Esquire's has four perspective on Tiger Woods' return to golf in its April issue: a force of nature, a messiah, villian and cardboard cuttout. It's doesn't matter what other golfers do; Tiger can win any tournaments he wants. That's just the way it is. Other people believe his skill and ethnic background will transcend sports. He will transform the world and heal cultural wounds through excellence. Third, some people see him as villian. They despise him because he's so dominant. His greatness diminishes the championships that he wins. You can only see him win at the Masters so many times. Others see him as robot. He's either tries to hard to be funny, or he's too focused to be interesting.
My take on Woods is that he's a blank canvas. Fans can superimposes whatever they want on to him. Tiger has the game of a champion and almost no personality. He doesn't fit into any box. He's just an incredible; he's not Jim Brown or Muhammad Ali. Woods just wins golf tournaments. I enjoy his work because I like seeing people performing at the highest level. Woods probably won't solve any social problems, but his messiah complex was just his father's hyperbole.
Parents have been know to exaggerate about their kids. Tiger should just play golf, make goofy high-fives and not worry about detractors.
My take on Woods is that he's a blank canvas. Fans can superimposes whatever they want on to him. Tiger has the game of a champion and almost no personality. He doesn't fit into any box. He's just an incredible; he's not Jim Brown or Muhammad Ali. Woods just wins golf tournaments. I enjoy his work because I like seeing people performing at the highest level. Woods probably won't solve any social problems, but his messiah complex was just his father's hyperbole.
Parents have been know to exaggerate about their kids. Tiger should just play golf, make goofy high-fives and not worry about detractors.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar