This Is Sort Of Ridiculous

Watching the Golf Channel last night, they showed a package of Payne Stewart and Phil Mickelson's play coming down the stretch at Pinehurst in 1999. Then they went to an excerpt of Phil's press conference from Tuesday, I guess. Anyway, during the press conference, the Golf Channel was showing little graphics at the bottom of the screen such as "Lost to Payne Stewart at Pinehurst in 1999"... relevant to the situation, right? I mean, the event this week is at the same location, and Phil came in second in that particular event.

But the one that really got me was "Lost by 3 strokes to Tiger Woods in 2002 U.S. Open"... huh? What does that have to do with anything? If they want to show something of that nature that might have some relevance, why not say "Lost to Retief Goosen in 2004 U.S. Open"? At least that was the most recent U.S. Open.

Why pull 2002 out of a hat? Maybe because that was the last time Tiger won. Why not just put a graphic at the bottom of the screen and leave it on there 24 hours a day that says "Tiger Woods won the U.S. Open in 2002"? You really just want Tiger's name to show up somewhere on the screen anyway. Why try to disguise it by pretending it has some relevance to anything to do with this week?

I know one thing. The next time I see Tiger interviewed, I fully expect to see a graphic that says "Lost by 10 strokes to Jim Furyk in 2003 U.S. Open". Think I will? Me neither.