Showing posts with label 1997. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1997. Show all posts

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Down From the Pedestal



Because he is so young compared to most in his sport, many people forget that Tiger Woods already has had a remarkable career.

He's won two of the four major tournaments four times each — the exceptions are the U.S. Open and The Open Championship, both of which he has won three times and came close to winning on a few other occasions. He also holds records for the most consecutive weeks in the top spot and the most total weeks ranked #1.

If he isn't the best golfer of all time, his name belongs in the conversation.

His pro career isn't over, of course. Many pro golfers are just hitting their stride when they are Woods' age (36), which means there may well be some more titles in his future — perhaps many more — even though he hasn't won a major since 2008, and he hasn't won two or more in a calendar year since 2006.

It doesn't look as if he will add to his majors total in today's concluding round of The Masters. There is too much ground to make up, too many golfers to overtake.

Woods won his first major, the 1997 Masters, 15 years ago this month. Only 21 years old at the time, Woods was the youngest–ever Masters champion, He wasn't the first black golfer to win at Augusta — Lee Elder accomplished that in 1975, less than a year before Woods was born — and he struggled out of the gate, but he won the tournament in dominating fashion, setting scoring records that still stand today.

Through the first nine holes, Woods was four–over par, but he finished the round three shots off the pace at two–under par. He seized control of the tournament in the second round, shooting a six–under 66.

(Nothing like that happened this year, of course. Tim Dahlberg of the Associated Press describes Tiger's second round of the Masters as "a foul–mouthed, club–kicking back nine ... that would have gotten you or me thrown off much lesser golf courses.")

Back in 1997, the third day was much like the second. Woods shot a 65 and took a nine–stroke lead into the final round. He only shot a 69 on the last day, but that was good enough to add three strokes to his final margin. His eventual margin of victory (12 strokes) is still the greatest ever in the Masters — and it was a record for all of the majors until Woods himself bested it with a 15–stroke win at the U.S. Open.

If anyone in golf is regarded as a natural (a la Robert Redford in his memorable baseball movie role), it must be Woods. So often, from his childhood through his young adulthood, it has seemed that things have come so effortlessly for him — the championships, the money, the adoring women.

The 1997 Masters made him seem like golf's version of Secretariat, pulling away from the field like (in the words of horse race caller Chic Anderson) "a tremendous machine" and strolling to the clubhouse to pick up his first green jacket. Hard as it may be to recall now, there was a period there in the late 1990s when many spoke of wanting to "Tiger proof" their golf courses with par–6 holes.

Undoubtedly, Tiger was a role model for millions. He was golf's golden boy who struck it rich with endorsement deals as well as tournament triumphs. In a post–Michael Jordan world (or one that was nearly so in 1997), he was the new Muhammad Ali of sports in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, recognized by all, master of all he or anyone else could see.

But, as both Jordan and Ali could have told him, such a time is fleeting. America loves its sports heroes, but it always ends — too soon for most athletes — and the love affair with Tiger was tarnished long before this year's Masters.

His tantrums on the Augusta National course in the last few days indicate that Tiger has been doing things in reverse order. He was a child prodigy for whom success came too early; he lacks the maturity and discipline now to learn and, eventually, benefit from mistakes and setbacks.

His enablers may say otherwise, but he hastened his own plummet from golf's pedestal.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Return to Titletown



I remember, as a child, watching the Green Bay Packers play on TV.

Vince Lombardi was their coach, and I was becoming interested in football cards. My cards of Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Willie Wood, Donny Anderson and all the others were my prized possessions.

I believed the Packers were the best in football — and they were. But I believed it would always be that way — and it wasn't.

Frankly, it seemed like kind of a dirty trick to me, hooking me as a Packers fan at an early age and then reducing the Packers to NFL bottom feeders for many years.

I can't tell you how often I longed on Super Sunday — as I watched the Dolphins or Steelers or Cowboys or 49ers win it all time after time — for the Packers to just get to a Super Bowl.

I always told myself I wouldn't mind if they lost the game. I just wanted them to play in the Super Bowl, the game everyone watched.

Of course, that wasn't true. The longer I waited, the more I wanted to see the Packers win. Just getting there wouldn't be enough. Eventually, I had to acknowledge that.

But, for a long time, the possibility of the Packers being in the Super Bowl was extremely remote. The Packers usually failed even to make the playoffs. In fact, they typically did so spectacularly. They were frequently among the first to be mathematically eliminated from the playoff discussion.

A Packers Super Bowl appearance was strictly hypothetical for Green Bay fans.

That changed 20 years ago. With a few exceptions, the Packers have become fixtures in the NFL playoffs, and they have actually been to three Super Bowls in those two decades, winning two and losing the NFC Championship game on two other occasions.

It changed when Brett Favre took over as the Packers' quarterback. Not right away. Favre led Green Bay to the playoffs almost from the start, but the Packers in those days reminded me of the Tin Woodman in "The Wizard of Oz" — a little creaky at first but gradually picking up speed as the oil spread to its extremities.

The Packers of the early '90s returned to the playoffs as a wild–card team in 1993 and 1994, then won their division in 1995 and made it to the NFC title game, where they lost to Dallas.

It was 15 years ago that the Packers finally returned to the Super Bowl for the first time since Lombardi's day. Their opponent in the New Orleans Superdome was the New England Patriots.

That might seem rather unremarkable to modern football fans, who have seen both teams in multiple Super Bowls in recent years, but it certainly made Super Bowl XXXI intriguing. At the time, the Patriots had only been to one other Super Bowl more than a decade earlier and had lost in rather spectacular fashion to the Chicago Bears. And the Packers, of course, hadn't been to the Super Bowl in three decades. On the basis of that, I wasn't sure that either team had an advantage.

The Packers, however, had made an impression on the guys who determine the point spreads in athletic contests, presumably based on Green Bay's recent upward trajectory in the playoffs. New England, on the other hand, was considered something of a flash in the pan, having rarely been seen in the postseason since losing the Super Bowl to Chicago.

Anyway, the Packers went into the game favored by 14 points. As a lifelong Packers fan, I felt a certain amount of gratification, naturally, but I also felt a bit anxious as Super Sunday approached. Everyone was treating the outcome as a foregone conclusion, and the last thing I wanted the Packers to do was to treat the game as if victory was assured.

Initially, it seemed my fears were justified. At the end of the first quarter, New England led, 14–10, but the Packers scored 17 unanswered points in the second quarter and went to the locker room with a 27–14 halftime lead.

In hindsight, I needn't have worried. As it turned out, the Packers won by precisely 14 points, thanks to a jaw–dropping 99–yard third–quarter kickoff return for a touchdown by Desmond Howard, who became the first special teams player to win the Super Bowl MVP.

Howard's return certainly deserved recognition, but I always felt that Green Bay's victory on that day was more of a team effort, with many people making significant contributions.

Howard's return did, in fact, stop New England's momentum dead in its tracks. The Patriots had just scored a touchdown that brought them within six points of the Packers, and Howard's return took all the wind from their sails.

But defensive lineman Reggie White did his part as well, setting a Super Bowl record for sacks. I can vividly remember seeing White pick up Patriot offensive linemen and toss them aside as if they were rag dolls.

And Favre, who is considered by nearly everyone to be a lock for the Hall of Fame, threw for two touchdowns and ran for another. He was the first Super Bowl–winning quarterback to account for three touchdowns or more and not be named MVP.

That didn't seem to bother Favre at the time. "We etched our place in history today," he said after the game, putting the team's accomplishment over everything else.

Favre, like most observers, probably figured he would have other opportunities to be named the Super Bowl's MVP. But he didn't.

He did play in another Super Bowl — the following year — and lost it. Only once has the Super Bowl MVP come from the losing team — and it wasn't Favre.

When Favre is inducted into the Hall of Fame, there will be many achievements to be listed beneath his name — but Super Bowl MVP will not be among them. And, in some ways, that seems unfair. All the other Green Bay quarterbacks who took the Packers to the Super Bowl were named Super Bowl MVP — including Aaron Rodgers, Favre's successor.

But Favre has a special distinction that may not always get the attention it deserves. He revived a proud but moribund franchise — as did Bart Starr in the 1960s — and is responsible for the virtually dynastic status the Packers enjoy today.

It sure is a different world from the one in which I grew up.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Tiger Blood



Someone is going to win the Masters today.

It ain't gonna be Tiger Woods, writes Gene Wojciechowski for ESPN.com.

But it might be Rory McIlroy, who staked out his advantage in the first round and has built it into the "largest lead Augusta National has seen since that remarkable day 14 years ago," writes John Romano of the St. Petersburg Times.

Anyone who is old enough to remember the 1997 Masters remembers the way Tiger Woods dominated the field. He was the youngest golfer ever to win the Masters, a mere 21, but that was probably the least of his accomplishments on the day he won his first green jacket.

He's won three more since then, and he's won every other major multiple times.

Tiger continues to cast an enormous shadow over this tournament — even though he has only won it once in the last eight years — but that shadow seems to be receding.

Tiger goes into today's final round trailing by seven strokes. He had a seven–under round one day in 1997 en route to his record–setting triumph in the Masters, and he flirted with it the next day so he is — or, at least, has been — capable of that.

But, in order for a 65 to result in at least a tie with the current leader, that leader would have to do something he hasn't done in the first three days of this tournament — break even.

In fact, even if the leader duplicates his worst round of the tournament (yesterday's two–under 70), Tiger would need to shoot a nine–under 63 to match him — and he would have to hope that the other golfers who stand between him and McIlroy don't have record–smashing afternoons of their own.

It just seems to me that there are too many obstacles between Tiger and a fifth green jacket. And even if there were no other golfers between Tiger and McIlroy, the greatest of the obstacles would remain: If Tiger ever shot a 63 (in a major or even a non–major), he hasn't done it recently.

So I would have to conclude that Wojciechowski was right — but we won't know that for sure until later today.

We'll also have to wait until later today to find out if Sports Illustrated's Joe Posnanski was right a couple of days ago when he observed that first–round leaders seldom win it all.

"In the last 25 years, there have been a total of 41 first–round leaders, including ties," he wrote. "One won the Masters. One. More first–round leaders over the last quarter century have finished in 21st place than first. Only 17 of the 41 first–round leaders even finished in the Top 10."

Let me amend what I just said. Posnanski clearly is right about the tournament's recent history. What remains to be seen is whether McIlroy will overcome it.

Going into today's final round, McIlroy has a chance to make that two first–round leaders in the last quarter century who have made their leads hold up long enough to win a championship.

We'll find out if he is able to do it later today.