The Bill Simmons-Keith Olbermann beef started the way most good beefs tend to start – with a veiled insult hidden beneath a few sharply-worded phrases. And just like famous squabbles of the past, like Jay-Z/Nas and 50 Cent/Ja Rule, the irony of the situation lies in the fact that both parties involved have a few more similarities between each other than they would admit. It’s funny, and a little bit intriguing at the same time. But for now, let’s focus on the funny part, for the sake of this column.
The internet-driven drama began when Bill Simmons now infamously compared Tiger Woods’ imminent transition back into golf to Muhammad Ali’s return to boxing after his 2-year exile following his refusal to fight in the Vietnam War. Upon first glance, this argument looks baseless and also rather amateur. I mean, he’s comparing a self-proclaimed sex addict who couldn’t keep his you-know-what in his pants to a man who was vilified by the national media for standing up for his religious beliefs, and oh yeah also for being black. Stupid, right?
Well, that’s where most of the criticism (including that of the almighty and wise Keith Olbermann) strays. You see, if a certain Keith Olbermann were to perhaps take a 10-15 minute break from being an “unlikable blowhard” (Simmon’s words, not mine) to actually read the article and understand the point Simmons was trying to make, maybe he would have realized that Simmons was in no way trying to compare Woods’ predicament to that of Muhammad Ali. It would be silly to assume that the situation that Tiger Woods put himself in could ever be placed alongside the one that Ali was simply trying to avoid. Furthermore, their reception in the national media vastly differs as well. Whereas Woods has been an extremely likable and highly-marketable commodity in the sports world for most of his career, Ali was received quite differently by most of America for the majority of his career, due to the color of his skin and bolstered by the fact that he refused to be referred to by his “slave name”.
The legends of these two athletes then diverged in two opposite directions. Woods, following his multiple affairs, has now turned into somewhat of a villain as far as most of Americans are concerned, whereas Ali returned to boxing as a hero of sorts, amidst the protest and civil unrest that surrounded the quagmire in Vietnam.
So, shame on Bill Simmons for ever choosing to juxtapose the plight of these two men. One, a self-made heel and the other, a hero and a symbol of hope for a nation in turmoil. Shame on him for taking a topic that was been unrelentingly beaten into the ground by the media for the last three months and giving it a new spin, a fresh take, a unique perspective. Shame on him for ever touching the oh-so-sensitive topics of Muhammad Ali and the Vietnam War and civil rights lest he not recycle every stale stock story that exists on the subjects.
If the suits at ESPN are really up in arms over Simmons’ column like Olbermann claims they are, then clearly there is a severe lack of understanding present. John Mayer says the n-word in Playboy and gets discussed for a few minutes on The View, but Bill Simmons (God forbid) compares Tiger Woods to Muhammad Ali and gets lambasted by every pompous sports anchor-turned-political analyst there is. Give me a break. In fact, give us all a break, please.
Among many other things he’s missing (like a sense of humor, for example), Mr. Olbermann is also missing the point here. Actually reading the article would have revealed that Simmons was not comparing Woods’ plight to that of Ali. He was simply stating that the pressure Woods will face in returning to his highest level of competition on the golf course will be more difficult than the pressure that Ali faced in regaining the Heavyweight title. In fact, here is Simmons’ original thesis, as quoted from his March 3rd column:
“When Tiger Woods returns to golf, he will face a level of pressure that well surpasses anything any other transcendent athlete has faced in my lifetime.”
His argument was not referring to the pressure of whether or not Woods will ever be accepted by sports fans as the Tiger Woods we knew before his “incident”. His argument was instead referring to the pressure that will surround him as he attempts to retain his status as the world’s best golfer. The argument, as I understand it, refers only to the pressure Woods will face in trying to return to the top of the golf world and not to whether or not he can win back the hearts of America. That’s not the issue at question.
Of course, I don’t need to summarize the original column, you can read it yourself, but the point is this: upon Ali’s return to boxing, he entered with the support of most of a nation and was handed a few cotton-candy opponents to help him work his way back to the title. In Woods’ case, he will most likely dive head first right into the Masters and be expected to perform at the highest level with the eyes of an entire nation watching and criticizing his every move and his every word. If he comes out and falls 6 strokes out of the lead, he gets hammered with doubt and we get hammered with “Is Tiger Finished?” stories.
One final thing that bothered me about Olbermann’s misguided missive was his assertion that Simmons is “infallible” and apparently incapable of admitting when he is wrong. Once again, this is coming from someone who clearly has not had his ridiculously inflated head out of his own behind for long enough to actually read Bill Simmons work, because from what I see in his columns, he is perfectly capable of calling out his own mistakes and admitting he is wrong. He does it quite often actually, and his self-deprecating humor is what endears him as the “everyman sports writer” that his fans love.
So, Keith Olbermann, the next time you attempt to start a childish internet war by making snide comments about a writer you clearly know nothing about, you should try to see past your $600 designer glasses and your awful “trying-too-hard-to-sound-intelligent” jokes and actually take a moment to understand the article you so openly criticize. Bill Simmons is one of the most widely read sports writers in the world and his recent 700-page Book of Basketball was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. Stick with what you’re good at doing, which is forcing uncomfortable laughter out of Bob Costas on “Football Night in America” and being full of yourself.
