFL playoffs or Super Bowl week, not so interesting. In October during the World Series, not so interesting. His timing was perfect for getting the kind of attention it received.

 

I agree with dools ... this board is better with NatalieMert.

 

It's a 1,000-channel, 1,000,000,000-web site universe.

We can AFFORD to treat Tiger as big news because there are plenty of places for everything that matters --- or anything people care about (which sometimes are the same thing). He's not "replacing" anything.

The deaths in Afghanistan received the exact news treatment Friday that they would have received had Tiger Woods never been born.

 

Tracy Morgan is right.

He is just a fuckin' golfer.

Playing a borderline sport.

Gimme boxing, football, lacrosse, basketball, track and field, baseball, anything .... including tennis.

Golf is an elitist sport. That's what Tiger is. The build-up to that bullshit yesterday made me wanna puke.

In fact, maybe I did, and just don't remember.

 

Why does he matter?

He was the richest and most bankable athlete in the world until Nov. 27. Arguably the greatest golfer of all-time and one of the first minorities to make a significant impact in a predominantly white sport (apologies to Vijay Singh).

He is credited with much of the sport's popularity.

Not only does he have an affair, but he has almost 20.

It's a train wreck like nothing we've seen since the Bronco chase.

Should we care? I don't know... But we do.

 

Double J and Mizzou are right.

Maybe in the grand scheme of things we shouldn't care. And really, in the grand scheme of things, we probably don't, not in any real, meaningful way.

But Tiger's press conference was the "event du jour," the thing to which people were paying attention, and so, that was just what everybody did.

People couldn't help it -- they were compelled to do it, even, by Tiger's celebrity and by what I think is probably a fascination with the idea that somebody in his position and with his status/station in life could actually be addicted to sex...?

The skewed life view and values inherent in that are just beyond the comprehension of most average Joes. It doesn't make sense, or seem possible, and there is a bit of voyeurism in this situation because of that.

Not to make another bad comparison in terms of scope, but the train-wreck aspect of this that Mizzou mentioned is relevant. We just can't help watching/wanting to know.

It's a little like when serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer killed and cannibalized 17 men and boys, and I was so sickened by the reports I heard on TV about the case that I swore I wouldn't read about him in the newspaper, just on principle.

And I tried hard not to, but, you know what? I did it anyway. I couldn't help it. The story was that grotesquely compelling.

On a lesser scale, this story is the same way. And it's not Tiger we even care about. Heck, as we all should have figured out by know, we don't even know Tiger, any more than we know the Williams sisters.

It's what he's done, both in his sport, and now, outside of it, that's attracting us.

 

If we're going to frame this in a "does it really matter in the grand scheme" context, we probably should shut down the sports department at every newsgathering organization in the world. After all, grand scheme, nothing we do can compare in gravity to ________ (fill in news/issue du jour)

 

What you say is actually true if we're going to compare what we do only and ever to life-and-death events.

Just because something is not life-and-death, however, doesn't mean there's no interest in it. Clearly, there is interest in this, but it's not because what is going on with Tiger matters to our lives in any way that directly affects them.

That's all I'm saying, and it is the reality, isn't it?

What sports departments offer is something different than most hard news. Neither section/genre of newspapers is "better" than the other, just different, and each has value, especially because of those differences.

Each side adds to the whole product. There is no need, and there should be no desire, to shut down either department.

 

But my point (or at least part of my point) is that if you want to, you can point to something that you consider a bigger deal and more worthy of the attention. Even if you limited the choices to sports-related topics. With the possible exception of the Super Bowl, you'll probably not have majority support for any one story being THE story on any given day. Plurality, yes. >50 percent, not that often.

I don't know if Tiger's monologue would hit that mark, but even if it doesn't, there's enough interest in it that we should make a big deal about it, even if we don't get to set the parameters for his appearance. One of the, if not THE, biggest sports names in the world breaks an extended silence after an accident and series of revelations that brought him down more quickly from a higher perch than anyone I can think of. I think that's a big deal, even if he won't take a question from me.