Professional enmity

5 posts / 0 new
Professional enmity
I understand that Woods and Mickelson don't see eye to eye, just as Darrend Clarke and Lee Westwood are known to be best friends. Does anyone know why that is, or whether there was anything specific that caused it? Are there other pairings that cause friction on tour? I'm always fascinated to see how the pros behave when together - either on or off the course - because of the insight into their lives. Maybe I'm a wannabe - can't deny that.

The Woods-Mickelson thing may go back to incidents as college amateurs when they were respectively at rival Stanford and Las Vegas universities. Tiger's always been driven by practice and commitment - Mickelson's a gambler, on and off the course - and occasionally allegedly quite noisy about it, though he looks like butter wouldn't melt...
Other clashes of personality include Azinger and Seve and further back Max Faulkner and Sam Snead who despised each other and occasionally came to blows.


Phil did not go to school at Las Vegas but rather in Arizona. He also is 6 or 7 years older than Tiger, so there was no college rivalry. During Tiger's year 2000 domination, Phil would refuse to give credit to Tiger during media interviews and wouldn't use Tiger's name.

Tiger felt that a certain respect was due him for his achievements and wasn't given. They now get along outwardly and Phil has metaphorically bowed to Tiger.

The enmity between Nick Faldo and Sam Torrance has always interested those of us from across the pond.

Chaps, I would have to say that Mickelsons' enmity seems to have stemmed from a totally justifiable source and it is only the 'Tiger Loving' media that have painted him in a poor light.
Golf is an individual sport and, as amateurs, we are only superficially interested in what our fellow golfers are doing/achieving. As a pro that single mindedness must be several levels removed from what we experience. I am sure I am not alone in becoming tired of the relentless focus on the 'tigger'. However I can excuse the TV coverage because of the sponsorship angle but as for the player interviews! I cannot imagine a bigger insult than having all of your interviews based around another player and, to make matters worse, it always appears to be in the form of 'could you ever be as good as Tiger is?'

They can beat the Tiger drum all they like but must accept that not everyone will like the rythm.

On a personal level I would love to see more in depth coverage on TV, ie bad shots, out of form players etc. Current fodder gives a very biased view of a tournament and also means too much chat and not enough action.

ere ere or heah heah ! particularly to last para & guess relatively easy to avoid those not in tune with (hate guts or avoid em in a workplace)but must be a bit wearing @ pro level drawn with some 'twerp' one dislikes