Wow, Tiger got Dissed by Dan Jenkins?

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote:

Journalistically and ethically, can you sink any lower?

Interesting question. If journalism's lowest point in recent times could be pinpointed as a creaky old sportswriter lamely poking fun at a billionaire sportsman in a golf magazine, I think journalism would likely be in a better place, than say, a situation whereby journalists from leading Murdoch-owned newspapers have been implicated, and, in some instances, successfully prosecuted and jailed, for widespread hacking of private citizens' voicemail.

Journalistically, can you sink any lower? Well, yes. To ask such a question about this fiasco is a vaguely hysterical response.

The whole situation is now rather invidious. One can only hope that Golf Digest doesn't end up giving their ancient writer his pink slip over this whole affair - because a sportswriter being fired for incurring the wrath of a sportsman really would be a journalistic problem.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop

Ignore it?

I already said why that may not be an option.

Have a laugh at it?

It wasn't funny.

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.

Why should he counter what he feels is over-the-line negativity with "withering putdowns"?

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.

That's part of the problem… you're pre-disposed to see it as "uptight." None of the people to whom I showed it to saw it that way. They all sided with Tiger and thought that Jenkins looked like the tool in the discussion. Incredibly small sample size, but it speaks to the reality that not everyone is going to see it as "bad for Tiger," "stupid by Tiger," etc.

Golfers will continue to see Tiger the way they saw him a week ago.

His 'response' just reads as a bit of a whine to me I'm afraid.

Yeah, to you. But you (and I) aren't the only ones seeing this and forming opinions. Yours probably isn't changing, nor is mine; not based on this.

The whole situation is now rather invidious. One can only hope that Golf Digest doesn't end up giving their ancient writer his pink slip over this whole affair - because a sportswriter being fired for incurring the wrath of a sportsman really would be a journalistic problem.

I don't think he should be fired (well, I do, but not because of this - because he's been unfunny for the better part of two decades), but if he was, it wouldn't be because Tiger said so. It would be because they agreed that his article was across the line.

He won't be fired because the editors would have to fire themselves, too. Or Conde Nast would have to fire a LOT of people, and those aren't going to happen.

[phan52]

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.

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.

That has been my point from the start. Anybody who wants to assign anything else to what I have been saying is making stuff up.

Spin what? You just validated what I have been saying from the start. And I can have an opinion about what his motives were, just like everybody else. But it is just that, an opinion. It happens to be my opinion that Tiger is an arrogant bully who stomps his feet like a child to get what he wants. It worked when he was the golden boy and the best player on the planet and 100% of the golf media and the press in general bowed at his feet. That doesn't happen to be the case anymore and there are some in the media who decided to be more frank about him and he doesn't like it. And Tiger didn't help himself with the general public. All the headlines start with statements like "Tiger lashes out" or "Tiger slams" or "Tiger rips". Bottom line, most people would never have heard of this without Tiger's "lashing out".

[Gunther]

That has been my point from the start. Anybody who wants to assign anything else to what I have been saying is making stuff up. Spin what? You just validated what I have been saying from the start. And I can have an opinion about what his motives were, just like everybody else. But it is just that, an opinion. It happens to be my opinion that Tiger is an arrogant bully who stomps his feet like a child to get what he wants. It worked when he was the golden boy and the best player on the planet and 100% of the golf media and the press in general bowed at his feet. That doesn't happen to be the case anymore and there are some in the media who decided to be more frank about him and he doesn't like it. And Tiger didn't help himself with the general public. All the headlines start with statements like "Tiger lashes out" or "Tiger slams" or "Tiger rips". Bottom line, most people would never have heard of this without Tiger's "lashing out".

Dude, I think people just enjoy getting under your skin cuz it's entertaining, regardless the topic. All good. ;-)

[phan52]

Dude, I think people just enjoy getting under your skin cuz it's entertaining, regardless the topic. All good.

No problem. Some here like to call me a "hater", but you have not been one of them. I refrain from calling them "ass-kissers" because I don't know them personally, but it doesn't stop them from assigning their labels. Whatever. As you say, all good.

[Phil McGleno]

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and looks like a duck, its probably phan on another anti-Tiger tirade.[quote name="phan52" url="/t/78220/wow-tiger-got-dissed-by-dan-jenkins/90#post_1077117"] No problem. Some here like to call me a "hater", but you have not been one of them. I refrain from calling them "ass-kissers" because I don't know them personally, but it doesn't stop them from assigning their labels. Whatever. As you say, all good. [/quote] Youre not objective at all-and you state your opinions(supremely colored by your strong dislike for Tigger) as fact all the time pal. I get about three gift subs to Golf Digest-Dont read them but get them anyway, and never pay for them-yet now that this has come out I side with Tiger and think this is the nail in the coffin of the public opinion on Jenkins irrelevance

[Valleygolfer]

Bottom line, most people would never have heard of this without Tiger's "lashing out".

But we did know about it. He has put up with the tired rhetoric for years. He obviously doesn't like this guy as much as you don't like Tiger. You basically are dictating when some one else should defend themselves...

You said this before and I ignored it. Since you won't let it go, I will tell you that nobody would do that to Christina Kim because she is a likeable individual and doesn't treat the media like dirt. Besides the fact that Christina Kim has often addressed that stuff herself because she has something called self-awareness, something Tiger is sadly lacking.

Maybe he knows and isn't whining to everyone about it. So Tiger isn't a media guy, he isn't here to be a media guy last I checked. Kim is barely anybody. Flamboyant and a narcissist. She wants everyone to look at her

I don't have a "severe" dislike for Tiger but I do think he is a major jerk. As far as being a fan is concerned, I certainly pay more attention to a tournament when he is in the field. He is great for golf and I hope he gets his mojo back. It's just too bad he's such a jerk.

I am sure the paying attention is consists of enjoying seeing him beat, melt down or in pain. Tiger's close friends (DiMarco & Begay for example) really like and defend him regularly. Just because he didn't shake your hand and wink at you at the tourney means you can make it your personal crusade to let everyone know he is a bad person. You met him in his "work" environment. I have a inkling that back when he was winning all the tournaments, you were the guy that hated him because he won too much.

@phan52 Why does Tiger have to be the way you want him to be?

[Golfingdad]

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.

100% agree.

Golfers will continue to see Tiger the way they saw him a week ago.

Agree, but I would amend that from "golfers" to simply "people."  That is why I don't get the people who say "Tiger had nothing to gain" because, you know what else:  he also had nothing to lose.  Everybody on the planet has an opinion (many of them very strong) on Tiger, one way or the other.  Do any of you honestly think that peoples opinion of Tiger CHANGED because of this incident?

Be honest. @phan52 and @misty_mountainhop ... is your opinion of Tiger any different now than it was a week ago?

How about Dan Jenkins?  Isn't it also fair to say that many, many more people now know who Jenkins is who previously didn't?  And finally, (again, be honest) what percentage of those people who had no opinion of Jenkins, now have a GOOD opinion of him?

In summary, I contend that nobody, or almost nobody, has a different opinion of Tiger because of this, however, I also contend that many, many people have a different opinion of Jenkins because of this.  And I'd go so far as to guess that almost every one of them is more negative than it was before.

[misty_mountainhop]

It wasn't funny.

Debatable. Not entirely my sort of humour but some comments made me smile a bit. Not your humour, but some people may find it funny.

Why should he counter what he feels is over-the-line negativity with "withering putdowns"?

Why not? Better, IMO, than writing responses that are stereotypically Woods.

...Golfers will continue to see Tiger the way they saw him a week ago.

Yeah, to you. But you (and I) aren't the only ones seeing this and forming opinions. Yours probably isn't changing, nor is mine; not based on this.

Now this, I can definitely agree with. It's a pity (to me at any rate) as I'm sure there's a human in there somewhere.

[misty_mountainhop]

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.

I would have thought the thinking that suggests you should ignore someone trying to make fun at your expense because they'll soon realise they don't get a bite and quit it, would be more appropriate here. Extrapolating that a little bit, it seems to me that Woods is also being childish in giving Jenkins that 'bite' he was so obviously after. As I suggested earlier, it would have been a whole lot better if he'd simply risen above it.

Anyway, that's more than enough of me - the sooner this topic dies in the golfing news, the better.

[misty_mountainhop]

...Be honest.  @phan52 and @misty_mountainhop ... is your opinion of Tiger any different now than it was a week ago?

No, but it would have been had he responded in a different manner. I can't believe he's as much of a dork as he comes across; at least I don't want to believe it. Would be interesting to have an unguarded beer or two with him probably. He doesn't help things with the way he addresses things though and he hasn't done for years.

He obviously doesn't want to do things in a different manner and that's all fine. He's been pretty successful both with golf and making more money that I can imagine so I guess he's plenty happy.

[newtogolf]

100% agree.

Agree, but I would amend that from "golfers" to simply "people."  That is why I don't get the people who say "Tiger had nothing to gain" because, you know what else:  he also had nothing to lose.  Everybody on the planet has an opinion (many of them very strong) on Tiger, one way or the other.  Do any of you honestly think that peoples opinion of Tiger CHANGED because of this incident?

Be honest.  @phan52 and @misty_mountainhop ... is your opinion of Tiger any different now than it was a week ago?

How about Dan Jenkins?  Isn't it also fair to say that many, many more people now know who Jenkins is who previously didn't?  And finally, (again, be honest) what percentage of those people who had no opinion of Jenkins, now have a GOOD opinion of him?

In summary, I contend that nobody, or almost nobody, has a different opinion of Tiger because of this, however, I also contend that many, many people have a different opinion of Jenkins because of this.  And I'd go so far as to guess that almost every one of them is more negative than it was before.

I disagree about Tiger not having anything to lose.  He messed up, made some mistakes and tried to put them behind him.  Jenkins and GD publish a fake interview that rips off all the scars.  Elin, his kids, his family, friends all have to relive those events and possibly answer more questions about them because Jenkins thought it would be funny to rehash them all again.

I get that Tiger is a celebrity and that his indiscretions fueled the media but that was a few years ago, when is enough, enough?

[Golfingdad]

No, but it would have been had he responded in a different manner.

I don't think you can say that, though.  I think that the consensus is that his other response option was 'no response.'  If he didn't respond, this would have been a non-story, so how could your opinion of him have changed if nothing happened?

If Erik is right about all of the other times Tiger's been poked or prodded having built up to this point as the final straw, did you opinion of him change when he didn't respond to all of those needles?

Regardless, your opinion didn't get worse, so he didn't "lose" anything with you.

What about Jenkins?  What was your opinion before and what is it now?

---

I disagree about Tiger not having anything to lose.  He messed up, made some mistakes and tried to put them behind him.  Jenkins and GD publish a fake interview that rips off all the scars.  Elin, his kids, his family, friends all have to relive those events and possibly answer more questions about them because Jenkins thought it would be funny to rehash them all again.

I get that Tiger is a celebrity and that his indiscretions fueled the media but that was a few years ago, when is enough, enough?

I mean he had nothing to lose by responding.  Certainly all of the people in his inner circle and in the inner circle of golf in general would have had those scars opened by Jenkins article, not by Tigers response, don't you think?

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

But we did know about it. He has put up with the tired rhetoric for years. He obviously doesn't like this guy as much as you don't like Tiger. You basically are dictating when some one else should defend themselves...

No, I am not. I am suggesting that he didn't help himself or his image by bringing this to the forefront with his 600 word rant. What Jenkins did was unnecessarily cruel but, unfortunately for Tiger, there was truth in everything that was in that piece. That is a sad fact.

Quote:

I am sure the paying attention is consists of enjoying seeing him beat, melt down or in pain. Tiger's close friends (DiMarco & Begay for example) really like and defend him regularly. Just because he didn't shake your hand and wink at you at the tourney means you can make it your personal crusade to let everyone know he is a bad person.

I don't know what that even means. If I am working at a golf tournament I certainly don't expect players to personally engage me and, whether they do or not, it wouldn't paint what I think of them as a person. They all have their own way of going about their business and that is their workplace. The only player I think might really be like the way he is with the public is Vijay Singh (complete prick), but I don't know that for a fact.

Quote:

You met him in his "work" environment. I have a inkling that back when he was winning all the tournaments, you were the guy that hated him because he won too much.

I never "met" Tiger. I ran into him at golf tournaments inside the ropes and he was fine. I believe I explained what I expect from them in the workplace in the above response. And when he was winning all those tournaments, I was as much a fan as anybody else. As far as who he really is, he had me fooled like everybody else and, sorry, now I resent that. He is a fraud, plain and simple. Great golfer, arguably the best ever, but a fraud.

Quote:

@phan52 Why does Tiger have to be the way you want him to be?

He doesn't. He is who he is. I don't expect him to change.

[iacas]

Debatable. Not entirely my sort of humour but some comments made me smile a bit. Not your humour, but some people may find it funny.

Is it, though? I haven't seen a single person claim the article was funny.

Why not? Better, IMO, than writing responses that are stereotypically Woods.

Meh, that's just more negativity. I disagree.

Also, @misty_mountainhop , please multiquote .

I would have thought the thinking that suggests you should ignore someone trying to make fun at your expense because they'll soon realise they don't get a bite and quit it, would be more appropriate here.

That strategy may work with high school bullies. If you're being bullied, often if you don't react, the bullies get bored and move away. But a bullied kid is far and away a different situation than a multi-million dollar athlete, arguably the best in his sport of all time.

As I suggested earlier, it would have been a whole lot better if he'd simply risen above it.

You don't seem to be giving him any credit for having risen above anything else before.

Again, Tiger dealt with unprecedented condemnation from those within the golf world - including the Billy Payne reaming out - and didn't speak up. It's certainly reasonable to think this was the straw that broke the camel's back, and probably partly because Jenkins said the things as if he was Tiger Woods.

I conducted a fake interview with you, @misty_mountainhop , and you were quoted as saying "God damn it I hate women. And children. And puppies. I just want to kick them all in their faces."

That's not funny, nor is it the same as me saying "I bet you don't like puppies."

No, I am not. I am suggesting that he didn't help himself or his image by bringing this to the forefront.

How do you know that?

He didn't hurt himself either, and from what I can tell, he hurt Jenkins too. Jenkins is being talked about as a sleaze, as having crossed the line, as being well past his prime, etc. Jenkins may have made the mistake of thinking that he was bigger than TW, even in TW's weakened state.

And when he was winning all those tournaments, I was as much a fan as anybody else. As far as who he really is, he had me fooled like everybody else and, sorry, now I resent that. He is a fraud, plain and simple. Great golfer, arguably the best ever, but a fraud.

So what? Why do you care? Why do you resent your own gullibility or your own caring about off-the-course behavior and actions? Did Tiger screw your daughter or something? Why do you choose to be offended by Tiger's non-golf-related stuff, which seem to be behind him.

[nevets88]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/sports/golf/dan-jenkins-and-tiger-woods-verbally-spar-over-fake-story.html?src=mv&_r=0

Two of Golf World’s Legends Trade Shots

Dan Jenkins and Tiger Woods Verbally Spar Over Interview Parody

Quote:

Kim marveled at Woods’s ability over the years to seemingly not care or dignify what is said or written about him.

“That is one reason why he is superhuman,” she said.

Kim liked that he chose to show his warrior side, fighting back using Jenkins’s choice of weapons: words.

“Whoever it was that wrote it, whether it was him or Steiny, I liked the fact that he responded to it,” Kim said.

She added, “I thought it showed incredible strength to be able to show that: ‘Hey, what you said caused me to feel this. This hurt me.’ I feel like that showed a lot more strength than if he hadn’t acknowledged it.”

There’s a line made famous by Dorothy Parker, oft-repeated by Jenkins: “Wit has truth in it.” But too often lately, in golf’s wars of words, men trying to be witty have failed to grasp that there can be no truth without humanity.

[9iron]

The Streisand Effect and Tiger Woods

Because of the Streisand effect, everyone's going to read Jenkins's piece now.

http://deadspin.com/tiger-woods-melts-down-over-gentle-satire-1660282939

[iacas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/sports/golf/dan-jenkins-and-tiger-woods-verbally-spar-over-fake-story.html?src=mv&_r=0

Dan Jenkins and Tiger Woods Verbally Spar Over Interview Parody

OT stuff…

Verbally?

I don't think so.

I really don't like when writers don't understand the words they're using. Verbally means speaking, orally, etc. It doesn't mean typing or any form of communication by using words. Arguing by sign language is not "verbally sparring."

---

Also, it stands to reason that journalists are sticking up for Jenkins. File under "duh."

Three comments pro-Tiger, one pro-Jenkins of the Reader's Picks: