Luke Donald + bemusement = above expression
Luke Donald is many things– a world-class golfer, a watercolour-bothering amateur artist, a husband, a father– but an idiot is not one of them; nor, it must be said, has he somehow remained ignorant of the decade-long influence and insistent brilliance of one Tiger Woods.
While the above would be considered by the vast majority of fans to be entirely self-evident, it didn’t stop a vocal, CAPS LOCK-inclined minority from venting their frustration in the direction of the current World Number One on learning that he considered Rory McIlroy a superior natural talent to the fourteen-time major champion.
A harmlessly abstract, press conference rumination on the differences between the greatest golfer of all-time and the energetic tyro who would be his long-term successor at the summit of the world rankings, Donald’s remarks were both insightful and tempered by a deep respect for the players in question.
Filtered through the hyterical echo chamber of contemporary social media, however, they took on an altogether different cast. Suddenly, Tiger Woods was perceived to have been slighted and Donald had been irrevocably branded bitter, delusional and a host of other, less printable adjectives and nouns.
Appearing on Twitter hours later, Donald’s attempts at clarification were met with outright dismissal, no end of sanctimony and, in a handful of the most extreme cases, glee.
Here, after all, was evidence of a “back-track”; that it was less a reversal of the Englishman’s original position than the hyper-sensitive parsing of it was, judging by today’s headlines, deemed to be of only marginal significance.
It appears that the man most likely to be named the PGA Tour’s player of the year, much like Paul Casey before him, is in danger of falling victim to a highly tendentious media narrative over which he has little control.
That he should be so egregiously punished for a moment of candour is, particularly when set alongside golf’s need to develop the public profiles of those who will help define the sport over the coming decade, deeply dispiriting.
Conor Nagle
I think some people/media sensationalized the remarks, which is a problem, and something that I strongly disagree with, and it does reduce athlete candor.
On the other hand I think there’s a fine line. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone (in a logical and civil manner), and expressing said disagreement. We shouldn’t be so happy with athlete candor, that it stops us from commenting on what they said.
Go read your headline from a couple posts back, Luke: Rory’s More Talented than Woods.
That’s just bait, let’s not pretend like we aren’t participating in the fanning of the flames.
If everyone sat back and drank everything in with perfect logic, and gave people the benefit of the doubt, and absorbed everything in context–the internet as we know it would cease to exist.
Point is, seems like a blog like this encourages people to have strong reactions, and now you’re scolding them for it.
@Mike82: If you read our story, ‘Luke: Rory More Talented than Woods,’ you’ll find Donald’s remarks placed in both a suitable context and used as a springboard for a thread-based discussion of Rory and Tiger’s prospects for next year. You certainly won’t find an insinuation that he was either denigrating Tiger’s achievements or making the claim that Rory is a better, all-round player; both of which have been mainstays of other press coverage.
As for the second point: of course we welcome strong opinion, but journalists should be held to a higher standard than anonymous commenters, surely?
I hate when people imply lack of reading comprehension. I read the story. I’m talking about the headline. The point being the headline sets the tone for the article. If you want to argue that it’s not used to ruffle woods’ fans feathers before they even read, fine. I’d have a hard time believing that, though.
The truth is, the chances of having a civilized discussion on talent, or what Donald’s true intentions were is about zero, especially on this type of forum. Surely, you knew that the story was most likely to generate more Rory vs. Woods banter with a little Donald bashing thrown in for good measure.
And, journalists these days are just reacting to the demand. People want immediate, salacious stories. And, there is a constant need for new stories because the news cycle is like 30 seconds. You can’t take a whole day to frame a piece in a lot of cases, because someone is out there taking a quote and running. You either try to keep up or get lost in a dust cloud of irrelevance. If you waited until today to make a post saying, This is what Donald actually meant, no one would pay attention, because they’re all thinking, “I saw that yesterday–old news.” The minds have already been made up, the sides already drawn. It might be a sad state of affairs, but that’s the way it is.
It’d be great if journalists held themselves to a higher standard, but I don’t think it’s practical. Especially when they are competing against non-journalists. Not implying that the people here aren’t journalists, just saying there are plenty out there. I don’t know if you all consider yourselves journalists or not.
@Mike82:
Sorry, Mike! I didn’t mean to imply you lacked basic reading comprehension; I was just trying to underline the extent to which I feel our story diverges from the Donald v. Woods narrative.
Your points regarding the imperatives driving media coverage are broadly valid, but they’re not legitimate cause for fatalism on the part of either journalist or reader.
Sure, our headline is provocative, but I don’t think it misrepresents anyone; just frames the discussion. The difficulty I have with a great deal of the Donald coverage is that it actively engages in an exaggerated, self-serving form of obfuscation.
It might be a reflection of the status quo, but it’s still mightily disappointing.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Writing that requires such elaborate explaining is nothing but garbage. How’s that for being held to a higher standard?
Golf media today do set that bar pretty low. And that, too.
For me it boils down to a lack of consistency. And, if I have any gripe with this site, that’s what it would be on occasion. Writers, across all forms of media, want it both ways. They want to participate in the snark, appeal to the lowest common denominator, generate traffic, but at the same time if it suits them they want to step back and be above the fray. The only real consistency is that a story is framed in a way that is most convenient for whatever dialog is going on at that particular moment.
So, you want the benefits of a headline, but the next day you want to criticize people for overreacting. It’s an admittedly lesser example of a bigger problem.
A few days back it was illustrated better in the discussion of your Chevron coverage. The site wants to make the Tiger jokes, etc., but at the mention of any distaste for him, you’re up in arms. You’re just taking your shots, which is fine, but the coverage of the exact same tournament the year before is totally different. Why wasn’t the headline, “McDowell Takes Money Grab, Wake Me Up When He Wins the Career Slam 3 Times.”
The answer is, because you’re just fitting the Chevron to whatever purpose suits you best. If it’s part of a story about McDowell’s rise to prominence, a seemingly good guy you’d get no mileage out of ripping–It’s a nice event. If Tiger wins, it’s fair game for cheap shots and it’s used as an example of what’s wrong with the World Rankings.
That’s, of course, just my impression. But, I think it’s hard to deny that another symptom of the short news cycle is that people take less accountability for what they write the previous day, week or year.
I like Mike82 not gonna lie.
1) Mike82 has a point.
2) Luke should not have clarified his statement. He’s entitled to his opinion. To anyone smarter than a half-wit, it was very plain what he meant and there was no disrespect to Tiger Woods in it either. If anything, his comment challenges McIlroy to stop underachieving or else that means he can’t match Tiger’s intelligence, guts or both.
3) Luke was wrong about who is more naturally gifted.
Looks like both Luke and Conor are ‘back tracking’….
Reality: Tiger Woods is the 3rd rail of Golf.
You touch it, you should know what’s coming at this point. People touch it all the time to get the juice, but it comes with consequences.
@Mike82 … I was about to post a few words, but you have said it all. I couldnt agree more and certainly couldnt say it better. Well Done.
Mike82 just called out Conor. I’d love to see Conor’s attempt at a rebuttal.
*grabs popcorn*
@KC: haha, good one.
i love it when a two bit blogger comes on the comments section to try to defend what he originally wrote… smacks of amateur hour…and a bit unprofessional i might add…this blog has been nothing but negative towards tiger since 2 years ago…and cant wait for some crow time in 2012. And please, no need to come on the comments board and explain that you love him as a golfer but can’t stand him as a person…
and to get back to the topic at hand:
Luke’s reply/retraction:
“A few people aren’t understanding what I meant. The word ‘talent’ and Rory, to me, means a free-flowing swing who makes everything look so easy,” Donald tweeted. “TW (Woods) has always been the best at getting the ball in the hole when it mattered the most. That’s not just talent (that’s) something else, too.”
I have no idea what he just said, but I thought it took “talent” to get the ball in the hole when it mattered most.
All of this is about water under the bridge. As far as the future goes, Tiger is a balding geezer with a bum knee and Luke suffers from Luke Donald Disease. Neither of them are going to be racking up the majors from here on out. Very soon, Father Time will relegate both of them to spectator status. Nature’s cycle will take its course.
MM, I love kids like you with you’re limited-view opinions. In case you aren’t aware, Jack Nicklaus won THREE majors AFTER he turned 40. Many, many in the press were saying he was done when he got into his late 30s.
My prediction is that you are in for some crow-eating in the not-to-distant future. And you may well develop a taste for it because you going to get it several times.
@Shanks – Actually, my view takes the wider perspective into account. There are actually plenty of majors won by people over 35 – in fact this accounts for 22% of all majors won in the history of golf. However, the statistical outliers like Vijay and Nicklaus (and Clarke) cause people to vastly underestimate how difficult it is for any one partucular golfer to trimuph over age in their later 30s and 40s.
According to the conventional view, Watson should have been able to win multiple majors beyond age 34. In fact, he produced 18 top tens in his next 44 majors. His problem? Age. He became older while the peak years of all the talented players stayed fixed at about 30 yrs of age. Looking back, Watson said “It just wasn’t my time anymore.” That is probably one of the most unintentionally insightful statistical comments ever made by a golfer.
The Watson example is much more common amomg the greats that the Nicklaus example. Statistics say that winning a major is certain possible for an older player, but they also say that it is a generally a bad bet to place your money on any one particular golfer doing it.
I think there is a probable chance Woods will win one or two majors from here on out. But every year become noticable harder than the last. History underscores this.
That said, I understand your prediction. I have had many favorite sporting heros that I hoped would continue their winning ways despite fading in later careers and I was suspeticble to ignoring the evidence because I didn’t like it.
MM, I hope you’re not trying to compare Watson to either Nicklaus or Woods. Those 2 are on a different level of greatness. Watson went from being a choker to great to yippy putter (which is why he fell off the winners platform). He was at his best in the Open because he was one of the most aggressive putters in history and the much slower links greens played right into his hands. Oddly enough, he was a terrible ball-striker early in his career but got progressively better as his putting went in the other direction.
I agree that “the Nicklaus example” is much, much tougher. And only the greatest of the great can do it. I imagine you are a bit younger than I and not overly familiar with Ben Hogan. Read his story. He had a nearly career-ending car accident at age 36, was in the hospital for 2 months and doctors feared he would never walk again. (Woods turns 36 this month.) He had leg & other health issues the rest of his career. Well, long story short, he won the US Open the following year at age 37, the Masters & US Open at 38 and – arguably the greatest season ever (1953) – won the Masters, US Open & British Open at age 41. This was with bad legs and all.
Now, you can pooh-pooh this if you want to, but I think Woods is beyond the greatness level of Hogan and is more like Nicklaus. Now that he has his physical health back in good shape where he can really practice and play a full schedule, I see no reason that be won’t become the best in the world – again.
And just so you know, I’m no Tiger-lover. I just happen to think we’re about to see history made over the next 5 years – and it’ll be at the expense of my lifelong golfing hero Jack Nicklaus.
Greatness is not the antidote for age.
Again, Shanks, you are selecting your evidence and making the leap that being one of the best golfers ever equates to success in later years. Hogan is a poor example because he completely hit the wall after 40. He played 25 more majors and had top tens in 13 of them. But, just like Tom Watson, he was always close, but could never pull it off again. THAT is the only consistent pattern that we see from the older greats. Most come close but never win again. A few pull off victories, but they are random and are a distinct minority.
As I said, 22% of all majors won were by players over the age of 35. However, there is no pattern indicating that the greatest in the game won their proportionate share of these. Of the 15 or so greatest of all time, only Nicklaus and Player had a terrific early and mid careers that then continued on with wins in late career. It is the exception, not the norm.
Statistically, your hero Nicklaus’ record is safe.
Regardless of how seduced you are by the Woods story, his enemy is age which will only allow a couple of random majors, if he is healthy.
We could go on and on with this. It is not possible to elimnate the argument because anything can happen. But, the evidence is against Woods. You can’t change that (unless you can make him younger).
Statistically, Nicklaus proved that late-career major victories are possible. However, he did not prove that they were likely, even for the greats.
Your cognitive bias is very common in the general population. That is why there is a lottery ticket industry. If people were rational and looked at the evidence, no one would ever buy lottery tickets again. But, hope trumps reason.
well Mark O’Meara and Vijay also won multiple majors after the age of 35, as has Phil. Statistically, are people under the age of 35 more likely to win than people over the age of 35? Yes. But you can’t assume that just because golfers in general are less likely to win, that the same will hold true for Tiger.
Also if Tiger wins 22% of his majors after the age of 35, he will win 18.
Statistic is only valid if you have a large sample size. 4 majors per year in golf simply is not enough to derive anything with high level of accuracy.
Mike82, great logic and commentary.
Conor, you are full of more shit than a Christmas goose.
FYI, there’s a Yahoo poll out there with over 20,000 responses and 85% say Tiger is more talented than Rory.
Marko,
Your pseudo statistical analysis is laughable by anyone who’s had 1st year statistics in a Uni.
Also, please stop trying to use your fuzzy logic to trump facts.
@Shoshana – Yes, if Woods remains healthy and follows the age-related career trajectory based on his earlier production, he ends up with 18.
Woods will be affected by age – that has to be the assumption. It is the most powerful determinant in major win production.
And you’re right, there are many post-35 multiple major winners – you can throw in Harrington, Cabrerra, Player, Old Tom Morris, Hogan, and about 10 others (Mickelson actually isn’t one of them – he was 35 when he won the 06 Masters, so not older than 35 at that point). However, there are too many examples of players who do win multiple majors beyond this age. And, also, too many of these are considered greats in their eras.
The other thing is that time is fading fast for Woods right now. The major win production of a 36 year old is half of that compared to a 35 year old. It is the first significant age related drop.
It is very urgent that Woods wins another soon. 19% of all majors have been won post 36, 15% post 37, 12% post 38, 8% post 39, and only 6% post 40. So, if he resumes his “greatest” handicapped for age and stays healthy, he only stands to win three more if he doesn’t win this year, two more if he doesn’t win over the next two years, two more if he doesn’t win over the next three years (rounding), and only one more if he does not win before age 40.
@Six Sigma – time to send your degree back to the diploma mill.
The population size is 415 – that is how many major have been played.
There is no need to work with a sample, we have all the necessary data.
The list of players with 3 straight US Am’s is < 1%. The list of players with USGA championships in 6 straight years is 10 majors is < 1%. Tiger is on all those lists. An he'll define the list of players that wins the most majors after turning age 36. The number will be 6 or more.
Typo there.
6 straight years 10 majors is < 1%.
A bug in there, but you get the gist.
how do you carry on an intelligent conversation with a guy on the internet who calls himself Marky Mark? Trying to use Sabremetrics to analyze TW? This guy is just as laughable as the author of this post.
Enlighten me, Marky Mark, what are the chances of someone winning 6 straight USGA Amateur Open titles again?
And while we are here, how about the chances of someone not only winning the above 6 titles, but also being to hold all four major titles simultaneously?
Where do your numbers stand on that?
The fact is you can’t use any of that to analyze TW because simply he is an outlier. Already a tail event, so don’t even bother to waste your time, because it only happens once in a blue moon. Enjoy the ride ok Jimbo? and maybe you should stop drinking the Hateraide? Or was one of the Ho’s he smacked, related to you in any way? In which case explains a lot…?
HaHaaAAAAA!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!