They're saying Kuchar is "out of touch," what he did "reinforces golf's elitist reputation," and some have even called this a "human issue." Never mind this kind of holier than thou attitude in judging Kuchar is ironic. The ugliness of this moral one-upmanship is even worse, and it's destroying the very social fabric it claims to champion in the first place.
To catch you up on this Kuchar story, here's what we know so far. Kuchar and David Ortiz (also known as El Tucon) had a payment "agreement" in place before Kuchar teed off in the Mayakoba Golf Classic in November. Kuchar paid El Tucon $5,000 after earning $1.296 million for winning the event, which is a shockingly low number considering most caddies receive 10-percent of a first-place check.
Kuchar has stated the agreement was a layered structure, with $1,000 guaranteed and up to $4,000 for a top-10 finish. What amount Ortiz would receive if Kuchar won was not discussed, and the extra thousand was a "thank you" for a "great week." Ortiz claims the two agreed on a guaranteed $3,000 plus an unspecified amount of any winnings. Ortiz exchanged emails with Kuchar's agent asking for $50,000 but the most Kuchar's team was willing to pay was $15,000 and Ortiz flatly refused that amount.
Kuchar's golly-shucks reputation took a big hit when this story was first brought to light by fellow Tour pro Tom Gillis on Instagram. And the next few months Kuchar was vilified across social media for the amount he paid Ortiz. No one really knew the truth or details about the agreement other than Kuchar and Ortiz, so this was really gossip fodder more than real news. And eventually public indignation seemed to die down a bit. That is until Ortiz told Golf.com he "felt taken advantage of," and Kuchar responded.
Just Zip It, Kooch
In a regrettable interview with Golf.com, Kuchar made insensitive comments like, "I certainly don't lose any sleep over this," and "For a guy who makes $200 a day, a $5,000 week is a great week." My first thought when I read this was Kuchar either doesn't understand the kind of damage he's inflicting on reputation, or he just doesn't give a damn. But either way, he has a right to say what he wants to say.
Why does Kuchar even need to "be in touch" with the common man? It's an ideal we romanticize, and it's admirable when men and woman of accomplishment remain grounded and committed to where they came from. Arnold Palmer was a man who walked with kings, danced with princesses, and never lost the common touch.
But not everyone is an Arnold Palmer, and expecting them to be one is priggish and sanctimonoius. Besides, how can anyone say with a straight face that Kuchar is out of touch with the common man based on one incident? Maybe Kuchar's just a tightwad? Or maybe it's as simple as he's a human being and made a mistake.
It's been a PR nightmare for Kuchar for sure, and his agent has clumsily botched this caddie controversy since the beginning. By most accounts Kuchar's enjoyed a stellar reputation as one of the nice guys since he joined the Tour. But if diffusing the story was the primary goal, someone should have told Kooch the best thing he could have done from the beginning would have been to just zip it.
Now, the only way to stop the bleeding and make this controversy go away will be for Kuchar to apologize and give Ortiz the full $50,000 he requested. And you can bet the house this will happen in the next week or so.
What If and The Bottom Line
If Kuchar gave Ortiz the (10-percent) $129,600 his regular caddie would have received, everyone would probably be talking about how amazing Matt is since their agreement only called for $5,000. It would have been the feel good story of the year. Ortiz might have purchased the laundromat he and his wife were planning on with a bigger paycheck. Still sensationalized maybe, but that's the dual edge sword of social media and the hype it thrives on. It can aggrandize the trivial and demolish the powerful in the blink of an eye. 
The bottom line is Kuchar paid Ortiz what he was owed. Yes, it would have been nice (and probably also the big-hearted thing to do) if Kuchar gave him more. For whatever reason, Kuchar did only what he was obliged to do.
But generosity is a choice. It's not a requirement or a duty. And judging others for their decisions if and when to be generous in the first place is a smug reaction. One that causes more contempt and disrespect than even the original grievance.
No comments:
Post a Comment