Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee

[Ernest Jones]

(He did say Duf's wife is hot, and that is clearly not opinion.  )

That is what you call a HARD FACT.

[newtogolf]

Okay...then I'll follow your logic and say "where does it say that Tiger cheated?"

He's using a writing style.  When have you ever read an opinion piece that says "hey guys, this is just my opinion and I encourage you to reach your own, but I think the facts strongly suggest that...."  Or, even better:  "Members of the jury, you don't have to agree with me, but here's what I think the facts have shown..."

He also said that Dufner got an A++ for the season.  What event was that in?  I don't recall a scoring system on the PGA Tour where players get letter grades.  (He did say Duf's wife is hot, and that is clearly not opinion.  )

Are you really having such a difficult time seeing that he's accusing Tiger of being a cheater and using the analogy from his past where he was caught cheating to support it?  He even goes so far as to grade Tiger in the same manner his teacher did.

Golf.com had an issue with what he wrote about Tiger and requested he change it (he refused), his own son saw it too, seems you, BC and birly are the only ones that don't see it.

[bplewis24]

Chamblee was paid to write an opinion.  He wrote that opinion.  He believes in his opinion, and his opinion is based on his interpretation of facts which he did not misrepresent in any way.  He didn't make anything up.

I disagree with this.  The entire form of argument for the "Tiger is a Cheater" camp is that he has "four incidents" in which he was loose with the rules.  That entire line of argumentation is a misrepresentation of the facts.  In one of those situations he wasn't loose with the rules by any stretch.  He did absolutely nothing wrong.  In two others, he was penalized for either not interpreting the rules correctly or having a lapse in judgement, however you want to call it.  And in the last one he may have tried to cheat (he also may have simply not noticed the fractional movement of his ball, but for the sake of argument lets assume he tried to get away with something and got caught).

Basically there is only one incident where "cheating" comes into play.  If it's a "struggling with the rules" argument, then 3.  But the accusation is that of cheating.  And by lumping "four incidents" in together, people are dumbing down the argument to promote an agenda.  It's a false equivalency of sorts to suggest he has four incidents that illustrate an intent to cheat, and that's part of what Brandel (along with many other online critics) have attempted to do.  It's disingenuous at best.

[k-troop]

Chamblee wrote a paragraph about how he cheated in school when he was younger.  He explained that his teacher caught him, and wrote "100" at the top of the page, then scratched it out, and wrote an "F."  Then he talked about all of Tiger's rules issues.  He then gave Tiger a "100", scratched it out, and gave him an "F."  If that's not clear enough for you, then you get an F for comprehension.

I have to say I agree with this.  He said Tiger cheated, and he knew what he was doing.  He even admitted that he chose his words carefully (though he said that as a way of copping out that he carefully avoided calling Tiger a cheater explicitly).

Are you really having such a difficult time seeing that he's accusing Tiger of being a cheater and using the analogy from his past where he was caught cheating to support it?  He even goes so far as to grade Tiger in the same manner his teacher did.

Golf.com had an issue with what he wrote about Tiger and requested he change it (he refused), his own son saw it too, seems you, BC and birly are the only ones that don't see it.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

I am having a hard time having logical, reasoned debate with people who can't make logical and factual connections.

[Ernest Jones]

I disagree with this.  The entire form of argument for the "Tiger is a Cheater" camp is that he has "four incidents" in which he was loose with the rules.  That entire line of argumentation is a misrepresentation of the facts.  In one of those situations he wasn't loose with the rules by any stretch.  He did absolutely nothing wrong.  In two others, he was penalized for either not interpreting the rules correctly or having a lapse in judgement, however you want to call it.  And in the last one he may have tried to cheat (he also may have simply not noticed the fractional movement of his ball, but for the sake of argument lets assume he tried to get away with something and got caught).

Basically there is only one incident where "cheating" comes into play.  If it's a "struggling with the rules" argument, then 3.  But the accusation is that of cheating.  And by lumping "four incidents" in together, people are dumbing down the argument to promote an agenda.  It's a false equivalency of sorts to suggest he has four incidents that illustrate an intent to cheat, and that's part of what Brandel (along with many other online critics) have attempted to do.  It's disingenuous at best.

+infinity

When ever someone brings up the incident at the Players they lose all credibility.

[k-troop]

I disagree with this.  The entire form of argument for the "Tiger is a Cheater" camp is that he has "four incidents" in which he was loose with the rules.  That entire line of argumentation is a misrepresentation of the facts.  In one of those situations he wasn't loose with the rules by any stretch.  He did absolutely nothing wrong.  In two others, he was penalized for either not interpreting the rules correctly or having a lapse in judgement, however you want to call it.  And in the last one he may have tried to cheat (he also may have simply not noticed the fractional movement of his ball, but for the sake of argument lets assume he tried to get away with something and got caught).

Basically there is only one incident where "cheating" comes into play.  If it's a "struggling with the rules" argument, then 3.  But the accusation is that of cheating.  And by lumping "four incidents" in together, people are dumbing down the argument to promote an agenda.  It's a false equivalency of sorts to suggest he has four incidents that illustrate an intent to cheat, and that's part of what Brandel (along with many other online critics) have attempted to do.  It's disingenuous at best.

He said Tiger took a "favorable" drop at the Players.  I agree with you that there is really no way to dispute whether Tiger's chosen drop location was correct or not.  His playing partner and the rules officials at the time said his drop was good.  That's all he can do.

Johnny Miller commented AT THE TIME and ON THE AIR that Tiger's drop was too far forward.  From the footage, it was hard to tell--but I remember watching it and thinking "why is he dropping way up there?"  It was a "favorable" enough drop that it warranted a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th look on the air.  Lots of people still think that drop was probably forward of the ACTUAL POINT OF ENTRY.

Brandel called the drop "favorable."  I don't think that is factually wrong.  I also don't think that Tiger did anything wrong in that specific incident--what else could he do?  Of course if everyone agrees that he can drop there, he's not going to drop his ball 50 yards back behind  tree.

In lumping all 4 incidents together, Brandel is simply acknowledging that a person might look at all of Tiger's conduct this season and conclude that he's not to be trusted to call his own fouls.  The structure of the piece is accusatory, but he's not falsely recounting any specific facts or incidents.

[Ernest Jones]

It was a "favorable" enough drop that it warranted a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th look on the air.

What difference does it make how many times they looked at it? If they look 4 times and say Tiger's drop is good or look a hundred times and say it's good does it change the level of goodness?

Lots of people still think that drop was probably forward of the ACTUAL POINT OF ENTRY.

Lots of people think long putters are illegal and that knocking your ball off the tee at address is a penalty.

[phan52]

Chamblee wasn't interested in writing a more balanced piece, his editors at Golf.com asked him to reconsider the final paragraph of his piece and he refused.  His intent was to cheap shot Tiger and call him a cheater for BC's own personal gain and notoriety.

And you know this...how? What did he gain from it? He is already the network's lead analyst. Be careful what you wish for.

Brandel Chamblee is a very good golf analyst, probably the best one the Golf Channel trots out there. Does he have an ego? Yes. But that is part of why they hired him in the first place, for the fact that he is outsploken. But his positions are based on a lot of study and scrutiny and I have to believe that he truly feels what he said is true, he just picked the wrong way to go about it. Saying Tiger was "cavalier with the rules" would have been controversial enough, but his half-baked apologies makes it pretty clear that he thinks it was more than that. So be it, that's his job. What would you have him do? Suck up to the players like the rest of the golf media?

We'll see how this works out and if the Golf Channel bows to the Tiger camp on this. Steinberg says he is "done talking aobut it" but who believes that? And how much leverage do they really have? Tiger drives ratings and he can say he won't do interviews with them, but the Golf Channel is also NBC and both networks have deals with the PGA through 2021. PGA rules mandate that Tiger has to do media at Tour events and both the Golf Channel and NBC will have cameras and microphones at those media events, so they will get plenty of Tiger on their shows. It's not like the stuff he says when he is coming off the course are all that revealing. Tiger as a personality is pretty bland.

I don't expect the Golf Channel to shoot themselves in the foot over this, but who knows. Steinberg is a pretty persistent person, although legal action doesn't appear to be an option, not that he won't continue to threaten that behind closed doors.

[Hoganwoods]

How is there even a debate about the article?  He said he hates VJ, Tiger is a cheater and Duf gets an A+ because his wife is smoking hot.  Should he apologize? I have no clue.  But we all know one thing and that is that the article was crap and very unprofessional.

[RonTheSavage]

I totally agree, certain parts read like a TMZ article.

[bplewis24]

In lumping all 4 incidents together, Brandel is simply acknowledging that a person might look at all of Tiger's conduct this season and conclude that he's not to be trusted to call his own fouls.  The structure of the piece is accusatory, but he's not falsely recounting any specific facts or incidents.

Then we are in complete disagreement on this fundamental point.  Even calling the drop "favorable" is a misrepresentation.  "Favorable" has no meaning in this context.  The rules of golf don't acknowledge the term "favorable."  A drop is either legal or it isn't.  Tiger has no obligation to find unfavorable drops just so it is perceived as fair by the viewers and their vantage points.

[krupa]

He also said that Dufner got an A++ for the season.  What event was that in?  I don't recall a scoring system on the PGA Tour where players get letter grades.  (He did say Duf's wife is hot, and that is clearly not opinion.  )

In my opinion, Dufner gets an A++ for putting up with all the idiotic interviewers who wanted to do the "Dufnering" thing with him:

Jason: No Matt Lauer, I would not like to read your diary.

[boogielicious]

A lot of folks have made the point that writers and commentators are entitled to their opinions.  That is, of course, correct.  But it does not mean that their employer needs to continue to employ them if their opinions reflect badly on the employer.  BC is giving the Golf Channel and Golf.com a lot of negative press.  He has a right to his opinion, but I hope they do something to correct all the negative press BC is giving them.  To have a commentator who believes his only purpose is to criticize Tiger Woods is a ridiculous position.

Other commentators will comment negatively on mistakes TW makes or his play, but BC comes across vindictive and petty and now he has made it personal.

[Lihu]

Now, now.  What does my ego have to do with any of this?!?

I'd like to think that is a fairly accurate Freudian Slip, there

Oops, sorry. Blame it on spell check.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I disagree with this.  The entire form of argument for the "Tiger is a Cheater" camp is that he has "four incidents" in which he was loose with the rules.  That entire line of argumentation is a misrepresentation of the facts.  In one of those situations he wasn't loose with the rules by any stretch.  He did absolutely nothing wrong.  In two others, he was penalized for either not interpreting the rules correctly or having a lapse in judgement, however you want to call it.  And in the last one he may have tried to cheat (he also may have simply not noticed the fractional movement of his ball, but for the sake of argument lets assume he tried to get away with something and got caught).

Basically there is only one incident where "cheating" comes into play.  If it's a "struggling with the rules" argument, then 3.  But the accusation is that of cheating.  And by lumping "four incidents" in together, people are dumbing down the argument to promote an agenda.  It's a false equivalency of sorts to suggest he has four incidents that illustrate an intent to cheat, and that's part of what Brandel (along with many other online critics) have attempted to do.  It's disingenuous at best.

He said Tiger took a "favorable" drop at the Players.  I agree with you that there is really no way to dispute whether Tiger's chosen drop location was correct or not.  His playing partner and the rules officials at the time said his drop was good.  That's all he can do.

Johnny Miller commented AT THE TIME and ON THE AIR that Tiger's drop was too far forward.  From the footage, it was hard to tell--but I remember watching it and thinking "why is he dropping way up there?"  It was a "favorable" enough drop that it warranted a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th look on the air.  Lots of people still think that drop was probably forward of the ACTUAL POINT OF ENTRY.

Brandel called the drop "favorable."  I don't think that is factually wrong.  I also don't think that Tiger did anything wrong in that specific incident--what else could he do?  Of course if everyone agrees that he can drop there, he's not going to drop his ball 50 yards back behind  tree.

In lumping all 4 incidents together, Brandel is simply acknowledging that a person might look at all of Tiger's conduct this season and conclude that he's not to be trusted to call his own fouls.  The structure of the piece is accusatory, but he's not falsely recounting any specific facts or incidents.

Tiger was ready to drop 30-40 yards farther back, but his fellow competitor told him that was wrong, that he needed to move up closer.  No way in God's green Earth that you can twist that against Tiger.  I don't give a rat's ass what Johnny Miller or anyone else not involved says.  If it had been him, Johnny would have taken the same advice and dropped where his FC said was correct.  So would Brandel, if he had been a good enough player to stay on Tour.  Even a hint of impropriety on that one is pure fantasy.

The same is true at Abu Dhabi, where his fellow competitor once again agreed with Tiger's drop, albeit this time it was wrong.  Both were simply fooled by an obscure exception to the local rule they had played by during their entire careers.

[Ernest Jones]

To have a commentator who believes his only purpose is to criticize Tiger Woods is a ridiculous position.   Other commentators will comment negatively on mistakes TW makes or his play, but BC comes across vindictive and petty and now he has made it personal.

Yeah, it's his single mindedness that makes it all so distasteful and questionable. If he hadn't spent the last half decade constantly dogging Tiger it would be easier to swallow but it just feels like some weird vindictive obsession that has called his objectivity into serious question. Plus he's a royal douche bag of epic proportions.

[Ernest Jones]

Tiger was ready to drop 30-40 yards farther back, but his fellow competitor told him that was wrong, that he needed to move up closer.  No way in God's green Earth that you can twist that against Tiger.  I don't give a rat's ass what Johnny Miller or anyone else not involved says.  If it had been him, Johnny would have taken the same advice and dropped where his FC said was correct.  So would Brandel, if he had been a good enough player to stay on Tour.  Even a hint of impropriety on that one is pure fantasy.   The same is true at Abu Dhabi, where his fellow competitor once again agreed with Tiger's drop, albeit this time it was wrong.  Both were simply fooled by an obscure exception to the local rule they had played by during their entire careers.

It is clear to anyone with half a brain that in both of those cases his fellow competitors were a part of the global Tiger Conspiracy. They work for Tiger. :-P

[Lihu]

BC: "But there's no way that I could know with one hundred percent certainty what Tiger's intent was in any of those situations."

Brandel's Son: If you had been more diplomatic, we'd be talking about the issue rather than you.

What have we learned?

Brandel's son is a heckuva lot smarter than his dad.

Similarly my son is smarter than me.

The issue with Brandel is not his smartness. He seems to think it is his job as an ex-player to know exactly what any player is thinking, even the best.

I would then suppose that as a player he would cheat. This is based upon his strongly worded opinions that he thinks/knows that Tiger intended to cheat. After all, he is a person who knows from a player's perspective. Add to this his own admission to cheating in the 4th grade, and I would certainly conclude that he would cheat.

In this case, he and Tiger have such different personalities.

Did Tiger intend to cheat? We won't really know until he is retired from the PGA then Champions tour and becomes a commentator himself. I suspect he would have a much kinder and trusting demeanor, if put in Brandel's position.