I'm Not Sure, But I Still Think Tiger Woods is Pretty Good

http://www.pgatour.com/2007/tournaments/r028/09/08/woods.transcript/?eref=sitesearch

I have a friend named Balls. He is about the nicest person you'll ever meet. He's generous, warm, funny and an all around good dude. However, there is a rule we all share: "Don't Argue Sports With Balls". It's not that he's dumb or that he doesn't know what he's talking about a lot. It's just that when he gets an idea in his head, no line of rational thought can dissuade that idea, no matter how ridiculous his thought may be. Also, a lot of the time he's dumb and doesn't know what he's talking about.

As a group, we are all guilty of breaking this rule, because sometimes he adopts positions on topics that are just too silly to let slide. The only time I've broken the rule was when he told me that Tim Tebow sucked and Colt Brennan is a better pro prospect and a better quarterback than him. Needless to say, that is not a very astute observation, since Brennan has a noodle arm and Tim Tebow might be Jesus.

On Saturday, I fell for it again. We were watching Tiger Woods's ridiculous third round of the US Open and noting how impressive he was since he was doing it on basically a knee held together by kelp and bubble gum. Balls, however disagreed and said Tiger wasn't that impressive at all. I immediately got up and went to the bathroom. When I came back, no one had broken the rule, but Balls was giving a dissertation to no one in particular on why it was unimpressive that Tiger was good, but very impressive that a similar athlete in another sport, Michael Jordan, could be at the top of his game. I broke the rule.

"Why would you say that Tiger isn't impressive?" I asked.

"Because he came from money and Jordan came from nothing," he said.

He was arguing that even though they had Dad's who pushed them into sports at a young age and nertured and coached and trained their kids since they were toddlers, he said that since Earl Woods had money and Jeffery Jordan didn't, Mike was more impressive.

I was immediately taken aback. For the last thirty years, there have been overly pushy dads that famously shoved their sons into sports, and maybe 1% have succeeded and of that 1% only three have made claims to being the very best of all time in their sport: Jordan, Tiger and Wayne Gretzky. Of those three, two came from a well off upbringing.

I asked Balls why he would discredit Tiger's ability just because he came from money, his response was that anyone with his upbringing could do just as well as he could.

I dismissed his claim as quickly as anyone could dismiss anything. I think that true talent cannot be contained, and if Tiger grew up hitting an acorn with a mop he would be, at the very least, a professional golfer who wins a lot. But his claim did make me think, is it really more impressive when people come up from nothing to make something of themselves? Shouldn't their current actions be taken equally regardless of where they came from? I dunno, while it's impressive that someone could be super poor and then make something from themselves, I don't think it's fair to discredit someone just because they weren't impoverished. And I grew up awfully darn poor.

I guess maybe it's just time for me to pull myself up from my bootstraps and overcome my upbringing. Although, I guess having world class talent might be an issue for me. I guess if I were to overcome my upbringing, at least I know I would have a fan in Balls if I do make it to the big time.