Tiger Woods’ second victory in an official PGA tour event since his “troubles”—overcoming a four-stroke deficit in the final round—couldn’t help but be satisfying if his success means something to you. It was “proof” that his first tour victory in over two years was not a “fluke,” and it could be repeated, multiple times. It remains to be seen if Tiger can put together all the elements of his game to win a major, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason that he would be no more capable than any other player. It is simply a matter of time; the question will be if he has enough time to catch-up to or surpass the Golden Bear.
One thing for certain is that when Tiger wins, interest rises. I have to admit that when Tiger fell behind after a subpar third round at the Memorial, I wasn’t sure if this was more of the recent same, or if he was poised to be the Tiger that the competition wilted before. I work on Sunday, so I had to wait until after the tournament was over before I discover the final result. When I saw the headline that announced that he had won, I felt that it was not just a vindication of Tiger, but of those for whom his success has a vicarious element to it. What am I talking about? Back in the day, golf was an elitist, country club sport. People who are knowledgeable about the history of golf (not me) knows the story of Francis Ouimet, the 20-year-old dry-goods store clerk and former caddie who won the 1913 US Open, beating the two pompous Brits who were expected to win. Later on, Arnold Palmer and Lee Trevino became popular players in their time because they were also viewed as everymen who were “outsiders” in what is still viewed by many people as an elitist, country club sport. Palmer in particular played-up his everyman persona, attracting an “army” of fans who could easily see themselves in his shoes; Palmer was “one of us”—not one of those snooty people for whom golf was a “pastime” rather than a profession.
Put Tiger into this otherwise vanilla landscape and then watch him dominate, and multiply the effect by several factors. Tiger is the ultimate “outsider” who broke the mold for what was possible for all of us. There are, of course, his detractors, who existed in droves even before the “incident.” Many who called themselves “true” fans of golf were upset because he overshadowed their own favorites, nearly all who were, of course, white. The reality was that because he was black, Tiger did not “blend” into landscape, making his success so much more noticeable. He stood out like no other golfer before him or likely in the future. The golfers who will replace him (like the media-anointed Rory McIlroy, who missed yet another cut), will just be another of a long-line of successful, but interchangeable, players in a white-dominated sport.
*******************************************************
I have to admit that every time I hear local sports radio personality Mike Salk talk about Matt Flynn, I get this urge to start pulling out my hair. He talks to people like Mike Sando, who writes for ESPN’s NFC West blog; Sando was from the start someone who has sought to take Flynn down a peg, apparently because he thinks Flynn was “overhyped,” and he has persuaded himself that what he sees doesn’t impress him. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust Sando’s opinion any further than I can throw him, and I wouldn’t even be able to pick him up. Sando thinks Russell Wilson has long-term prospects. Of course, those “prospects” could just as well include a permanent position on the bench as a back-up (as are others of his size) or the Arena League as it could as a starting NFL quarterback. I still think that his height will be a long-term issue for him, and I don’t know if he is the Wilson of NC State who no one would be taking this seriously, or the Wilson of Wisconsin whose height was not a factor because the team was so outstanding in other areas.
At any rate, Salk and company scrambled to “explain” why Sando and others they talked to were loath to assuage their doubts. There are reasons why Flynn isn’t “sharp”—i.e. accurate? But isn’t that the opposite of what Brock has said after viewing him practice? I still believe that much of the pro-Wilson, anti-Flynn attitude is political. Thankfully, there is Hugh Millen on the other station to take the politics out of it. Millen, whose function is apparently to do minute break downs of tape, was not initially a Flynn “fan” before the Seahawks acquired him. But this morning, while admitting that there wasn’t anything that “wowed” you when watching Flynn in practice, the reason for this was that he seemed capable in all pertinent aspects. He has adequate velocity. He makes the right reads. His footwork is excellent. He has a quick release. He showed an ability to lead receivers and put the ball in the right place. His accuracy was excellent. When asked what his weakness is, Millen was hard put to say what that was, because even his supposed lack of arm strength was not really that significant.
There is no guarantee that Flynn will be that Pro Bowl caliber quarterback, there is no crystal ball for us to gaze upon. But what we do know is that he has all the requisite tools, and the only real question is whether this will translate on the football field on a consistent basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment