Tiger's Death Stare at Alex Miceli

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by topspin4hand

The key is that Miceli asked the same question THREE TIMES.  The clip being shown was after the 3rd time, and I thought he handled it okay. Tiger's best response would be"Hey, I'm not elaborating about *anything* in that book, otherwise, people can write books about me and leave me to explain everything said or claimed in them."

Actually, other writers brought it up before they got to Micelli.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

If he handled it fine, we would not have this controversy, would we?

If Tiger sneezes it's news, and "controversial," so yeah. There'd be controversy if he told us where he ate dinner the night before. Partly because some people can't seem to let go of stuff that happened years ago (and behave as if Tiger had cheated on them personally), partly because he's the only needle-mover in the game, and partly because golf is, overall, pretty boring and without the thugs found in other sports with guns, drugs, etc.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I suggested a response that was mature, reasoned and genuine.

No you didn't. You suggested a response that's completely out of line with what Tiger Woods was going to say on the subject. Again, his response was not "negative" and you're equating "positive" with sharing a bunch of details and thoughts and feelings he didn't want to share.

If I ask you details about, I don't know, your finances, or your sex life, or whatever, and you say "no comment," I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't jump to blame you.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

When someone who represents you as your agent and makes a statement on your behalf, it opens you to questions.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Tiger acted like a petulant brat instead of a mature professional. He made denigrating comments to Micelli, something like "you're a peach, you know that?" or something like that. There is no reason to act in such a manner unless you are immature.

I've seen a lot of petulant brats in my day - I'm a father of a nine-year-old girl and while she's pretty good, some of her peers have their pictures in the dictionary next to "petulant brat." Suffice to say your definition offers up a really, really low bar if Tiger's reaction to what was clearly douchey behavior by Miceli is "petulant brat."

You seem to be completely unaware of Miceli's opinions for the past two+ years. I hardly think "you're a real peach" is all that terrible.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

You handle these matters in a  genuine, professional, and personal manner if you want someone to react positively to you and you want your story out there.

I think he did handle the matters in a genuine and professional manner.

[dustin88thewind]

This is something of a catch-22 when it comes to sports journalism.

I'll use an example I ran into this past year. During the Packers-Rams game, many of you may have seen Green Bay linebacker AJ Hawk flipping off his own sideline post-sack on national TV. Well, you can almost guess what every other question was for him in the locker room afterward. That said, there were a few of us (myself included) asking questions about the game itself. You can also probably guess which questions got a better response from Mr. Hawk.

The paradox of the whole thing is while the players would much rather talk about the game, and as a sports journalist it's our job to discuss the sport, better ratings often come from the little controversies surrounding the sport. It gets people, hardcore and casual fans alike, talking. So, going back to the Tiger-Miceli exchange, Alex did a fantastic job generating buzz about yesterday's presser. Is it good for his business? Yes. Is it the right thing to do in terms of sports journalism? I would say no. But, would we be talking about this presser as much if he hadn't pestered Tiger about this topic? Probably not.

Hence, catch-22.

All that said, I also think Tiger did a good job handling the badgering. He certainly could have said much worse.

[Motley01]

I never did like Tiger, he always has an attitude, like I'm the best I can't talk to you. He always sounds like a robot when he talks to the press.

He rarely smiles, he doesn't sign autographs, and when they ask him questions he ALWAYS looks irritated.

Now that he sucks at Golf, and can't play worth a crap, he's taking it out on the press.

A golfer/coach relationship is NOT a lawyer/client relationship with priveleged information. So Tiger stop whining about Hanks book, and go slice your drive off into never never land.

[mtsalmela80]

The only needle mover in the game? Wow this coming from someone who makes his living around the game of golf. Mind=blown

Originally Posted by iacas

If Tiger sneezes it's news, and "controversial," so yeah. There'd be controversy if he told us where he ate dinner the night before. Partly because some people can't seem to let go of stuff that happened years ago (and behave as if Tiger had cheated on them personally), partly because he's the only needle-mover in the game, and partly because golf is, overall, pretty boring and without the thugs found in other sports with guns, drugs, etc.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by iacas

If Tiger sneezes it's news, and "controversial," so yeah. There'd be controversy if he told us where he ate dinner the night before. Partly because some people can't seem to let go of stuff that happened years ago (and behave as if Tiger had cheated on them personally), partly because he's the only needle-mover in the game, and partly because golf is, overall, pretty boring and without the thugs found in other sports with guns, drugs, etc.

No you didn't. You suggested a response that's completely out of line with what Tiger Woods was going to say on the subject. Again, his response was not "negative" and you're equating "positive" with sharing a bunch of details and thoughts and feelings he didn't want to share.

If I ask you details about, I don't know, your finances, or your sex life, or whatever, and you say "no comment," I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't jump to blame you.

I disagree.

I've seen a lot of petulant brats in my day - I'm a father of a nine-year-old girl and while she's pretty good, some of her peers have their pictures in the dictionary next to "petulant brat." Suffice to say your definition offers up a really, really low bar if Tiger's reaction to what was clearly douchey behavior by Miceli is "petulant brat."

You seem to be completely unaware of Miceli's opinions for the past two+ years. I hardly think "you're a real peach" is all that terrible.

I think he did handle the matters in a genuine and professional manner.

Eric, don't go into PR. Of course, the answer depends on what you are going for...

As a public figure, Tiger's life is open to some scrutiny, especially when his agent opens it up. Tiger wants it both ways -- he wants the benefits of celebrity and its endorsement money while keeping his private life - entirely private, even when his agent opens it up, even when he has made comments about Haney's book. While a public figure is entitled to privacy, he is open to questions in the public domain -- like a book about him. It is his privilege to respond as his sees fit. My suggestion is that his responses do not do him justice.

I suggested a mature and genuine response. You back Tiger's the subject is closed, none of your business response.

I suggested a way in which people could relate to and empathize with Tiger.

You suggested a way in which those who don't like the media can empathize with Tiger, and those who believe it is his private business.

It's two different paths.

It is my opinion that the path I suggested is the more positive and one designed to gain him empathy not only with the press, but with the entire public.

Your suggestion is that he remain defensive - that might get him points with a smaller market.

Viva la difference.

Good day.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

If he handled it fine, we would not have this controversy, would we?

I suggested a response that was mature, reasoned and genuine.

I guess that is not possible with Tiger.

I think you are wrong about Steinberg -- He represents Tiger. When someone who represents you as your agent and makes a statement on your behalf, it opens you to questions. You've got to answer or you lose credibility.

If you're put in a no-win situation, even if you handle it well, you still lose. That, coupled with muck-raking reporters (not going to grant them the term "journalists"), means that the existence of a controversy reflects nothing on Tiger's handling of the situation.

Tiger's response was "no further comment." His agent already explained what their comment on the matter was, so you can't even call him out for not addressing the issue. Tiger has no responsibility to answer any questions about HH's book, not even to maintain credibility. He's already said he felt it was a violation, so demanding anything further is out of line.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

As a public figure, Tiger's life is open to some scrutiny, especially when his agent opens it up. Tiger wants it both ways -- he wants the benefits of celebrity and its endorsement money while keeping his private life - entirely private, even when his agent opens it up, even when he has made comments about Haney's book. While a public figure is entitled to privacy, he is open to questions in the public domain -- like a book about him. It is his privilege to respond as his sees fit. My suggestion is that his responses do not do him justice.

I suggested a mature and genuine response. You back Tiger's the subject is closed, none of your business response.

You may have suggested a response, but it's silly to claim you suggested a "genuine one." All evidence indicates that Tiger's genuine response is "I do not wish to discuss this in public." Contrary to your assertion, being a public figure as a professional athlete bestows no responsibility to answer personal questions at the whim of a reporter. His agent relayed all that there was to be shared on the matter. That doesn't open anything up to anyone. It was already made clear that the subject had been addressed to the extent that it would be addressed, so the reporter is wasting everyone's time.

It's great that you would have responded differently, but it's not your response to make.

The only thing I'll say is that it might have been better not to add the "peach" comment, rather just to state "no comment." However, I have reservations even with that. Had that gone down, people would be broiling about Tiger's "robotic" responses. Miceli was being a jackass, Tiger was more than patient, and I think far stronger language would have been appropriate (if not advised).

[mtsalmela80]

What I would really like to know is why did Tiger take so much offense to such a harmless question, so what if he wanted to be a seal? Seals are awesome!

[TourSpoon]

His agent already explained what their comment on the matter was, so you can't even call him out for not addressing the issue.

This statement sums it up for me. Tiger's agent, camp, people, whatever put out a statement for public consumption that anyone in their right mind could foresee as having some impact. This impact set the stage for the questioning. Whoever is handling the publicity screwed up. If the statement would have been, "We have no opinion on Mr. Haney's book and have no plans to discuss it", Tiger could have said "My agent has explained my position on this issue, next question." Why the agent made the statement baffles me as it has no marketable or image benefits to Tiger, it extends Haney's 15 minutes into 20, and sells more books. Who is he trying to help here? Major ball drop!

[TourSpoon]

What I would really like to know is why did Tiger take so much offense to such a harmless question, so what if he wanted to be a seal? Seals are awesome!

Seals are awesome, but if he answers the question then he gets another like, "Your agent spoke of trust. Do you feel violated?". Giving credence to one question opens the door to someone asking a real nasty question and bringing up the distraction he has been trying to overcome the past couple of years.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

The only needle mover in the game? Wow this coming from someone who makes his living around the game of golf. Mind=blown

I'm just repeating what the numbers tell us.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Eric, don't go into PR.

Tell ya what: I won't if you don't.

Tiger wasn't going to answer the questions. He said "no comment" about as plainly as it could be said. That's where the case ends for me. You wanted him to say a bit more, and give Hank even more free publicity. Apparently, if you were to get into PR, it would be as a double agent. :)

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

As a public figure, Tiger's life is open to some scrutiny, especially when his agent opens it up. Tiger wants it both ways -- he wants the benefits of celebrity and its endorsement money while keeping his private life - entirely private, even when his agent opens it up, even when he has made comments about Haney's book. While a public figure is entitled to privacy, he is open to questions in the public domain -- like a book about him. It is his privilege to respond as his sees fit. My suggestion is that his responses do not do him justice.

And my only point is that he's entitled to say "no comment" as well, and doing so is not a "negative" response.

I like Tiger as a golfer. Period. I couldn't care less about his off-the-course crap except that it's taken away from his golf. I want to see records set or at least strived for. It makes golf exciting. Even though the book is probably largely about golf, I think Hank taking personal and private experiences and writing a book about them is low. If I were in Tiger's shoes, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. It's a no-win situation for Tiger. If he talks, he not only gives Hank more free publicity, but the media will once again latch on and ask even MORE questions. And if Tiger should point out that Hank may be blowing something out of proportion or remembering something incorrectly, then the headlines would read "Tiger Blasts Former Teacher!" or "Tiger Labels Book Inaccurate!" or whatever else.

Here's why he's chosen this tactic. You think he'd have gained fans by being "open" or whatever. I think that's wrong. He had nothing to gain. Everyone who hates Tiger Woods is going to keep right on hating him. Answering questions about the book is an entirely losing proposition for Tiger Woods.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Your suggestion is that he remain defensive - that might get him points with a smaller market.

No, my suggestion was that by saying "no comment" he wasn't being negative, he was simply giving the answer he wanted to give, and arguably, the only prudent answer.

Say what you want, but Tiger did NOT want to give out more details. He'd probably sooner cut off his left pinkie toe with a dull knife than comment on the book. From what we can surmise he hates when others make money off of him, and he likely views Hank's book as Hank doing just that, despite Hank already having made bags of money off Tiger, and a violation of his trust and friendship. So no, he's not going to talk about it, because a) the more he talks about it, the more publicity he'll give to Hank, and he's not going to do that, and b) the more people will keep pestering him with questions about the book.

And from what I've seen you're overstating Steinberg's comments. He called Hank's "arm chair psychology" "ridiculous" and said little else? That's not much. It may or may not have been prudent of him to do that at all, but it doesn't somehow obligate Tiger to talk about something he - for hopefully the last time - most definitely does not want to talk about.

And he's under no obligation to talk about a book written about him without his consent, either.

Tiger had nothing to gain.

[jhwmusic]

Miceli is a complete spank who doesn't know squat about golf...much like 95% of all the other golf writers. Which is why the only way Miceli can make himself relevant is to do stuff like he did today. By asking questions that have nothing to do with the tournament. Tiger woods was thinking about being a Navy Seal in 2007 about as much as I was thinking about becoming an astronaut. You can't just decide to become a navy seal. First off you would first have to be in navy. NExt, he's too old. And he also has bad knees and countless other injuries which would have probably kept him out of the navy let alone become a navy seal. I was actually just talking to a kid at my gym who was hoping to become a seal. He was running 10 miles a day, swiimming miles every morning, lifting etc...he looks like exactly what you would picture a seal to look like physically....but he just got denied because he had MCL surgery like 5 years ago. I am not a millitary man or act like I know a lot about it, but there is no way in HELL Tiger Woods was gonna be a navy seal...and I hope he wasn't actually dumb enough to think he could. Now I am sure he could some how donate enough money to be an honorary member but thats about it. Hank Haney is just as much of an idiot for writing it as Miceli is for wasting time asking about it....both just trying to be in the spotlight. Man, I got a little fired up right there. Sorry, bad day at work, i got a headache and my back hurts. I sound like my pregnant wife. ha ha!

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm just repeating what the numbers tell us.

Tell ya what: I won't if you don't.

Tiger wasn't going to answer the questions. He said "no comment" about as plainly as it could be said. That's where the case ends for me. You wanted him to say a bit more, and give Hank even more free publicity. Apparently, if you were to get into PR, it would be as a double agent. :)

And my only point is that he's entitled to say "no comment" as well, and doing so is not a "negative" response.

I like Tiger as a golfer. Period. I couldn't care less about his off-the-course crap except that it's taken away from his golf. I want to see records set or at least strived for. It makes golf exciting. Even though the book is probably largely about golf, I think Hank taking personal and private experiences and writing a book about them is low. If I were in Tiger's shoes, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. It's a no-win situation for Tiger. If he talks, he not only gives Hank more free publicity, but the media will once again latch on and ask even MORE questions. And if Tiger should point out that Hank may be blowing something out of proportion or remembering something incorrectly, then the headlines would read "Tiger Blasts Former Teacher!" or "Tiger Labels Book Inaccurate!" or whatever else.

Here's why he's chosen this tactic. You think he'd have gained fans by being "open" or whatever. I think that's wrong. He had nothing to gain. Everyone who hates Tiger Woods is going to keep right on hating him. Answering questions about the book is an entirely losing proposition for Tiger Woods.

No, my suggestion was that by saying "no comment" he wasn't being negative, he was simply giving the answer he wanted to give, and arguably, the only prudent answer.

Say what you want, but Tiger did NOT want to give out more details. He'd probably sooner cut off his left pinkie toe with a dull knife than comment on the book. From what we can surmise he hates when others make money off of him, and he likely views Hank's book as Hank doing just that, despite Hank already having made bags of money off Tiger, and a violation of his trust and friendship. So no, he's not going to talk about it, because a) the more he talks about it, the more publicity he'll give to Hank, and he's not going to do that, and b) the more people will keep pestering him with questions about the book.

And from what I've seen you're overstating Steinberg's comments. He called Hank's "arm chair psychology" "ridiculous" and said little else? That's not much. It may or may not have been prudent of him to do that at all, but it doesn't somehow obligate Tiger to talk about something he - for hopefully the last time - most definitely does not want to talk about.

And he's under no obligation to talk about a book written about him without his consent, either.

Tiger had nothing to gain.

Who says in my business that I don't represent my clients in PR?

Tiger had every right to make no comment. But for a guy trying to rebuild his image, I think he missed an opportunity. I think one should be in front of your story, instead of allowing others to shape it. Apparently, you and Tiger disagree. And looking at Tiger's PR Campaign over the last two years, I said his ability to remake himself as he said in his press conference two years ago has failed.

Like you, I like great golf. If Tiger plays great golf again, I will appreciate him as a golfer. I appreciate him rebuilding his game and his struggles, but am amazed at the mistake he makes with the PR part of his life. But that is his choice.

Tiger had something to gain by taking a different tact yesterday and every day. He said two years ago that he would return to his religious roots - Having studied some of those roots, he clearly has not returned to them by yesterday's response. It was negative, defensive, and closed -- that doesn't equate to his religious roots

You see, it does not matter if Tiger looks good to others, or whether he has something to gain.

It's about being happy, real, and genuine in an honest and open way as a human being relating to others - Tiger, in his present mental state was real and genuine in not wanting to talk about it -- no doubt. But as someone who studies people, I think he lost an opportunity to show people who he is ... and that is a loss for him as well as for us. I don't think Tiger knows who he is, other than as a golfer. But that's my personal opinion, of course.

But it is his choice to remain secretive and closed. I see in Tiger what looks to be an unhappy individual not in touch with himself, who expects perfection from himself. That is his loss ... and ours.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

so what if he wanted to be a seal? Seals are awesome!

.....and......

The only needle mover in the game?

Yeah!!!!! So are firemen and cowboys.

Do you not think that for the world's most famous athlete to become a SEAL at the near height of his career is a more than a little odd?

Nobody is criticising SEALS, but it would be like a movie star saying they were going to become a school teacher or an ex president wanting to become a policeman. Reality check needed. It's talk that sounds cool that doesn't have to be backed up. But maybe he was joking and Haney didn't get it.

And who might the other needle movers be? Someone who dresses in orange from head to toe but is yet to win? A "deeply religious" family man? A politically conservative hunter? PGA Tour golfers are pretty much notorious for their dullness.

Fact of the matter is, and I think I'm like a lot of golfers, I think that Tiger is a despicable, arrogant creep. But.......every time he tees it up I want him to win because he makes golf exciting. Unfair as it may seem, I want him to win and would prefer him to win over a struggling journeyman evey time he can. I want him to win by 5 shots every time. There is nothing in sport like the anticipation of watching Tiger. A Zach Johnson 61 rates low on excitement. A Tiger 67 is 9 out of 10, especially with a 20 footer on the 18th.

That is the Tiger factor. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.

[newtogolf]

Are you trolling or do you really  not get it?  He doesn't want to comment on anything in Haney's book.  He didn't give Haney permission to publish the book, he's not happy Haney did so why should he give any credibility to it.  If Tiger wanted to be a Navy SEAL he shared that with Haney during their time together as friends or student/coach.  If he wanted the world to know about it, he'd have held a press conference or said it himself during an interview.

Real simply, Haney is slime.  He's using Tiger to make money for himself because Haney by himself isn't relevant enough to sell as many books.

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

What I would really like to know is why did Tiger take so much offense to such a harmless question, so what if he wanted to be a seal? Seals are awesome!

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Sandwedge74

I'm sorry - I have just had it with this childish idiot. I don't care anymore how good his game was at some point. There is so much more to being a professional athlete then execution of your game...and especially pro golfers to me...Jack N, Freddy Couples, Seve B, Tom Watson and on and on and on...all these guys had such class. I want to say this real clear -

I %$#@ing hate who Tiger has become and I wish this foul acting idiot would just go away and stop tarnishing professional golfers in terms of how he acts towards the press etc etc...

I think he is a classless  A hole.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/tiger-woods-golf-writer-heated-exchange-over-hank-183226468.html

And you're a moron.

See how easy that is?  I watched that video and read the article.  You claiming he's classless based on that is really ignorant.

Brandon

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by jamo

Especially since Miceli said that he had not seen the book.

I think they both came out looking stupid and smug, but Tiger could have avoided that by not adding that last comment.

Tiger's last comment was "have a good day."

What a classless a-hole.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Tiger had every right to make no comment. But for a guy trying to rebuild his image, I think he missed an opportunity. I think one should be in front of your story, instead of allowing others to shape it. Apparently, you and Tiger disagree.

We do. I suspect, as I said, that he has little to nothing to gain. He's not going to persuade people who hate him to like him because he opens up about a book that he feels is a violation of his trust. You keep saying it was "negative" and I think that's a mischaracterization. It wasn't "negative" just because he didn't answer all of the questions in as much detail as you wanted. Buddhism does not require that he be "open" about every detail of his life or the ways in which others have betrayed his trust or friendship.

You can call what he's doing a "mistake" all you want, but that's just your opinion. I've shared my opinion, which differs from yours, and I've reached the point now where I find myself repeating things enough that I must have said all I have to say in response to you on this topic. :)

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Tiger's last comment was "have a good day."

What a classless a-hole.

Did you watch the video? It had a little tone, you know... C'mon now. I don't think his comments were very negative, but the "have a nice day" was not sincere.