[Kalen Braley]

A few thoughts comments here:

Show me any businessman/entrepenuer who isn't an opportunist and I'll show you a guy who is out of work.  If you're going to say he shouldn't have wrote the book based on some "imaginary code" then whatever...., but to say he took advantage of a situation is absurd.  Our entire capitalistic society is based on seizing opportunities to make a buck and last I checked, as a society we place high value on this.

P.S.  One thought on Drew Brees.  He was in that locker room day in and day out for how many years with the Saints?  There is no way in hell he didn't know about that bounty system.  By keeping his mouth shut, he played partner to that thing....so no way Brees is a "shining light" of what a man should be.  People go to jail every day for scheming/planning to hurt people to make an extra buck

[Mark Pearce]

P.S.  One thought on Drew Brees.  He was in that locker room day in and day out for how many years with the Saints?  There is no way in hell he didn't know about that bounty system.  By keeping his mouth shut, he played partner to that thing....so no way Brees is a "shining light" of what a man should be.  People go to jail every day for scheming/planning to hurt people to make an extra buck

That.  To hold out as an example a person who happily and silently conspired with others (whether actively or not) in deliberately trying to injure others doesn't work with me.

[Greg Holland]

George,

    I guess I don't understand why you feel that Tiger needs to be defended..  he maybe the greatest golfer of all time, but that doesn't mean he's even remotely a nice guy or a decent human being.  You have no proof that he is. So your hero is tainted, get used to it, he has sacrificed everything to be the best.

Craig,

That is what I was trying to say earlier -- none of us have any proof because we do not know the guy.  However, I have talked to several PGA players and caddies, and they all liked Tiger - said he was a good guy, but people have no idea what his life is like, etc.  On the other hand, of some of the "likeable" pros, however, they did not speak very highly.  

[Tim Gavrich]

Basically all great first-person fiction is told through the mouth and mind of a flawed narrator.  Same goes with memoir--it is assumed that the reader is going to keep in mind that the writer has a filter that can obscure things.  It just adds another level of depth to the whole exercise and when done well, it's great.  *Catcher in the Rye* is great to read as a story, but it REALLY becomes spectacular once you think about what things Holden Caulfield is distorting and what that means for him, the other characters in the book, etc.  If you take umbrage with Haney's character because of the circumstances/timing of him writing this book, then you should still consider reading the book, but with that skeptical eye.  It will still have some truth and insight no matter what, I think.

As for me, I'm not unwilling to read the book, but I'm not moved enough by the subject matter to buy a copy at this point.  Maybe when it's in paperback for $8.

[A.G._Crockett]

To those who are too sanctimonious to read the book, it's really your loss.  I checked my pride and standards for reading different materials when I subscribed to twitter and starting reading up my wife's US Magazines.

JR,
I don't mean to be sanctimonious by not giving Hank Haney money by buying and reading the book.  It's just that Hank Haney's views on Tiger Woods and their years together are not interesting to me.  Add that to my Scotch-Irish thing about loyalty, and the book is just flat out unappealing.  I wouldn't give Haney money to try to fix my golf swing, and I don't want to give him money as a writer, either, though I hope he is better at the latter than what I've seen of the former.

And from a golf perspective, I'd be MUCH more interested in reading Tiger's thoughts on Harmon vs. Haney v. Foley as instructors than any of their thoughts on Tiger as a golfer.

[George Pazin]

George,

    I guess I don't understand why you feel that Tiger needs to be defended..  he maybe the greatest golfer of all time, but that doesn't mean he's even remotely a nice guy or a decent human being.  You have no proof that he is. So your hero is tainted, get used to it, he has sacrificed everything to be the best.

You're correct that I have no proof that he is. I also don't see proof that he isn't. I see a lot of gossip type stuff.

Tiger is no hero of mine. My heroes are my parents and other decent people I know personally, as well as a small number of people I respect for other reasons. I just love watching his golf and think that most of the criticisms are rooted in other things and over the top. He's a golfer, and a pretty good one at that.

I think we all need to be defended when it comes to our privacy. Call me crazy that way. If Haney had written a book solely about his golf experiences with Tiger, I'd be fine with that. The sad thing is it sounds like that's what most of the book is. But I won't give him a pass for including a lot of stuff that is likely only in there to create a buzz and feed the gossip machine (or likely rationalize away the lousy job he did while with Tiger, but that's an argument for another day).

George,

Did you think Monty was a jerk, with his sullen on-course demeanour and his rudeness in interviews when he had played badly?  I did and I apply the same standard to Tiger.  If you don't think Monty was a jerk I'll understand better where you are coming from on Tiger.

On the contrary, in every interview I've seen with Monty he seems like a pretty funny, clever guy. He just seems like a sourpuss on the golf course. Does that make him a jerk? Not in my book, but feel free to apply your own standard.

As a side note, I have no problem at all with any person being rude in an interview when they've just had a tough time. We all have bad days, and I know if someone stuck a microphone in my face every time I was having a hard time, I'd likely have trouble maintaining my composure all the time as well. Most of us are fortunate not to have our worst moments caught on film; I feel sorry for those who have.

There's an old saying: If you're not gonna like the answer, don't ask the question. I'll never understand the need for everyone to know exactly what some athlete was thinking or feeling when he screwed up. How about a little common decency?

Someone, I believe David C, asked earlier if those criticising the book would have a problem with Tiger writing a tell-all book. I'll say this: if Tiger writes his autobiography and includes sections on his golf experiences with Butch, Hank, Steve Williams, whoever, I will be fine with that; if he writes it and includes petty comments about Butch's personal foibles or Steve's eccentricities or whatever, I will think he is indeed a classless jerk.

-----

Nice post, Tim Gavrich.

[David_Tepper]

When I wrote "clients demanded" I really meant it was/is the industry standard to be discrete.  I'm sure it is the same in any "profession" from doctors to lawyers to accounts to investment advisors to hookers and even indian chiefs....  More simply, it's called "common courtesy" and "good manners."

Rich -

Taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn't such discretion preclude just about every political adviser, cabinet secretary, Army general, etc. from writing their memoirs? Wouldn't the history of the world be worse off for that?

Harvey Penick wrote a couple of books (and became a folk hero ) recounting his experiences with many famous golfers he worked for and with. Did he have bad manners? Is Keith Richards a whore for writing his autobiography, describing the many wild behind the scenes events in the life of the Rolling Stones (and mentioning Mick's "tiny todger")?

With regards to Hank Haney being ranked as a top 10 teaching pro by Golf Digest/Golf magazine, the accuracy of those ranking is not the issue. At the very least, being ranked on that list gave Haney a certain prominence within the world of golf. When Tiger hired him, Haney was hardly the obscure golf teacher as stated by Terry Lavin in one of his posts. At that time, his was likely one of the half-dozen best known teachers in the game. No doubt being hired by Tiger raised his level of recognition.

P.S. I will be in Dornoch May 12 to June 9. Hope to see you there.

DT    

[Sean_A]

To those who are too sanctimonious to read the book, it's really your loss.  I checked my pride and standards for reading different materials when I subscribed to twitter and starting reading up my wife's US Magazines.

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's a matter of credibility; I simply don't trust what HH says. I can believe that he believes it, I just don't think that makes it true or accurate.

-----

I'm always confused by those who think Tiger is a jerk in interviews. I guess they're watching different interviews than the ones I see. Is he the most charming guy in the world? Hardly. I don't know that that makes him a jerk. But maybe that's just my inherent distrust of the media that makes me feel that way. I don't care much for the Feinsteins of the world, either, I generally find them much more offensive than the Tigers of the world.

George

Is it just HH you don't trust to tell the truth concerning Tiger or is that a blanket issue for all guys you don't know?  If it is an H issue, what did he say to make you not trust him?

Ciao

[George Pazin]

George

Is it just HH you don't trust to tell the truth concerning Tiger or is that a blanket issue for all guys you don't know?  If it is an H issue, what did he say to make you not trust him?

Ciao

It's mostly that I don't trust people I don't know. Not because I think they are automatically bad or not trustworthy, more that I am generally skeptical of anyone's ability to objectively relate matters like this. So much of this sort of personal stuff is subject to biases and differences in perception. And I have a general dislike of anyone who relates personal info that is especially susceptible to this sort of thing.

I will say, it doesn't help Haney that most times I hear him speak or read what he says, I rarely agree with him. But that should merely serve to illuminate my greater point about people's biases influencing their opinions!

[Sean_A]

George

Is it just HH you don't trust to tell the truth concerning Tiger or is that a blanket issue for all guys you don't know?  If it is an H issue, what did he say to make you not trust him?

Ciao

It's mostly that I don't trust people I don't know. Not because I think they are automatically bad or not trustworthy, more that I am generally skeptical of anyone's ability to objectively relate matters like this. So much of this sort of personal stuff is subject to biases and differences in perception. And I have a general dislike of anyone who relates personal info that is especially susceptible to this sort of thing.

I will say, it doesn't help Haney that most times I hear him speak or read what he says, I rarely agree with him. But that should merely serve to illuminate my greater point about people's biases influencing their opinions!

George

Interesting - I guess if you don't agree with the guy concerning Tiger than its time to kick on.  I read a lot of history and value the interpretive analysis as much as the facts.  I don't think historical facts add up to much without the interpretation.  Of course, this means one needs to find out who wrote the book, why the book was written and who is the intended audience.  Not sure how that helps with this book, but I don't intend to find out as I am most certainly not the intended audience. 

Ciao 

[Mark Pearce]

George,

I understand from people who have met him that Monty is charm personified away from tournament golf.  He was probably a bad example to choose, though I still don't see any excuse for some of his on course behaviour on the course and in interviews.  Like everyone else here I have been unfairly rude to people when I am having a bad time, so the occasional blow up is fine by me, so long as you apologise to the victim.  I don't believe either Tiger or Monty made a habit of doing this.

All that said, your reply is a fair one and your position is consistent with that, so thanks for taking the time to answer.

[Kalen Braley]

Along the same lines of David Teppers statements, if people hadn't written things down out of respect for the other party we would be mostly history-less.

And if we're going to chuck personal accounts and eye-witness accounts out the window, then we must also throw out most of our worlds history as well, because that's exactly what it was.  And it wasn't even close to being objective, it was heavily slanted to being favorable for the victors.  

[Carl Johnson]

When I wrote "clients demanded" I really meant it was/is the industry standard to be discrete.  I'm sure it is the same in any "profession" from doctors to lawyers to accounts to investment advisors to hookers and even indian chiefs....  More simply, it's called "common courtesy" and "good manners."

Rich -

Taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn't such discretion preclude just about every political adviser, cabinet secretary, Army general, etc. from writing their memoirs? Wouldn't the history of the world be worse off for that? . . .

Coincidently, I'm currently reading the new Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith.  Ike kept a personal diary that contained some observations that he did not include in his memoirs and that he requested be destroyed when he died.  The diary was not destroyed.  I think history would be worse off if it had been, but still . . . .

CEJ

[Rich Goodale]

When I wrote "clients demanded" I really meant it was/is the industry standard to be discrete.  I'm sure it is the same in any "profession" from doctors to lawyers to accounts to investment advisors to hookers and even indian chiefs....  More simply, it's called "common courtesy" and "good manners."

Rich -

Taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn't such discretion preclude just about every political adviser, cabinet secretary, Army general, etc. from writing their memoirs? Wouldn't the history of the world be worse off for that?

Harvey Penick wrote a couple of books (and became a folk hero ) recounting his experiences with many famous golfers he worked for and with. Did he have bad manners? Is Keith Richards a whore for writing his autobiography, describing the many wild behind the scenes events in the life of the Rolling Stones (and mentioning Mick's "tiny todger")?

With regards to Hank Haney being ranked as a top 10 teaching pro by Golf Digest/Golf magazine, the accuracy of those ranking is not the issue. At the very least, being ranked on that list gave Haney a certain prominence within the world of golf. When Tiger hired him, Haney was hardly the obscure golf teacher as stated by Terry Lavin in one of his posts. At that time, his was likely one of the half-dozen best known teachers in the game. No doubt being hired by Tiger raised his level of recognition.

P.S. I will be in Dornoch May 12 to June 9. Hope to see you there.

DT    

Thanks for your thoughts, David.

Vis a vis your first paragraph, you really can't equate political/military memoirs written with appropriate thought and after an appropriate bit of time with a golf pro/teacher kiss and tell seemingly written even before the last popsicle melted in his hands.....

Vis a vis Harvey Pennick, I've read his books and don't remember anything about popsicles in them.

Vis a vis Keefe, of course he is a whore and anybody who says otherwise will not get his respect.  BTW, he and Mick of the tiny todger have apparently kissed and made up, without the use of a popsicle.  And, who again was his Keefe's guitar coach.....?

Vis a vis Dornoch, you continue to evade me!  I was up there for three days last week (stunning weather and course condition), and will certianly be back from 28 July--4 August.  Any chance you will be there and then?

All the best

Rich

[George Pazin]

George

Interesting - I guess if you don't agree with the guy concerning Tiger than its time to kick on.  I read a lot of history and value the interpretive analysis as much as the facts.  I don't think historical facts add up to much without the interpretation.  Of course, this means one needs to find out who wrote the book, why the book was written and who is the intended audience.  Not sure how that helps with this book, but I don't intend to find out as I am most certainly not the intended audience.  

Ciao  

Rich covered a lot of my thoughts, so I'll simply say I can do without the petty stuff when reading history. I suppose one could make the argument that what someone chooses to write about reveals important info about the writer, but in today's world, all too often the wrong things are remembered and I think there is little downside for those who choose to embellish or distort.

I'm surprised at the willingness of many to just accept what others say as true and accurate. I sure haven't experienced that in my personal, and I'm a pretty bland guy. God forbid someone actually has a financial motive to spread dirt about me, true or not...

EDIT: Allow me to bore you with a story from my pathetic life. When my current business partner joined the biz about 10 years ago, he was picking up a pizza from a place around the corner and asked the guy about his shirts, noting that he had recently joined my little business. The guy said, I used to go to him, but he's never there. At that time, I was doing everything myself, so I was working 15 hour days and running around like a mad man, meeting with clients, drumming up new business, delivering orders. The guy never left me a single message, on the phone, email, a note that he dropped by, nothing. While his story may have been technically true, I would not characterize it as accurate in its depiction.

[Craig Van Egmond]

George,

     Most people don't have any reason to believe that what HH says is not true or not accurate.

     Hey, if its on the Internet then it must be true. 

[Peter Pallotta]

A narrative -- another word for interpreted history -- is either engaging or it's not. Whether it is or not depends a whole lot on the subject of that narrative; but I think it has just as much to do with the perspective and character and insights and intentions of the person doing the narration.  (You could, after all, have a fascinating book/narrative on the history of clocks, or hammers, or racehorses -- if the narrator/story-teller had the talent to make them so, and if his main intention was to share his love and passion for the subject).  In this case, is anything lacking here -- a fascinating subject? an insightful and talented narrator? a love and passion for the subject?
 

[Bob_Huntley]

Thirteen pages of opinion and not a word about the undulations and the speed of the seventh green at Happy Hollows G.C.

Bob

[Tim Pitner]

If one steps back and takes the emotions out of the equation, this thread could be a metaphor for this site. A lot of folks have made impassioned posts (either pro-Woods, pro-Haney, anti-Haney) about the book (golf course) and/or author(architect), yet from those who have actually played the course, errrrrr, read the book, there has been nothing but positive reviews.

To continue the analogy . . . if an architect ever goes on tour to promote his course, I sure hope he's more interesting than Haney.  I saw Haney on Piers Morgan last night and was simply bored by the discussion (how much was due to Haney and how much to Morgan is a legitimate question).  Nothing said made me want to read the book.  In fact, it made me question why people here are getting worked up about it. 

[Craig Van Egmond]

[/quote]
  In fact, it made me question why people here are getting worked up about it. 
[/quote]

Exactly!!!

[George Pazin]

In fact, it made me question why people here are getting worked up about it. 

We love to argue over trivial matters. It's a lot easier than figuring out the tough stuff!

David, while that is a clever metaphor, I would argue it is flawed. One needs to play a course to comment on its merits, but one needn't read a book to discuss the appropriateness of writing it, or its credibility.

I know many seem to find it odd that I comment on the book's credibility without reading it, but my point remains the same: if no one other than the interested parties was there to witness any of the events, and one side chooses not to comment, how can anyone reliably judge the credibility? Because Haney seems believable? There are a frighteningly large number of people in the world that can look you in the eye and lie, or at least embellish or mislead, everyone surely knows this (there's several hundred of them in DC...).

Some might ask: Why wouldn't Tiger refute stories he didn't like? I'd guess that there is no upside in him to doing this; the detractors aren't going to believe him (he's a cheater!) and they are the ones he would be addressing. It's easier for him to just hope it dies away. Likewise, today's media culture seems to be that if you address something, that opens everything up for cross examination; the questions would never stop. Again, it's easier to just hope it dies away.

Hank opened himself up to all of this when he chose to include personal items. As Hawkeye said to Frank Burns, you invite abuse, it would be rude not to accept it.

[Sean_A]

In fact, it made me question why people here are getting worked up about it. 

We love to argue over trivial matters. It's a lot easier than figuring out the tough stuff!

David, while that is a clever metaphor, I would argue it is flawed. One needs to play a course to comment on its merits, but one needn't read a book to discuss the appropriateness of writing it, or its credibility.

I know many seem to find it odd that I comment on the book's credibility without reading it, but my point remains the same: if no one other than the interested parties was there to witness any of the events, and one side chooses not to comment, how can anyone reliably judge the credibility? Because Haney seems believable? There are a frighteningly large number of people in the world that can look you in the eye and lie, or at least embellish or mislead, everyone surely knows this (there's several hundred of them in DC...).

Some might ask: Why wouldn't Tiger refute stories he didn't like? I'd guess that there is no upside in him to doing this; the detractors aren't going to believe him (he's a cheater!) and they are the ones he would be addressing. It's easier for him to just hope it dies away. Likewise, today's media culture seems to be that if you address something, that opens everything up for cross examination; the questions would never stop. Again, it's easier to just hope it dies away.

Hank opened himself up to all of this when he chose to include personal items. As Hawkeye said to Frank Burns, you invite abuse, it would be rude not to accept it.

George

Thats a tough approach and probably too exacting if you ask me.  I tend to take people at face value until they prove me wrong.  Granted, I don't spend a lot of time checking stories and facts of friends and acquaintances because I have a guarded trust for people.     

I would venture more of a middle ground.  I can accept something, but not necessarily totally buy into it.  My radar tells me HH is not lying, but I would be happy to listen to other opinions supported with evidence of lying.  Does this create credibility for HH?  Some as far as I am concerned, but I also think the fact the book was written undermines HH to some degree as well.  Still, until someone can show the man is lying, I will assume he is telling the stories as he believes them to be true.  The wonderful thing is, Tiger may have a different version, but it too can be the truth as he understands it.  That is part and parcel of the human experience and I am not likely to stop believing any and all because there is no coroborative evidence.   

Ciao     

[Jason Topp]

I finished the book.  If you are interested in learning what it is like to try and achieve greatness, or to try and coach Tiger Woods, or Tiger Woods himself- the book is a must. 

Many of the details discussed in this thread were probably unnecessary, but I am sure Haney would argue that they were needed to try and demonstrate the extraordinary individual and circumstances under which he coached.  In some cases, I think they were needed.  In others they struck me as an effort to sell books.

Much of the book consists of Haney's perceptions and he pretty upfront in couching them as opinion rather than fact.  I have no idea whether he is right or wrong but I know he is in a better position to opine than me.

I'm glad Haney wrote it.   

[Brad Klein]

The reason that Haney is not all that good on radio talking about his book is also the reason he wisely relied upon a very experienced and polished and thoughtful writer to convert the raw material of the story into a compelling read.

Whatever one thinks of Haney's motives in doing the book and however advisable or not it was for him to undertake it, thanks to the collaboration with Jaime Diaz we now have one of the best, most detailed inside looks at the real life of a modern championship golfer. Folks here are free to dismiss Haney's motives, but if they also dismiss the book as whole they are losing out.

As usual, Tim Gavrich says it elegantly; all reading is an act of interpretation. There are no facts as such presented in a neutral manner that would ever make for a good story. There has to be a narrative arc that encompasses and selects and highlights material. The reader is supposed to do some engaged work in making sense and filtering through that. Those too quick to toss out the text because of suspicions about the author's intent are missing out. Not that they care, not that it matters to those who chose to read and take seriously the act of interpreting a story. That's what makes this a good book; you have to do some work along the way. And that's not something you do from the vantage point of a parking lot dismissal of the whole book. The analogy with drive-by golf course reviews is perfect. Lots of folks dismiss a golf course or are biased because of the name attached to the design. That's their lose of an experience by which they might learn something. (Interesting, how often the attack on Haney and the dismissal of the book are coupled with the claim that there appears to be nothing new in the book about Tiger that they didn't already know.) 

[George Pazin]

George

Thats a tough approach and probably too exacting if you ask me.

I thought about this a good bit last night and came to the conclusion you're probably right. My general dislike of Hank is resulting in a tougher standard than I would apply to others.

I'm still with Terry and Rich as to the appropriateness of writing the book, however.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()