Did Tiger grow up too
fast?
Posted: Wed April 8,
1998
Mike Tyson ... Jimmy Connors ... Tracy Austin ... Steve
Cauthen ... Boris Becker ... Nadia Comaneci ... and Tiger
Woods.
Do you see the pattern here? All these were
wunderkind, champions in individual sport, who were not only amazing
in their precocity, but so extraordinary that it seemed
they had taken their whole sport to a new level. Surely,
they would rule
forever.
| |
Will the lessons taught to Tiger Woods by his parents, Tida (left) and Earl (right), be enough to keep this phenom from flaming out?
(Robert Beck)
|
And yet: All these prodigies would come back to earth. Oh,
they all had fine careers. But none of them were able to
maintain that first promise of
preeminence.
It seems, in fact, that while athletes develop to stardom
at younger and younger ages, this early greatness does not
prefigure any sustained superiority. It just means they
arrived at the top earlier. In women's tennis, which has
featured a cavalcade
of superstars, ascension happens so rapidly now that Martina
Hingis, at 17, is suddenly suspected of being on the cusp
of
over-the-hill.
Meanwhile, on the men's side, at the very moment when
historians had begun to say that Pete Sampras could be the
greatest player ever, he began to show the early signs of
being burnt out—just short of setting the record for most
Grand Slam singles
titles.
Sampras was the youngest U.S. Open champion ever, at 19.
Is it possible that these early demands suck out too much
energy? Is it possible Sampras is past his prime at the
advanced age of 26? Bill Tilden didn't even win a
championship till he was
27.
And so now we come to Tiger Woods—and particularly like
Tyson and Becker in their time, he possesses so much sheer
physical power that it has seemed that he didn't just beat
people, but he overwhelmed the entire sport. Only 51
weeks ago—remember?—it was just assumed that he would rule golf for the next 20
years. Woods was certainly going to win the 1997 Grand
Slam, wasn't
he?
Oh well. He didn't even finish in the top 10 in any Grand
Slam event after the Masters. He was a bust in the Ryder
Cup. And now cynics say that even if he wins the Masters
again, it won't mean much because the course is made for
him. And there's
sniping that he spends more time working for his sponsors than
on his short game. It's funny. It used to be booze and
women that cut down success; now it's agents and
exhibitions.
Of course, not even the most captious critics suggest that
Woods is merely a comet who's flamed out. He remains,
after all, No. 6 in the rankings, a favorite to win every
tournament on the Tour, and he can still outdrive even
Thor, the god of thunder.
But it is apparent that we've finally grown leery of
phenoms. Too many of them have promised much more in their
youth than they've delivered in their
maturity.
Tiger Woods is an extraordinary talent, and his victory in
the Masters last year was not just a gem, but the Hope
Diamond of golf. But it's a different world now. Kids
grow up so fast. However, too often, in sport, anyway,
they don't grow for
long.
So this week, in Augusta, we start to learn anew whether
Tiger Woods is truly a golfer for the ages or just a golfer
for his
years.
Previous
Commentaries
| 
