It’s become fashionable for sports pundits to call for the public to forgive Tiger Woods. Or to say it’s time to “quit piling on” Tiger Woods. Or to “give Woods a break.”

Sports writers and announcers do this in part because they may be genuinely compassionate. Maybe some want to rehabilitate Woods in the public’s eye because they really don’t think what he did was all that bad anyway and, besides, it’s a free country. Some just want Woods back up to par, pun intended, because they regard him as the greatest talent ever to swing a golf club (who doesn’t?) and don’t much care what else he’s done if they get to see him perform at the highest level of his capability. Some want him back at the top because professional golf makes more money with Woods in contention.

It’s true, Woods didn’t kill anyone a la O.J. Simpson and didn’t rape anyone a la Mike Tyson. As far as we can tell, he didn’t do anything illegal. Immoral? Yes. Arrogant maybe? Probably. Chauvinistic? Definitely. Dumb and dumber? Absolutely. But his errors were ones carrying ripple effects for him and his family, not really for the rest of us. So why is so much of the public yet unwilling to let the man back inside the ropes, so to speak?

I don’t think it has anything to do with an unwillingness to forgive. Nor do I think the public is holding back on Woods because people like piling on or rooting for him to fail. Actually, the American public has historically been quick to restore fallen heroes: think Magic Johnson—even Mike Tyson has experienced something of a re-acceptance. But Woods: I believe fans are watching Woods like they’ve watched Pete Rose, with much the same suspicions.

Pete Rose bet on his own baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds. As a result he was forever banished from admission to the major league baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Some fans want him restored to consideration. Some don’t. The biggest argument against restoring him is Rose himself. First he denied he bet on the games he managed. Then he admitted to betting only on other games. Then finally when it became clear to him things weren’t going to change, he wrote a book admitting he bet on his own games and feebly apologizing. Along with this, since the day he was publicly disgraced he’s been a one-man campaign about how he deserves to be admitted, all the while presenting a less than believable and certainly less than remorseful persona.

That’s Woods, and that’s Woods’s biggest problem—his own persona. And by the way, I don’t think the public’s response to Woods has anything whatsoever to do with racism as some sports writers claim.

Woods is arrogant, standoffish, and surly on his best days. Sure, he can smile when he wants to and he can make a joke with reporters. But this is rare. Last week at The Master’s, he banged his golf clubs on the ground in open disgust, he cursed continually within range of cameras or microphones, and on one occasion the camera zoomed to his face just after a poor shot, catching him quite clearly mouthing a vulgarity. Worse, after a finish on Sunday not to his liking he was abrupt and quickly skipped out on the media.

Phil Mickelson is not an angel, but on a golf course or otherwise in public he does none of this. None. In fact, he goes out of his way to interact with fans, treats sports writers with respect, honestly assesses his game (Woods by his account is always “playing well”), and in general is a likable person who knows whereof his bread is buttered. Fans like him not just because he seems to have the picture perfect family, but because he openly cares for his family, likes people, and shows himself to be friendly.

Woods is the non-Mickelson. Where Mickelson plays with a swashbuckling style that probably looses a few tournaments, Woods is always the technician, greatly skilled but robotic. Where Mickelson is a happy person in the face of life’s challenges, Woods is barely controlled and barely concealed anger—it’s like it’s just under the surface. Mickelson wants to win for the joy of it, for his family, for the fans. Woods wants to win to claim he’s the best.

In the language of the King James Version, “A man that hath friends must show himself friendly.” I don’t know what Woods is like in private, but he is not a friendly person, actually a largely unpleasant persona in public. Fans know this and hold back. Who wants to be friends with someone who doesn’t want you as a friend?

If Woods wants a better future, he’d do well to spend more time working on his attitude and his interpersonal relationships skills than his golf game.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.