Vijay Singh, the least compelling "star" in all of pro sports

Vijay is the Annika of the mens tour.
Alan M

Hee, hee. Nice one, Alan. No, he's not. Wait, yes he is. He's also five under and tied for the lead as I type. Is Tim that old? If Tiger (formerly of CA) is considered "East Coast," what is Retief, south-middle east coast? Good thing Ernie didn't win last year, or Thongchai Jaidee, for that matter, or even that old Sunday-night favorite, SK Ho.

Is there any way we can get Chris to write something nasty about Michelle Wie for next week's Sony Open?

Although Singh is currently my favorite golfer, I'll be the first to say that he certainly isn't the most charismatic man in town. Really, though, this is part of the problem with the world: we value sizzle more than steak. We'd rather watch some precocious, interloping teeny-bopper play in the Sony, than the second best player in the world craft a great round.

I realize that this is the nature of the market and that it ain't changin', but I still lament it.

Come on Chris. I know your nuts, but give credit where credit is due. Vigay is nothing short of brilliant as a pro golfer. Good God man, he is in his forties and playing like he is , well, Tigers age. His work ethic is beyond reproach. He has payed his dues much more than you have payed yours. Actually now that I think of it, Michelle has payed more dues in hard work that your silly blogs ever will.

Chris---I would think Vijay would be your guy. He is the antithesis of Michelle Wie after all. He is certainly not over-hyped, come to think of it he gets little to no positive media coverage. He is not protected by a rabid fanbase, in fact under par may be the first person I have ever heard call him their favorite golfer. All Vijay does is win golf tournaments in all types of conditions against the best golfers in the world. He is outspoken and has even been critical of female golfers taking sponser's exemptions to play against men. Hell, this guy should be your favorite. After all, what would you rather have in a professional athlete, substance or style?

Any man or woman whose intial is PC is not Chris baldwin's kind. Chris is making his liviing saying bad things about almost everybody other than Paula Creamer.

Right on, Stone, you encapsulated my point nicely. It's a sad day when industrious, down-to-earth, unassuming traditional men are eschewed in favor of Dennis Rodman types.

It speaks volumes about our collective values.

Vijay's only problem is that he's a private man playing in the Tiger Woods era. He reminds me a little of Ben Hogan: great ballstriker, so-so putter, no personality on the course. However, if he tried to emulate Hogan and be a tough-guy, it wouldn't work because most of the guys on Tour actually like him.

UNDER PAR

Now maybe you see what it is about Chris Baldwin that has a lot of us Michelle Wie fans upset.

By the way, did the Sony always take place so early in the year? I don't remember it being so soon after New Year's.

Another reason that Vijay doesn't get much coverage is that he is not an American, nor is from from somewhere with a large fan base so few people identify with him. Tiger and Michelle have the benefit of appealing to Americans plus a lot of non-Americans who identify with them racially.

You are absolutely right on (sorry guys) Bijay not V, as in Boring. The only time he is interesting is when he plays Tiger during the President's Cup where Tesori's hat says Tiger Who? He can kiss my ass like the Masters moment. Who wants a cheater?

On the contrary Vijay is extremely popular with the other golfers and fans. He is generous to up and coming golfers. He played in the Canadian Skins Game a couple of years ago and stunned the crowd on the practice range when he borrowed Mike Weir's clubs and hit perfect shots with them all all from sand wedge to driver. The only people who give Vijay a bad rap are those memebers of the media who don't have their ears to the ground

The Vijay Singh-Ben Hogan thing was a very crap comparison:

1) Hogan was better than Singh will ever be;

2) Hogan didn't cheat.

David

Shanks commented: "Vijay's only problem is that he's a private man playing in the Tiger Woods era."

==============================

So what is Tiger, then, if not a private man? Have you ever seen him unguarded or candid in an interview!? Never. Not saying this is a bad trait (I'd be the same way -- heck if I had just HALF what he earns in a single year, I'd probably hole up in compound and never talk to ANY of you schmoes!). Anyway, I just don't see how being a private man is in any way in conflict with "the Tiger Woods era."

David in regards to the Hogan/Singh comparison: The comparison is far more accurate than you may believe. Both men were/are obsessed with hard work and practice in the pursuit of perfection in their swings and with their overall games. On the course Hogan showed little or no emotion like Vijay. Off the course as Shanks mentioned Vijay is extremely popular, while your man Hogan was widely disliked and had very few friends. Hogan is one of the greatest golfers in history, but Vijay is in the ballpark. It will be hard for Vijay to catch Hogan when it comes to Majors he has 3 to Hogan's 9, but he may surpass his overall wins total when it is all said and done. As for being a cheater, that reputation stems from an incident over 20 years ago on the asian tour, his reputation has been spotless since. you may be suprised to hear the names of golfers who have been called and linked to cheating. Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Colin Montgomerie and many others. So while Hogan did not cheat he was a jerk who's reputation has been enhanced in death. People respected him, but nobody liked him. Vijay is both respected and liked.

Firstly, I agree with Mark; Tiger seems to be an intensely private man and lives quite a modest lifestyle considering that he's probably half way to a billion dollars by now. Also, he's very defensive. Both good qualities for a man in his position, I believe.

I also agree with most everything stone just said. And yes, the 'Singh Asian Tour incident' /was/ over twenty years ago, but the fact remains that he tried to meddle with his scorecard in order to make a cut. He was DQ'ed for no reason; he really did it. That got him banned; he's also been banned from the Australasian Tour for not paying his bills (or something - not sure of the exact details). Except for them two incidents, as far as we know, he doesn't cheat anymore. Looks like he learnt his lesson.

I am one of those people who believe players from completely different /can/ be compared. Playing acheivements lose a bit of relevance during this comparison, but after all, talent is talent. The 'average' PGA Tour player today is no better than in Hogan's day; he might just hit the ball further and putt better due to improvements in course maintainence and equipment.

I'm not actually sure if Vijay /is/ popular. He seems to me to be a miserable bastard, and I've heard he's quite unpopular with the press (and with Tiger Woods, obviously). Not sure whether his playing peers like him or not. (Sidenote: I think Tiger Woods is a better player than Vijay Singh, if only by a small margin. I don't actually understand how anyone could deny this.)

Though Hogan supposedly did not have many friends (on tour or otherwise), that was probably because a lot of his peers would have been jealous of his far superior playing ability (and wealth). He was always to the point, spoke his mind, and was always very private, which I also doubt went down well with the press or with some of his peers.

Returning to the era-comparison point, I think given today's equipment, Hogan would still be the better player. I don't think Singh is /that/ good of a shotmaker (certainly not as good as Hogan or Woods), and unlike Woods' and Hogan's swings, Singh's swing is butt-ugly. (I don't know whether Hogan would be as good as Woods - probably not - but nobody had to overcome more than Hogan did.)

Finally, most 'cheating' incidents in pro golf are just. Montgomerie really did replace his ball in the wrong spot (cameras don't lie), Arnold Palmer really did play a rule which doesn't exist, and Vijay Singh really did magic pencil his scorecard.

David

Sorry, I mean he /wasn't/ DQ'ed for no reason.

David,

Of course Woods is a better player, by more than just a little bit, too, I might add.

However, to say that the skills of the average tour player today aren't better than those of the average of Hogan's day is ridiculous. Ever hear of talent pools and depth?

'Under Par', I think you're wrong. To say modern-day pros are far better than in, say, Hogan's day, is pretty absurd. Talent is talent. The modern pros merely look better due to the improvements in course maintenaince and equipment technology.

An analogy is the ancient mathematicians. There were mathematical geniuses in the year 2000 B.C., and there are mathematical geniuses today. Mathematicians thousands of years ago found division very difficult (now, 6 year olds find this easy!), but place Euclid in the year 2006, let him teach himself modern maths, and he would still be as clever as any living mathematician today.

A genius is a genius, just as TALENT is TALENT. However, a genius can never, to a large extent, overcome the social limitations he/she inherits; just as a Hogan-era golfer could not smack the ball 400 yards with a pathetic wooden-headed club, or roll the ball perfectly over a then-furry green (with a silky smooth, pendulum stroke with no 'wrists').

Golfers do not get more 'talented' - a talented person is superb no matter what; it depends on the state of the game as to what he/she can do with those skills. It's the same with everything else, really.

Just think about it.

David,

Your analogy proves my point! The argument didn't involve whether or not they are more talented today, only whether or not they're better today. If people find math easier today than thousands of years ago, they're better, plain and simple. WHY they're better is a different matter.

Having said this, the talent pool HAS to be better today. Why? Because the best 100 out of a million will be better than the best 100 out of a thousand. And the fact is that there are far more people playing and competing today.

Please don't tell me that I have to explain it more in depth than that.

>> However, to say that the skills of the average tour player today aren't better than those of the average of Hogan's day is ridiculous.

Nope, my fault; I misread it. :)

(I still think Hogan could take on some top PGA Tour players. :)

I also didn't plan on ending up in a debate with someone who seems to be an expert in social science.

David

David,

I wasn't arguing about Hogan -- he very well might have been able to take them on. After all, he was a prodigy. However, the overall depth of the field is a different matter altogether.

get a life you sad man vijay is a great player and just because he isnt an arrogent prat like tiger doesnt mean he isnt a great golfer when you get to his level then you can critcise

vijay is awesome. he is one hell of a funny guy, a great golfer and more of a human being than some jackball who blogs about golf. you are way off on this one. you must assume that because he doesn't endorse buicks or fear tiger and kiss is tush that vijay doesn't fit your mold. you are an idiot.

You hit it just right Bob