The Flying Pig Sports Season

Yesterday was billed as a great day in sports, headlined by the Kentucky Derby and Mayweather-Mosley heavyweight boxing title fight. In supporting roles were the NBA and NHL playoffs, a random NASCAR race, several MLB games, and some non-major PGA event sans Tiger (and his harem). I love sports. Guess what? I watched exactly zero hours of sports yesterday, despite having the house to myself.

That's right, I just don't give a flying pig about any of these sports events. Hockey is awesome fun to watch in person, but is terrible to watch on TV. Baseball is also much more entertaining in person, but as the league's current financial structure makes it tough for most teams to compete, unless you are a lifelong fan of one of the perrenial powers, there is little reason to care until the pennant races heat up just before Labor Day. Golf is only interesting if it's a major. As for NASCAR, I've tried, really tried, but I just don't get the mass appeal; it's probably like soccer, where fans need to be indoctrinated "into" the sport/cult as a kid. The NBA playoffs only are worth watching if: a) the Dallas Mavericks are losing (Mark Cuban losing is almost as entertaining as a Phil Hellmuth rant); or b) it's reached the conference finals (the NBA's dirty little secret is that there are only 3-5 teams worth watching any given year).

So that brings us to the two headline events that dominated the sports news cycle this past week—the Kentucky Derby and the boxing match. The Derby is billed as "the most exciting two minutes in sports"; obviously the person who uttered that nonsense has never seen a two-minute drive in football. More to the point, horse-racing isn't a sport at all, it's a gambling event. The Derby is only covered by the sports media because of tradition. Think otherwise? Quick, name the last five Breeder's Cup winners, or the leading prospects for next year's Derby, or the top three horses with a shot at winning the Belmont Stakes that didn't run the Derby. If you could answer those questions, you're either in the horse industry or a degenerate gambler on the ponies.

Finally, boxing. The golden era of boxing passed long ago. There have been, at most, two boxers worth caring about in the past two decades—Mike Tyson and George Foreman, and they were interesting more for their lives outside the ring than how they performed in the ring. With the rise of mixed martial arts (MMA) over the past decade, boxing is simply boring. MMA offers more athleticism, more drama; it's compelling in a way that boxing once was but no longer is.

So when do preseason NFL games begin?

Tiger & the Flying Pig

"Tigers love pepper. They hate cinnamon."

—Alan Garner (Zach Galifianakis), "The Hangover"

Hmmm, I wonder if Tiger ever met an exotic dancer named Cinnamon? ...

Anyway, the Tiger Woods kabuki theatre continued today with Act III—The Public Apology. The sports media is now abuzz with varying critiques of Tiger’s performance:

Was he sincere enough?
Did he sound genuine or scripted?
Should he have looked at the camera more?
Did he get all of his lines right?
Did he apologize to all the right people?
Why wouldn’t he answer questions?

On many levels, I don’t give a flying pig about the Tiger “scandal”. To me, Tiger is a great golfer, nothing more, nothing less. Tiger is not a role model. I don’t buy or do anything because he endorses a product or service. I don’t know Tiger, and nothing he’s done has affected me personally, so he certainly doesn’t owe me any explanation or apology. My only expectation from Tiger is the chance for a thrilling round of golf on the weekend of a golf major, with maybe a breathtaking shot or two thrown in.

Frankly, I’m baffled. Why is America so obsessed with this story? Tiger is not the only athlete to exhibit an inflated ego and sense of entitlement; in fact, an outsized ego seems almost de rigueur for professional athletes. Tiger is not the first, nor will he be the last athlete to succumb to the temptations of his wealth and fame, whether those temptations are women, booze, drugs, or gambling. Really, the media is intoxicated on the heady brew of an overly self-righteous sense of judgment, cashing in on America’s favorite pastime—schadenfreude of the rich and famous.

It is indisputable that Tiger’s womanizing was wildly inappropriate and incredibly hurtful to his family. But, Tiger didn’t commit a crime, nor did he betray a public trust. So, how does his rakish behavior affect anyone other than his family? Why do we in the public need to know how many women, whether they have pictures or tapes, and the intimate details of how they hooked up? Why does the public in general and the sports media in particular feel entitled to know everything that happened, and assert the right to judge whether Tiger is handling the situation correctly?

At the end of the day, this entire sordid situation reflects poorly on Tiger’s character, but it is irrelevant to his ability to play golf. So enough with the media coverage. Let Tiger deal with the situation in private, with his wife and family. Only Tiger’s wife can judge whether Tiger is truly remorseful, and decide whether their marriage can be salvaged. The sports media and the public need to move along and stop rubbernecking at the Tiger train wreck.

Shooting Angles with Phil Mickelson

This past weekend, a feud erupted between pro golfers Scott McCarron and Phil Mickelson. McCarron accused Mickelson (and a couple of other pro golfers) of “cheating” for using wedges with square grooves, rather than V-shaped grooves. This is a rather arcane technical dispute, but essentially square-grooved wedges are felt to create more “spin” on the golf ball, allowing players better control of the ball. In a sport that over the past two decades has evolved into a technological arms race for ever-better clubs and balls, having superior wedges can give a player a significant edge, which can translate into more victories, prize money, and endorsements.  Thus, it was hardly surprising that the PGA Tour adopted a new rule this year banning square-grooved wedges. Due to a 1990 legal settlement between the rules governing body USGA and golf equipment manufacturer Ping, however, certain Ping square-grooved wedges made prior to 1990 are considered legal equipment.

Of course, no good loophole goes unexploited. After learning that a couple of other PGA golfers had played with pre-1990 Ping wedges, Mickelson decided to do the same. He located a pre-1990 Ping wedge with square grooves, bent it from 60 to 64 degrees, and used it in this past weekend’s Farmers Insurance Open tournament. Knowing that Mickelson and several other players were using the square-grooved wedges led to McCarron’s comments about “cheating” during an interview. Predictably, Mickelson denied cheating and suggested that he had been "slandered"—possibly a veiled threat of a defamation lawsuit?

Now, it’s clear that Mickelson was not cheating, as his use of the wedge was technically within the rules. But it seems to me that his use of the wedge falls within the realm of what poker players call “angle shooting”—taking an action technically within the rules, but intended to gain an advantage not contemplated by the rules, or even contrary to the spirit of the rules. In poker, angle shooting often involves tactics related to betting or showdown intended to take advantage of inexperienced or unwary opponents.

Angle shooting isn’t limited to poker, however. It probably occurs in any sport or game. Off the top of my head, I can think of several examples:

In basketball, the "Hack a Shaq" strategy involves intentionally fouling a player who does not have the ball, in the belief that the player is a poor free throw shooter. The strategy forces the team to attempt to score with a poor shooter at the free throw line, rather than through the normal course of play, or alternatively, to remove the poor free throw shooter from play (the player being fouled is usually a talented player the other team would like to see on the bench).

Also in basketball, after high schools adopted the three point shot, for a few seasons, fouls on three point attempts only resulted in two free throws. So, teams holding a three point lead late in a game would intentionally foul shooters attempting three point shots, knowing they could only score a maximum of two points via free throws. This loophole was eventually closed by altering the rule to award three free throws to shooters fouled attempting a three point shot.

In football, until a recent rules change, after an interception, defensive players would seek out and hit the quarterback, ostensibly as a “block” as the defense attempted to return the interception for more yards or a touchdown, but in reality as an attempt to shake him up with a hit that in the normal course of play would result in a personal foul penalty.

Returning to golf, in the 1999 Phoenix Open, Tiger Woods hit a ball that came to rest directly behind a boulder that weighed at least 1000 pounds. Woods used a technical provision in the rules that allowed spectators to assist in moving “loose impediments” to move the boulder out of his line of play, even though the rule was intended to apply to objects like twigs, leaves, small rocks, dead animals, and the like. Moving the boulder probably saved Woods at least two strokes, which in pro golf can be the difference between winning and not making the top five—in other words, a serious change in prize money. 

Looking at the current wedge controversy, it seems more than a little odd that Mickelson went out of his way to find a 20 year old golf club. Since Mickelson is widely regarded as one of the best wedge players on the PGA Tour, it is unlikely he would’ve sought out this obscure square-grooved club unless he felt it gave him an advantage over the V-grooved wedges mandated by the new rules. So, Mickelson’s use of the wedge is technically permitted by the rules. But, his use of the wedge seems motivated by the intent to circumvent the spirit of the rules and gain an advantage over those who follow the rules rigidly. It's angle shooting, and it reflects poorly on Mickelson's judgment.

POSTSCRIPT: After my original post, another report came out in which McCarron denied calling Mickelson a cheater:

"I responded, 'It's cheating and I am appalled Phil has put it in play,'" McCarron stated. "I never called Phil Mickelson a cheater.

--Reported by Jason Sobel, ESPN.com

Seems a pretty fine splitting of semantic hairs. If McCarron claims that using a particular wedge is "cheating," and Mickelson is using that wedge, basic logic supports the valid conclusion that McCarron thinks Mickelson is cheating.