Do we really need to have some dufus moralising at the top of his moral tenor? Do we need it on the Herald? Are we better served as a community when we dish out gratuitous sanctimony when it seems it would be on moral firm ground to wind up and have a kick at a fallen idol? I tend to think not.
This one is pretty repugnant for its high moral tone delivered with the utmost self-righteousness.
Now I am as disgusted with Woods and his secret life as I have always been about his on-course behaviour, which runs the gamut of foul language, ugly fist pumps, the throwing of clubs (nearly decapitating a spectator at our Masters at Kingston Heath last November) and spitting. He was untouched by a fawning media that has since become increasingly feral.
About the only comments we should believe from his statement are that he has been ''selfish and foolish''. And, more tellingly, ''I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled.''
How very true that is: ''I felt I was entitled.'' ''Selfish.'' It sums up everything about Woods. He feels he is not only bigger than the game he has dominated but also beyond the bounds of all moral and social behaviour.
His colleagues, good unionists that they are, have all said they welcome him back. Of course they do. When Woods turned professional in 1996, the total prizemoney for the PGA Tour was $US70 million. This year it is around $US270 million ($295 million). In 1997, Woods's first full year as a professional, 18 players won more than $US1 million. Last year, 87 players earned $US1 million-plus. They've filled their pockets on the back of Woods.
Give me Ernie Els any time. He is everything that is great about the game of golf and the most engaging bloke to have a chat with over a cold one. He was world No.1 for a week in 1997 and for eight weeks, in brackets of four weeks, in 1998 but then Woods began his mesmerising march into the history books with very little left to achieve, save Jack Nicklaus's mark of 18 majors.
Well, fuck me dead. If I were Ernie Els, I'd be embarrassed to be endorsed in this way, by putting down Tiger Woods. This is not a man's work. This is not a decent human writing this column. So much envy for the success of one man, and now that he's been found out to be a bit of a philanderer, out come the objections to his character on moral grounds. All from people who couldn't hold a torch to Tiger Woods on the golf course; all of them weekend hackers to pros with some lesser record; all of whom know in their deepest hearts that even if they could duplicate Woods' dedication, they would still fall short of his talent.
Disgust, he says! Disgust? Isn't it more like a projection of Peter Stone's own self-loathing that he's been a good little human who hasn't gone philandering but God or Fortune or Lady Luck or whoever has denied him the greatness of Tiger Woods' talent? Isn't it the case that nobody in their right-proper mind would pick Peter Stone's life achievements over Tiger Woods? If morality is the only ledger that Stone is trying to claim superiority over Woods, then maybe morality isn't such a good yardstick with which to judge a man.
All this moralising is nothing but invidia. It's the same kind of crap they threw at early black players in the MLB, it's the same kind of crap the old guard at Wimbledon threw at John McEnroe, and it's the same kind of crap that they keep coming up with in order to shore up their own sorry fucked up lives of non-achievement. He's a super-charged, hyper-motivated athlete. It's not surprising he comes with a super-sized libido. everybody who has read Freud knows this and at this point in history most journalists an columnists ought to be familiar with this notion.
Seriously folks, we should grow out of this bullshit that holds athletes up to being role models and model citizens. The expectation itself is unrealistic and immature. Historically, it's never really mattered who fucked who unless it was Anthony and Cleopatra. In most instances, it's always been "what have you don for me lately?" Pretending it's otherwise is childish, and imprudent in the extreme.
They should all just back off and let the man do his thing. Woods may wow us all yet, and that would make us all feel better. Judging Woods' secret sex life doesn't make us feel one bit better. Peter Stone should just just the fuck up and put a bullet to his head and put us out of misery.
No comments:
Post a Comment