Sneakylong
With all due respect, Sneak... and while the point you're trying to make is indeed accurate imo....
There is a time-sensitive issue at play here. These alleged transgressions from Reed happened back in his late teens his first year or two at university, was reported as such by the media no sooner than he'd turned pro. Since Patrick Reed was basically a nobody at the professional level at that stage of his life when these reports came out, no one gave it a second thought, other than the beloved media. I recall it being a topic of conversation for maybe a day, and then it quickly faded away.
Tiger's transgressions, on the other hand, happened mid-career and were reported in real-time, which obviously differs greatly from stuff that might've been dug up from his collegiate days. He was 33 years old, only a month removed from turning 34 basically. Had established himself as the modern-day great in golf, perhaps all-time. Had a wife and children. He was established, family-wise and career-wise when the news broke, which should be held to a different standard imo. He was a mature adult at that stage of life, not in his first year of college when he had no real persona other than being a great amateur player who was running the tables.
Maybe you don't distinguish the difference in that, which is fine. I respect your opinions most of the time, even though we've had our share of disagreements. I just can't agree with you on this particularly topic however.
Had Patrick Reed not won Sunday evening, the media wouldn't have rehashed the "old" news about his checkered past as a teenage college golfer a decade ago. Why is that? Or better yet, why rehash it even though he won?
Why is it that someone found it important enough to dig into Villanova's Donte DiVincenzo's social media account, search for something to nail him on, which happened several years back, and even then - come to find out that he, like a lot of high school kids who love rap music, simply repeated lyrics from a rap song playing in the background that included the "n" word? This all happened within hours of him being honored as the MVP of the NCAA finals basketball game, leading his team to their 2nd national title in three years.
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Regarding Reed, I feel confident in assuming that the sports media desperately wanted Reed to lose and Rory to win. What's to write about if Reed wins? Outside of what happened at the Ryder Cup two years ago, he's basically a nobody on tour. Nobody expected him to win going into the week, nobody expected him to win on Sunday. He's not a popular player on tour, at least compared to the bigger names. Yet the story of him winning is much harder to write and explain, versus a story about Rory's remarkable comeback, on a layout that has always proven to give him fits, to accomplish the career grand slam?
The sports writers desperately wanted Rory (or Fowler, or Spieth) to win over Patrick Reed. It just makes a much more compelling story. But when Reed kicked ass on Sunday, he ultimately gave them no choice in the matter. They would be forced to write about him, and as a result they found the only interesting thing about him to write about and focus on was his teenage shenanigans in college, and why he and his parents don't get along.
I just find that irresponsible and a huge discredit to all of the great sports journalists over the years who have not felt that need to discredit the accomplishments of athletes in the manner they did.