Chris K

Chris K
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires (DF), Argentina
January 11
I'm a starving artist and ramblin' man. Currently in Buenos Aires for art-related purposes.


Chris K's Links
DECEMBER 21, 2009 4:59PM

The last thing you need to read about Tiger...EVER!!

Rate: 4 Flag

All the opinion pieces you've read about Tiger are wrong. (Unless you read one that agrees with me.) Why is Tiger losing sponsors and why all the fuss? 

This may be brutally obvious, but bear with me: Tiger is driven by golf, to the point of obsession. Being the best at golf is all that matters, winning is the only thing. The obsessive side of his personality led to hundreds of millions of dollars and worldwide fame.

And the availability of almost endless poontang. Tiger is obviously driven by sex in the same way he is by golf. Winning is the only thing. Sleeping with porn stars and strippers and hostesses is evidently "winning" in Tiger's book because they're supposed to be the most desirable women (my book reads differently, but to each their own). The obsessive side of his personality led to lots of sex, as well as the loss of a marriage, millions of dollars and eternal public humiliation.

James Surowiecki, in the New Yorker, gets it half right.  According to Surowiecki, "Woods has been presented as the embodiment of bourgeois virtues: dedication, hard work, single-mindedness." That's pretty much on the nose.

"The current scandal has disrupted, if not shattered, this image of perfect control. Scandals that aren’t out of tune with a celebrity’s image are often surprisingly easy to bounce back from..." He cites Michael Jordan's gambling as being consistent with his image as a fierce competitor. And sex was a form of competition for Tiger; he possessed the same "dedication, hard work, single-mindedness" on the prowl as he did on the course.

To view his sexual behavior as an aberration in his life is misguided. His sex life was a logical extension of his drive to win. As Surowiecki describes him, "Woods never seemed warm or even especially personable. Instead, he seemed resolutely businesslike." In terms of endorsements, this made scads of money for Woods. But it seems to apply to sex as much as it does to golf for Tiger.

Could it be that people are shocked that Woods is the same in his personal life as in his professional life? Prior to this scandal all we knew about Tiger were the benefits of his obsessive personality, and could thus view him "as the embodiment of bourgeois virtues". Nobody cared about his personal life. Now that people see the negative effects of obsession, it doesn't look so great. Maybe those bourgeois virtues aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Surowiecki implies that Tiger's sexual escapades were out of control (and thus not bourgeois virtues), but Tiger had an amazing amount of control over the situation--he went for years without getting caught. The control that Tiger showed over his two, perfectly parallel lives may be the scariest thing.

The real loss of control that we're seeing now is Tiger's inability to take command of the situation. Had Tiger gone on Oprah asap he wouldn't be in nearly the spot he is now with the public or maybe even with his sponsors, though he'd probably still be getting divorced. Tiger lost control of his image, and image is everything.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
You know, I don't get it. We take for granted that rock stars bang their groupies all day and night, but why does everyone get upset when the rock star of golf does the same?
(Oh , yeah, missed you dude. BA still treating you well?)
Yeah, I'm starting to think this IS the last thing I need to read about Tiger Woods.
Thanks, Bob.

Good to see you, too,'s no big deal for rock stars because they're supposed to be "wild." Tiger wasn't supposed to be wild, he was supposed to be the ultimate professional. But I don't think that's the real reason, since we knew and cared little about his personal life prior to this. We had no real reason to see him as a family man.

Mitchell, I don't know if that's a compliment or an insult. The emphasis on "IS" makes me skeptical...
an old sprite campaign said to the contrary "image is nothing. obey your thirst"....
youre getting a little lost in your own analysis. monogamy is obviously a bourgeois virtue. but yeah, maybe your comment still applies. "Maybe those bourgeois virtues aren't all they're cracked up to be."
As I said we never really knew anything about Tiger's personal life, and his image wasn't wrapped up in being a wholesome family man. People just assumed that that went with his other virtues.

I don't believe that image is everything, it was a reference to the old Andre Agassi commercials. For Tiger's sponsors and the public, image is everything and he's lost control of it.