Tiger's Disappointed About What Stevie Said

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 15, 2008 8:34 PM EST Comment 23 comments

I don't really know that Tiger has to be disappointed in what Steve Williams said about Phil Mickelson. Steve has every right to have his opinion of Lefty and every right to refer to him as a prick. (Yeah, the supposed "expletive" was prick.)

But, since people would be mad if Tiger DIDN'T say anything - think the noose incident - Tiger said something. Something not very meaningful.

"I was disappointed to read the comments attributed to Steve Williams about Phil Mickelson, a player that I respect," Woods said in a statement. "It was inappropriate. The matter has been discussed and dealt with."

And good for Woods for saying next to nothing. He shouldn't chide Steve Williams for calling Mickelson a prick at a private speaking engagement. A lot of things are said in the locker rooms of PGA Tour stops that will not be repeated in the press.

Are the comments interesting? You bet. They represent an opinion from the Tiger Woods camp. You don't hear that very often. And even if it is the opinion of a caddy who apparently has some kind of fifth Beatle complex, it is intriguing.

So, we can talk about the comment all day. Still, Steve Williams has a right to think Lefty is a prick. And, anyone who comments on the situation has the right to call Stevie something worse.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

you're kidding...right ?

you’re just SAYING that you don’t understand why Tiger would be upset at his employee for making a derogatory remark about a higly ranked competitor (and Ryder/Presidents Cup Teammate) who is also loved by a lot of fans…right ?

Tiger said a lot with those few words. Admitting respect for Phil Mickelson, while at the same time letting the public know that he wasn’t happy with his friend and caddy/employee – that’s a lot coming from someone as tight lipped as Woods.

If Tiger is saying this in public, you can bet he’s really letting Stevie have it in private.

Nobody said anything about “rights” – this isn’t about “rights” – (by the way – Stevie isn’t an American citizen – so bringing in the Constitution doesn’t really hold up) – this is about embarrassing the boss in public – something everybody knows isn’t something he appreciates or tolerates.

Freedom of speech is a Constitutional protection for citizens’ speech against or about the government – it has nothing to do with embarrassing your employer and getting canned.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 15, 2008 9:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say anything about

not understanding why Tiger would be upset. I said that I didn’t think he particularly HAD to be disappointed about it. And I – personally – don’t think Tiger should ream Stevie about it because if calling Phil Mickelson a “prick” is what gets him fired, then what about his interactions with fans, the media, and his overall brute attitude toward people? THIS was the straw that broke the back of this working relationship?! Seems hardly appropriate.

I am not implying anything at all about rights, freedom of speech, etc. I am saying that Stevie can do and say what he wants. This kind of thing is interesting. Way better than the usual junk we hear.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 15, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

employee - employer

Come on RB – you and I might get away with saying something about the boss or his competition at a party or the bar – we’re paeons in the scheme of things. But these are two huge public figures (Tiger and Phil) and Steve Williams is the very public employee of Tiger Frickin’ Woods. Tiger is a very, successful, wealthy, private person to begin with – so anything said or done to embarrass him will not be well received.

I agree with you that Williams has done things that might be worse than getting drunk and spouting off in public – but the on course things he did were in response to people “breaking the rules” around the boss.

However – having your most visible employee getting drunk and embarrassing the boss in public affects more than a guy with a camera snapping pictures in the middle of his swing. Nobody wants even a little bit of the kind of publicity that John Daly gets – and Steve Williams has just made himself a target for the media and a distraction to Woods.

I’m not big on “E” news and gossip.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 16, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, Steve...

…but I think you just may have just cost yourself a 7-figure meal ticket.

Tiger dumped Fluff when he got a little too big for his britches. Now Tiger’s current caddy is in the news smearing another player? It’s not like he was taken out of context. When asked about the remark, he owned right up to it and went further. So it’s clearly not just a misunderstanding or something taken out of context.

I’m guessing Steve Williams just used his one and only strike, and frankly I won’t be the least bit surprised if he’s out of a job some time before Tiger resumes play next year.

by Double Eagle on Dec 15, 2008 10:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Like I said above

It seems really odd that this would be the thing that does Steve Williams in with Tiger. After everything else, it’s calling Phil a prick and telling a story that you could substitute Monty and any other number of out of shape guys’ names in for? That just doesn’t add up. Hell, he could’ve had Kelly Tilghman fired for the noose business. He recognized the mistake and didn’t call for her head. He moved on and asked everyone to do the same.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 15, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One Difference

Tiger Woods doesn’t employ Kelly Tilghman.

Tiger Woods is a valuable commodity and has an image to uphold. Not to mention that he personally doesn’t seem like the kind of person to lash out or be critical of people in public. I can’t see any reason why he’d accept it from anywhere within Team Tiger.

The true strength of his relationship with Steve Williams will be the deciding factor about Steve’s future. But I guarantee it doesn’t happen again, and if it does, I predict that will be the end of their business relationship. In fact, I’m betting that all you’re going to hear out of Williams on this topic in the future is either “no comment” or some form of apology.

by Double Eagle on Dec 15, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That last part

I completely agree with. If this is the kind of thing that gets him a stern talking to/uses up his one strike, then I think he will be incredibly cautious with his words and actions. And it’s kind of sad because Stevie – despite his public issues – has given a TON of money to Kiwi charities.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 15, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but he DIDN'T

he was specific about Mickelson – Monty had nothing to do with it – and Monty isn’t the second best (third ranked) player on the planet.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 16, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

private speech

I’ll admit I haven’t read everything pertaining to this incident so forgive me if I mis-characterize something.

Steve Williams, in what he presumed was a private conversation at a private affair, said something unflattering about Philly Mick. Someone who overheard this private conversation reported it to the media. When questioned about it, Steve Williams, being the stand-up guy that he is, admitted that he had indeed been correctly quoted.

This demonstrates the problem with a celebrity-obsessed culture. No one with any public persona can be assured that anything she or he expresses in private won’t appear in some tabloid somewhere. Does notoriety eliminate all hope of privacy? Is that the price one pays for being instantly recognizable to most of the world?

Hardly seems worth it.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 16, 2008 8:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately

Unfortunately, there is a price that comes with celebrity.

Even if it was a private conversation, when asked about it by a reporter, his reply could have been “no comment”. Certainly, telling the truth is the proper thing to do, but it also opens up an unnecessary can of worms. Giving no comment would have left much of the sordid affair in the back room where it started.

by Double Eagle on Dec 16, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh...

punishment for honesty.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 16, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PR

PR is a twisted game. Unfortunately, honesty is not usually rewarded. Kind of depressing, really.

by Double Eagle on Dec 16, 2008 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 16, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pretty much...

…until the courts step up and start jailing or granting wins in civil suits against media members with no self control on the gossip button – this is the way celebrity is going to be.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 16, 2008 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Legal remedy?

But is there even a legal case to be made in a situation like this? Is it gossipy? 100%. But anything else? I don’t see it. I mean, it’s not like Steve Williams was misquoted. He was asked about it and owned right up. He gave his personal opinion of Mickelson.

And sadly, it’s this kind of drivel that the public eats up. I’m guilty to an extent, but I’m not really contributing to the financial success of this sort of reporting by buying celebrity rags or watching TV gossip programs.

by Double Eagle on Dec 16, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

in general

I wasn’t being specific to this story. Mickelson probably couldn’t care less what Williams said – it really doesn’t damage him – but a lot of people these days would be running to their lawyer to file a frivolous law suit.

What I was talking about was the constant stream of gossip stories we hear, reporters digging into private matters just to throw mud, and, of course, the papparazzi types. What they do is nothing short of harrassment and sometimes even assault – but they are allowed to hide behind the first amendment – which has nothing to do with the things these people do – but the courts let them get away with it.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 16, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is an awkward one

Because this is the kind of thing that journalism has devolved into. It’s not even really journalism. A reporter may not have been there, but someone who found it juicy emailed the comment to someone at the NZ paper in question. To get some hits, they run it. Someone else there confirms it. “Journalism” is a term that shouldn’t be thrown around lightly, IMHO.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 16, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, but...

…I coudn’t come up with a better word for it – even the tabloids get “journalist” tagged on. “Gossip mongers” doesn’t cover the entire scope of what these people do.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 16, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs