While Part 1 of Tiger, premiering Sunday, "concludes with the golfer’s proclamation of being ‘Cablinasian,’ and is consumed by (his dad) Earl’s belief that his son might become a bridge between races, (directors Matthew) Hamachek and (Matthew) Heineman aren’t as concerned with Tiger’s ambivalence with regards to his Blackness," says Robert Daniels. "And though the filmmaker’s spotlight the younger Wood’s rejection of his father’s rainbow coalition dream, and how he only leaned into his Blackness during an advantageous but brazen Nike ad campaign, they don’t approach the subject with the same depth as seen in The Last Dance or OJ: Made in America. Those offered the economic reasons behind MJ and OJ’s apolitical stances. But Tiger brushes past the internal racial conflict the golfer must have felt in the face of his father positioning him as an American racial messiah in lieu of sports highlights. The docuseries is also missing Woods’ contemporaries. The golfer’s mythos hinges on his impenetrable mystique on the golf course, a killer instinct that routinely debilitated his opponents on the final day of any given major. But barring Sir Nick Faldo and Rocco Mediate, who’s his typical hammy self, we have little sense of what made Woods so intimidating. What was his reputation among golfers, not just as an athlete, but as a person? What was it like seeing him go to work at his craft? The filmmakers try to fill these blind spots with revealing interviews from the reporters who covered him. These efforts come up short."
TOPICS: Tiger, HBO, Matthew Heineman , Tiger Woods, Documentaries