Tiger, Phil weren’t great, and that’s OK
LAS VEGAS – Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods were asked late Friday, after Mickelson prevailed over 22 holes that concluded under floodlights, whether their made-for-TV exhibition might spark a trend and appeal to a whole new audience. Millennials, in particular.
Who knows, and Mickelson and Woods didn’t have much of a clue either. But if we suddenly see more to follow where the $9 million showdown titled The Match came from, it would be the slowest burning return to fashion in sports history.
Anything that asks for money on Black Friday that isn’t discounted electronics is a potential target for criticism, but would it be so bad if golf (or pretty much any other sport you can think of ) tries to manufacture similarly contrived entertainment?
Let’s see what it looks like. Because having two of the best golfers ever, even beyond their best years, go at it long into the Nevada darkness with competitive intensity was a worthy exercise.
For this, on several levels, is how sports used to be. Sure, there was no television and no pay-per-view back in the 1800s, but head-to-head matches, staged simply to prove the better man (or animal) and produce plenty of profit and gambling action, were a staple of yesteryear.
Runners and cyclists and fighters and traveling baseball teams laid down challenges to each other, transported by steamship or railroad or stagecoach to get to their destination, rather than private jet.
It was before a trophy or a title was necessary to add legitimacy to a triumph. Modern All-Star Games and the like are nonsense, because losing doesn’t sting the vanquished and no one even remembers anyway.
This one mattered though, that much was obvious thanks to nothing more than a glance at Woods’ face. The money, for all of its scale, won’t be lamented by Tiger. The sting of defeat will last. It mattered to Mickelson too, a man whose life and career would likely have looked very different if Woods hadn’t wielded hegemony over the sport for more than a decade.
Tiger vs. Phil would have been better had it been a Sunday slugfest at the Masters, but it was far from worthless without it. It wasn’t Augusta, but as the afternoon wore on it became about winning for the simple sake of winning, and yes, about getting rich(er).
If LeBron James and Kevin Durant want to book a one-on-one showdown for a lazy day next summer, bring it on. Bad comparison? Heck, if Magic Johnson and Larry Bird want to do it, who’s to stop them? You might think it’s stupid, and that’s totally fine. You don’t have to pay for it and you don’t have to pay any attention at all.
But if a matchup is “just” for money, it doesn’t have to be pointless, an insult to intelligent fans or a waste of time.
It might just be sports, but without the structure of a season or a physical trophy. And that’s OK.