Tiger Woods Replies to Dan Jenkins Article

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/tiger-woods-straight-up-not-true-not-funny/

Here is Tiger's response to the Dan Jenkins piece in the most recent Golf Digest. If you haven't read both, I urge you to do so before making comment.

Specifically, I am interest in Ken's take on this as a golf writer although I understand it could be tough to chime in on as it is a pretty serious conflict involving another writer. I do welcome other's takes on it so long as you have read both pieces and have something positive to contribute (Don't want this to turn into a Tiger-basing type forum).

I personally think it was a distasteful piece by Dan Jenkins, as an avid golfer and golf fan it is well documented that Dan Jenkins has some level of distain for Tiger Woods. To further that distain in a piece for arguably the foremost golf publication is unacceptable in my opinion. However, I think a good portion of the blame should fall on Golf Digest for publishing the article that on its face appears blatantly false and accusatory from a writer with a publicly known bias against Tiger Woods. I understand they want readers because that's what makes money when it comes to sales and advertisements but is it worth it to risk your credibility as a publication. Now I get that there is an element of parody or satire attempted here but it fails miserably, it is one thing to mock someone in a golf magazine for on course falters or issues but to attack their person based in no facts whatsoever is distasteful all around. I think Tiger has handled this beautifully in having his representation send the letter to Golf Digest as well as addressing the article in his own piece. Makes me question if I will continue my Golf Digest subscription if this is the stuff they are going to continue to publish.

Thoughts?

 

you know I haven't gotten around to reading this month's GD yet. but when it came in the mail, I saw the blurb for the Jenkins' piece on the cover, the first thing I thought was, they really created a fake interview? this can't go well.

 

I had read the GD article earlier and didn't give it much thought and had no clue as to Jenkins being disdainful toward Tiger previously. I guess I read it without much knowledge needed to appreciate it. However, I can't see a political magazine (or even TIME) writing a similar article about a sitting politician without catching a 'bit' of grief from the target.

When I read articles such as this I am assuming the object of the article is chuckling alongside of me as well as seeing many an inside joke to which the public has little knowledge or insight.

Thanks for posting the response. It will be interesting to see if any other media or GD take it from there.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight. Only spoken to Tiger once or twice, met Jenkins a few times and of course have read his stuff for years. So, in sum, I don't know either man.

I thought the piece was poorly written, but a lot of Jenkins' stuff over the years never resonated with me. I did not think it necessarily ill-conceived, however. From what we know of Tiger, the representations certainly were drawn from personality quirks or mannerisms that are rather widely held to be his quirks and mannerisms. That Jenkins ran with them perhaps too far -- or too humorlessly is more my take -- isn't really germane to the matter of "facts." Parody, satire, opinion in general has always run with loose reins for a reason. Columns and editorials are not news, per se. And it was rather obvious that this whole thing was a fabrication, as are so many of Jenkins' humorous and period pieces.

Jenkins' disdain for Tiger I'd say balances out the toadies in the business who all but blow Tiger every chance they get. Again, this is not a new phenomenon. Again, doesn't mean Jenkins was necessarily "right." Bias? Half the nation loves MSNBC, half loves Fox, and neither to my way of thinking represents journalism.

If Tiger has Monty's record, his quirks and mannerisms and practices would be less forgiven. Monty's rap is having rabbit ears. Hell, has anyone had more people removed or silenced than Tiger? Weiskopf was churlish at times? Tiger, meet mirror; mirror, meet Tiger. We, the people, do cut him so much more slack because of his position in the game. That's understandable. But as I always say when people drone on about how unfair it is for athletes or stars to be singled out in the spotlight when we John and Joan Qers don't have to operate in such a milieu -- with skill comes fame and with fame comes money, gobs of money, all provided by the consuming public; you do need to hold yourself to a higher standard of comportment. But that's another matter, altogether.

So, I guess: I'd not have written it as written. I can see why Jenkins did. I respect Tiger's response, even if tainted with some drama queen-ness. If GD felt it was worthy of publication ... that's why editorial boards exist.

 

I completely agree with the fame and money comes the spotlight. However, whether he enjoys firing people or reportedly doesn't like to tip (although I know a girl who waitressed in Orlando while attending UCF has waited on him and received average to a little above average tips from the man) is just ill-hearted to some extend. If you want to attack Tiger for his having fans removed or falling to his knees in what seems exaggerated pain or for his poor language on course or tossed clubs by all means slaughter the man no different than Monty's rabbit ears or John Daly's tee-shots of beer cans. But his choice in who he employs or who or what he tips is just in poor taste. I get the humor in the parody and that's probably because it's not me as the target of the attack but I also see Tiger's gripe with something written in poor taste.

As for Dan Jenkins himself, I have always thought him to be someone living in the past. He has seemed to hold some grudge against Tiger because he threatened to push aside the greats of Jenkins writing prime. He wrote for Sports Illustrated till the mid-80s and it's like he had some irrational fear of Tiger passing Jack and Arnie. He comes across as a bit of curmudgeon when it comes to the new age of golf. When I think of him, I think of the Golf Now guy that doesn't know how to book a tee time online and asks if he can get the app on his pigeon...

 

I don't know that we have come to two different conclusions, particularly if you re-read my words relative to Jenkins.

Jenkins should have resisted the impulse to take a shot at a guy that on par seems to be deserving of some shots. Why? Not because Tiger didn't deserve it. Because Jenkins WANTED to do it. Which I think is the heart of your gripe. Maybe it will prompt Jenkins to write what he should've written in the first place, which is an opinion piece based on his years in the trenches as to why he and Tiger don't get along and why he thinks he isn't as good for the game as he could've been.

Funny thing, if someone pilloried Obama or Dubya in such a fashion, I think it escapes larger notice. But this is entertainment, the new royalty of the new age. We are more interested in if Phil Mickelson truly is a dick than we are the nuts and bolts of what makes this country run.

 

In reading the "interview" what I took from it was the author is saying "Yes, Tiger won in the past, but he is a loser now. He is not likely to win another major or break any more records, his best times are behind him and maybe its time for him to think about moving on..."

That the article was written in this fake interview format lets him keep it a little tongue-in-cheek and work a little humor in there to lighten the mood of the subject and yet still get his point across that his career is mostly over, rather than just making a dark straight-up attack piece that could have gone along the lines of "Tiger is done, the Tiger Woods era is behind us, he isn't going to set any more records or wow us on the golf course... and this is why:"

 

I have no dog in the fight but I don't think I've seen Tiger ever respond to something like this before? So he must have been pretty upset.

I think the article is a low blow of sorts to Tiger but nothing that isn't already written out there on the interwebs. I still wonder why Golf Digest, a respectable publication in the golf world, decided to run with this. It doesn't seem to belong.

 

I happen to love Jenkins' works of yesteryear. That said, I thought both the fake interview and Tiger's response were petty in equal measure.

 

I read the piece several days ago before this big fuss, I thought it was funny and also thought, "tiger aint going to like that". The bottom line is it doesn't really matter what Tiger thinks anymore, he no longer rules golf, at least not until he wins another major or two(which is unlikely).

Times sure have changed, it was reported that tiger no longer gets the appearance fee's he once commanded at these foreign stops and now writers are making fun of him, pretty soon caddies will be turning him down for work. Too bad, so sad!

Interesting that some of you would criticize it as "poorly written", cmon it's gold digest, those articles about how johnny manzell likes to golf or how Lexi Thompson is really trying hard to concentrate on her putting, weren't exactly shakespeare either.

 

Does anyone have an online link to the original piece in Golf Digest?

 

I have read both items as requested. Jenkins' piece was spite-driven, mean, and most important, not funny with a couple exceptions. I am not a Golf Digest reader, and after reading that piece am not likely to start. It was a hackneyed hack job. Jenkins also took shots at 12-15 other pros by implying that they are not worthy competition for a golf great. He is a bitter old man who needs to retire and play some...whatever.

Based on what a fan can see from a distance, I have never cared for Tiger as a person. Few "greats" in any field are great people. Tiger should have been man enough and perceptive enough to ignore the article. If he really wants to respond, the best way to do it is to go out and win another major. I hope he does just that. His six years of mediocrity (by his standards) have made Tiger into a sort of underdog, and I like to root for the underdog.

 

Jenkins as all golf writers should thank TR. Jenkins is now getting just what he wanted at TR expense. Plenty of poor tippers and plenty of people fire people. It's a whatever. If you already hate TR then it's right in your wheelhouse. If like me you like him then it's a whatever.

 

I'm not a golfer and I don't care for the off course antics of Tiger. I guess at his level of competition, having a beautiful model for a wife wasn't enough. As for his lack of tipping, I guess celebrities who don't tip 50% or more are cheap.

To me, the purpose of this article came in the last few paragraphs where the author stated how difficult it will be for Tiger to win the major tournaments since he will turn 39 soon. Instead of writing a regular piece, he had to bring in all the other stuff and skewer Woods. Meeting at a hydrant or on one of Woods' most challenging greens? WTF is that about?

Whoever is doing Public Relations for Tiger should be canned, his response could have been better. I hope Woods can use this to turn his game around and not let this article take up space in his head.

 

I loved the part about tigers british open performance that if it wasn't for the 2 triples, 3 doubles, and 9 bogeys he was "right there". Tiger says crap like that all the time after bad days.

 

So.

 

So, that was funny. One things for sure, it hit a nerve with mr woods, Jenkins should make it a regular feature, perhaps after every major , or after each time he pulls out of a tourny with a fake injury?

 

Dumb!

 

This statement couldn't be anything further from the truth. Caddies would be committing financial suicide by turning down Tiger's bag, majors or not. If you follow golf in even the least bit you'd know this. In 2013, he top the PGA Tour money list at $8.5 million while Henrik Stenson was 2nd at $6.4. At say 10% to the caddy that's $850,000 a year job and Tiger only played 14 events. Tiger may not be winning majors but his bag is still by far one of the most lucrative bags to carry. His "bad" seasons when healthy may lack major wins but still end up with solid major finishes that many would take and a handful of Tour event wins. All of these resulting in a boatload of money, so it's safe to say if Tiger came calling most caddies (save a few ex-Tiger caddies or guys already on future stars bags like Rory, Rickie, Webb) would jump at the bit to make $850,000 for 14 weeks of work.

 

Millennials aren't playing golf, courses are closing, ratings are in the tank yet the only thing that golf has going for them is Tiger{for non golfers} and he gets all this hate and really dumb articles. Don't get it when he's made plenty of the other golfers and some writers a lot more rich. Same thing happened with Jack and after he stopped golf slowly sunk until Tiger. Don't get it except golf likes their players to bow to the past like baseball.