Tiger IS RIGHT about the media

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Pendragon said:

Here we go again. For someone who's an administrator on this site, you don't set much of an example for others here. Twice in this most recent post you refer to me as "ignorant" because I disagree with you. Is name calling a behavior that you want to encourage here? Really?

You've criticized me before for presenting my opinions as fact, but now you're doing the same. Now there's a double standard! 

The specific wording is relevant. He said you were "ignorant OF THE FACTS ..."

That is not an insult, it's simply saying that you don't seem to be aware of certain facts pertaining to the argument at hand.  There's no reason to be offended.

The better response would be to simply counter his arguments.

For the record, I agree with your first comment that Tiger appeared to treat the media as a necessary evil when he was younger, and that his answers to questions were always curt and sometimes standoffish unnecessarily.  But I agree with Erik that it makes sense considering the unprecedented demands the media placed on him.

[Fourputt]

2 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

He could have said several things that were factually wrong. Let's take one...how would anyone know if Mickelson skips a higher percentage of post-tound interviews than Tiger does? Why would we care? How did Phil even get injected into this? This is just silly.

This whole thing began with the question as to whether Tiger is treated fairly by the media. I'm not the only one who said that he is. Obviously iacas feels quite strongly that the media is not fair to Tiger, and he's entitled to have that opinion. But, as an administrator here, it's just not professional for him to state that others are ignorant because they hold a differing viewpoint.   

He provided the evidence from Tiger's own statement.  Nobody else in the history of the game can even come close to 8 years of never missing a post round interview.  You can choose to believe Tiger or not, but that is what Erik is referring to when he states it as fact.  I see no reason to think that Tiger is exaggerating, he can barely clear the 18th green before someone sticks a microphone in his face.  

You can choose to believe what you wish, but if you can't back it up, then it's only your opinion vs. an actual statement made by the player.  I'll go with the player until I see proof to the contrary.

[Pendragon]

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The specific wording is relevant. He said you were "ignorant OF THE FACTS ..."

That is not an insult, it's simply saying that you don't seem to be aware of certain facts pertaining to the argument at hand.  There's no reason to be offended.

The better response would be to simply counter his arguments.

For the record, I agree with your first comment that Tiger appeared to treat the media as a necessary evil when he was younger, and that his answers to questions were always curt and sometimes standoffish unnecessarily.  But I agree with Erik that it makes sense considering the unprecedented demands the media placed on him.

OK, I see your point. You've clearly been here much longer than I have, In the relatively short time I've been here, I have had a couple of other minor disagreements with Erik, one over something as silly as whether or not you should use a divot repair tool to fix ball marks. To put it mildly, he's pretty passionate in his belief that everyone should use a divot tool, and not receptive at all to arguments to the contrary. As far as the "ignorant" remark, I guess we're dealing in semantics, but I think it's clear what he meant. Thanks for your input.

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

He provided the evidence from Tiger's own statement.  Nobody else in the history of the game can even come close to 8 years of never missing a post round interview.  You can choose to believe Tiger or not, but that is what Erik is referring to when he states it as fact.  I see no reason to think that Tiger is exaggerating, he can barely clear the 18th green before someone sticks a microphone in his face.  

You can choose to believe what you wish, but if you can't back it up, then it's only your opinion vs. an actual statement made by the player.  I'll go with the player until I see proof to the contrary.

OK, but nothing in your post has anything to do with the one to which you responded. When did I ever question Tiger's remarks? That's not what's in dispute here. 

[Golfingdad]

5 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

OK, I see your point. You've clearly been here much longer than I have, In the relatively short time I've been here, I have had a couple of other minor disagreements with Erik, one over something as silly as whether or not you should use a divot repair tool to fix ball marks. To put it mildly, he's pretty passionate in his belief that everyone should use a divot tool, and not receptive at all to arguments to the contrary. As far as the "ignorant" remark, I guess we're dealing in semantics, but I think it's clear what he meant. Thanks for your input.

OK, but nothing in your post has anything to do with the one to which you responded. When did I ever question Tiger's remarks? That's not what's in dispute here. 

I've had my share of disagreements with him too but as long as neither of us takes it personally, all is fine.

For the off topic record, I'm cool with you using a tee to repair your ball marks. :P

[caniac6]

Most of the PGA Tour tournaments are played on the same course year after year. Unless the media member is a rookie, or unless there are abnormal weather conditions, I wouldn't think they need to be on the course. Heck, most golf fans could imagine a lot of the courses, or the most famous holes, without being there.

[boogielicious]

20 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

OK, I see your point. You've clearly been here much longer than I have, In the relatively short time I've been here, I have had a couple of other minor disagreements with Erik, one over something as silly as whether or not you should use a divot repair tool to fix ball marks. To put it mildly, he's pretty passionate in his belief that everyone should use a divot tool, and not receptive at all to arguments to the contrary. As far as the "ignorant" remark, I guess we're dealing in semantics, but I think it's clear what he meant. Thanks for your input.

OK, but nothing in your post has anything to do with the one to which you responded. When did I ever question Tiger's remarks? That's not what's in dispute here. 

I think you may be reading tone in posts that are not there. He certainly is not trying to be rude to you. He is pointing out the facts that you may not be aware of, hence the term ignorant. There may have been a better way to say that so it would not have been misread by you. It is very easy to read tone in posts that is not really there. We've all done this at some point. He certainly values your opinion, but wanted to add information that you weren't fully aware of.

Back to the OP. I read Tiger's point as being more about reporters and announcers not making the effort to study the course and players. I think he was encouraging them to do this more because the players see them as almost ignoring them.

[iacas]

This is all wildly off topic now, or at the very least discussing the "meta" type stuff, so I've put it in a spoiler tag.

As an admin, I also get to make some rules, and here I'm making one that says this: no more talk of this "meta" crap because, frankly, it doesn't serve anyone. The record can show who was or wasn't "right" or whatever, but I'm done with the "meta" crap, so everyone else is, too. Do not continue that line of discussion. Yes, this gives me the "last word" on the topic, but I'm also putting it in a spoiler, which means most people won't click to read it, effectively giving @Pendragon the last word.

---

Spoiler

45 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

He could have said several things that were factually wrong.

Then go find evidence of that… because all of what Tiger said backs up what I've seen attending PGA Tour events, everything I've heard from other reporters, swing coaches, PGA Tour players, etc. I think it parallels @mvmac's experiences, too, and that he could attest to the truthfulness of what Tiger said.

If you want to disprove some of the facts, go ahead. But just saying "he could have said things that were wrong" isn't doing that. Nor is calling them "my opinion." They're not.

45 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Let's take one...how would anyone know if Mickelson skips a higher percentage of post-tound interviews than Tiger does? Why would we care? How did Phil even get injected into this? This is just silly.

How did Phil get injected into this? Because we're discussing a double standard. You have to talk about someone else, or a collective of "someone elses," when talking about a double standard.

How would people know? Because they know. They're there in the press tent, they ask, and Phil declines. They ask Tiger, and he accepts. Over time they realize Phil says "no" at a significantly higher rate than Tiger Woods does.

Why would we care? I don't know. You're the one who doesn't seem to agree that there's a double-standard. These are the facts that support that there is one. I don't really care that there's a double-standard. It doesn't affect my life in the slightest. But you responded to my post where I said there was a double-standard, and here we are. I'm done if you are. You're not gonna change your opinion, and unless you can demonstrate that the facts I've put out there (and that Tiger's put out there) are really wrong, I'm not likely to change my opinion either, because I feel the facts support them: there's a huge gap in the standards by which Tiger is judged and all others, including Phil, are judged.

I haven't said one peep, btw, about whether it's "fair" or not.

45 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

This whole thing began with the question as to whether Tiger is treated fairly by the media.

I haven't talked about that at all.

I've talked only about the double-standard, and provided some context in terms of how much the media asked of Tiger Woods, how much he gave over the years, and how the media treated him on the rare occasions when he'd skip a post-round interview.

I never expressed an opinion in this topic about whether he was treated fairly by the media. I simply expressed an opinion that he was operating under a double standard.

45 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Obviously iacas feels quite strongly that the media is not fair to Tiger, and he's entitled to have that opinion.

For all you know, I could think Tiger was treated fairly while Phil was the one treated unfairly. Or that both were treated fairly: given all that Tiger got out of the media, maybe I think it's fair he suffer a little bit when he declines a post-round interview. Maybe I'm of the opinion that superstars in golf should never skip a post-round interview, not ever, and when they do they should be roasted until they apologize and buy the entire media tent bottles of champagne. Maybe I feel Tiger was treated fairly, but Phil was not.

I've talked only about the double standard. You are way off base to say I "feel quite strongly" as I've never said one way or the other whether I think Tiger's been treated fairly or unfairly. We'd have to agree what "fair" is, among many other things, before that discussion could even begin.

45 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

But, as an administrator here, it's just not professional for him to state that others are ignorant because they hold a differing viewpoint.   

I didn't. @Golfingdad, @Phil McGleno, and @Fourputt seem to recognize this. Now it's on you to do the same.

25 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

I have had a couple of other minor disagreements with Erik, one over something as silly as whether or not you should use a divot repair tool to fix ball marks.

What's that got to do with anything? You're prone to letting disagreements on one topic make you behave poorly in another topic?

25 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

and not receptive at all to arguments to the contrary.

That's flat out wrong. I'm always receptive to arguments to the contrary. People who know me well will say the same thing.

The arguments just have to be good arguments. The argument you put forth here has not been good. You've simply tried to attack me or something (I'm using the word "attack" lightly - I'm not bothered or upset in the least).

Spoiler

Furthermore, my posts in the thread amounted to me saying linking to a superintendent's post and saying "tees are not fine." Your posts amounted to "tees are fine." Wow, what a compelling argument! Here's my response to you:

Note that the above was my last post in the thread (on the topic of tees - I posted later to say we may get 100 TST ball mark repair tools made)… I agreed that I could use a tee to repair a ball mark, but that I prefer not to. Largely for the same reasons Rick said here:

So, in the ball mark repair tool thread, how was I unreceptive to anything about tees? You did not explain or demonstrate or make any bit of a case that the tool is unimportant. I said, in the thread, I could repair a bad mark with a tee but preferred to use other, better tools to do so. Then that was it… I didn't discuss it with you again.

So again, how is that thread proof that I'm "not receptive to arguments"? What argument did you even make, and how was I "not receptive" to it?

25 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

As far as the "ignorant" remark, I guess we're dealing in semantics, but I think it's clear what he meant. Thanks for your input.

I am the person who best knows what I meant, and you're going to come to find that I pretty much always mean what I say, and say what I mean. If I wanted to type that you were a stupid person, or an overall ignorant person, I would have typed that. I would not have typed that you were "ignorant of the facts" as I did.

So no, definitively, I can say that your interpretation of what I meant to say is wrong, despite how "clear" you seem to be on it. I meant what I typed: that you were ignorant of these certain set of facts, much in the way I'm ignorant (and will readily admit it, as I have done many times here on this very site) of politics.

[Aflighter]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Tiger was also interviewed after nearly every round he ever played.

Phil would have a bad round and skip out on post-round interviews. It happened somewhat regularly. Yet he never caught any flack for it, at all.

Totally a massive double standard.

Thats because the media had their nose up Tigers butt  and didnt want to talk to Phil anyways.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Aflighter said:

Thats because the media had their nose up Tigers butt  and didnt want to talk to Phil anyways.

I was specifically talking about times when they'd ask to speak to Phil and he would decline.

[Aflighter]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I was specifically talking about times when they'd ask to speak to Phil and he would decline.

Ok.Ill give Tiger that, he most often would do interview after a bad round but it doesnt matter to me whether a golfer declines or talks because im sure they are not actually in  a good mood.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Aflighter

[mvmac]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

That is not an insult, it's simply saying that you don't seem to be aware of certain facts pertaining to the argument at hand.  There's no reason to be offended.

The better response would be to simply counter his arguments.

Agree with this.

That's all @iacas was saying @Pendragon.

[PEZGolf]

When I cover a professional tournament, my objective is to tell my readers something they will not see anywhere else. Other media will report the scores, interview the leaders, etc.  For example, when I interviewed Mike Schmidt in Cooperstown and asked him a question, he gave me an answer that has never appeared any where but "The Golf News"!  That is why I roam the course instead of hanging out in the press tent.