I get fed up with the outright rooting for Tiger
Woods on the part of every announcer on every
network, but on CBS's coverage of The Masters
yesterday, Jim Nantz made (for once) an objective
comment. He pointed out that, after Phil Mickelson's
lopsided win in Atlanta last week, the media were saying
that Mickelson peaked too soon. Had that been Tiger,
Nantz said, the media would have been saying "he's going
to win The Masters!"
He's right. For years the people who cover golf have
been portraying Tiger as Superman, Einstein, and Jesus
Christ rolled into one. Yes, I follow golf and know
Tiger's record, but even his game can go south on any
given day (his putting certainly did yesterday), plus I'm
sure Tiger's concerned about his dad's health, which would
understandably cause Tiger to lose focus on his golf game.
But I'm glad to see Nantz putting things into perspective.
Mickelson's a tremendous talent who's finally seemed to
find himself professionally: two Masters wins in three years,
and two consecutive majors (he won the 2005 PGA Championship).
He's as capable as anyone of winning the Grand Slam. And the
media should know never to count anyone out at Augusta; any
of about a dozen guys could have won it this year (Tiger was
in a six-way tie for third--three shots back).
(And since this is a television board, have you ever seen
a family as telegenic as his? His wife, Amy, ought to be
pursuing a television career, and the sight of his kids almost
knocking him down after his win yesterday was a priceless television
moment. The media can talk about Tiger's charisma, which in all
honesty I don't see, but Mickelson's family is a potential ratings
plus.)
I hope a Tiger-Phil rivalry does develop; I can imagine a lot
of nailbiting finishes on Sunday when both are on their game.
(BTW, Phil has moved into the number-two slot in the world golf
rankings released this morning.)
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by bpatrick on 04/10/06 12:50 PM.</FONT></P>
Woods on the part of every announcer on every
network, but on CBS's coverage of The Masters
yesterday, Jim Nantz made (for once) an objective
comment. He pointed out that, after Phil Mickelson's
lopsided win in Atlanta last week, the media were saying
that Mickelson peaked too soon. Had that been Tiger,
Nantz said, the media would have been saying "he's going
to win The Masters!"
He's right. For years the people who cover golf have
been portraying Tiger as Superman, Einstein, and Jesus
Christ rolled into one. Yes, I follow golf and know
Tiger's record, but even his game can go south on any
given day (his putting certainly did yesterday), plus I'm
sure Tiger's concerned about his dad's health, which would
understandably cause Tiger to lose focus on his golf game.
But I'm glad to see Nantz putting things into perspective.
Mickelson's a tremendous talent who's finally seemed to
find himself professionally: two Masters wins in three years,
and two consecutive majors (he won the 2005 PGA Championship).
He's as capable as anyone of winning the Grand Slam. And the
media should know never to count anyone out at Augusta; any
of about a dozen guys could have won it this year (Tiger was
in a six-way tie for third--three shots back).
(And since this is a television board, have you ever seen
a family as telegenic as his? His wife, Amy, ought to be
pursuing a television career, and the sight of his kids almost
knocking him down after his win yesterday was a priceless television
moment. The media can talk about Tiger's charisma, which in all
honesty I don't see, but Mickelson's family is a potential ratings
plus.)
I hope a Tiger-Phil rivalry does develop; I can imagine a lot
of nailbiting finishes on Sunday when both are on their game.
(BTW, Phil has moved into the number-two slot in the world golf
rankings released this morning.)
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by bpatrick on 04/10/06 12:50 PM.</FONT></P>
