If you missed Jim Brown’s appearance on HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumble, then you missed the Hall of Fame running back declaring the following about Tiger Woods, “He is a killer, he will run over you, he will kick your ass. But as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible. Because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that’s his contribution.”
Brown is arguably the greatest professional athlete at his position in a major sport of all time. Since his premature departure from professional football in 1965, he has established a reputation for speaking his mind, activism (broadly defined), amongst other less notable things.
The point being, regardless of the specific merit of his assertions, he has clearly earned the right to criticize any professional athlete as he sees fit, and, further, to have his proclamations dispensed by omnipresent media outlets to the world at large for serious consideration.
For his part, Woods responded to Brown’s statements indirectly in answering a question from a reporter yesterday saying, “I think I do a pretty good job as it is with what we’re trying to do with the foundation.” Further, he said his foundation has, “taught a lot of kids how to get back and learn… to learn how to lead, learn how to give back, learn how to teach others.”
Jim Brown is known, informally, for his mentoring of young urban males who have been involved with gangs or committed crimes. Formally, Brown is the founder and CEO of the Amer-I-Can program. A portion of the organization’s mission statement is worth quoting at length:
The Amer-I-Can Program will help you develop your attitude from one of self-doubt to self-determination. We believe that in addition to understanding the goal-setting process, a person must honestly examine the whys and wherefores of past behavior patterns that have negatively affected his/her life. Once this understanding has been firmly established, that person will be able to change his/her thinking from I-Can’t to I-Can, by accepting the responsibility of determining the direction of his/her life.
Self-determination and responsibility, then, are the foundational elements of Brown’s program. Additionally, he is focused on helping the young and disadvantaged. On the surface, at least, this ambition doesn’t seem at odds with the objectives of The Tiger Woods Learning Center(s) at all.
As a caveat, before presenting any of the TWLC mission statement or the like, it’s likely that even if one were to hold up the missions of the TWLC and the Amer-I-can program to Mr. Brown’s skullcapped visage, he would deny the significance and import of the Learning Center.
This is because Brown’s real objection to Tiger Woods is that he is not outspoken enough in any criticism of the status quo, and, further, he is too “politically correct” in his dealings with the media and any potentially divisive or “hot button” issues.
Brown would likely point to something like Woods’ appearance at the Obama Inaugural Concert. Yes, Woods spoke at a potentially polemic event, but hardly in any enthusiastic fashion. Also, he did little more than the politically neutral/status quo-supporting fluff-spouting in praise of the military.
Regardless, although there is a real difference of tactics and style between Brown and Woods, I believe they share similar objectives and concerns.
From the TWLC’s website:
The Tiger Woods Learning Center is here to get students thinking about the role education plays in their futures. We want to show them how to relate what they learn in school to their future careers.
To be sure, the Learning Center’s mission statement lacks some of the gravitas of the Amer-I-can Program’s. Woods’ organization places an emphasis on education and career planning, rather than more fundamental life skills, which is the focus of Brown’s.
In addition to, what I believe are, Jim Brown’s objections to the Tiger Woods Persona is a fundamentally different view the two seem to share towards society as a whole. It’s not my desire to put words into Tiger’s mouth, but it seems to me that he sees popular society and the dominant social paradigm as fundamentally decent structures which are occasionally populated by disreputable people with destructive ideas/interests.
Brown, on the other hand, seems to think that the problems he and his foundation intend to sort out are inextricably bound up with the status quo. Again, from the Amer-I-can program’s site:
Socio-economic problems are the great plague of our time. They cannot be separated from the decline of our civilization. Unless they are solved, we will face even more difficult times. With the cost of social welfare programs, law enforcement, incarceration, recidicism, and treatment escalating into billions of dollars, the most important consideration should be the saving of lives. What are the problems? Significant gaps in our educational system, poverty, gangs, killings, drug abuse, racism, political corruption, joblessness, and poor housing are just a few…
To some degree, I think Brown spends too much time “cursing the darkness” rather than creating a functional, structured and repeatably model for bringing light to it. This isn’t to diminish his program or glorify Woods’ efforts.
Again, I believe the stated objectives of the Tiger Woods Learning Center and the Amer-I-Can program are much more similar than different. There is, however, and obvious difference of tactics, with respect to their CEO’s. Is Jim Brown right in saying that Tiger Woods does nothing for society? Absolutely not. Does he have a point when he objects to the way in which Tiger implements his vision? Perhaps.
Ultimately, though, social change is the product of institutions and organizations, perhaps fueled by the contributions of great individuals, but certainly greater than the individuals themselves.
I respect Jim Brown, as well as his criticisms. However, I believe the best response is contained in begging the following question: “Which individual, by way of the organizations which they created and left behind, will have done more to improve society in 100 years?”
I think that teaching kids (who otherwise might not learn these things) the game of golf is invaluable. For instance, golf teaches you that you will not always get a good break, but you need to battle through it. Sometimes you do get a good break and you need to take advantage. Honesty… Integrity… Respect…
Tiger has taken a proactive approach to helping kids.
Last I recalled, Jim Brown started his foundation well after his retirement. Don’t seem to recall him doing a whole lot else other than football at the peak of his playing career. Tiger’s impact and involvement in his foundation will only grow.
“To be sure, the Learning Center’s mission statement lacks some of the gravitas of the Amer-I-can Program’s. Woods’ organization places an emphasis on education and career planning, rather than more fundamental life skills, which is the focus of Brown’s.”
I think this is what is right about Tiger’s learning center. Fundemental skills will obviously always be needed but to show these kids that there is so much more out there and with the proper education and skills they can attain them is so important. Tiger’s centers are not teaching kids to make change so they can be the next generation of workers to ask if you want fries with your order but to be scientists, educators, inventors, etc. People of Jim Brown’s era had a very different fight than does Tiger’s and I think that is lost on a lot of people. Jim Brown has the right to say whatever he wants but in my opinion he is way off here.
I agree with you Shaun, Jim Brown does have the right to say whatever he wants. He’s earned that right. I think he’s way off by the way he approached the situation. I would love to have a chance to sit with him and hear exactly (in a mature way) what he thinks should go on with these idiolized athletes and with him being a legend himself, how he goes about his everyday life trying to keep up a good persona with all of his sketchy background.
My response is.. who is Jim Brown and what does he know about Tiger and golf? Tiger Woods is one of the most recognizable athletes/people in the world. Do you think anyone outside of the US has heard of Jim Brown?
Sounds like he fears being no longer relevant and needs some publicity and money.
Seems to me that Jim Brown is still stuck in the 1960s. Times have changed, things have changed (albeit sometimes slower than we would want), and the way people do things have changed.
Today, the US has an African-American as President. He’s well-spoken, thought-provoking, preaches inclusiveness, collectiveness, etc. Jim’s ‘it’s my way or the highway’, ‘you’re with us or against us’ is so, so old-school. Pls get with the times, Jim.
To say that Tiger has done nothing to contribute to society or that his only contribution is teaching kids how to play golf is nonsensical.
Further, Tiger is still very young and focused on his career goals (Jack’s 18 majors). When he hangs up his golf clubs, things may be very different. This is akin to criticizing Bill Gates or Warren Buffett for doing nothing for society at age 33. C’mon, get real man! Today, we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Mr. Buffett is willing all his wealth to charity. Who’s to say what Tiger will do when he’s 50-60 yrs old?
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.
Mr. Brown’s comments about Mr. Woods seem a little fatuous and self-serving.
First, one must consider the generational difference between the two men: Brown came of age in the turbulent Civil Rights era and Tiger came of age in the relatively more socially placid nineties. I think this fact cannot help but inform both fellow’s approach to dealing with philanthropy.
Second, when Jim Brown was Tiger’s age, I don’t think he had contributed, whether from desire or lack of ability, financial or otherwise, anything to the extent to which Tiger has so far accomplished. I like what Bobsuruncle said above: Tiger will have plenty of time to give real thought and serious resources to a variety of issues that plague our society. While I’m not much of a betting man, I would bet a lot that Tiger will direct in the future no small amount of his not inconsiderable fortune to deal effectively with some pressing issues.
Criticizing a young man so accomplished in his early thirties for his lack of depth is foolish. One hopes and would want to encourage Tiger to study and learn about the world around us so that he may even more thoughtfully and effectively direct his resources. After all, who among us doesn’t feel a bit wiser for having gained some years’ experience (if not necessarily golfing skill)?
There are many ways for all of us to contribute to society. Berating and criticizing people is not the way to inspire people to do more. Helping people to feel ennobled by the art of giving seems to me more effective than Mr. Brown’s thoughtless comments criticizing a bright, talented young man whose capacity for growth and philanthropy seem almost limitless.
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).
John Feinstein said the same thing. I’ve played golf with Jim Brown, he’s a crotchety old man with a horrendous swing who loves attention. He played football, simulated war, for a living when he was young. If “change” was so important to him why didn’t he work in a soup kitchen when he was 25?
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.
Two more points about Brown:
(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.
One thing stands out about Brown’s comments and I recall back to something that Earl Woods said about Tiger years back: “Tiger will have a social impact that will profoundly change the world”.
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.
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?
The TWLC doesn’t “teach golf.”
You’ve just parroted what Jim Brown says instead of taking two minutes to do a little research.
who cares what jim brown says? his record with treating women is somewhat suspect, to say the least. and his bitching, moaning, and demanding is a lesser version of jesse ‘gimme da money’ jackson …
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.
I am suprised more responses did not identify where criticism of Tiger comes from. It primarially comes from individuals who feel he is obligated to support their social or political agenda. Often these individuals are focused on issues of high importance in the black community. As a multi racial individual Tiger may have a broader view. 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.
Even at Tiger’s age, Jim Brown was a social activist and worked for ecomonic and social change (and invested in it with time and $). Let’s face it, they have completely different backgrounds, grew up in completely different eras.
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.
Erik, you specifically state: “What did Jim Brown do in his playing days?”
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?