Steve Willliams Needs to Know His Role
If you were to catch Steve Williams’ post-tournament interview yesterday, you would have thought that he was the first caddy in the history of golf to take the bib off, whip out the driver, and drive the ball 300 yards en route to a four-stroke victory.
Someone needs to remind Williams that the most “satisfying win of his career” wasn’t even his.
A caddy stealing the limelight from his golfer ranks somewhere in-between a bat boy taking credit for Derek Jeter’s 3000th hit, and a ball boy seeking acknowledgement for an Adrian Peterson touchdown after he squirted Gatorade into his mouth through the facemask before the play.
Alright, we get it Steve.
You felt betrayed by Tiger Woods after he canned you several weeks ago, almost like a scorned lover would. Do you have a right to feel upset? Absolutely. But there is no reason why you should be detracting attention away from the golfer that gave you a second chance, Adam Scott.
Scott just put together arguably the best four rounds of his career, and here we are talking about a caddy. I feel like Peyton Manning talking about his “liquored up, idiot kicker” at the Pro Bowl.
To be fair to Williams, it was out of his control as he walked down the fairway of the 72nd hole and the crowd was chanting his name. Crowds are going to chant what they are going to chant.
But he had an opportunity to save face with his post-tournament interview. Dropping a comment such as “Adam played great and I’m proud to be holding his bag” or “Adam played amazing this week and I’m glad he let me come along for the ride” would have sufficed.
Instead, Williams took it upon himself to air his dirty laundry out for the public to smell.
So Steve, congratulations on your win yesterday. Perhaps you can win your 14th major next weekend at the PGA Championship and continue to solidify your place in golf history.
I’m sure Jack Nicklaus is shaking in his spikes.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?