Golf: Footjoy in mouth

By Vincent Musco Sports Central Columnist

A friend of mine once complained to me about the lack of interesting dialogue that occurs each time an athlete is interviewed. She told me that each time she sees a player on screen standing next to a reporter, she can predict, verbatim, what the player will say.

"Well, you know, we needed to go out there and play tough. I tried to play my game, and it worked out. It was a big game for us, and we came together. We needed this win." Or something along those lines.

In golf, interviews have been known to induce tears for anyone outside of the player's immediate family. Usually, the player offers a similar response as the one above, minus any reference to a team, and then really lays it on us with details about his round.

"And then on 7, I had about 206 to the front, so I decided to hit a knock down 5, since the wind was in my face, and I caught it pretty solid and ..." Yawn.

My friend's question was, essentially, why must these generally thrilling athletes offer the insight and charisma of a librarian?

Allow Phil Mickelson to explain.

As Phil found out, or already knew, distinguishing your answers to questions from the carbon-copy, generally accepted and expected answers can land you in the middle of a controversy.

So it went for Phil when he decided, two months ago, to voice his opinion of the equipment used by Tiger Woods. He described it as "inferior," a conclusion he arrived at because of his own advantage over Woods in driving distance. As he explained, Woods has the greater swing speed, yet Mickelson hits it farther, so it must be the equipment that is holding Tiger back.

He went on to say that only Tiger Woods is good enough to overcome the equipment that he is "stuck with."

This series of comments is intriguing not only because Mickelson called out Nike, but also because he commented on Woods himself. It has been well-documented that Woods and Mickelson have not gotten along in the past, although the two claim there is no bad blood between them.

Whatever the status of the Woods/Mickelson relationship, one thing is clear: Mickelson's comments captured the attention of many. Nike was understandably upset, and lashed back at Mickelson claiming that he shouldn't criticize anyone until he can beat Tiger head-to-head. Many others, especially sportswriters, jumped at the chance to deride Lefty, talking about his major-less streak and his ugly record against Woods last season. And Woods, in defense of those who pay him an exorbitant amount of money, claimed that criticizing his equipment was "foolish," and that his equipment is just fine, thank you very much.

So why would Mickelson make these comments? That's up for debate, but it probably has something to do with a marketing move on the part of Titleist, his current equipment-maker and Tiger's old equipment-maker. Mickelson raved about his new equipment from last season, and he is doing the same again this season. And Nike is a direct competitor to Titleist. Mickelson is also a bit of a self-proclaimed know-it-all, and always enjoys interjecting his opinion into any issues he is asked about, whether it be who will win the Super Bowl, or the possibility of Earthlings living permanently in space.

But whatever Phil's motivation, he offered us an important lesson from what could have been nothing more than a gentle jab at Nike and an overall compliment to Tiger Woods. That lesson is that when you break away from the boilerplate language of the professional athlete, you not only draw attention to yourself, you also draw criticism, be it deserved or undeserved.

Giving outlandish opinions about the number one ranked golfer in the world and one of the world's most powerful corporations is the job of columnists, who have the luxury of backing up any assertions with written evidence. Playing sports is the job of athletes. Should athletes decide to venture into our territory, as Mickelson did, they face the wrath of the media, the fans, CEOs, and their fellow competitors.

Mickelson says it best: "It was an area that I just never should have gone. I certainly did not mean anything mean or malicious by it, or I was not trying to make derogatory statement towards anybody, but I still should not have gone in that area."

Indeed, Mickelson has learned his lesson. Perhaps we cannot blame athletes for being so boring with the media. Being bold just isn't worth it.

Article courtesy of Sports Central.