Columnist Dean Juipe: Tiger panned when only plaudits due

Dean Juipe

Monday, June 17, 2002 | 9:24 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

Perhaps every person who is the very best in the world at what they do faces similar, ridiculous questioning when confronted by mere mortals.

Most, however, don't suffer the fools with the poise, dignity and patience of Tiger Woods.

I was happy to see Woods win Sunday's U.S. Open, as were most in the gallery at Bethpage Black in Farmingdale, N.Y. But a good deal of my appreciation had nothing to do with Woods' ability with a golf club in his hands, and was more a result of his exceptionally forgiving nature.

While still capable of the occasional self-effacing diatribe or foul outburst, Woods has now been in the public eye long enough to have mastered the art of fielding dumb inquiries and appearing nonchalant while doing it. But there have to be times when it isn't easy.

One arose after Saturday's telecast on NBC when field reporter (and former touring pro) Roger Maltbie had the assignment of getting a few words from the leader as he came off the 18th green.

To my astonishment, Maltbie acted as if he hadn't been paying the least bit of attention and asked Woods why it was that he "couldn't get untracked." It was a flabbergasting question, given the particulars.

Woods, after all, had opened the third round with a three shot lead and then produced an even-par 70 that stretched his advantage to four strokes over his nearest competitor. To review: Woods matched par on a brutally tough course and increased his lead over the strongest field possible, which should have left any and all interviewers marveling at his play.

Instead, Maltbie wanted to know why Woods hadn't played any better. It was out and out stupid -- some could argue racist, too -- and a wonder that Woods even offered a reply, let alone one that neglected to insult the airhead who had asked it.

A day later, as NBC opened its telecast, analyst Johnny Miller dumbfounded me as well when he called Woods' previous day's play "indifferent."

Indifferent?

Indifferent is backhanding a foot-long putt for a double bogey when you're playing with friends; it's kicking a ball into the fairway when you're tired of slugging it out of the rough; it's hitting the sand wedge that's in your hands rather than going back to the cart for the 9-iron you really need.

Indifferent is not battling the elements, a difficult course and the pressure of a U.S. Open and handling it so well that you gain shots on the field. You couldn't possibly be indifferent and achieve all of that, and Miller was moronic in suggesting you could.

Maybe at the heart of the matter is the reluctance to embrace a clearly superior player, as Woods is. Maybe, if being on TV is your job, the need to speak critically even when criticism isn't warranted is an instinct that guys such as Maltbie and Miller can't always control.

Woods -- and the viewing audience -- deserved better, and one can only imagine what Maltbie and Miller would have concocted had Tiger not fought off the final round challenges and weather delay to win yet another major.

There are times in sports when you simply have to doff your cap and bow toward a conqueror or craftsman, and this weekend was one of them. Woods deserved nothing but praise.