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

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Yeah, it's too funny.  I think that, before judging someone and calling them foul names, you should fairly evaluate facts for yourself.  You think that it's perfectly fine to "demonize" someone based on what you read on an internet forum.

You are really just making a fool of yourself now.  I am not critical of Haney because of what I read on an internet forum, I am critical of him because of printed excerpts from HIS book that have been reported in the reputable media. And NO ONE has challenged the fact that they were accurate.  I evven said in some of my statements **unless someone can credibly state that the excerpts are not in the book**.

I also am critical of Haney because he has confirmed in interviews I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, some of those excerpts, where he has repeated some of the things that were in those excerpts.  So get off you lawyer high horse in making claims for which you have no evidence.  Yes I am judging him on those excerpts.  No I am not judging him based on what I read on an Internet forum.

You, on the other hand are defending him based on  . . . . . . . . nothing.

[nevets88]

I got a copy from the library. If it's any indication, the queue wasn't that long, so it might be on the best seller list, but not popular here in NYC.

Skimmed through the first half real quick, looking for only swing relevant bits. This is what struck me.

• There's lots of bits about Haney changing Wood's A4 (top of swing) to be more laid off, not crossing the line.
• Somewhere in the late 90s, when Woods was hanging around with O'Meara, Woods couldn't hit a low trajectory, no spin shot that O'Meara could.
• Haney calls TGM a cult or cult-like. Couldn't tell if he read it or not.

[lm1z]

The bottom line is the following:

Mark Steinberg really messed this one up.  As his agent and manager, it is his job to protect the client from the media and more importantly, himself.

Golf is one of the only sports where the athlete is not bound by clauses that state what they can or cannot do away from their profession.

IMO, any person that was working with Tiger on/off the course for extended periods of time needed to sign an NDA.  Plain and simple.

Pure stupidity on Steinbergs behalf.

[msbeebe]

Originally Posted by lm1z

The bottom line is the following:

Mark Steinberg really messed this one up.  As his agent and manager, it is his job to protect the client from the media and more importantly, himself.

Golf is one of the only sports where the athlete is not bound by clauses that state what they can or cannot do away from their profession.

IMO, any person that was working with Tiger on/off the course for extended periods of time needed to sign an NDA.  Plain and simple.

Pure stupidity on Steinbergs behalf.

Agreed!

Where you from lm1z?

[Clambake]

Haney seems to be famous for who he knows and not what he does.  There doesn't seem to be much substance there.   Looking at his crop of "Haney Project" students, none seem to really make any progress  - I think if any of us were able to have concentrated instruction like on his shows we'd all show marked improvements in our game.        Hank is now the Kardashian of golf - famous for being famous.

[k-troop]

I'm halfway through chapter 5, and I thought I would give some initial reactions.

The overall theme of this book is Haney, not Tiger.  As he drifts (somewhat aimlessly) from topic to topic, he'll describe some personality trait of Tiger.  Then HH goes to great lengths to explain how he has the same personality trait--basically an argument that he and Tiger are the same person in forms of intensity, competitive desire, and the burden that goes along with being the best at something.  He explains every interaction in terms of how it made HH feel.

He spends a lot of time trying to break down Tiger psychologically.  Someone in this thread previously referred to it as amateur psychology:  that description seems pretty spot-on so far.  And, every "psychoanalysis" he gives of Tiger is self-centered.  It's always that "Tiger did this to send me a message" or "teach me how things were going to be."  Very self-centered view of their relationship.

The Elin references.  Only two so far.  The first is completely random.  On page 45, he mentions the time he first stayed at the house with Elin there.  The entire passage is half a page.  It starts out normal:  I stayed at Tiger's home; Elin was there because they were engaged; she was really cool and had a competitive streak, which was one of the things Tiger loved about her; she's always trying to beat Tiger at tennis....  Then there is a a six-line paragraph which seems totally out of place:  "But as life became more complicated, I thought Elin had changed.  By the time she and Tiger married, she was friendly but became more guarded, even in her own home....."  This passage is a random, vague reference, out of "time" context, that makes no specific observations.  It's not well written, doesn't really say anything useful, is unsupported by specific observation, and is completely out of place in the book.  It's almost as if it were inserted after the chapter had been written.

The other Elin reference is in Chapter 5, after Tiger wins the 2005 Buick.  "[We don't celebrate.  We're supposed to win.]"  "I would notice in the future that Elin would keep her emotions under wraps whenever Tiger won."  Another disconnected passage, that barely fits in context with the rest of it.  Another random reference to some vague future emotional diagnosis.  This passage is clearly directed at Tiger.  It fits into HH's worldview as expressed through the book, that Tiger is manipulating people's emotions through his passive-aggressive and controlling behavior.  Oddly, the theme of Tiger's behavior is self-centered, but the book is so obviously Haney's self-centered view of their relationship.

The Zach Johnson joke.  Clearly meant to give Tiger a personality.  It's random, but I don't know how anyone could take it as negative or out of context.  He's describing life on the road as a member of the Ryder Cup team.

The Poulter thing.  Clearly describes that Tiger and Poulter don't like each other.  It makes Poulter look dumb, and Tiger look petty.  No reason that the specific language from the text should have been used.  The theme is that Tiger is two-faced:  this recurs throughout, particularly when Tiger interacts with the media.  Basically, "[Tiger would tell the world one thing, but then he would tell me what he really thought.]"

The Phil and racism thing.  The "racism" thing is pure speculation on HH's part, and he says so.  "I believe a lot of the public obsession about Tiger versus Phil was about race."  Thanks, Hank, for telling us all what we all think.  The rest of it is just more pseudo-psychology about why Tiger doesn't like Phil.  One thing that hasn't been mentioned before that's mean and petty, and shouldn't be in the book.  "I always thought Tiger was going overboard when he'd privately call Phil lazy or make fun of his body..." (page 91).  So basically you're saying that Tiger sat around calling Phil "fat Phil" or whatever.  We all do it.  Of course, I wouldn't say it to his face.  And it's pretty rude of HH to put that in there--the sentence doesn't even advance a point in that passage.

So far, my primary conclusions are that HH is self-centered and oversensitive, and Jaime Diaz is a bad writer.

[brocks]

Nice post. Just to clarify about Elin, have you seen anything in the book that even hints that Tiger told her not to smile? I mean, that's so bizarre and unbelievable that I literally can't imagine anyone who cares about his credibility reporting it without having something to back it up. And yet, several "professional" sources did. EG: http://www.christianpost.com/news/tiger-woods-banned-elin-nordegren-from-smiling-new-book-claims-71656/

[newtogolf]

The quotes from the book exist.  I don't remember reading in the book that Tiger told her not to smile.  Haney claims Tiger told her they don't celebrate wins because they are expected to win.  Haney also  comments in his book that as time went on he saw Tiger and Elin's relationship cool and she smiled less.

Originally Posted by brocks

Nice post. Just to clarify about Elin, have you seen anything in the book that even hints that Tiger told her not to smile? I mean, that's so bizarre and unbelievable that I literally can't imagine anyone who cares about his credibility reporting it without having something to back it up. And yet, several "professional" sources did.

EG: http://www.christianpost.com/news/tiger-woods-banned-elin-nordegren-from-smiling-new-book-claims-71656/

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by k-troop

"[We don't celebrate.  We're supposed to win.]"  "She nods in acknowledgment, but her smile gets a little smaller.  I would notice in the future that Elin would keep her emotions under wraps whenever Tiger won."

Originally Posted by brocks

Nice post. Just to clarify about Elin, have you seen anything in the book that even hints that Tiger told her not to smile? I mean, that's so bizarre and unbelievable that I literally can't imagine anyone who cares about his credibility reporting it without having something to back it up. And yet, several "professional" sources did.

EG: http://www.christianpost.com/news/tiger-woods-banned-elin-nordegren-from-smiling-new-book-claims-71656/

No the language I quoted above is it so far.  (I added in one sentence from the "quote" about her smile getting smaller.)  It doesn't even say "she smiled less," much less "Tiger told her to stop smiling."

That's the point I was trying to make about this passage:  it's random, unsupported, and out of context in the narrative.  It doesn't recite personal observations from inside the home, which is a plus for HH.  But it also is not a useful assertion, because it provides no support.  It's a one-sentence baseless assertion of his observation about how Elin would behave at some unspecified time in the future.

There may be more.  I'll post it when I get there.  Gotta go get drunk on margaritas now to cover my 18 back-nine putts today.

[newtogolf]

Haney takes observations he remembers from his time with Tiger and then tries to apply them to what we know now.  For example Haney states toward the end, Tiger started to pay more attention to his cell phone, changing numbers frequently, taking calls and texting during practice sessions which is something he wouldn't do in the past.   Haney then mentions the news reports after the accident and assumes that Tiger was texting these women and this was the reason for the behavior change during practice, but claims he doesn't know for certain.

I'll agree the book could have been more damaging to Tiger, but the fact is it was still a betrayal of trust.  It's also sad Haney felt the need to give his own statistical analysis of Tigers performance with him versus Tigers time with Harmon to soothe his ego and respond to those who felt Tiger did worse during his time with Haney.

Originally Posted by k-troop

No the language I quoted above is it so far.  (I added in one sentence from the "quote" about her smile getting smaller.)  It doesn't even say "she smiled less," much less "Tiger told her to stop smiling."

That's the point I was trying to make about this passage:  it's random, unsupported, and out of context in the narrative.  It doesn't recite personal observations from inside the home, which is a plus for HH.  But it also is not a useful assertion, because it provides no support.  It's a one-sentence baseless assertion of his observation about how Elin would behave at some unspecified time in the future.

There may be more.  I'll post it when I get there.  Gotta go get drunk on margaritas now to cover my 18 back-nine putts today.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Haney takes observations he remembers from his time with Tiger and then tries to apply them to what we know now.  For example Haney states toward the end, Tiger started to pay more attention to his cell phone, changing numbers frequently, taking calls and texting during practice sessions which is something he wouldn't do in the past.   Haney then mentions the news reports after the accident and assumes that Tiger was texting these women and this was the reason for the behavior change during practice, but claims he doesn't know for certain.

I'll agree the book could have been more damaging to Tiger, but the fact is it was still a betrayal of trust.  It's also sad Haney felt the need to give his own statistical analysis of Tigers performance with him versus Tigers time with Harmon to soothe his ego and respond to those who felt Tiger did worse during his time with Haney.

I agree that HH spends a lot of words trying to prove he was a better coach than Butch.  But do you not think it's relevant for HH to recall Tiger texting obsessively at a specific time, and then try to link that into a specific time in Tiger's extracurricular life?  Honestly, that's the stuff that I think is relevant.  If we know now that Tiger was obsessed with his phone a certain week, and that lines up with a specific week that he was supposedly whoring in Vegas, then I think that's book-worthy material.  Tiger gets no passes in this book in my view, BTW.  Elin does; innocent bystanders do.  But Tiger's head is on the chopping block, IMO.

I will say that I haven't gotten to any of these parts of the book, BTW, but when I do, I'll post my impressions.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I agree that HH spends a lot of words trying to prove he was a better coach than Butch.  But do you not think it's relevant for HH to recall Tiger texting obsessively at a specific time, and then try to link that into a specific time in Tiger's extracurricular life?  Honestly, that's the stuff that I think is relevant.  If we know now that Tiger was obsessed with his phone a certain week, and that lines up with a specific week that he was supposedly whoring in Vegas, then I think that's book-worthy material.  Tiger gets no passes in this book in my view, BTW.  Elin does; innocent bystanders do.  But Tiger's head is on the chopping block, IMO.

I will say that I haven't gotten to any of these parts of the book, BTW, but when I do, I'll post my impressions.

It would only be relevant if there was a correspondence between the week he was "obsessed with his phone" and playing poorly in the event he was preparing for,  Otherwise it is not "about the golf" as Haney is constantly claiming in his defenses of the book.  Drawing the line between his phone "obsession: and his extra-curricular activities is exactly the kind of TMZ garbage that got stuck into the book for prurient interest.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

It would only be relevant if there was a correspondence between the week he was "obsessed with his phone" and playing poorly in the event he was preparing for,  Otherwise it is not "about the golf" as Haney is constantly claiming in his defenses of the book.

Well, it could be relevant if he was distracted from a focused practice station.  Tiger practices 2 weeks for every event he plays, and the majority of the "golf talk" in the book so far is recounting practice sessions.  However, let's not just speculate about what might be in the book, and then judge whether it might be relevant.  When/if something like this comes up in the book, I'll post it, and we can discuss.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Well, it could be relevant if he was distracted from a focused practice station.  Tiger practices 2 weeks for every event he plays, and the majority of the "golf talk" in the book so far is recounting practice sessions.  However, let's not just speculate about what might be in the book, and then judge whether it might be relevant.  When/if something like this comes up in the book, I'll post it, and we can discuss.

I suspect many would not peg you as unbiased in this, so I don't know that your judgment can be relied upon to post things that others might want to discuss.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

I suspect many would not peg you as unbiased in this, so I don't know that your judgment can be relied upon to post things that others might want to discuss.

Biased only because I wanted folks to discuss what was actually in the book.  If you're speculaitng "if this is in the book, then I think that..." then that should be expressly stated.  I have been very consistent in stating that I think folks judgments should be limited to what is actually written in the book, and any derogatory comments are unhelpful unless supported by citing passages from the book.

If you read my comments above about what I have actually read in the book, you might not think I'm automatically pro-Haney, because I'm not.  But, if anyone wants to discuss what they have read in the book, I'm all ears.

BTW I'm almost finished with the book, and I have some thoughts and comments about the last 120 pages.  But I need to flip back through to the passages I underlined and get my thoughts together.  The 4:30-5:30 am posts (the time between when I wake up and when my daughter does) tend to be a little incoherent.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

If you're speculaitng "if this is in the book, then I think that..." then that should be expressly stated.

That's kind of the problem. You were disagreeing with people who were taking quotes directly from the book, and stating their opinions about them. They were not speculating.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Biased only because I wanted folks to discuss what was actually in the book.  If you're speculaitng "if this is in the book, then I think that..." then that should be expressly stated.  I have been very consistent in stating that I think folks judgments should be limited to what is actually written in the book, and any derogatory comments are unhelpful unless supported by citing passages from the book.

No one did that.  Their comments were based on the leaked quotes, which were clearly NOT speculation because Haney confirmed their accuracy himself in interview after interview.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

I suspect many would not peg you as unbiased in this, so I don't know that your judgment can be relied upon to post things that others might want to discuss.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Biased only because I wanted folks to discuss what was actually in the book.  If you're speculaitng "if this is in the book, then I think that..." then that should be expressly stated.  I have been very consistent in stating that I think folks judgments should be limited to what is actually written in the book, and any derogatory comments are unhelpful unless supported by citing passages from the book.

If you read my comments above about what I have actually read in the book, you might not think I'm automatically pro-Haney, because I'm not.  But, if anyone wants to discuss what they have read in the book, I'm all ears.

BTW I'm almost finished with the book, and I have some thoughts and comments about the last 120 pages.  But I need to flip back through to the passages I underlined and get my thoughts together.  The 4:30-5:30 am posts (the time between when I wake up and when my daughter does) tend to be a little incoherent.

Originally Posted by iacas

That's kind of the problem. You were disagreeing with people who were taking quotes directly from the book, and stating their opinions about them. They were not speculating.

Man, you do love a partial quote that takes things out of context.  Exactly whom was my "if...then" comment directed at?  Can I at least be confronted with a specific allegation that I can respond to?

Some people have cited text from the book, and given their opinions of that text (mostly in reference to the Navy SEAL training, Poulter affair, popsicles, and "distractions" Tiger faced on the range).  Many, many more have simply rendered judgment, and vaguely referred to a "breach of trust" without stating what in the book constitutes such a breach.  The entire sum of references to Elin in the book is that she's competitive at tennis, her smile dimmed, HH noticed that she seemed less enthused after wins, she told HH that Tiger really liked HH's e-mail bashing Tiger's work ethic, she asked Tiger not to watch TV during dinner, and she looked awkward standing next to the range in their first practice session back after the scandal.  That's not an "excerpt" of the Elin references.  That is the entire sum of the Elin references.  Not one single person who has judged Tiger for the "massive breach of trust" in relation to the Elin references has actually posted what all the Elin references are, and summed up their impact.  Honestly, what I have written above isn't much of a breach.  It's woefully inadequate support for the conclusions HH draws, but it's not much of a breach.

And, your first comment (which I have quoted above) was directed at my bias, but your second comment seems to be directed at my difference of opinion.  Surely you can understand my confusion, because they are very different things.  Bias is a pre-formed conclusion that is unswayed by facts.  Like, for example, if someone held to a particular judgment about the message of a book, yet stated over and over that they had not read the book, will not read the book, and think the book has no value.

Which one of us does that sound like, btw?