When Greg Norman showed the world that he could play golf like you and me and blow yet another chance to win the Masters and a "major," he was characterized by the media as a choker. Even respected golfer and television analyst Johnny Miller said, "Norman had a heart the size of a grape seed." A harsh, but honest and credible comment from Miller, now a member of the broadcast media. Almost unanimously, fans reacted by saying the media was too harsh on Norman and were wrong. So what standard, style and limitations should the media show when they write or talk about an athlete's performance?
In the case of Norman, I think the use of the word "choke" or "choker" is appropriate. Norman has a history of putting himself in position to win the "major" golf tournaments. In seven "majors" he's been atop the leader board after three rounds and finished either second or third in all seven. There are those who will say, "Yes, but he won two British Opens." He did, but those are played on links courses and don't take any exceptional skill except to know where your ball is. At the Masters, U.S. Open and PGA Championship, you have to deal with the ever-changing nature of the course, the weather and your fellow competitors. There is a real challenge in these tournaments. Winning a dozen British Opens doesn't equal winning one of the other majors.
In analyzing the media's description of Norman's Masters effort and the resultant criticism, how else would one characterize his failure? Nick Faldo didn't shoot a record or near-record round to win. A spectacular shot by a competitor didn't beat Norman. Bad luck or a fluke didn't do him in. He led by 6 shots and lost by 5. That's an 11 stroke turnaround. There's only one way to describe that: He choked. Rookies choke, so do budding stars, but established, outstanding athletes in their sport don't choke.
To understand what happened to Norman and why he isn't yet a great golfer is to understand what makes great athletes great. In talking with Billie Jean King, Reggie Jackson, Joe Montana and Larry Bird, at some point in the conversation they all said the same thing: When the game is on the line they want to decide the outcome. In other words, they aren't afraid to fail. If they succeed, they want the accolades. If they fail, they want the blame. Greg Norman has yet to understand and accept that in his mind and in his heart.
In understanding the media's criticism of athletes, understand that they know the history of the athlete's performances, his peers' evaluation of him and the affect of his performances on his career. That's not to say the media is without fault. They'll build up an athlete, only to tear them down when they fail to meet expectations, especially those who are labeled "stars."
Having said all this, the biggest difference between the fan and the media's characterization of an athlete and their performance is reaction and responsibility. The fan reacts to the way they feel about the athlete. Do they like him or her? Do they seem to be a nice person? If the answer is yes, then they become protective of that athlete, even when they choke. The media's harsh assessment is looked upon as a personal attack on a friend or a family member.
On the other hand, the media has a responsibility to honestly analyze the athlete's performance and to report that performance honestly. There should be no consideration of whether the athlete is a nice person or not. Stating they were gracious in defeat should not color the description of what led to their defeat.
In the final analysis, the fans will always react emotionally to the athlete and their successes and failures, but if the media shirks its responsibility of honest analysis and presentation, then there'll always be a loser - the fan.
I'm Ron Barr.