"Tiger Woods" by Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian (March 2018)

[iacas]

My copy was delivered to my home on Tuesday. Too bad I won't be able to start reading it until Saturday afternoon.

[GrandStranded]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

My copy was delivered to my home on Tuesday. Too bad I won't be able to start reading it until Saturday afternoon.

I'm a little jealous. I just received notice mine shipped yesterday. I would've enjoyed starting it this weekend...

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm a little jealous. I just received notice mine shipped yesterday. I would've enjoyed starting it this weekend...

Amazon pre-orders. Saved ~$5 too.

Or start reading the Kindle version now:

I almost did that.

[krupa]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm inclined to believe Band.

I agree.  I don't read a lot of biographies anyway, but the excerpts I've seen from this book have not convinced me to buy this one.

[jamo]

I think I'll read it at some point. Maybe order it in a week or two. I want to get through Tiger's 1997 Masters book first.

[ScouseJohnny]

14 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

I disagree that the best version of his story would come from Tiger himself. I think most people would agree very few people are going to be completely candid when it comes to talking about their shortcoming/ failures in life, when writing their own autobiography. Tiger, from what we know about him, would be one of the last to do so. It's understandable if you're a huge Tiger fan you wouldn't have any interest in a book written by anyone besides him or a trusted associate of his. Again, I think most would agree that any fair minded attempt to write about him has to include what his fans look at as "the outside the ropes" stuff. You cannot fault these writers for Tiger and or his inner circle not allowing them access to their chosen subject. Personally, I think the odds are these two authors and this book will be judged much more favorably then any "authorized" effort the Tiger camp might decide to write in the future.  

Most autobiographies are exculpatory.

Most biographies are "blows the lid off...previously unrevealed secrets, from sources close to..." efforts.

There are exceptions. Political biographies (which tend to read like history textbooks), and autobiographies written by figures from the arts, who are happy to let it all hang out in the name of art, but still spin it how they want you to hear it - examples of the latter include Keith Richards and Bob Dylan.

Sports autobiographies are nearly always ponderous, ghost-written affairs. Sports biographies are nearly always the latter (explosive new details...)

The tenuous reference to "evidence" that might, possibly, perhaps,maybe, point to PED use suggests that this one is very much of its type. When it eventually shows up in my public library I'll give it a glance - and willingly be prepared to be proved wrong.

Edited March 29, 2018 by ScouseJohnny

[iacas]

1 hour ago, jamo said:

I think I'll read it at some point. Maybe order it in a week or two. I want to get through Tiger's 1997 Masters book first.

That one wasn’t very good.

[MuniGrit]

I wonder which call girl is going to be his favorite in the book? I'm guessing the Rachael girl that had his back. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, MuniGrit said:

I wonder which call girl is going to be his favorite in the book? I'm guessing the Rachael girl that had his back. 

Did you buy it? Given your obsession with TW negatives I’d assume yes.

[MuniGrit]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

Did you buy it? Given your obsession with TW negatives I’d assume yes.

Nah I'll wait until you get pissed off with yours and let me borrow it. :)

[brocks]

On 3/28/2018 at 5:53 PM, iacas said:

Leaving aside just how silly "In reality, it is Band's letter that is inaccurate" sounds, their sources were "three people with direct involvement" - yet Band had "direct involvement," was there that day, was Clinton's aide for a long stretch of time on both sides of the event, etc.

I'm inclined to believe Band.

If he's willing to stake his reputation on it, and the other guys remain anonymous, then it's a no-brainer.

On 3/28/2018 at 7:28 PM, GrandStranded said:

I disagree that the best version of his story would come from Tiger himself. I think most people would agree very few people are going to be completely candid when it comes to talking about their shortcoming/ failures in life, when writing their own autobiography.

Sure, I'd agree with that.  But I think most people would also agree that when someone who's never even talked to the guy about a given incident starts telling you what Tiger was thinking, rather than what he did or said, you can't put too much weight on it.  The fact that they timed it to come out when it did also implies a high sleaze factor.  And people wonder why Tiger had to develop a shell.

I just got my copy, and I've only read a couple dozen pages.  So far the young Tiger sounds like an innocent victim of his stage-father Earl, whom they portray as a real piece of work.  It sure didn't look like Tiger bore a lot of resentment on the 72nd green of the 1997 Masters, but you never know.  I would be very interested to hear Tiger's comments on it, but I expect that, unlike certain people I could mention, he will just ignore the book, rather than keep it in the headlines by counterattacking.

[iacas]

I'm on page 67. So far, aside from Tiger being a dork, not much is revealed about Tiger himself.

I think this book reveals almost nothing new, though. It's based largely on other books, including Hank's and Tiger's book about the 1997 Masters.

[3jacker]

Sports writers are notoriously full of $#@!, packaging their own opinions and what they want things to be as fact.  Most of them try to portray themselves as confidantes of the players they cover, as part of the in group, as kind of a big deal.  A few are.  Feinstein, Sampson, Jenkins et al.. but many of the new crop are just trying to be somebody.  Shane Ryan comes to mind.  He sure knows a lot about the players, what they are thinking, what motivates them etc. while bitching about the fact that they won't talk to him.

[jamo]

39 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Sports writers are notoriously full of $#@!, packaging their own opinions and what they want things to be as fact.  Most of them try to portray themselves as confidantes of the players they cover, as part of the in group, as kind of a big deal.  A few are.  Feinstein, Sampson, Jenkins et al.. but many of the new crop are just trying to be somebody.  Shane Ryan comes to mind.  He sure knows a lot about the players, what they are thinking, what motivates them etc. while bitching about the fact that they won't talk to him.

Really? I've never gotten that impression. 

[3jacker]

Sorry, edited to reflect what you bolded above.

I read his book Slaying the Tiger... it seems to be a whole lot about what he thought about various pros, while at the same lamenting their lack of communication with him.  Just because someone declines to meet with you doesn't mean attributing sinister motives to them in the absence of directly sournced material is the right thing to do. 

I enjoyed the read, though, I just kept an open mind about it.  While the stories he told of the various players' flaws may be true to some degree, writers have flaws too. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by 3jacker

[iacas]

On the issue of Tiger Woods and Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs):

[Chanceman]

Tiger has had a self-described "miracle" recovery from his last back operation. There has to be a reason.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Tiger has had a self-described "miracle" recovery from his last back operation. There has to be a reason.

Ha!

Doesn't seem like you read the really long post in the other topic. Please feel free. You'll find there's not a shred of actual evidence.