|
When winning is punishment; ask all the great soloists of the sports
world. The higher one rises, the less one can permit oneself a misstep.
Fame requires confirmation upon confirmation, the eyes of the people
are magnets from which it is hard to pull away. For a whole series of
reasons, Tiger Woods must feel this kind of pressure more than most.
Golf is seen as an elitist sport, a point of contact for busy businessmen
who choose the unfenced green to relax or perhaps to keep on chattering
about business. In America in particular, colour prejudice is still
far from being forgotten, and so it makes a sensation when a coloured
sportsman is the undisputed champion of a sport tailor-made for rich
whites, as has been the case for three years now. As he approaches the
age of 26, the Californian champion also heads the earnings tables with
a total of almost 22 billion dollars. In a career of only five years,
the combination of sponsors and prize money has brought him more than
such other legends as Jordan, Ali, Ronaldo or Shaquille O’Neal. And
this is the second great reason why he has the spotlights, specially
those of the critical and envious, focussed on him in every match. If
one includes the personality factor, the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle
of the perfect sportsman, to be taken as a model but also as a target,
come together. To go blond before a holiday; any adolescent who wanted
a break from the daily routine could do that. But Woods is a public
personality who earns a whole heap of money and creates more of a sensation.
To his fans, Tiger is a legend on the march, whose destiny is to shatter
records and become the greatest soloist in the history of golf. In contrast,
his detractors talk about a little boy who grew up with clubs and balls
but without a classical education. In 2001, when he went without wins
for weeks on end, the same detractors dared to wound him with headlines
like “the tiger staggers”, “wet ammunition”, or simply describe him
as in crisis. Six matches at the start of the season with no victories.
Normal results for anyone, especially in golf. Not for him, the Highlander
of the irons, who duly broke the chain of poor results with two bull’s
eyes in 10 days at the Bay Hill Invitational and the Player Championship
at Ponte Vedra. His exultation, comparable to that of a criticised centre
forward who finally returns to form and scores twice in the same match,
betrayed a side of Tiger’s character that had not been much on view
previously. Until then his easy progress had won admiration and approval.
But the two non-consecutive covers of Sports Illustrated, combined with
that of Time that consecrated him respectively as Sportsman and Phenomenon
of the Year (2000) must have been mental burdens. He, the twenty million
dollar man, infallible in the events that count, who had not won for
three months; an opportunity for would-be sages and experts to let fly
with their diagnoses: “Tiger in crisis”. “Baloney”, was his reply, “People
who think that know nothing about this game”. Words of truth, especially
after his still better reply on the course, swept away the chorus of
criticism. At times, above all in the case of the great, there are those
who amuse themselves by putting forward contrary theories to distinguish
themselves from the crowds of admirers. Those who do so, to give themselves
a special tone or wave the banner of dissent, often have one characteristic
in common, that of never having taken up the tools of the trade at a
competitive level. Soccer in particular offers lessons. But as the level
rises and one moves to individual sports, this “knocking” mode attracts
a greater number of followers. So far, Tiger has the numbers that not
even the blindest critic could attack. In the five seasons of his professional
career he has been the leading professional three times, the first at
only twenty one years of age. 25 tournaments won, the fifth person ever
to complete a Grand Slam. But winning three of them in the same year,
the only person in the history of golf to do so except for Ben Hogan
in 1953. Then, there is his popularity, measured by that modern thermometer,
Internet hits. Here too, the Cypress phenomenon heads the list of sports
personalities of all races, fields and epochs. They have also tried,
as they did in tennis when Sampras or Ivanisevic served at crazy speeds
taking much of the interest from the game, to topple him with a change
of ball. Less control, more facility of drive. In part a marketing move,
to make things easier for beginners, those who want to surprise their
boss in the weekly challenge. But after a settling-in period, this manoeuvre
also failed. The reality is that Tiger’s good or bad luck lies in the
lack of reliable alternative idols. An individual sport and in particular
the climate of interest it rouses depend fundamentally on the presence
of rivalry. The historical examples, Coppi/Bartalli, Thoeni/Stenmark,
Borg/McEnroe, Hagler/Leonard have been able to break the wall of specificity,
attract a following from among those who at first did not find the sport
interesting. Up till now, Woods “tyranny” in golf has been total. And
if this on the one hand means a steady increase in his bank account,
on the other hand it means that in the long run there could be many
people who would be happy to see him misstep, at least finally to find
something to say that has not the monotony of a predictable triumph.
Furthermore, as we all know, all roads from the top are down. And the
long line of those still on the way up would like nothing more than
the chance of pushing their way a little higher, with the not too well-concealed
hope of inheriting honours and rewards. And so the cycle begins again.
(traduzione Interpres sas-Giussano)
|
