|
|
|||||||||
 |
Posted on Wed, Apr. 09, 2003 |   |
|
||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Woods keeps opinions to himself -- as is his right
Mercury News Staff Columnist
AUGUSTA, Ga. - No golfer has ever been a bigger favorite in a major championship. Jack Nicklaus at his all-time greatest was never this prohibitive a pick in this tournament, which he won six times. Even last year, a compelling case could have been made for Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Davis Love or David Duval to win the Masters. No more. This Masters is Tiger Woods' to lose. He owns it the way he owns the minds and hearts of Mickelson, Els, Love and Duval on Sundays on this course. Tuesday, addressing a standing-room-only assembly of reporters from all over the world, Woods said he badly wanted to win an unprecedented third consecutive Masters because he has ``been able to do certain things in golf that no one's ever done.'' Wonder who'll finish second? But the predictable direction of Tuesday's questions begged bigger ones: Why should a 27-year-old who dominates a sport be expected to change the real world? Why do so many sports fans and journalists insist on equating athletic brilliance with life perspective, great players with great thinkers, jocks with role models, Tiger Woods with, say, Colin Powell? Someday, when Woods has accomplished all he wants to in golf, maybe he can become the world leader his father predicted. Or the social reformer his Nike ads initially portrayed. Until then, he will receive no hand-wringing condemnation here for concentrating on making Nicklaus the second-best player ever. Good for Woods if he prefers not to fracture his focus by campaigning for a female member at Augusta National. Hasn't a golfer with African-American blood done enough for now by dominating a tournament that operated for years with a plantation mentality? Tuesday's sixth unsuccessful attempt to draw Woods into the female-member controversy was: ``Do you think there should be an expectation of professional athletes of your stature to speak out on social or political issues?'' He began by saying that ``certain athletes have their causes -- that's their prerogative.'' Then he said: ``Sometimes just because a person is in the limelight, people have the need for them to have a voice and an opinion and a `where you stand' on certain issues. And some people just choose not to.'' More and more, Woods -- perhaps on the advice of Michael Jordan -- chooses not to. Jordan never has taken stands on issues beyond basketball. Jordan is not a religious man. Jordan hasn't always been a good husband. Jordan is the first to tell you he's nothing more than a great basketball player who loves playing golf, hitting the casinos, smoking cigars and having a few drinks with, among others, Charles Barkley and Woods. ``I'm not an expert on anything else,'' Jordan has often said. Nor, as yet, does Woods pretend to be. But both have been criticized by Jim Brown for failing to campaign for black equality while making countless millions off black fans who buy products they endorse. They're using their platform, says Brown, only to benefit themselves. True. But neither has known the racial and salary discrimination Brown did -- he's 67 -- and neither has yet to display his insight or courage. Maybe Woods and Jordan will experience awakenings once they're finished competing, but they have no professional responsibility to ``give back.'' They have given fans great pleasure; they have been greatly compensated. Woods has conducted golf clinics across the country for kids, many of them minorities. Though the clinics are now mostly confined to Orlando, where he lives, his Tiger Woods Foundation continues to raise millions for charity. But beyond his obsession with golf and fitness -- beyond the TV ads that create a God-like illusion for many of his idolaters -- Woods is still basically a spoiled, filthy-rich kid who likes to hang out with his Swedish girlfriend, do some fishing and play video games. Saving the world isn't yet on Woods' to-do list. Neither is making an appearance at Martha Burk's across-the-street protest for a female member, scheduled for Saturday before the leaders tee off. If genuine, his response to this question indicates how little thought he has given to this issue. Does he categorize women not being allowed to join a golf club as prejudice against a minority? ``That's a good question,'' he said. ``Never looked at it that way.'' Jesse Jackson has. So have many who argue that women aren't a minority and haven't suffered nearly the discrimination blacks have. Though Augusta National has six black members, Jackson will combine protest forces with Burk on Saturday. So does Woods have a gut instinct on whether Augusta National should admit a woman? ``Oh, everyone here knows my opinion,'' he said. Not true. That opinion has varied. ``Should they become members? Yes. But I don't really have a vote in how they run this club.'' That's why the New York Times editorial calling for Woods to boycott this Masters -- his shot at history -- was as unrealistic as it was unfair. His absence wouldn't influence many members, some of whom prefer to do away with the tournament and return to being just a private club. Some, no doubt, blame Woods' breakthrough victory in 1997 for attracting reporters without golf backgrounds who began to exaggerate the significance of Augusta National's male-only bylaws. Woods has changed the Masters forever without saying a word. For now, that's enough. Let him play golf. |
|||||||||
