Tiger's Immediate Post-Masters Interview - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

This was another tiny incident blown way out of proportion by the media...Feinstein probably got an erection when he saw this....gave him something to babble on about for the next 3 months while he spits when he talks...guy could fill up a bucket after one sentence

Tiger was pissed off. He shot a 31 on the front nine to get into the lead at one point, then played a boring back nine and got nothing out of it.

I don't understand the need people have for Tiger to do happy-go-lucky interviews...who cares? I don't watch the tournaments to see interviews, I watch them to see golf ( and I assume 99% of enthusiasts are the same )....so why do we make such a big deal over this stuff? Are we lacking gossip now that Tiger's past issues are dying down in the media? Or is it because he isn't winning? It seems the tabloids etc are about how amazing Tiger is or how much of an asshole he is for stuff like this 'poor' interview...he's never been one to not be blunt and straight to the point, why should he change?

Tiger doesn't need everyone's approval....we should stop looking to him to fulfill our shallow needs.

I actually thought it was funny

"Tiger, are you back?"

"Right now I'm one back, we'll see how it goes"

Good, bad or ugly?

None of the above...I would say, normal, expected.

I need a fourth option.

It was a brief interview of a stressed out player who'd just left a couple out there, which was conducted by man who could see the interviewee was stressed and not in the mood to elaborate on his round and his career. The interviewer probably was required to as the "are you back" question, but when he got the answer he did, he gave Tiger an easy out with the next question. It seemed short but professional on both sides and if someone had an issue with it, well, they have issues.

PS. just found the edit button - d'oh! - I think option one fits the bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller 

I need a fourth option.

 

It was a brief interview of a stressed out player who'd just left a couple out there, which was conducted by man who could see the interviewee was stressed and not in the mood to elaborate on his round and his career. The interviewer probably was required to as the "are you back" question, but when he got the answer he did, he gave Tiger an easy out with the next question. It seemed short but professional on both sides and if someone had an issue with it, well, they have issues.

 

 

 

PS. just found the edit button - d'oh! - I think option one fits the bill.

What is wrong with you?  Why are you being reasonable and using context to paraphrase what happened?  You need to pick one extreme side or the other and explain what happened in 5 words or (preferably) less.

Let me show you how it's done:

Option 4: What an a**hole!

/Sarcasm

When I saw the interview live, I knew it would be made a big deal by at least a couple media types.  There was a stark contrast to his demeanor and another golfer who finished at -10 (Luke Donald?).  What it showed me is that Tiger was not willing to entertain the thought that the Tournament was over yet.  He was trying to maintain his competitive focus in case of a playoff, and therefore was pretty curt with his responses.  In reality, if people already think he's a douchebag and is the worst thing that ever happened to the tour, this is just further validation of that.  For most other people, a 10 second interview isn't a big deal.

Brandon

It's not a big deal. When Tiger's not winning, he's not happy. That's how he was brought up and how he learned to approach the game. He knew he likely hadn't done enough to win or get in a playoff and he wasn't pleased, and that came through in the interview, simple as that. Tiger's been like this in interviews when he's done poorly for the last 6 or 7 years at least, why are people surprised? I think one of the reasons they've made such a big deal of this is because it's in stark contrast to the interview Rory gave after his Sunday collapse. He was gracious and polite given what happened to him, and it made Tiger's interview look even worse. It just comes down to different personality types though, it's not something to criticise people for.

I would like to see role reversal with players interviewing media.

Player:  So, you botched that last commentary tripping over your tongue like a rookie reporter, what was going through your mind as you were stuttering?

Reporter:  Well I was a little nervous standing next to a player who has far more talent than.....

Player: Sorry to interupt, but I didn't like your answer.  Were you not prepared to ask a question?  You can write it down on an index card you know.

Reporter:  Well I...

Player:  So you have been divorced six times.  How does that affect your interviewing technique?  And you better give me the Disney answer or we'll rip you a new one on the next Golf Talk show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiger Spuds 

It just comes down to different personality types though, it's not something to criticise people for.

Really? I criticize people for their personalities all the time.

Wow ... I hadn't seen the interview after all this time.  From the complaints of some, I was expecting something horrible.  This was his typical non-win interview.

Non-issue interview.  Just bein' Eldrick down by one when clipped.

What the interviewer seems to not understand is that the tournament is NOT OVER. Tiger is one stroke off the lead and there is still golf to be played. Tiger is still competing, he may have a playoff coming up! You might as well interview him as he is teeing up the 18th.

I saw this one as it happens and the only thing I could think was that the questions were somewhat inane.  What sort of interesting answer can you possibly get from those, particularly before the tournament is over?  It was basically, "So, Tiger, you said you wanted to be in contention on the back nine.  Were you?"  What else can you answer but, "Look at the scoreboard, dumbass"?  The just-off-the-course interviews are pretty much always pointless, but particularly when your questions all have self-evident answers.  Maybe asking about the course conditions or other things that you can't find the answers could be interesting, but even that is doubtful.

I was really, really impressed with McIlroy's interview. He handled it so well. Sorry off topic...

Sorry to piss of any Americans on here.. but he is rude! No question

Look at Rory Mcilroy's interview. 21 years old and extremely mature and polite.

Theres no excuse for rudeness. 

Ok maybe he was brief, but he certainly wasn't rude. He dodged the questions a bit but who cares, he could've just refused an interview...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the interview whatsoever. If someone wants to ask stupid questions then why should the person being interviewed have to sugar-coat everything and not reply with "you're an idiot" answers?

Tiger was a lot more polite than I would have been with ridiculous questions like that. His answers were clear, concise and honest; you can't ask for more than that.

Or would you have preferred a whole load of useless drivel?