Here's wishing him a speedy recovery and all, and nothing against Eldrick Tont Woods, but for some reason yours truly has never been a fan of his. Why that is, I really don't know. Perhaps it's akin to different tastes in other things. Some like certain foods, cars, etc., while others don't. Same with the age-old dog versus cat debate. There's really no right or wrong about it. Just different strokes.
But nowhere is it spelled out in the Constitution, much less etched in stone, that a sports fan has to root for any particular player/team/personality just because so many others choose to do so. One is free to boo Derek Jeter or Oprah if they wish. Though likely not a popular choice -- it indeed remains a choice, like watching the weather channel when the Super Bowl is going on. Horrors!
Nonetheless, I would submit this year's Master's golf tourney is more interesting because of the absence of Tiger Woods. Sacrilege and blasphemy, you say? Not so fast.
How Tiger would have fared in the opening round is a matter of speculation. Maybe he would have shot a lights-out 64 to storm into the lead. Or maybe he would have carded a 77 and had his fans wondering if he could rally to merely make the cut. That's all hypothetical nonsense and doesn't matter, because he's not there.
What is indisputable is the difference in TV coverage. During this particular opening round, golf fans were treated to seeing the whole spectrum of the field. Some big name players like Mickelson, Scott, Ousthuizen, Westwood, and McIlroy got their air time. But so did a lot of other "no-names" as well. The cameras, and announcers, spread their time evenly trying to cover as much as possible.
This has not been the case when Woods has been playing any tournament, let alone the Masters. Besides zeroing in on his every move, to the detraction of action elsewhere, TV viewers have often been force fed highlights of Woods during past tournaments, while live action is going on at the present contest. It's like the TV folks, and the media in general, have a fetish for Tiger. They can't get enough of him. Seemingly every other camera shot is of Tiger. And oh, the countless replays if he makes a good shot.
Sure, Woods was a phenomenal golfer for about a 10 stretch. He was not only racking up one major after another, but winning a slew of other tournaments as well. Hats off to probably the most dominant decade in the history of golf.
Tiger hasn't won a major since 2008. And hey, any guy can be a serial adulterer, have his ex-wife take $100 million in a divorce, and move to a foreign nation thousands of miles away with his two little kids, where the guy is held in national contempt -- right?
But the point is -- if Tiger had been playing in this Master's, viewers wouldn't have got to see much of what they did amongst the other players. It never seemed right to me that watching Tiger eat a banana or chat with his caddy should take TV precedence over some other guy putting for an eagle or making a spectacular shot at the same time elsewhere on the course.
Since Woods came on the golf scene almost 20 years ago, it's been wall-to-wall coverage of his every move. That's great, if one is a Tiger junkie. But some of us aren't. During the time the action is going on, there's only so much the TV folks can show. If they zero in on one thing, the fans are missing out on others.
I don't want to see Jeter or Winfrey eating bananas either, much less highlights of their past performances when other really good stuff is going on live elsewhere. Boo, hiss, click.
Again, godspeed to Tiger, and may he regain his old form in the near future. But in the meantime, I'm really liking watching this Master's without him, because we get to see a lot of players and their shots that never would have seen the light of day had Woods been there hogging up the cameras.
No comments:
Post a Comment