Gangrey.com linked to Charles Pierce's thoughts on Tiger Woods' crash-and-fallout, and that story included a link to a full profile Pierce did on Woods in 1997.
What Pierce reported for that profile led him to say this in his current piece about the crash and everything that's come after:
"I can't say I'm surprised — either by the allegations or by what's ensued since Friday's wreck. Back in 1997, one of the worst-kept secrets on the PGA Tour was that Tiger was something of a hound. Everybody knew. Everybody had a story. Occasionally somebody saw it, but nobody wanted to talk about it, except in bar-room whispers late at night. Tiger's People at the International Management Group visibly got the vapors if you even implied anything about it. However, from that moment on, the marketing cocoon around him became almost impenetrable. The Tiger Woods that was constructed for corporate consumption was spotless and smooth, an edgeless brand easily peddled to sheikhs and shakers. The perfect marriage with the perfect kids slipped so easily into the narrative it seemed he'd been born married."
Given the events of the past week, Pierce's 12-year-old profile of Woods would seem to be timely reading.
Can we add a "damn good writing" label?
ReplyDeleteRe-reading Pierce's original profile, I'm reminded of something I said to Scott last year: As much as I love Gary Smith's work, I can read it a few times and imagine how he gets from A to Z.
I read Pierce's best stuff and I'm flat dumbstruck. In the original TW profile, he does something amazing -- he tells you why he's writing the story like he is, what the reaction will be and why there will be that reaction. And he's right in both his predictions.
Label: Done. Plus one.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am super curious about the removed comment.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think Tiger Woods is a perfect example of if it seems too good to be true, it usually is. I wonder how many reporters knew the "real" Tiger but kept on writing about the fable because it was easier or because they were afraid of losing access?
Also, did you see the Wall Street Journal story about how the Enquirer found out about the affairs in 2007, but killed the story when Tiger did a big interview with sister publication Men's Health?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574602293033609948.html
Yeah, I saw the Enquirer/Men's Health thing. Sad -- both journalistically and for Tiger, as it just underscores the depth of the double life he was leading.
ReplyDeleteThe deleted comment was some spammer. They've been showing up in the comments periodically.