So now there are seven. Or possibly eight. Nine, if it's true about a fling with a British TV presenter.
I wouldn't dream of defending Tiger Woods' philandering but, even as a journalist, I have a distaste for kicking a guy when he's down. And a professional idealogy of relevance. To do neither you need a certain type of newspaper.
In today's edition of a 'certain newspaper' - I will not give it the oxygen of publicity among my 12 regular followers - it drags out the former fiancé of one of the mistresses.
Naturally, to heighten the dramatic effect of the world number one's fall from grace, businessman Derek Schmidt is billed as "a golf fan who used to idolise Woods".
His ex, Jamie Jungers, was first approached by Woods in 2005, according to the right-wing tabloid.
"He immediately started hitting on her and telling her she was beautiful," said Schmidt, who we can only presume from his intimate knowledge of the events that unfolded, was happy to look on armed only with a pocket tape recorder and a Polaroid camera.
"I was a massive Tiger Woods fan. I had Tiger Woods memorabilia all over my house and even collected Tiger Woods videos," continued Schmidt, who, at his age, really should have had a semblance of a life.
Schmidt added: "I think Tiger is a great competitor on the golf course, but away from it he is a horrible person."
One can only assume he can make that judgment because he spent so much time in the company of Woods. His view couldn't be at all clouded because of the presence of a cheque-book.
Woods is an idiot. He's made monumental errors of judgment in his personal life which will probably affect him and his family for the rest of his life. He's left the family home for privacy apparently - he doesn't deserve sympathy. But he's not a murderer - just a naive fool. He's still a great golfer.
And it begs the question would the same newspaper report with such glee similar philandering by a white golfer who was at the top of the tree? Or maybe a popular white British sportsman with a reputation worse than that of Woods?
They must surely have had the opportunity.
They'd be better off trying to analyse the state of Woods' mind. After all he's married to Elin Nordegren - and have you seen some of those women he's alleged to have been with?
And we always thought Tiger didn't like it in the rough...
Showing posts with label golf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label golf. Show all posts
Monday, December 07, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
It made me laugh anyway
Sometimes Google alerts can provide a good laugh by just teasing a story with the first few lines.
As an example I give you one which came through an hour or so ago…
HEADLINE: Man drowns while diving for golf balls
SOURCE: Boston Herald
Jerry Gunderson started diving for golf balls in 1953, when he was 19…
Well, to be honest, I thought, he’s done bloody well to hold his breath for that long!
As an example I give you one which came through an hour or so ago…
HEADLINE: Man drowns while diving for golf balls
SOURCE: Boston Herald
Jerry Gunderson started diving for golf balls in 1953, when he was 19…
Well, to be honest, I thought, he’s done bloody well to hold his breath for that long!
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Girls Aloud? Not at Leaderboard courses they're not...
Tradition versus modernity. It's the age-old conundrum.
I would imagine when the Bronze Age kicked off there were people refusing to participate saying flint had been good enough for their father, and their father's father before that.
And in the 17th century there were those who eschewed the fashion for powdered wigs - except for lawyers of course who sill enjoy prancing around in them to this day.
The tradition versus modernity argument has raised its head again on the golf course, with the Leaderboard Group - which owns four clubs in the south of England - banning the girls of Eye Candy Caddies from its fairways.
Personally I've always felt the term Eye Candy Caddies (ECC) was a bit of a misnomer for some of them, but they argue they provide a useful service. Leaderboard disagrees and says they provide a disservice to the fairer sex who are still, at some anachronistic clubs, searching for equal rights.
It's a difficult one. ECC could be interpreted as a bit of harmless fun. But, though I don't wish to be a Luddite, I have to agree with Leaderboard here. It's not what I would personally want to see at my golf club, even if it were for just a one-day corporate event. Though I am an old fart.
This one's not tradition versus modernity, it's about standards. And I like the fact golf, in general, has high standards.
What can not be denied, however, is that both parties have enjoyed some highly beneficial publicity. And that can't be a bad thing for either of them.
I would imagine when the Bronze Age kicked off there were people refusing to participate saying flint had been good enough for their father, and their father's father before that.
And in the 17th century there were those who eschewed the fashion for powdered wigs - except for lawyers of course who sill enjoy prancing around in them to this day.
The tradition versus modernity argument has raised its head again on the golf course, with the Leaderboard Group - which owns four clubs in the south of England - banning the girls of Eye Candy Caddies from its fairways.
Personally I've always felt the term Eye Candy Caddies (ECC) was a bit of a misnomer for some of them, but they argue they provide a useful service. Leaderboard disagrees and says they provide a disservice to the fairer sex who are still, at some anachronistic clubs, searching for equal rights.
It's a difficult one. ECC could be interpreted as a bit of harmless fun. But, though I don't wish to be a Luddite, I have to agree with Leaderboard here. It's not what I would personally want to see at my golf club, even if it were for just a one-day corporate event. Though I am an old fart.
This one's not tradition versus modernity, it's about standards. And I like the fact golf, in general, has high standards.
What can not be denied, however, is that both parties have enjoyed some highly beneficial publicity. And that can't be a bad thing for either of them.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
No pleasing some people
Golf fans - and golf writers - are a difficult breed to please.
When Tiger Woods was winning everything - before he admitted his leg was busted and gave everybody the psychological boost they needed, before taking it away again by saying he'd won the US Open with it - people were bemoaning his dominance saying it wasn't good for the sport.
'Where are all the other challengers?' the pundits mused. 'His dominance is ruining golf' they claimed.
Fast forward 10 months and followers of the women's game, particularly in the US, are upset for the opposite reason: there's no dominant woman - primarily there's no dominant woman, or even emerging woman, to whom the US public can lay claim.
After 23-year-old South Korean Eun Hee Ji took the US Women's Open title on Sunday, critics in the US started bemoaning the fact that 16 different players had won the last 17 majors, with only world number Lorena Ochoa winning twice.
What really rankles one would imagine is that only eight of the last 37 major championships have been won by an American.
Surely the competition is great for the sport? One only has to look at Premiership football to realise how dull and uninteresting a sport can become if its front-runners are already determined before the start of the campaign.
In the last few years more focus has been on the bottom end of the table where the excitement and unpredictability is riveting.
Personally, if 16 different players had won the last 17 men's majors I'd be overjoyed - not least because chances are my Paddy Power account wouldn't look quite so bleak...
When Tiger Woods was winning everything - before he admitted his leg was busted and gave everybody the psychological boost they needed, before taking it away again by saying he'd won the US Open with it - people were bemoaning his dominance saying it wasn't good for the sport.
'Where are all the other challengers?' the pundits mused. 'His dominance is ruining golf' they claimed.
Fast forward 10 months and followers of the women's game, particularly in the US, are upset for the opposite reason: there's no dominant woman - primarily there's no dominant woman, or even emerging woman, to whom the US public can lay claim.
After 23-year-old South Korean Eun Hee Ji took the US Women's Open title on Sunday, critics in the US started bemoaning the fact that 16 different players had won the last 17 majors, with only world number Lorena Ochoa winning twice.
What really rankles one would imagine is that only eight of the last 37 major championships have been won by an American.
Surely the competition is great for the sport? One only has to look at Premiership football to realise how dull and uninteresting a sport can become if its front-runners are already determined before the start of the campaign.
In the last few years more focus has been on the bottom end of the table where the excitement and unpredictability is riveting.
Personally, if 16 different players had won the last 17 men's majors I'd be overjoyed - not least because chances are my Paddy Power account wouldn't look quite so bleak...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)