Can’t a golf champ just be a golf champ?

Masters coverage stayed well above par by bypassing Reed’s private life

I have been a longtime fan of Kevin Cullen, but after reading his column on Patrick Reed and the Masters commentators on CBS (“Truth lost in the rough,” Metro, April 10), I wondered whether Cullen had missed his afternoon nap.

I found his criticism of Reed and the CBS commentators, particularly Jim Nantz, to be way off base and pretty illogical. Nantz and his colleagues were there to comment on golf, not the personal backgrounds of the players. It’s not in their job description to point out each player’s personal matters. And Reed’s golf accomplishments can’t be overlooked; he played magnificently, fairly, and competently. To sully that by commenting on a personal decision in his own personal life would have been unnecessary and unwarranted.

The Masters is a golf tournament, not “Access Hollywood.” The competitors on the course are competing for the green jacket based on their golfing abilities, not on how they handle their personal life.


Cullen referred to “the real story” concerning Reed; I thought Reed might have committed some heinous thing, such as watching child pornography or murdering somebody. The reality was that he made a personal decision regarding his family that had nothing to do with his golf performance. Why would Nantz even mention it?

Get Today in Opinion in your inbox:
Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday-Friday.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

While it may be unusual and sad that Reed decided to break contact with his parents and sister, that was his decision. It isn’t up to anyone at CBS to reveal that while covering golf.

Jeff Grove


A carefully packaged tournament, which is how the fans like it

Golf fans look forward to the Masters every spring precisely because of the “packaged pageantry” of it. The course, the grounds, the history, and the jacket presentation are unlike anything in sports.

Yes, the Masters tournament on CBS is carefully packaged, but “cynical”? Simply because the network chose to focus on the golf and not the private life of the eventual winner? I’m not buying it. I’m not a fan of Patrick Reed, but I’m happy the network chose to focus on the golf because it was compelling.

Does Cullen think that had Tiger Woods won, anchor Jim Nantz and CBS would have dared mention his divorce, arrest, and other dirty laundry? I don’t think so, because no one wants to hear it.

Sean F. Flaherty