Wow, Tiger got Dissed by Dan Jenkins?

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

How come the other thread that was posted over a week ago got a total of about five responses before yesterday when Golf Digest finally posted the link? It was a piece buried on almost the back page of the magazine and got very little attention. So yeah, most people either didn't see it or register much of an opinion of it. It was fluff. Now it's a big deal. Dan Jenkins thanks you, Tiger

.Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

I am not a subscriber to GD and there was no link available so I couldn't comment until now or I would have.

And to complete the circle and further make my point, GD didn't post the link until Tiger stomped his feet and whined on Derek Jeter's website. THAT is what made this a story.

[cfritchie]

I think I have a free subscription to GD, this is so poor that I'm going to call them and ask them to stop sending me the magazine. I've been a editorial photographer for 8 years. I'd be ashamed if any magazine I shot for did something like this.

[Valleygolfer]

And to complete the circle and further make my point, GD didn't post the link until Tiger stomped his feet and whined on Derek Jeter's website. THAT is what made this a story.

Anyone who is a subscriber could read it or buy it so it was out there. Your point is a non point. It was public and about Tiger and he didn't appreciate it.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

And to complete the circle and further make my point, GD didn't post the link until Tiger stomped his feet and whined on Derek Jeter's website. THAT is what made this a story.

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

Anyone who is a subscriber could read it or buy it so it was out there. Your point is a non point. It was public and about Tiger and he didn't appreciate it.

Sez the guy who knew nothing about it until Tiger posted his rant.

So, speaking of non-points . . .

[Valleygolfer]

:doh:  Sez the guy who knew nothing about it until Tiger posted his rant. So, speaking of non-points . . .

I never said that. You need to reread the post. I knew about the article but didn't know what was said so I couldn't comment. I don't declare things are facts unless I know they are true....

[Lastpick]

IMO, this is about a professional golfer.  The satire was not very flattering, but nobody really cares.  The only part that was over the line was the rehash of the sexual misconduct of Tiger.  The only reason that this is OB is because Tiger is a father and his children shouldn't hear about it.  The article was just poor written satire that wasn't funny.  Maybe Dan Jenkins just shanked one and that's it.

[acerimusdux]

And to complete the circle and further make my point, GD didn't post the link until Tiger stomped his feet and whined on Derek Jeter's website. THAT is what made this a story.

That's what Tiger pays Mark Steinberg for, and he did a great job here.

I can't see any reason Tiger wouldn't want this to be a story. It's an embarassment only to Dan Jenkins and Golf Digest. If they can't see that, then the joke is on them.

[thehook840]

So just a couple of months ago the golf world tied and burned at the stake a respected golf official who gave his life bettering the sport of golf.  His mortal sin?  He used a social media to express his personal opinion regarding statements made by Ian Poulter.  What he said was Mr. Poulter whined like a little girl, for this the world of golf and just about every golf analysis and writer harked for his demise which they got in short order.  Now Golf Digest has used its shield of freedom of the press to slander and defame a golfer who has given this sport more than any person pass or present.  Instead of defending Tiger and owning up to stepping on a social land mine they choose to support their lame employees attempt at journalism.  I've already told golf digest to cram my subscription where sun don't shine, I also sent a letter to the editor of the rag expressing my disappointment, but I doubt I will get a reply from either the editor or the subscription dept.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

How come the other thread that was posted over a week ago got a total of about five responses before yesterday when Golf Digest finally posted the link? It was a piece buried on almost the back page of the magazine and got very little attention. So yeah, most people either didn't see it or register much of an opinion of it. It was fluff. Now it's a big deal. Dan Jenkins thanks you, Tiger

.Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

I am not a subscriber to GD and there was no link available so I couldn't comment until now or I would have.

And to complete the circle and further make my point, GD didn't post the link until Tiger stomped his feet and whined on Derek Jeter's website. THAT is what made this a story.

Incorrect. I saw the article and link the first day it came out on the GD site.  As a moderator, I scan all the golf news sites each morning.  I did not post it to this forum because I thought it would provoke a partisan thread like this and frankly it was a poorly written piece of unfunny humor..  Later that day, the article was buried on their site and I could not find it when @The Recreational Golfer started his thread.  GD later reposted it on their front page on the site.

[Gunther]

Incorrect. I saw the article and link the first day it came out on the GD site.  As a moderator, I scan all the golf news sites each morning.  I did not post it to this forum because I thought it would provoke a partisan thread like this and frankly it was a poorly written piece of unfunny humor..  Later that day, the article was buried on their site and I could not find it when @The Recreational Golfer started his thread.  GD later reposted it on their front page on the site.

Look, Phan is dead wrong in his assessment of the situation here; however, he is absolutely correct that most people would not have heard of this article if Tiger had not responded in a very public way. That is indisputable and I'm not sure why anyone would continue to argue the point with him except that it's kind of fun watching him try to spin. My contention is that Tiger did it on purpose to expose Jenkins for the tool that he is. Phan thinks it was a miscalculation on Tiger's part.

[boogielicious]

This from someone who really understands humor:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/feherty-supports-tiger-says-parody-was-mean-spirited/

Quote:

Feherty backs Tiger, says parody was 'mean-spirited'

David Feherty said Wednesday that it’s “always been open season” on Tiger Woods but that Hall of Fame writer Dan Jenkins and Golf Digest crossed the line with the satirical piece that touched on Woods’ failed marriage, fired employees and reputation as a bad tipper.

“I think I would be upset,” Feherty said on the “Dan Patrick Show”. “It was mean-spirited and not particularly funny.”

On Tuesday, Woods penned an impassioned response to the parody, which he described as a “grudge-fueled piece of character assassination.”

Feherty came to the former world No. 1’s defense, saying that Woods has granted more interviews than any other player over the past two decades, answering a barrage of questions from the “forest of idiots,” himself included.

“Seeing him go through that after every round, we just wore him out with it,” Feherty said. “His remarks taken out of context and used against him and all sorts of things.

“He was never particularly good at representing himself. I would love to be able to show the side of him that I know to people. … He’s been badly represented and he’s not great at representing himself. He’s good at a lot of things, (but) it’s not that.”

Feherty said that Golf Digest never would have published the piece six years ago – when Woods was still a playing editor for the magazine – because “it wasn’t in their best interests at all.” He added, “I’m not sure if it’s in their best interests now.”

“I didn’t think I ever would, but I’ve kind of felt sorry for him, certainly on occasions,” Feherty said. “This latest thing, bringing up the fire hydrant and the divorce, like, really? Have we not heard enough of that?”

[9iron]

Will Farrell Does a Nice Little Tiger Parody Here. Way funnier than Jenkins.

[misty_mountainhop]

Oh dear. Obviously I'm in the minority. Woods, surely, is bigger than responding like this to that 'interview'? Obviously not. He either hasn't a clue re. PR or he's incredibly badly advised. He must have one of the thinnest skins around and he'd have been far better advised to have either laughed (hard, I know, as the 'interview' wasn't actually that funny) or taken a lighter-hearted approach to shooting it down.

Shame he (or his advisors - I'd sack them if I were him which would be funny in light of the 'interview') have never thought about approaching things in a different way. Woods' response is exactly what we've come to expect, which is a shame.

Just when I thought the golfing world had moved on from the TW-centric universe we've been inhabiting for too long, we have this nonsense making waves...

[iacas]

Oh dear. Obviously I'm in the minority. Woods, surely, is bigger than responding like this to that 'interview'? Obviously not. He either hasn't a clue re. PR or he's incredibly badly advised. He must have one of the thinnest skins around and he'd have been far better advised to have either laughed (hard, I know, as the 'interview' wasn't actually that funny) or taken a lighter-hearted approach to shooting it down.

Shame he (or his advisors - I'd sack them if I were him which would be funny in light of the 'interview') have never thought about approaching things in a different way. Woods' response is exactly what we've come to expect, which is a shame.

Just when I thought the golfing world had moved on from the TW-centric universe we've been inhabiting for too long, we have this nonsense making waves...

Why is it so difficult to figure that this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, or something like that? Tiger puts up with a lot. If this was the only thing, I believe he'd have just written it off as stupid and moved on. But this isn't the only thing.

This happens all the time. Our kid is with us for a long day of shopping. She complains, she whines, she throws mini tantrums. You don't make a scene, you don't make a scene, etc. You keep hoping it will end, and she'll give up as she's getting no reaction, etc. Then finally it boils over and you yell at her and make her sit in the corner of the department store for five minutes while you shop in eyesight, despite the fact that her offense that particular time was relatively minor.

You see it in hockey games, too. Guy gets away with some little slashes, they slowly escalate, they are warned by the refs, and finally a ticky tacky penalty is called because of the history, not so much the one specific incident.

[misty_mountainhop]

Why is it so difficult to figure that this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, or something like that? Tiger puts up with a lot. If this was the only thing, I believe he'd have just written it off as stupid and moved on. But this isn't the only thing.

This happens all the time. Our kid is with us for a long day of shopping. She complains, she whines, she throws mini tantrums. You don't make a scene, you don't make a scene, etc. You keep hoping it will end, and she'll give up as she's getting no reaction, etc. Then finally it boils over and you yell at her and make her sit in the corner of the department store for five minutes while you shop in eyesight, despite the fact that her offense that particular time was relatively minor.

You see it in hockey games, too. Guy gets away with some little slashes, they slowly escalate, they are warned by the refs, and finally a ticky tacky penalty is called because of the history, not so much the one specific incident.

Oh, I concede that may have been what happened here. Maybe. For some reason though, Woods (or his agent) seems to think the way to respond is in the completely uptight way that they have. I happen to think it was the wrong way to go about it. He could have responded in any number of different ways while still pointing out what he thinks of this 'interview' but no, he gets his agent to write in the most uptight way possible, demanding an apology and pens (did he really write it???) the most humourless 'response' on some millionaires' mouthpiece web site. I would suggest they lighten up but nothing in the past suggests they'd even remotely consider an approach other than the one taken this time.

[iacas]

Oh, I concede that may have been what happened here. Maybe. For some reason though, Woods (or his agent) seems to think the way to respond is in the completely uptight way that they have. I happen to think it was the wrong way to go about it.

I don't. How else should have have responded? By giving Golf Channel an interview to discuss it? Why would that be better? If not that, what else?

He put it into the public eye, and in the seven people I've asked, not a one has sided with Jenkins'. None have been golf fans; so all they know of Tiger is that he's an adulterer who is really good at golf.

And why should his response have been humorless? One could easily argue that his response on Jeter's site was funnier than Jenkins' "interview."

[misty_mountainhop]

I don't. How else should have have responded? By giving Golf Channel an interview to discuss it? Why would that be better? If not that, what else?

He put it into the public eye, and in the seven people I've asked, not a one has sided with Jenkins'. None have been golf fans; so all they know of Tiger is that he's an adulterer who is really good at golf.

And why should his response have been humorless? One could easily argue that his response on Jeter's site was funnier than Jenkins' "interview."

How else to respond? Ignore it? Have a laugh at it? Can't see why he'd grant an interview to discuss it as it's bound to come up at a press conference that he's already going to be doing. There'd be many things he could say in response to the obvious questions he'd get asked - he'd even have time to phrase some witty/withering putdowns beforehand. I just don't subscribe to the view that the way you highlight something you don't agree with is always to pen some uptight response like this.

His 'response' just reads as a bit of a whine to me I'm afraid. I'm not saying the original 'interview' is remotely funny or even that I can see the rationale for publishing it. TBH, the only funny thing I can see is that Woods and his agent responded in exactly the way anyone could have foreseen. Maybe that's the joke.

It's obviously the golfing silly season. Fortunately, it'll go away soon.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't. How else should have have responded? By giving Golf Channel an interview to discuss it? Why would that be better? If not that, what else?

He put it into the public eye, and in the seven people I've asked, not a one has sided with Jenkins'. None have been golf fans; so all they know of Tiger is that he's an adulterer who is really good at golf.

And why should his response have been humorless? One could easily argue that his response on Jeter's site was funnier than Jenkins' "interview."

How else to respond? Ignore it? Have a laugh at it? Can't see why he'd grant an interview to discuss it as it's bound to come up at a press conference that he's already going to be doing. There'd be many things he could say in response to the obvious questions he'd get asked - he'd even have time to phrase some witty/withering putdowns beforehand. I just don't subscribe to the view that the way you highlight something you don't agree with is always to pen some uptight response like this.

His 'response' just reads as a bit of a whine to me I'm afraid. I'm not saying the original 'interview' is remotely funny or even that I can see the rationale for publishing it. TBH, the only funny thing I can see is that Woods and his agent responded in exactly the way anyone could have foreseen. Maybe that's the joke.

It's obviously the golfing silly season. Fortunately, it'll go away soon.

If you ignore it, they will think it is okay and keep doing it.  That is basic parenting.  Jenkins acts like a child and should be scolded.  I bet if he tries it again, his editors will think twice about it.  Other PGA players will also now be more cautious around Jenkins and give him less access.