Tiger & Phil, directed by Bob Harrig

Mitch Mustaine, Whitney Lewis and Lance Pavlas. What do the names mean to you? Probably nothing, although if you’re a college football fan, they’ll probably ring the bell. All three were college football recruits around the world. They were the “can’t miss” type who missed it. at recent days Ovarian Report He made a story about some of the most famous recruits who never realized the promise they made to campus.

All of the above helps explain my enormous doubts about the lack of players and other attempts to compensate the college football and basketball players who were allegedly taken advantage of. If we ignore the worst kept in all sports (they are already well paid, albeit quietly), if we ignore the mansions where they train, the free tutoring, the nutritionists, and the access to the wealthy who get paid like any other student of It would give anything, and if we ignore that athletes in good standing can finish their degrees at any time (including after professional stints), we can’t ignore the basic fact that the enormous promise shown during youth often does not translate to the university level. Recruiting top athletes brings new meaning to admission, and the value of their scholarships is enormous, just for many of them not living up to the hype from a distance. See the names mentioned. College athletes took advantage of? The view here is that often They are the exploiters. something to think about.

This idea of ​​this young talent thought a lot about reading Bob Harrig’s interesting, but somewhat repetitive and bland book. Tiger and Phil: The Greatest Rivalry in Golf. You know who they are. Both were marked as stars from an early age. Harrig reported that three-year-old Woods shot 48 from nine holes, and that by the age of thirteen, he had “already appeared on Today, Good Morning America, ESPN, and both of the major networks’ evening news programmes,” and that by the age of eleven Twenty, he had already published an autobiography about him.

Woods’ ascent took place at the Navi golf course near where the family lives in Cypress, California, while Phil Mickelson built his legend just south of the woods in San Diego, California. Mickelson won twelve AJGA (American Junior Golf Association) championships from 1985 to 1988, which Harrig notes is “a career record that still stands and is four better than the next two: Woods and Bob May”. Amid all that victory, he managed to finish as a runner-up, finishing in the top ten only five times.

Remember all of these quotes as a reminder that neither Woods nor Mickelson have been happy of late or anything, but also as a means of admiration. These are the rare individuals who have never reached their peak. Young greats, they remained remarkably great.

Where it becomes more interesting is to think about how hard it is to win at golf. It is arguably the hardest individual sport you have to be good at or win at Until now. think about it. Without excluding anything from the achievements of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, there has been an expected quality to their victories over the years. Not so in golf, not even for Woods and Mickelson.

Harrig counts their victories early. Woods can have 15 majors in a Mickelson 6, and 82 wins a Mickelson 45. There’s plenty of daylight between the two in terms of wins, not to mention Mickelson, while he’s spent 270 weeks as a World No. 2 in his career, never stepped up. to No. 1. Harrig mentioned that Woods was all that time “in number one”.

However, the comparisons to some extent cancel out the most noticeable about the rivalry. Not only did they both realize the huge potential of youth as adults, but what is even more surprising is that they have always been good for such a long time. It’s important to think about this when considering the different names (husbands, Duval, Spieth?) who have risen to the top over the decades, seeming poised to take over, only to be unable to maintain their position. Note that both Woods and Mickelson have won major tournaments in the past couple of years, while many seemingly great players are flying out the gates (Brooks Koepka?) with major companies as far as the eye can see in their futures just until the big wins stop. All this is a long way to say that what is most impressive about the themes of Harrig’s book is that they are still relevant long after they have been relevant. What an achievement.

Arguably one of the most intriguing aspects of the rivalry is what it might be, or a kind of counterfactual. How many majors would Mickelson have won in the absence of Woods on the PGA Tour, and how many majors would Woods have had? We can never know, but Harrig seems to logically conclude that they need and need each other. Although they’re clearly not tight-knit in terms of friendship, Harrig writes of Mickelson’s appreciation for Woods, and how “his presence indirectly helped cover his bank account while also compelling him to become a better golfer.”

Having Woods obviously upped the game and paid every player (coach, coach, hypnotist, nutritionist, and psychiatrist close to the game too…), and that must have been true of Mickelson. The guesswork here is that in Einstein’s absence from golf, Mickelson would likely have had fewer majors. Really, how lucky it is to have someone so wonderful to compete with during one’s best years. Knowing that Woods was always on the job had to raise the bar for every other player, including his most enduring opponent.

All this calls for more admiration for what Woods has accomplished. Again, there is a predictable quality to the tennis disciplines, but never with golf. Winning his 15 majors is another thing, something even greater than any given the injuries that have revealed themselves over the years. Did Mickelson Woods lift to higher heights? His presence obviously didn’t hurt him, but everyone was targeting Woods.

Of course, if you’re buying Harig’s book or reading this review of Harig’s book, you probably already know what’s been written so far, and likely much more than that. Which could be a problem. Harrig points out early on that Woods’ late father Earl instructed him not to give the media “too much,” and this seems to speak to the challenge Harrig faced in writing the book. If Woods is somewhat of a mystery, who to ask? It looks like Harrig wasn’t looking for much, which would be hard to do due to his constant coverage of professional golf and Woods himself.

This is a long way of saying that anyone looking for saucy or trending information about the competition is unlikely to find it. Harrig sure tries. One would think the publisher wanted it too. By speculating on why they seem to dislike each other, Harrig is referring to “character traits,” and oddly says “of course there was race.” This is odd simply because more than most people would like to admit, Woods was long past the race. This is the beauty of merit. Color does not matter.

On top of race, Harrig claims, “Phil never had any of those concerns.” It was all meaningless. Figure that the tiger was and probably the most popular player in golf, his arrival in the sport enriched everyone precisely because of his popularity and wide influence, yet we still discuss skin color as if it were a factor? Supposedly Tiger “heard occasionally derogatory comments from those on the show, not to mention message writers and social media posters.” Ooh come! If there were “insulting comments” about race on the show, what were they? For message writers and social media, it’s very hard to imagine Tiger spending real time in either. To assume otherwise is to insult his genius as a player. Greatness requires endless amounts of work. At this point, there wasn’t a lot of hate rumors, or very little attention being reported.

Jim Nantz is the modern giant of professional golf broadcasters, and his analysis of the alleged hatred among competitors goes as follows: “I can confirm that off-camera, [Phil] He says the exact same thing. I’ve talked to him countless times. He has a great respect for tigers. exactly like [Woods] Help him make a fortune. He was the first person to really say that.” Might Nantz hide something as well, or eventually keep something for his diary? This question is asked not so much conspiratorially as with expectations about Harrig’s book at the top of his concerns. The expectation was tales of hate Seriously between the two, but the best your reviewer could find inside happened after 3-time Tour winner Rich Beem won the 2002 PGA Championship. Beem outstripped Woods by one stroke, and Woods was in the locker room. When Beem won Woods he said “that Rich one Beem, Phil Mickelson zero!” Get it? Well, weird response to missing a playoff with Beem, but isn’t it hard to be a big story?

It’s not so prescient to say that Bem’s streak speaks arguably about Tiger’s longstanding need for Michael Jordan’s style of creating enemies. Competing people do just that. Wow, competitive woods. Without knowing what the ACL means to athletes in exact ways, Harrig quoted Woods as saying “I basically played as of July 2007 without the ACL, so I was used to it.” For those who didn’t know or don’t remember, Woods won the 2008 US Open with a broken leg. A competitor is supposed to say a lot of things. The wonder is that there is nothing more in the Rich Beam Assortment book.

More interesting from a golf angle was why Woods and Mickelson were so bad for a Ryder Cup pairing. It seems to be about golf balls. Depending on the professionals, they prefer different types based on the style. Not a big story, but an interesting one.

Perhaps most interesting from a writing perspective is the weakness of the editing. This is St. Martin’s Press, the publisher of the name. This is a high-level book. Which has received good attention Sports IllustratedThe The Wall Street JournalAnd, of course, all the golf magazines. Despite this, one reads on p. 32 that “it wasn’t long before Phil collected the trifles, drew the prizes, and made a name for himself.” Two pages later, your reviewer read that “it wasn’t long before an elephant of vulgarity collected, drawn trophies, and made a name for itself.”

Repetition in any book is not a bad thing, but the repetition here seems of the kind indicated above. Readers will be alerted at least twice that Nick Faldo overcame a 6-shot deficit to win the Masters title in 1999, and Tiger’s 15-shot margin of victory at the 2000 US Open beat the previous record of 13 shots in 1862. Tom Morris Sr. Everything is kinda sad. Although more books are being sold than ever before, it seems that the time allotted to each of them continues to decrease.

To be clear on what you’re reading, this comment is not from a golfer. It’s a book written by someone who is very interested in sports, and then fascinated by those who are talented in sports. It seemed like there wasn’t much about the topics as individuals, but there was a lot about the different leagues. It would be interesting to have this review done by a true golf fan to see if the criticism or the lukewarm response to gossip translate to those more knowledgeable.

The final guess here is that golfers will really enjoy the book because at its core it is all about golf, perhaps more about golf than competition. About the rivalry, there’s not much that fans don’t already know. Which may be enough. Let’s not forget that people have been stars again since they were young. How wonderful that they are still stars. There you have it, more repetition.