Intimidation and Winning in Sports: Woods, Tyson and Jordan

Mike Tyson hitting the canvas in the McBride fight, the last of his shortened, sad and tragic career epitomizes the way sports intimidation usually ends. A defeat against a nobody. In a venue far away from the past. In a way that makes us sad and feel pity. Even for the intimidator whose only blessing was a special way to get under a competitor's skin and into her or his psyche.

There are many intimidators in sports. In fact, one might make the case that every top sports athlete is an intimidator. Compare Tyson with Ali. Jordan with Bird. Ernhardt with Petty. Woods with Trevino or Palmer. Is each of the first listed athletes an intimidator through style and mental intimidation? Or are they just better athletes? 

While Jordan remains a point of fascination whose career did bottom out but who maintained a semblance of honor and decorum, the others did not retire with grace. One ended in tragedy. All will carry the title "intimidator" to eternity.

Tyson was the epitome of intimidation. He entered the ring and at times his opponents seemed to shudder. Most were unworthy of a second thought, in an era with few rivals and upheaval. Indeed, as has been the case throughout history, a lull in competition tends to allow someone whose major style is intimidation to come through. Can anyone intimidate a whole sport if there is more than one worthy competitor? Doubtful.

So it was with Dale Earnhardt, whose nickname was the Intimidator. Yet, anyone who really follows NASCAR racing knows that intimidation can be everywhere. In the first fully televised NASCAR race in 1979, the Daytona 500, Richard Petty stole the race after Cale Yarborough and Donnie Allison wrecked in the final lap. Yarborough, Allison and his brother were caught in a fist fight after the race, cementing the drama and culture of NASCAR ever since.

Do we like intimidation? Is it the essence of sports, or something to detest? Is winning all that matters?

We have few benchmarks today for the answer to this question. Tiger Woods is one that some might say is a stretch. Yet, there are reasons to find this justified.

Woods intimidated by his physical play, something relatively unique to him when he joined the Tour. But there was more. Anyone examining Woods found several aspects of his play ungentlemanly, and astonishingly unreported.

Woods often stood improperly close to players when they were putting on the green, and on the tee. He postured on both frequently. And sped up or slowed down play when doing so was a critical time for his opponents. These are not big things in most sports. But they are modes of intimidation in golf.

Who knows how much this contributed to Woods' downfall? Like Tyson, whose intimidation was encouraged, Woods felt he could do anything and get away with it.

And in fact, for those who are apologists for his conduct, he was able to do so.

But the critical part of intimidation is winning. Even if a few strokes could be counted on through intimidation, or a knock-down or two could occur, or a race or two won when a nudge by a fender would mean success at the finish line, in the end intimidators were not really liked too much in the end.

We have a new generation of sports fans these days. They are those who find the macho approach to success something to admire. They admired Tyson, Jordan and Earnhardt, and still admire Woods.  These could be the same people who still say that PJ Carlisimo deserved to be choked by Latrell Spreewell.

Of course, intimitation can take all sorts of forms. Take Jordan. Here is what Chris Webber said about Jordan in an interview on the Dan Patrick Show.

I'll never forget, Jordan was sitting on his Ferrari and Pippen was right there and they have a cigar lit. We get off the bus and we have to pass them with a lit cigar. You want to talk about posturing? Forget Phil Jackson. You got Michael Jordan there behind the scenes smoking a cigar before the game, letting us know that he's the Red Auerbach before the game even started. It was almost like, 'I lit the cigar. I'm celebrating already. This is just a formality, you guys getting on the court tonight."

There is another line of thinking in recent sports psychology that is called "self-intimidation." The major thought here is that the intimidators are not doing the intimidating. Those who face the intimidators are intimidating themselves.

Confident and composed athletes do not intimidate themselves. Confident athletes, who are in control of their emotions, love the challenge of testing their skills against others athletes. The bigger and better the challenge, the more enjoyment they gain from the competition.

So, is confidence the key here? Or is the intimidator just better?

The one thing that has not been said about Tiger Woods is that his decline is not because of his moral depravity but instead because those facing him are no longer intimidated. And perhaps this is right.

The reason? Because the new players coming up are like him. Stronger. Driving farther. Scrambling better. And mentally prepared.

So if this is true, then there is really nothing to intimidation except for the mental strength of opponents.

That could be The Real Truth.