Hank Haney's Book "The Big Miss" about his time teaching Tiger

[clubchamp]

I might be in the minority but I didn't find the book to really bash Tiger at all. Outside of the military obsession stuff the rest was stuff that anyone could have gathered on their own from watching Tiger with the media etc. Now the Carton interview I think that was him going for his own ratings because talking about being around Tigers wife after the scandal and seeing them having "icy stares" at each other. Really? what else would happen after something like that came out and again it didn't bash Tiger or Elin but I didn't need Hanks book to tell me that they weren't doing well. I mean did Haney do it for money... yes but I'm sure he could have included a lot of damaging stuff that he left out. All in all it's a decent read

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by mvmac

HANEY: Listen, I view it as my memories too. These weren't just his memories. He didn't have an exclusive on those memories. I wanted to share my observations, my thoughts, about his greatness, the complexities that make him up as a golfer, as a person. If I had all positive things in the book, it wouldn't have been an honest book. I wanted to write an honest book about working with Tiger Woods and the observations I made about his greatness and what it was like to coach him. And I realize people are going to have different opinions, but I'm not the first coach who's ever written a book. Phil Jackson wrote a book...

CARTON: Sure. I never knew that you couldn't watch TV in the Tiger Woods house. Nor do I give a damn. What's that got to do with golf?

HANEY: It pertained to his mental state

The bold parts are the three biggest loads of BS in Haney's "defense: of his actions.

1)  The "it is my memories too" argument.  Ridiculous when you consider that no one would give a crap about his memories if they were not about the most well known golfer on the planet.

2) Phil Jackson wrote a book.  And how much did Phil talk about Kobe's relationship with his wife?  And Phil didn't work for the players and get paid by the players.  Not an analogous situation at all.

3) And this "It pertained to his mental state" argument to claim that things that patently were NOT about golf actually WERE about golf.  If we accept that argument then Haney would have been justified in writing about almost anything, because it all "pertained to his mental state"

And again, I don't care if the excerpts are only 5% of the book or how wonderful the rest of the book is.  If you pour a pint of sewage into a barrel of fine wine you end up with a barrel of sewage, not a barrel of fine wine.

[brocks]

If you pour a pint of sewage into a barrel of fine wine you end up with a barrel of sewage, not a barrel of fine wine.

Where were you when my bar was going out of business?

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by turtleback

The bold parts are the three biggest loads of BS in Haney's "defense: of his actions.

1)  The "it is my memories too" argument.  Ridiculous when you consider that no one would give a crap about his memories if they were not about the most well known golfer on the planet.

2) Phil Jackson wrote a book.  And how much did Phil talk about Kobe's relationship with his wife?  And Phil didn't work for the players and get paid by the players.  Not an analogous situation at all.

3) And this "It pertained to his mental state" argument to claim that things that patently were NOT about golf actually WERE about golf.  If we accept that argument then Haney would have been justified in writing about almost anything, because it all "pertained to his mental state"

And again, I don't care if the excerpts are only 5% of the book or how wonderful the rest of the book is.  If you pour a pint of sewage into a barrel of fine wine you end up with a barrel of sewage, not a barrel of fine wine.

Have you read the book?

1) They are his memories of coaching possibly the greatest golfer that ever played sounds book worthy to me. Again I think too many people believe this book bashes Tiger and it really doesn't. I do think he did it for the pay day... but he didn't bash Tiger in it

2) Phil Jackson is a poor example because Phil wasn't one on one with Kobe or never stayed at Kobe's house for days at a time. It's not remotely the same type of situation.

3) It happened early in the book and was more about how he had to adjust to Tiger as a person. I'm not sure saying it pertained to his mental state is totally correct but it helps you understand the point of what Haney was dealing with as Tiger's coach.

[brocks]

Phil Jackson is a poor example because Phil wasn't one on one with Kobe or never stayed at Kobe's house for days at a time. It's not remotely the same type of situation.

I think that's kind of the point.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by brocks

I think that's kind of the point.

I meant Haney brining up Phil Jackson was a bad example as in I agree with turtleback on that point.

[brocks]

I meant Haney brining up Phil Jackson was a bad example as in I agree with turtleback on that point.

Got it. What I find most incredible about all this is people like John Feinstein saying it's Tiger's own fault for not getting Haney to sign an NDA. After spending the last five years reaming Tiger for not letting people in.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by brocks

Got it.

What I find most incredible about all this is people like John Feinstein saying it's Tiger's own fault for not getting Haney to sign an NDA. After spending the last five years reaming Tiger for not letting people in.

Unfortunately when you are a major celebrity I don't know that there really is any other way besides having NDAs with everyone around you. It only takes one person to be angry with you and do a tell all of your secrets. I don't think that's quite what Haney did as I said previously there is nothing in the book that's jaw dropping or really bashes Tiger.

[newtogolf]

One really has nothing to do with the other.  If you don't want personal and confidential information shared without your approval you put an NDA in place with people you do business with.  Having an NDA in place with an employee and how you relate to people at a personal level are different issues.

Tiger was foolish to trust Haney but seeing as he first met Tiger when Tiger was 17 and was around him during his Harmon years given Tiger and Mark O'Meara were close friends and Mark was very close to Haney.  I can only guess Mark vouched for Haney so Tiger didn't believe the agreement was required.  Ultimately his agent should have stepped in and handled this.

Based on the interviews I've heard, it also sounds like Haney weaseled his way into the job with Tiger to begin with by passing swing advice on to Tiger through Mark while Tiger was still working with Harmon.  Also was curious because it was mentioned that Haney gave up drinking over 25 years ago but I am pretty sure I remember Haney doing shots at Romano's poker game during the Haney Project.  I guess it could have been filled with water....

Originally Posted by brocks

Got it.

What I find most incredible about all this is people like John Feinstein saying it's Tiger's own fault for not getting Haney to sign an NDA. After spending the last five years reaming Tiger for not letting people in.

[RichF]

Quote:

I might be in the minority but I didn't find the book to really bash Tiger at all. Outside of the military obsession stuff the rest was stuff that anyone could have gathered on their own from watching Tiger with the media etc. Now the Carton interview I think that was him going for his own ratings because talking about being around Tigers wife after the scandal and seeing them having "icy stares" at each other. Really? what else would happen after something like that came out and again it didn't bash Tiger or Elin but I didn't need Hanks book to tell me that they weren't doing well. I mean did Haney do it for money... yes but I'm sure he could have included a lot of damaging stuff that he left out. All in all it's a decent read

Actually, it seems you're going to be in majority now that the book actually tells us the opposite of what the media-snippets suggested.

I finished it last night and as predicted, an excellent book...No 'Tiger-bashing' at all - but did portray him as pretty much everyone knows now.
First 120 pages are nothing but praise for Woods and overall its a a fair and balanced account of the period HH spent with Woods. The overall impression is one we all know and that is Tiger is the best golfer we've ever seen, but his full swing changes have taken too much time away from his short game. There were at least 3 or 4 majors that Hank talked about Tiger's putting stats, and his putter was the weapon that did him in.

Unfortunately, certain people that haven't read the book and generally are of the opinion that HH is scum... regardless of the book because now the book is out and proves NOT to be what they all thought it would, they bang on and on about the 'client-confidentially' issue, so now they're put in a dilemma:

They hate Hank but want to read the book but don't want Hank to make any money off Tiger.

Do yourselves a favor: read the book and then make an objective comment.

[topspin4hand]

To me it's interesting that many suspected the Hank's publisher of initiating the leaks, and as it has turned out those leaks are the very things that have damaged Hank's public reputation to some extent. Hank has outwardly expressed disappointment in the leaks, but even he has to admit that they (the leaks) generated a lot of interest in the book.  I wonder how Hank feels about the leaks now? On one side they helped him financially and on the other they clearly have had a negative impact on his public persona.

[newtogolf]

I obviously have no idea what the publishers arrangement was with those in the media that were sent pre-release copies.  Based on my personal experience, pre-release copies include an NDA that prohibits any content of the book being released without approval from the publisher prior to the release date.  In this electronic age it's possible someone leaked these excerpts without the publishers approval.  Since most guys that read the book are saying the excerpts are the most negative things said about Tiger in the book I'd guess this was done by the publisher to increase interest and sales.

As for Hank, I'd guess he had little or no input on what excerpts were used, especially if he received a large advance.

Originally Posted by topspin4hand

To me it's interesting that many suspected the Hank's publisher of initiating the leaks, and as it has turned out those leaks are the very things that have damaged Hank's public reputation to some extent. Hank has outwardly expressed disappointment in the leaks, but even he has to admit that they (the leaks) generated a lot of interest in the book.  I wonder how Hank feels about the leaks now? On one side they helped him financially and on the other they clearly have had a negative impact on his public persona.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Have you read the book?

1) They are his memories of coaching possibly the greatest golfer that ever played sounds book worthy to me. Again I think too many people believe this book bashes Tiger and it really doesn't. I do think he did it for the pay day... but he didn't bash Tiger in it

2) Phil Jackson is a poor example because Phil wasn't one on one with Kobe or never stayed at Kobe's house for days at a time. It's not remotely the same type of situation.

3) It happened early in the book and was more about how he had to adjust to Tiger as a person. I'm not sure saying it pertained to his mental state is totally correct but it helps you understand the point of what Haney was dealing with as Tiger's coach.

No I haven't read the book and I won't.  I have no interest in a barrel of sewage.

It is not about bashing Tiger it is about violating trust.  If he had truly kept it just about golf I would have no problem.  But unless someone tells me credibly that the excerpts that have been released are not in the book it is obvious that he went beyond it being just about golf.  And saying that his breach of trust gives insight into Tiger's mental state is just  a rationalizing cop-out because that can justify talking about anything.

I didn't make the Phil Jackson argument, Haney did.  And it is a bad example, but it apparently was the best Haney could come up with because what he did has NOT been done by coaches in his particular situation before.  Jack Grout never wrote a book about coaching Jack and commented on his marriage.  David Ledbetter never wrote a book about coaching Faldo, commenting on Faldo's marital issues to demonstrate his state of mind.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

No I haven't read the book and I won't.  I have no interest in a barrel of sewage.

It is not about bashing Tiger it is about violating trust.  If he had truly kept it just about golf I would have no problem.  But unless someone tells me credibly that the excerpts that have been released are not in the book it is obvious that he went beyond it being just about golf.  And saying that his breach of trust gives insight into Tiger's mental state is just  a rationalizing cop-out because that can justify talking about anything.

The excerpts didn't have that much.  The problem with the excerpts is that everyone assumed that they were representative of the entire book.  What did we actually learn from the excerpts?

1. In Hank's opinion, Tiger's wife turned cold towards him, evidenced by icy stares, suppressed joy, etc.  And she didn't let him watch TV during dinner.  (Tiger's marriage, or marital problems, are relevant to his game.  Anyone remember Thanksgiving Day 2009?  Sex addiction therapy?  What's the waitress count up to:  72?)

2. Tiger texted Hank that Ian Poulter is a mooching d-bag.  (This is pointless and unrelated to golf.  But, it's not much of a revelation.  It's been reported before that Tiger and Poulter weren't buds.)

3. In Hank's opinion, Tiger felt racism in the air on tour around certain players.  This "feeling" wasn't supported by any specific incidents or quotes.  It's also not really relevant to the golf, and shouldn't have been in the book.  But it's not a comment about Tiger, it's about Hank.  Hank doesn't say "Tiger told me..." or anything like that--it's purely Hank's speculation.

The rest of the book--the SEAL training, workouts, Tiger's fears about hooking/lack of confidence with his driver--is all relevant to golf, and the goals of their relationship.  The 3 comments posted above are hardly a "barrel of sewage."

I'm still looking for the smoking gun that shows the huge breach of trust.  Obviously, any marital communications should have been off limits in the book.  But the fact that they had marital problems was relevant, because the scandal and public collapse of Tiger's marriage cost him an entire year of golf.  Any concerns that HH might have personally observed (i.e. a change in their relationship around 2006-2008) are therefore relevant.  The only question is, due to Haney's unique access, how many of those "observations" were truly private and should have been off limits?

If y'all want to talk about specific things that are actually in the book, that would be a useful discussion.  Blanket indictments based on your "impression" about a book you haven't read are not useful.

[Mr. Desmond]

I am wondering about the violation of trust ... did they have a working understanding that everything was confidential?

Did Tiger say it was a violation of their trust ... after the fact?

An instructor writing a book about his player may have not been done before in golf with revelations to the golfer's personal life and mostly as it relates to golf, but does that translate to a violation of trust when there is no written document about nondisclosure, there is no evidence of a verbal understanding, and the golfer is surrounded by agents and attorneys?

If I were Tiger, I'd aim my ire at my agent and attorney.

If I were HH, I guess that I would have put the book on the shelf for a couple of months and then look at a re-write, asking myself, "Is this relevant to golf?"

But I think, if that was a thought, that market consideration took precedence, as in getting the book out around the Masters...

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I am wondering about the violation of trust ... did they have a working understanding that everything was confidential?

Did Tiger say it was a violation of their trust ... after the fact?

An instructor writing a book about his player may have not been done before in golf with revelations to the golfer's personal life and mostly as it relates to golf, but does that translate to a violation of trust when there is no written document about nondisclosure, there is no evidence of a verbal understanding, and the golfer is surrounded by agents and attorneys?

The violation of trust, I think, would pertain to Tiger's family.  If HH observed private aspects of Tiger and Elin's relationship because he was in their home, traveling with them, etc., and especially if he overheard specific conversations between Tiger and Elin, then that should be off limits regardless of any NDA.

But not all family observations would be necessarily off limits.  If he said "Tiger and I missed six months of practice because, following the scandal, Elin gave him a 'no golf' ultimatum," then that would be relevant.  Or "Tiger was not focused during practice sessions because he was torn between rebuilding his family and trying to win the Masters," then that would be relevant.

The question for me is this:  of the "observations" that HH made about Elin or Tiger & Elin in the book, how many of those came from those private, non-instruction related moments that he only observed because of his unique access?  Does he reveal any private conversations between Tiger and Elin, or things that Tiger told him about Elin?  If so, that would be a breach of trust IMO.

But we haven't had any discussions in this thread about what is specifically in the book, outside of the excerpts.  And, again, everyone assumed that was the tip of the iceberg of revolting revelations.  It turns out, that was all there was.  Bad press has a life of it's own, though--we really should try to reassess what is actually revealed in the book, rather than just continue ranting damnation of HH that was based on a faulty assumption.

[Mr. Desmond]

I think the revelation of Tiger's demanding perfectionist nature was relevant -- in terms of his approach to golf. Of course, we had that one figured out before the "we don't celebrate" excerpt. Hank also showed that Tiger could not turn off that perfectionist nature after he drove off the course - - the excerpt about "we are expected to win" shows the potential strains on his marital relationship as well as the strain on his golf game -- the cussing, the club throwing, etc.

And let's face it, the personal relationship also affected the game. The marital relationship, from the excerpts, did not seem fun from either end, and it is interesting that it did not affect his game until he allowed his addiction to extramarital affairs to interfere with his personal life. Perhaps Tiger subconsciously wanted out of the marriage -- that's not pertaining to golf, but it affected his golf.

The point is drawing the line between golf and non-golf is a tough line to walk - it is subjective, and therefore you may disagree with Haney, you may say he was wrong to put this particular event in the book, but in the end, it is an opinion you are expressing - and the line that Haney walked between leaving events in or out is different for all of us.

Originally Posted by k-troop

The violation of trust, I think, would pertain to Tiger's family.  If HH observed private aspects of Tiger and Elin's relationship because he was in their home, traveling with them, etc., and especially if he overheard specific conversations between Tiger and Elin, then that should be off limits regardless of any NDA.

But not all family observations would be necessarily off limits.  If he said "Tiger and I missed six months of practice because, following the scandal, Elin gave him a 'no golf' ultimatum," then that would be relevant.  Or "Tiger was not focused during practice sessions because he was torn between rebuilding his family and trying to win the Masters," then that would be relevant.

The question for me is this:  of the "observations" that HH made about Elin or Tiger & Elin in the book, how many of those came from those private, non-instruction related moments that he only observed because of his unique access?  Does he reveal any private conversations between Tiger and Elin, or things that Tiger told him about Elin?  If so, that would be a breach of trust IMO.

But we haven't had any discussions in this thread about what is specifically in the book, outside of the excerpts.  And, again, everyone assumed that was the tip of the iceberg of revolting revelations.  It turns out, that was all there was.  Bad press has a life of it's own, though--we really should try to reassess what is actually revealed in the book, rather than just continue ranting damnation of HH that was based on a faulty assumption.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I think the revelation of Tiger's demanding perfectionist nature was relevant -- in terms of his approach to golf. Of course, we had that one figured out before the "we don't celebrate" excerpt. Hank also showed that Tiger could not turn off that perfectionist nature after he drove off the course - - the excerpt about "we are expected to win" shows the potential strains on his marital relationship as well as the strain on his golf game -- the cussing, the club throwing, etc.

And let's face it, the personal relationship also affected the game. The marital relationship, from the excerpts, did not seem fun from either end, and it is interesting that it did not affect his game until he allowed his addiction to extramarital affairs to interfere with his personal life. Perhaps Tiger subconsciously wanted out of the marriage -- that's not pertaining to golf, but it affected his golf.

The point is drawing the line between golf and non-golf is a tough line to walk - it is subjective, and therefore you may disagree with Haney, you may say he was wrong to put this particular event in the book, but in the end, it is an opinion you are expressing - and the line that Haney walked between leaving events in or out is different for all of us.

I think we're arguing the same point.

I agree that the marriage is relevant, because the collapse of his marriage definitely impacted Tiger's game.  The issue is how should Hank address that?  He probably could have adequately addressed it using already public information, and then tying what we knew (i.e. he was in Vegas with the club promoter chick during some specific week) to Tiger's game (we were supposed to be working on something at the range, and Tiger was distracted, interrupting the session multiple times to send text messages).

If--and again we haven't discussed specifics of what's in the book--he tried to make this point by revealing private observations in Tiger's home, or things Tiger or Elin told him about their marriage, then that would cross the line.  Further, it wouldn't be necessary:  the timeline of Tiger's cheating and marital collapse is pretty well documented, all Hank would have to do is tie that to Tiger's playing and preparation for tournaments.