I believe that we are talking about a different era, a very different America when discrimination and racism evolved at a far more intense level than it does today. Do you know what Jim Brown had to endure during his playing days? Does anyone on this forum, myself included? Did Jim Brown even have a mere single percentage point of the financial windfall that Woods enjoys today, a percentage that could have helped the cause he pursues today? Was Brown even in a position in his playing days to say the things he says today without fear of retribution? These are things that only he can answer to, certainly not anyone that was not there.

We are talking about very different things here today and this particular comment, I ask you look again at again, is not realistically fair to Brown. The comparisons are simply not even close due to the environments of their respective days. If Brown has the financial resources that Woods has, and given today's climate for social change, Brown would make a significant impact given his social conscious. My personal belief is that all Brown is doing is asking Tiger to be more socially aware and conscious and to use his wealth, fame and intelligence to champion the cause. To that end, Brown is clearly frustrated and it shows. I could be way off base in my thoughts, but following Brown over the last number of years, he asks for others to step up to forward the cause.

I'm not sure if the point I am trying to make is effectively being presented here, but I hope that you will understand, Erik?

To some extent, I think Brown's frustration, which manifests itself in criticism, of Woods and Jordan (he took after MJ, also) may relate to the fact that he doesn't have their resources and probably would commit those resources in very different ways if he had them, which I don't doubt for a minute.

I don't think ripping them through media is appropriate and I haven't seen his remarks ever prefaced with the statement, "I've reached out to Tiger . . .", etc., and I don't see individuals like Tiger or MJ being motivated by such tactics.

Tiger's contributions are significant and he certainly is involved in more than "teaching kids to play golf". Perhaps as he gets older there will be some change in the ways he directs his off-course energies, perhaps not, that is up to him.

Other celebrities, particularly movie and music performers, often substitute high profile public appearances for any real contribution. Individuals who display long term commitment and substantive actions are more rare. Paul Newman comes to mind. I feel there is reason to believe that Tiger is seeking long term sustainable presence instead of flash.

I see no reason why Tiger should not feel free to contribute in the areas he feels best able to. His celebrity and success do not obligate him to support mine or any one elses agenda.

I like this response and agree with it. Building long term contributions often take real thought and consideration and rarely devolve into something flashy.

if kids have no parents, no reason to go to school, a gang for friends, a horribly distorted view of women ... well, dang, mahatma ghandi couldn't do anything with that ... except ...

except constantly preach the greatest and most powerful weapon of all: education.

i ain't holdin' my breath.

Tiger has not had any significant social impact that one would expect with his celebrity or his father's expectations.

Says who? Can we even begin to effectively measure his "social impact" yet?

And have wee been mis-quoting Earl all these years? Did the original quote about Tiger's impact on the world begin "By his early thirties…"? What did Jim Brown do in his playing days?

Adam A. Carbarundum said on July 6, 2009:

Simply put, equating the teaching of golf to teaching one the values of life is not only incorrect, but fundamentally flawed.

…

Jim Brown is correct in one area, Woods as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible. Because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that's his contribution.

The TWLC doesn't "teach golf."

You've just parroted what Jim Brown says instead of taking two minutes to do a little research.

To some these may be the ramblings of a proud father and to others, these may be something that one would hold Tiger to. Brown is correct in one aspect, Tiger has not had any significant social impact that one would expect with his celebrity or his father's expectations.

Simply put, equating the teaching of golf to teaching one the values of life is not only incorrect, but fundamentally flawed. Golf is a game and nothing more. What you bring to the game, in terms of attitude, patience, intelligence, honesty, integrity, etc., is what allows you to either succeed or fail at it, not the other way around. You are taught those attributes at home or at school. It's called the hard knocks of life. Equating the teaching of golf as a stepping stone to life is nonsense.

Let's be honest about Woods. He's a good person, through and through. He's been raised by two very good parents and has lived a good clean life and knows good values and likely will to his last day. Saying that, he's equally perhaps not qualified to be the person that both his father or Jim Brown expect him to be. There are good teachers and there are good students. Woods is a good student, but never to be mistaken for being a good teacher. That's something you are either born with or you are not.

Jim Brown is correct in one area, Woods as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible. Because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that's his contribution.

For someone with the spotlight so directly focused on them and in a perfect position to impart social change, Woods is indeed terrible. And it likely really is not his fault; he's just not that kind of person.

(1) He was denied the Heisman Trophy, almost certainly for improper reasons, and he has never gotten over the snub. Meanwhile, he looks out at a sports world that fawns over Tiger and rewards him in ways beyond anything Brown (or anyone else of his generation) could imagine. Jealousy is not hard to understand.

(2) Brown has a history of excessively violent and angry action in his own life. He has been arrested for such behavior. Seems to me someone shold first worry about the example they set by actions before we worry too much about what they say. And whatever we may say about Tiger, excessive personal violence never has been (and I daresay never will be) the case with Tiger.

Everyone has a life path, Tiger's is to play golf - for himself. Because I see him on TV doesn't mean I have any right to tell him what do with his life path, anymore than he does telling me what to do with my life path. I expect that when he retires he will spend lots of time helping out his people of Thailand in their efforts to improve this status.

Why is Tiger or anyone for that matter obligated to work for social change? I have no issue with the way Tiger lives his life.

Agree.

While Tiger would have a strong voice for any issue due to his media coverage, his opinion has no more value than mine. The only difference is that he would be able to reach millions of people. I can't stand it when a celebrity comes out on any sort of social issue and uses the medium that they have to sway people to their direction. Just becuase they made a couple of great movies, that doesn't mean that they have the best idea or opinions. Too many people fall into that trap.

I am glad Tiger doesn't say anything about anything. That way people can make up their own mind rather than agreeing with what a great golfer says, just because he is a great golfer. When he leaves the course, he is no different than you or me (except for the $900+ million he has made).