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

[majorchamp]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I won't say that you need to read the book--but I definitely do!!  I haven't had time to get to a bookstore, so I can't answer that.  From those that have read it and posted about the "rest of the story," it seems that the excerpts are it.  And I have read those.

And earlier you said that discussing with me is a useless circle because we won't convince each other.  Well, it may be a circle, but I wouldn't call it useless.  This forum would be pretty useless if someone posted a comment, then 50 people clicked "thumbs up" and just agreed with it.  The discussion is the whole point.  Thanks for having the discussion instead of getting bent and calling me names.

If I end up reading it...I won't pay for it :)

I know I said the circle thing...I thoroughly enjoy have good discussions and personally hate it when people give short snide remarks, or anything of that nature as a response...so I do appreciate the level of back and forth we have shared :) cheers!

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Nah, I say let's just demonize Haney.

So wait, after all of your criticism of people being critical who haven't read the book and your posturing and defense of Haney YOU haven't read the book YOURSELF? .

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.

[iacas]

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.

Fact: Haney wrote X, Y, and Z in the book. Why can't someone form an opinion based on those facts?

If I know my neighbor is cheating on his wife with his niece, do I really need to know more facts to form an opinion? That's kind of how opinions work - they are formed almost instantly and can change and shift the more we learn.

You haven't read the book either. So what if you did, thought Haney was great, and someone said "no, to form an accurate opinion you have to read everything he's ever written, watch every show he's ever been on, and listen to everything everyone's said about him"?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

Fact: Haney wrote X, Y, and Z in the book. Why can't someone form an opinion based on those facts?

If I know my neighbor is cheating on his wife with his niece, do I really need to know more facts to form an opinion? That's kind of how opinions work - they are formed almost instantly and can change and shift the more we learn.

You haven't read the book either. So what if you did, thought Haney was great, and someone said "no, to form an accurate opinion you have to read everything he's ever written, watch every show he's ever been on, and listen to everything everyone's said about him"?

They totally can form an opinion based on what is in the book.  But they haven't.  I'm arguing for two things only:  (1) folks reserve judgment until they've read the book; and (2) if they're going to post something terribly harsh and judgmental, how about give a passage from the book which supports your judgment.  (i.e. If you're going to say that HH breached Tiger's trust by writing private things, post one or two "private things" that he actually wrote to support your opinion.)

I don't think that's a lot to ask, and I doubt you'd disagree that what I've just described is a good way for someone to go about in the world rendering judgment against people.

[majorchamp]

Originally Posted by k-troop

They totally can form an opinion based on what is in the book.  But they haven't.  I'm arguing for two things only:  (1) folks reserve judgment until they've read the book; and (2) if they're going to post something terribly harsh and judgmental, how about give a passage from the book which supports your judgment.  (i.e. If you're going to say that HH breached Tiger's trust by writing private things, post one or two "private things" that he actually wrote to support your opinion.)

I don't think that's a lot to ask, and I doubt you'd disagree that what I've just described is a good way for someone to go about in the world rendering judgment against people.

The excerpts are not summaries or opinions of what he wrote, it's my understanding many of the excerpts leaked "are" what he wrote...so technically forming an opinion on those excerpts is valid.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

They totally can form an opinion based on what is in the book.  But they haven't.  I'm arguing for two things only:  (1) folks reserve judgment until they've read the book; and (2) if they're going to post something terribly harsh and judgmental, how about give a passage from the book which supports your judgment.  (i.e. If you're going to say that HH breached Tiger's trust by writing private things, post one or two "private things" that he actually wrote to support your opinion.)

I don't think that's a lot to ask, and I doubt you'd disagree that what I've just described is a good way for someone to go about in the world rendering judgment against people.

Uhm, what majorchamp said.

You're rendering judgment without having read the book. Just because it's positive doesn't mean it's not a "judgment."

[Shorty]

There are extensive excerpts on Amazon.com. Even an explanation of the title in the first section.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

Uhm, what majorchamp said.

You're rendering judgment without having read the book. Just because it's positive doesn't mean it's not a "judgment."

I'm not rendering positive judgment, or negative judgment.  I'm rendering no judgment.  And, by the way.  We live in a civilized society.  It's perfectly reasonable to assume people are good without facts, but it's unfair and against everything that a free and democratic society stands for to render harsh judgment against people without facts.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

But in the world of Nancy Grace, Rush Limbaugh, etc, it's easy to see how that message can be lost.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

It's perfectly reasonable to assume people are good without facts, but it's unfair and against everything that a free and democratic society stands for to render harsh judgment against people without facts.

And once again, I'll simply point out that we have "facts" and you don't need to read the book to have "facts" about this topic.

[brocks]

It's perfectly reasonable to assume people are good without facts, but it's unfair and against everything that a free and democratic society stands for to render harsh judgment against people without facts.

The book's been out for a week. Have any of the excerpts published in the NYT been shown to be misquotes?

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by brocks

The book's been out for a week. Have any of the excerpts published in the NYT been shown to be misquotes?

No. All are in the book. Now, taken out of context, yeah, probably. Like anything once you hear it in context with everything else Hank wanted to say I think your view of it will be different, at least mine was.

[majorchamp]

Originally Posted by mchepp

No. All are in the book. Now, taken out of context, yeah, probably. Like anything once you hear it in context with everything else Hank wanted to say I think your view of it will be different, at least mine was.

So Tiger and Elin giving each other icy stares because their marriage was crumbling was potentially out of context? Or that Tiger was cheap and Haney often had to pay for their meals, because Tiger thought it was funny to be cheap?

I can understand the Navy seals one having more context around it, but others seem to stand out on their own but really didn't need to be included regardless of whether they were his memories or not.

That still bothers the hell out of me, lol..the whole memories argument.

[brocks]

No. All are in the book. Now, taken out of context, yeah, probably. Like anything once you hear it in context with everything else Hank wanted to say I think your view of it will be different, at least mine was.

IMO there are things that the context would not change. Hank spent thousands of hours with Tiger, so if he felt that it was important to give examples of Tiger being a horse's ass or whatever, he could have used examples where Tiger was doing that to HIM. To record Tiger muttering about the guys he will be playing against for the next several years, and who may even be Ryder Cup teammates, adds nothing for anyone who is already prepared to accept Hank's book as accurate, but it destroys whatever working relationship Tiger had with those players, and sabotages relationships with other players who may not want to be in the next book about Tiger.

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by majorchamp

So Tiger and Elin giving each other icy stares because their marriage was crumbling was potentially out of context? Or that Tiger was cheap and Haney often had to pay for their meals, because Tiger thought it was funny to be cheap?

I can understand the Navy seals one having more context around it, but others seem to stand out on their own but really didn't need to be included regardless of whether they were his memories or not.

That still bothers the hell out of me, lol..the whole memories argument.

You have a point about the Elin argument. He does in the book go on to say that he likes Elin very much, but he probably would have been better off leaving her out. I think he was trying to hone in on Tiger's mental state after the hydrant. Elin wanted him to take 2 years away from golf according to Hank, and she was very embarrassed by all that happened. I will say in his defense, are you surprised about icy stares after what happened? It is not that big of a stretch to believe she was very angry with him.

[majorchamp]

Originally Posted by brocks

IMO there are things that the context would not change. Hank spent thousands of hours with Tiger, so if he felt that it was important to give examples of Tiger being a horse's ass or whatever, he could have used examples where Tiger was doing that to HIM.

To record Tiger muttering about the guys he will be playing against for the next several years, and who may even be Ryder Cup teammates, adds nothing for anyone who is already prepared to accept Hank's book as accurate, but it destroys whatever working relationship Tiger had with those players, and sabotages relationships with other players who may not want to be in the next book about Tiger.

agreed.

I guess a fair example is that GQ article Tiger was in back when he started. A "reporter" (not someone he paid, but an actual journalist) heard him make an off-color joke, and Tiger said "that's off the record right" and the reporter said "nope, I heard it, sorry". That is fair game, IMHO, unless Tiger had said "what I am about to tell you is off the record...and if the journalist had agreed, that would be fine" but that conversation was done in the privacy of a limo. Unfortunately, the participant WAS a journalist so they acted on that and wrote about it.

Throwing Tiger in the mix regarding comments he made, etc.. in regards to other players speaks to the "disrespectful" notion I believe Hank writing this book conveys.

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by brocks

IMO there are things that the context would not change. Hank spent thousands of hours with Tiger, so if he felt that it was important to give examples of Tiger being a horse's ass or whatever, he could have used examples where Tiger was doing that to HIM.

To record Tiger muttering about the guys he will be playing against for the next several years, and who may even be Ryder Cup teammates, adds nothing for anyone who is already prepared to accept Hank's book as accurate, but it destroys whatever working relationship Tiger had with those players, and sabotages relationships with other players who may not want to be in the next book about Tiger.

I think the people who should be upset are not the other tour players, mostly harmless stuff there. I doubt anyone on the Tour is very close to Tiger, so I feel there is very little love lost there.

The people who should be upset are the people in Tiger's camp that Hank was friendly with. He threw Keith Kleven, Steve Williams, and Tiger's practice buddy Corey Carroll all under the bus, by sharing what they probably thought of as private conversations in this book. If I were any of them I would really be upset.

[majorchamp]

Originally Posted by mchepp

You have a point about the Elin argument. He does in the book go on to say that he likes Elin very much, but he probably would have been better off leaving her out. I think he was trying to hone in on Tiger's mental state after the hydrant. Elin wanted him to take 2 years away from golf according to Hank, and she was very embarrassed by all that happened. I will say in his defense, are you surprised about icy stares after what happened? It is not that big of a stretch to believe she was very angry with him.

Sure I agree about the icy stares, but that is common sense too :) any wife/gf would give icy stares after being humiliated like that.

[newtogolf]

Any time you're with a journalist you should expect whatever you say will be repeated, either as a direct quote or anonymous source.  Hank was an employee of Tigers, and a swing coach not a journalist.  Tiger should have had an NDA in place, but he either trusted Hank or Steinberg messed up.  In either case I don't think it's reasonable for Tiger to believe at that time Haney was going to write a tell all book about their time together.  I see no reason for Haney to include the Poulter story other than it's TMZ material that sells books.

Originally Posted by majorchamp

agreed.

I guess a fair example is that GQ article Tiger was in back when he started. A "reporter" (not someone he paid, but an actual journalist) heard him make an off-color joke, and Tiger said "that's off the record right" and the reporter said "nope, I heard it, sorry". That is fair game, IMHO, unless Tiger had said "what I am about to tell you is off the record...and if the journalist had agreed, that would be fine" but that conversation was done in the privacy of a limo. Unfortunately, the participant WAS a journalist so they acted on that and wrote about it.

Throwing Tiger in the mix regarding comments he made, etc.. in regards to other players speaks to the "disrespectful" notion I believe Hank writing this book conveys.