Sports, Athletics, and Competition

Discerning What Is Best
With Dr Rex Rogers

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 10 June 2011

Sports pundits are now writing the requiem of Tiger Woods’s career in professional golf. They’re saying he’ll never win 5 more major championships to surpass Jack Nicklaus. Some, astoundingly, are saying Tiger may not win 5 more tournaments. But come on, the man’s only 35 years old.

I’ve written about Tiger’s character issues. And I’ve written about what he needs to do to reboot his life. Clearly, right now he’s experiencing knee injury problems and his public interviews seem to indicate he’s still struggling with anger and perhaps other emotional issues. Who wouldn’t, given what he’s put himself through and given the family and reputational price he’s paid?

But the man’s only 35 years old, he still must be considered the most gifted golfer in the world, and he has time. Tiger has won 14 major championships. Jack Nicklaus won his last of 18 majors, the high watermark of professional golf, when he was 46 years old. So on that measure alone Tiger has 11 more years.

In eleven years, representing 4 majors per year, it seems to me Tiger might reasonably be expected to win 5 out of 44 major championships. But to give sports pundits their due, this assumes several things that all must come together, and no one, not even Tiger, knows for sure that they will, i.e. his return to physical and mental or spiritual well-being.

But I’m not ready to give up on Tiger. I think he’s surly and often un-likeable. But I don’t wish him ill, I believe his personality could make a George Foreman change if Tiger took certain spiritual steps, I still believe his phenomenal golf skills are there to be reawakened, and I think he has time. So we’ll see.

As just another human being with issues like the rest of us, here’s hoping Tiger gets the help he needs--maybe from "Big George" Foreman himself.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 04 June 2011

The more I read about what Coach Jim Tressel apparently did the more distressed I get. Here is a highly successful coach of a major university football program, a person who at various times touted his Christian faith, and a man who seemed to embody certain virtues-in-leadership. Now it’s come crashing down.

I react in part because—except for six years in West Virginia and New York—I am a lifetime resident of Ohio (grew up there, went to three universities there) and Michigan (for the past 20 years). I like football, have watched hours of it, and am steeped in the Ohio versus Michigan rivalry. And for a long time I’ve liked Tressel. So this hit home.

At a minimum it appears Coach Tressel lied to his superiors, or at least did so by omission in terms of things he didn’t tell them (there’s enough information now to conclude with a fair degree of certainty that he did). Assuming this is so he succumbed to a major breech in professional and personal integrity. No matter his success winning football games or helping student-athletes turn into men, Tressel violated one of the fundamental tenets of leadership. He proved himself untrustworthy.

I don’t think he is alone in this. The Ohio State University Athletic Director Gene Smith and President E. Gordon Gee were kept in the dark for a few months, but they’ve known about all this now for several months. Their knowledge seems to reach back into the fall. If so, they allowed athletes to play in a bowl game when they should not have been allowed to play. And if Tressel deserved to be fired he deserved to be fired back then. Both the A.D. and the President have handled this matter poorly, even flippantly in the case of the President.

But the primary responsibility lies with Tressel. After all these years working with young men, he knew what his athletes were capable of doing and likely what they were actually doing. So maybe it’s a case of “What did he know and when did he know it?” But Coach knew a long time back, covered it up in classic Watergate fashion, by doing so lied to the public and the NCAA as well as his superiors, and tried to finesse his way through. What could have and should have been a serious matter involving a few athletes was thereby magnified to a very serious matter trashing Coach’s reputation, costing him his job, and putting the entire athletic program and university at risk.

Integrity is a powerful thing. When it exists it creates strength. People admire and follow leaders who evidence integrity. When integrity is violated it weakens leaders and leadership, and once gone it is difficult to impossible to rebuild in a given assignment.

Perhaps Coach Tressel can confess his mea culpa and begin anew somewhere else. I hope he possesses the integrity to do this and also that he demonstrates the resolve to “make things right” as opposed to riding off into the sunset. In any event, there was no way he was going to begin anew at OSU, and I think the same may apply to the A.D. and President. For OSU to move on it needs a clean slate and that means the A.D. and the President also need to fall on their sword. Whether they or the Board of Trustees will possess the courage to act remains to be seen.

One last thought: USC and Michigan have come under NCAA sanction and other programs like Auburn have been investigated. What happened at OSU under Tressel is wrong, unprofessional, and possibly illegal. And unfortunately it’s happening at other schools as well. The NCAA needs to step up to the moment and put in place more teeth and more reforms for ethical compliance in university athletics.

In the end this is another lesson in how greed, power, winning-at-all-costs, and hubris can tempt leaders into actions that destroy their character and opportunities for future achievement. It’s sad, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 14 May 2011

Probably every generation thinks the athletes they’ve witnessed are the greatest. I can’t attest for ancient Greece, but I imagine they were proud of their Olympians.

And I can remember my Grandpa Davis talking about Satchel Paige, Babe Ruth, Jim Thorpe, and Y.A. Tittle. Who could argue these athletes weren’t “great”?

But the thought struck me not long ago—actually in March while on a jet winging across the Atlantic—that I have been privileged to witness, to actually see perform, some of the reputedly greatest athletes of all time. Here’s my hall of fame list:

--Jim Brown. Being a kid from Ohio and having watched Brown run as a Cleveland Brown in the early 1960s when I was in junior high, no one will ever convince me there was or is a better, greater running back in the National Football League. I know he’s had a couple of dust-ups along the way, but I also enjoyed his short acting career, particularly “The Dirty Dozen” and “100 Rifles.” And I’ve admired his work with inner city youth.

--Muhammad Ali. “The Greatest.” Ali was at his peak when I was in college. After bursting to prominence in his second victory over Sonny Liston in 1965, a knock-out at 2:12 in the First Round, he went on to become boxing’s best ever, a cultural force, and a worldwide celebrity. His record was 56-5. One of those losses came from Joe Frazier in 1971 when I was a college freshman. It was billed as “The Fight of the Century.” Frazier fought Ali twice more, losing both, 1974 when I was a senior, and 1975, the last being “The Thrilla in Manilla.” Unbelievable fights. Then there was big George Foreman in 1974, “The Rumble in the Jungle.” In a matter of ten months Ali beat Frazier and Foreman. Incredible. There is not now and I don’t think ever will be a fighter like Ali. “The Mouth” is quiet now due to Parkinson’s syndrome, but he is still a force of nature.

--Pete Rose. I watched “Charlie Hustle” throughout my youth. So it’s especially sad for me today to think about how he botched his reputation and legacy gambling on games in which he managed. It’s particularly ironic in that I grew up to write a no-gambling book. Rose is Exhibit #1 for what gambling can do to a life. But Rose is still the greatest hitter ever to play baseball, 4,256 hits. He gambled away Cooperstown but he still makes my hall of fame.

--Secretariat. Yes, a horse. And what a horse, and an athlete in every sense of the term. In 1973 when I was in college Secretariat became the first horse in 25 years to win racing’s Triple Crown. His records at the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont Stakes still stand, the latter of which he won by 31 lengths. Secretariat went to his reward in 1989 and it’s improbable we’ll see his like again in the next one hundred years.

--Lance Armstrong. Road racing cyclist’s greatest, Armstrong won the Tour de France 7 times in a row, 1999 to 2005. This feat may be approached, but I doubt it will ever be bettered. Armstrong, though not the most likeable person and a rather testy agnostic, is nevertheless a cancer survivor, tireless worker on behalf of his foundation, and hero of those who acknowledge resolve. He is known to possess an exceptionally large heart, which is the source of his incredible energy. This is a trait he shares with Secretariat, which during autopsy was discovered to have a heart two and one-half times the size of an average horse. Amazing.

--Michael Jordan. I’m not a big basketball fan, but who can ignore “Air Jordan”? Kids today know him more for Nike and Hanes underwear commercials than for basketball, but Jordan’s 6 NBA championships, 5 MVP awards, and 14 All-Star appearances, and much more, set a standard few have emulated. Maybe more than his skill and winning, or certainly along with them, he stood out because he so obviously loved the game and gave it every hang-time moment he could.

--Tiger Woods. No one at this point, not even Woods, knows whether his career is at its zenith. But to give him his due, he was and in large measure still is, the gold standard of golf greatness—not in majors won, that belongs to the Golden Bear Jack Nicklaus—not in crowd appeal, that belongs to Arnold Palmer and his Army or maybe to Phil Mickelson—but in technique, skill, hitting a ball like no one else. That's Tiger. I hope he gets his life on course and hits some more great shots.

There’s more “Great Ones” among sports figures, of course--these are all men, so a women's hall of fame is yet to come. But these will do for my hall of fame short-list for now. I’ve been privileged to watch them all.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 13 May 2011

Let me begin by saying I consider Tiger Woods the greatest golfer I’ve ever seen and likely ever will see play. Technically, when he was “on” for a good ten-year run, his golf skills were truly phenomenal. He's yet to demonstrate he can catch Jack Nicklaus's professional golfers' best record, but Tiger's skills are without question the best ever witnessed.

Second, let me say that I don’t generally root against Tiger. I do often root for others, so it depends upon how you look at it. The point is, I get no personal jollies when Tiger falters.

Third, I think his fall from grace was, in a word, remarkable. In a matter of a few hours, certainly a few days, he toppled—no, he plummeted—from the pinnacle of worldwide sports and endorsement capacity to a place somewhere very low in the public’s estimation. It still strikes me as rather amazing, especially given the fact that his transgressions involved sexual escapades that are: a) quite common among celebrities, b) behaviors in which many in the general population indulge. Still, he hit some kind of bottom, real fast, and his game if not his life has yet to recover. Clearly, he needs to get back on course—pun intended and in more ways than one.

So, I don’t claim any self-righteous right to condemn Tiger or use him as an example of all things unholy. I now just think he and his saga are sad.

But the man is only 35 years old. He’s still physically capable of being the world’s greatest golfer, and as long as he breathes he still has a chance to turn things around in his life spiritually, socially, and more.

So here’s my recommendation on “How Tiger Woods Can Reboot His Life.” I sincerely wish and pray him well.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 14 April 2011

It’s become fashionable for sports pundits to call for the public to forgive Tiger Woods. Or to say it’s time to “quit piling on” Tiger Woods. Or to “give Woods a break.”

Sports writers and announcers do this in part because they may be genuinely compassionate. Maybe some want to rehabilitate Woods in the public’s eye because they really don’t think what he did was all that bad anyway and, besides, it’s a free country. Some just want Woods back up to par, pun intended, because they regard him as the greatest talent ever to swing a golf club (who doesn’t?) and don’t much care what else he’s done if they get to see him perform at the highest level of his capability. Some want him back at the top because professional golf makes more money with Woods in contention.

It’s true, Woods didn’t kill anyone a la O.J. Simpson and didn’t rape anyone a la Mike Tyson. As far as we can tell, he didn’t do anything illegal. Immoral? Yes. Arrogant maybe? Probably. Chauvinistic? Definitely. Dumb and dumber? Absolutely. But his errors were ones carrying ripple effects for him and his family, not really for the rest of us. So why is so much of the public yet unwilling to let the man back inside the ropes, so to speak?

I don’t think it has anything to do with an unwillingness to forgive. Nor do I think the public is holding back on Woods because people like piling on or rooting for him to fail. Actually, the American public has historically been quick to restore fallen heroes: think Magic Johnson—even Mike Tyson has experienced something of a re-acceptance. But Woods: I believe fans are watching Woods like they’ve watched Pete Rose, with much the same suspicions.

Pete Rose bet on his own baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds. As a result he was forever banished from admission to the major league baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Some fans want him restored to consideration. Some don’t. The biggest argument against restoring him is Rose himself. First he denied he bet on the games he managed. Then he admitted to betting only on other games. Then finally when it became clear to him things weren’t going to change, he wrote a book admitting he bet on his own games and feebly apologizing. Along with this, since the day he was publicly disgraced he’s been a one-man campaign about how he deserves to be admitted, all the while presenting a less than believable and certainly less than remorseful persona.

That’s Woods, and that’s Woods’s biggest problem—his own persona. And by the way, I don’t think the public’s response to Woods has anything whatsoever to do with racism as some sports writers claim.

Woods is arrogant, standoffish, and surly on his best days. Sure, he can smile when he wants to and he can make a joke with reporters. But this is rare. Last week at The Master’s, he banged his golf clubs on the ground in open disgust, he cursed continually within range of cameras or microphones, and on one occasion the camera zoomed to his face just after a poor shot, catching him quite clearly mouthing a vulgarity. Worse, after a finish on Sunday not to his liking he was abrupt and quickly skipped out on the media.

Phil Mickelson is not an angel, but on a golf course or otherwise in public he does none of this. None. In fact, he goes out of his way to interact with fans, treats sports writers with respect, honestly assesses his game (Woods by his account is always “playing well”), and in general is a likable person who knows whereof his bread is buttered. Fans like him not just because he seems to have the picture perfect family, but because he openly cares for his family, likes people, and shows himself to be friendly.

Woods is the non-Mickelson. Where Mickelson plays with a swashbuckling style that probably looses a few tournaments, Woods is always the technician, greatly skilled but robotic. Where Mickelson is a happy person in the face of life’s challenges, Woods is barely controlled and barely concealed anger—it’s like it’s just under the surface. Mickelson wants to win for the joy of it, for his family, for the fans. Woods wants to win to claim he’s the best.

In the language of the King James Version, “A man that hath friends must show himself friendly.” I don’t know what Woods is like in private, but he is not a friendly person, actually a largely unpleasant persona in public. Fans know this and hold back. Who wants to be friends with someone who doesn’t want you as a friend?

If Woods wants a better future, he’d do well to spend more time working on his attitude and his interpersonal relationships skills than his golf game.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 05 January 2011

Much is being made of the Seattle Seahawks winning their National Football League division with a losing record, 7-9. The Seahawks will be the first team in NFL history to walk into the playoffs a “loser.” This offends purists. To make matters worse, the Seahawks went 3-7 in their last 10 games, not an especially auspicious way to get into post-season play.

But statistics aside, the Seahawks won their final game, won fair and square, and, well, won the division. The team earned its playoff berth by being the best in a weak division. So I say “Congratulations.” Not every team can be the New England Patriots in the same way not every quarterback is a Tom Brady.

There’re several lessons here: you don’t have to be perfect to be the best in your corner of the professional world; you should never, ever, give up; don’t listen to naysayers; keep working, getting better than yourself on each new professional effort; even less talented people sometimes win with desire, work ethic, and grit, things more talented people don’t always evidence—watch the Olympics for more lessons.

Contrast the Seattle Seahawks debate, though, with the annual intercollegiate NCAA Division I football bowl series fandango. Given the proliferation of bowl games in recent years—we now suffer through 35 bowls, all wishing they were the Rose Bowl and all longing to be scheduled on New Year’s Day.

Here we’re not talking about one team in a professional league. We’re talking about a self-defeating bowl explosion that dumbs down post-season intercollegiate play.

For 35 bowls you need 70 teams. Check the win-loss records of this year’s bowl participants and you’ll find 23 of 70 teams sport records with 7 wins or less, almost one-third, including once-vaunted Michigan. In 4 bowl games, both opponents featured 7-win or less records. In the 7-or-less club are 3 teams with .500 records. Still more mindboggling—and now we’re finally to the Seahawk comparison—6 bowl teams have losing records: Clemson, East Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Texas El Paso, all (6-7). Yet they made it to the show.

If people are going to become agitated by the Seattle Seahawks’ 7-9 losing record, perhaps to be consistent, at a minimum, we need to eliminate teams with losing records from collegiate bowl games. I’d even go one step further and suggest the NCAA would be better off if it increased bowl-eligibility standards from 6 to 8 wins in a season. This raises the bar and helps assure top achievement is rewarded.

But this won’t happen. Reason being is that the number of bowls is not about quality football but about money. Raising the bowl-eligibility standard would probably force bowls out of existence, thus universities with football programs would have fewer places to go to pay for the exorbitant funds they’re pouring into programs, trying at almost any cost to produce a winner. This includes most prominently the off-the-charts multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts head coaches are now commanding with even rather average records. It makes you want to ask whatever happened to academics—and I’m a football fan.

So do we get bugged at the Seattle Seahawks who played by the rules and won one for the Gipper? I don’t think so. At least they’re professionals and a losing record team can only get into the playoffs when other teams competitively don’t make the grade. It’s not really a system that rewards mediocrity.

On the other hand, I think the NCAA and BCS system is rewarding mediocrity each year. I’d radically readjust intercollegiate NCAA Division I football, which ultimately might produce better athletic contests and, who knows, maybe graduate more top-tier student-athletes who actually stay in school long enough to earn their degrees.