WHAT WAS the most revealing part of the Steve Williams saga that erupted in America last week? Was it that Tiger Woods' caddie harbours animosity towards his boss's great rival? Not really, for anybody who has spent half a minute observing these two pretty much knows that they don't rub along all that well, most of the petty slagging emanating from the Woods camp, it has to be said. Was it that Williams used fairly objectionable language about Mickelson? Not that either, for we know
No, I would suggest that the most instructive nugget in all of this can be encapsulated in words that Woods used and not those chosen by Williams. Let's face it, we can bang on all we like about how Williams' outburst was an affront to the grand trad
itions of the game but why should any of us give a toss what Steve 'Stevie' Williams thinks? He's a caddie. An unpopular one. His importance in the grand scheme of things? Not great. Would Woods be a lesser golfer if Williams fell in a lake and couldn't carry his bag? Hardly. Would there be the sound of weeping from the caddie shack if he was to disappear off the scene? I'm guessing no.
I would suggest that Williams' comments are only truly significant if they are shared in some way by Woods himself. Now, there were a few ways that Woods could have distanced himself from the insults. He could have sacked Williams. Or, more in keeping with the offence, he could have reprimanded him in public, said something like, 'Stevie's an idiot… he's out of line… Phil has won three majors and is a great player despite what my big galoot of a caddie might think… I've just been on the phone to Phil to say sorry and Stevie better do the same or else he'll never carry my bag again…'
Or something like that.
What Woods said was this: "Yeah, what ended up happening is I communicated with Phil, and we have discussed it. I talked to Stevie about it, and he feels bad about what happened. It's something that none of us really wanted to have happen, but it's over and done with and we put it to bed."
So he "discussed it", did he? It was a discussion. They had some dialogue about whether Mickelson was a prick or not, whether Woods' caddie was justified in saying "I hate him". They debated that "nice tits" remark Williams said was once shouted at Mickelson (actually it was Colin Montgomerie) by a member of the gallery. Tiger discussed it. Note the total absence of the word 'apologised' in there. Also note the total absence of any semblance of class on Woods' part. Williams, it would appear, has regrets about being quoted but seemingly not about the quote itself. Stuff him. Alas, Tiger seems of a similar mindset, which is sad, frankly.
Tiger is a great man to let others stew when it is deemed (half the time unfairly) that they've in some way insulted him. Ian Poulter didn't but everybody thinks he did. Stephen Ames said something pretty innocuous and Tiger took it personally. Rory Sabbatini once riled Woods by calling him "beatable". Away back in 1997 Fuzzy Zoeller said something genuinely offensive, stupid and racist but, boy, was he left to wriggle for an awfully long time for his "… or collared greens or whatever it is they serve" remark about the Champion's dinner at Augusta. Zoeller apologised and apologised again. He lost a $1m endorsement deal, he withdrew from a tournament in tears, he almost pleaded with Tiger to get in touch so he could say sorry personally.
Tiger did nothing. Steve Elkington and Brad Faxon both contacted IMG, Tiger's management company, and told them that Tiger needed to say something. Three days after Zoeller's second apology Woods announced that he accepted it. Later that season, John Daly tried to bring them together by asking them to play with him in a practice round. Zoeller said yes. Tiger said no.
He was a younger man, then, of course. Maybe he got some bad advice and maybe he wasn't confident enough to go his own way. It happens. This thing with Williams is not halfway as serious as the Zoeller episode but Tiger doesn't come out of this one all that well either. A Tiger lieutenant and close friend insults a fellow player and Tiger thinks we should all deal with it nice and quickly and move on. Don't linger. Nothing to see here. Controversy over. No apology to Mickelson that we know of. If Jim 'Bones' McKay, Mickelson's caddie and great mate, had called Woods a prick last week we're entitled to ask how quickly would Woods have dealt with it? I'd wager that Phil would have used words a lot stronger than "disappointed" and "inappropriate" to describe the slight. Then again, I'd wager my house that McKay or Mickelson would never go there in the first place.
Look, we can all consider ourselves fortunate to be witnessing Tiger in his prime because we're seeing golf history here, the greatest player there has ever been. But the deification of Woods goes too far. He's a great, great golfer but there are other parts to him that are not as appealing. Tiger doesn't like to talk about the race issue in America, doesn't like to revisit the race problems he suffered as a young boy, doesn't like to do anything that might make him appear in any way edgy or controversial because sponsors don't like edgy and controversial. Tiger knows his place with those guys and his place ain't talking about human rights and stuff. Ask him about his fitness, his golf courses, his ball striking, his trajectory and he'll natter on for hours. His prerogative, though. His right. He's free to be who he wants to be.
Nobody should doubt, though, that Tiger is a corporate machine. The brand is everything. Earlier this year he was asked for his thoughts on Barack Obama, then a mere aspiring president and trailing in the polls. Woods reacted thus: "Oh God, here we go." Not exactly heart-warming, eh? Then he offered the following: "He's extremely articulate, very thoughtful. I'm just impressed at how well basically all politicians really do, how well they think on their feet. But he has really inspired a bunch of people in our country and we'll see what happens down the road."
When Obama was elected president, hailed as a winner, the Woods tone changed. Would it be cynical to suggest that only now did Woods feel it okay to endorse him? Only as a victor was it worthwhile throwing the Tiger backing behind him? "He represents America," gushed Woods. "He's multiracial. I was hoping it would happen in my lifetime. My father was hoping it would happen in his lifetime, but he didn't get to see it. I'm lucky enough to have seen a person of colour in the White House. My father would have cried. Absolutely. No doubt about it."
Touching words but, to me, it looks a bit like expedience. It looks a bit weak, a bit like the corporate Tiger, the beast that hardly makes a move without thinking how it's going to go down in the boardroom and how it's going to impact on the brand. Woods is the complete golfer and you marvel at his genius in the business of playing golf and making money. But that doesn't mean we should be blind to his faults. He's in charge of Team Tiger and Team Tiger has yet to say publicly that an apology has been offered to Mickelson. It's been a crass week for Woods and his entourage.
