We received an email from The Sand Trap reader Bruce Hardie on Tuesday, and we’d like to share it.
I’m a fan of The Sand Trap and you and the rest of your writers should be congratulated.
I’m surprised, and maybe even a little hurt, by some of the reactions to Michael Campbell’s win. Some of the press seem to think that he was some second rate scrub who got lucky.
Ned Barnett says “Campbell’s win was great for his career, his bank account and his family, but it wasn’t great for golf… The leaderboard was full of little-known international players who are little-known for a reason.”
I think he’s implying that the internationals aren’t known because they aren’t good enough, or aren’t marketable enough.
Is this opinion widespread in the US media? I’ts hard to tell from Australia. I would remind Mr. Barnett that golf is played in pretty much every country in the world, not just the U.S. Even in Antarctica you will find some guy has set up a hole somewhere and will be trying send a ball into it with as few shots as he can. Campbell started playing golf on a 9-hole paddock where the greens are fenced off from the sheep. This is the story of the country kid with a cut-down 5 iron eventually winning the US Open – How is that not great for golf?
Perhaps I’m a little touchy because he’s a local but I feel a real sense of snobbery developed around the PGA Tour. The Ernie Els incident being another example. Who holds the Ryder cup though 😉
Is this really how this week is being reported? Or have I missed it?
Keep up the great work,
Bruce
I have a few things to say in response. First, Bruce, it’s not just the U.S. media that’s putting down Campbell. The stories seem to be (in this order):
- Tiger’s failure to win.
- Goosen’s huge collapse.
- Campbell? Oh yeah, he won, but only because Tiger didn’t and Goosen collapsed.
The worldwide media (save for New Zealand and Australia, a country that loves claiming Kiwis as their own when it suits them) has also missed the boat on other stories: where was Ernie Els? He’s won a few times internationally against substantially weaker fields to maintain his world ranking, but his play in the U.S. has been abysmal. Where was Phil Mickelson? His Masters defense was short-lived and he finished two shots outside of his own outrageous “the winning score will be +10” prediction.
It’s not just that the media is ignoring Michael Campbell – it’s that they’re ignoring everything that’s not Tiger or heartbreak. Jason Gore will get more press than Michael Campbell. And yet Michael Campbell will still get more ink than Annika Sorenstam. Fair? No. The way things go? You bet.
Michael Campbell hasn’t been heard from in ten years. He’s been a success story waiting to happen since before then, as you point out, and nobody’s picked up on it. People love underdogs, but the media decided that the underdog at the 105th U.S. Open was Jason Gore. Campbell shot 69, Gore 85. Fair? No. The way things go? You bet.
I’ve got no answers for you. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again that I’m a fan of good golf. Good – great – golf was played on Sunday at the U.S. Open. It was played by Tiger Woods for 14 holes. It was played by Michael Campbell for 18 holes.
True golf fans appreciate Campbell’s play on Sunday, and true golf fans know who won the U.S. Open on Sunday, not just who lost it.
Bruce, I can definitely see your point here. But Erik was right. It’s just the way the media does things sometimes.
I was honestly wanting Retief to win because he is so dominant in the U.S. Open in my opinion. I love to watch him make his way around a course without showing any emotion. That was a HUGE collapse, so it will definitely get media.
That was really my only lead story. Michael Campbell winning is far above Tiger coming in 2nd, but that’s just me.
And like Erik said, true golf fans know that Michael Campbell won the U.S. Open. He played awesome and deserved to be champion for a week.
But I think it’s very important for him to play good from now on. If he does, then everyone will remember him winning the U.S. Open. If he goes back into his shell for 10 more years, he will turn into Ben Curtis or Paul Lawrie. I don’t want that to happen..
Another potential reason for this has just come to me. Laziness.
More than 150 potential stories head out onto the course on Thursday. That’s a lot for a journalist to have to cover. When one of the longer shots gets up that requires some actual *research*. If Tiger had won then then they could have just pressed the button on the “Tiger wins” macro.
Insert a memorable moment from Sunday, talk about his relationship with his dad, talk up the Grand Slam, adjust the Most Majors Scoreboard, talk about the swing change. It’s actually a rather boring story because we’ve all seen it a few times now. Not that Tiger himself is necessarily boring, but no one seems to be trying to provide a new angle. Maybe there isn’t one. It is easier to talk about Tiger and so that’s what they do.
Rubbish, sounds like a lot of whinning to me. The media always talk about Tiger, Els, Singh, and Mickelson because the win and they win often. Not just once in a while, but often. Even when they don’t win they are usually in contention. This is what makes them a hot topic. No disrespect to Campbell but how many more tournaments do you truely believe he will win this year. If you say more than 1 then you’re not being real, you’re just wishing. If you win and continue to win then you will get your due but someone winning every once in a while is not something that excites me or the general public more than a day or week after the win occurs.