Keith Olbermann, part-time sports commentator and MSNBC’s answer to Bill O’Reilly, recently slammed ESPN’s Bill Simmons for comparing the imminent return of Tiger Woods to Muhammad Ali’s comeback in boxing after refusing to serve his country during the Vietnam War. Olbermann didn’t stop there, writing  “I am again left to marvel how somebody can rise to a fairly prominent media position with no discernible insight or talent, save for an apparent ability to mix up a vast bowl of word salad very quickly.” Ouch. While my first reaction was to vigorously defend The Sports Guy, upon further reflection I’m forced to conclude that Olbermann’s charge is both true and misleading.

First of all, Keith is absolutely right that comparing Tiger’s comeback to Ali’s was in poor taste. Tiger Woods has committed no crime. Yes, he cheated on his wife in a spectacularly stupid way, and he undoubtedly will face a type of pressure that the rest of us can only imagine when he returns to the course. That being said, one could argue that Kobe Bryant faced even more pressure when he returned to basketball after his sexual assault ordeal. After all, there’s a HUGE difference, even in the minds of the public at large, between cheating on your wife rampantly and cheating on your wife WHILE FORCING YOURSELF on a member of the opposite sex. Kobe had at least one major advantage over Tiger in that his comeback was as part of a team, and thus he was able to be somewhat insulated by the organization, but his return to basketball was no less controversial and the rehab of his public image is no less precarious than what Tiger faces now. If anything, the Kobe Bryant of today is living proof that Tiger will be just fine once he puts on another green jacket. Women will probably always hate him, but I don’t know many men (who make up the vast majority of the PGA tour’s audience) that won’t put the whole thing behind them once he gets out there and gets rolling again. Tiger’s comeback is a big story, but it’s really not that big of a deal.

Ali’s return, however, was (and remains today) a very big deal. As a Kentucky boy who had won the World Heavyweight Championship, Cassius Clay converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali in 1964. That same year, he failed the US Army qualifying test and was taken off the draft list. Two years later in 1966, after dominating the Heavyweight Division and becoming increasingly involved in the Civil Rights movement, Ali’s test was miraculously regraded and he was ordered to report for duty in Houston. On April 26th, 1967, Ali’s name was called three times, and three times he refused to step forward and enlist. As a result, he was arrested as a draft dodger and was forced out of the boxing ring until 1971 when the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. Ali’s banishment and subsequent comeback to the ring had social connotations that completely transcend anything that Tiger faces now, and the stand that he took for his beliefs stand in history as one of the bravest things a superstar athlete in our culture has ever done.

The situation Ali was in during this period in his life is night and day from what Tiger Woods faces now. Even at its basest level, Tiger’s situation is 100% self made and self contained. It really affects nobody outside his family and close friends. Ali was a public figure in America’s struggle to find its identity in the 1960’s; his ordeal was everyone’s ordeal to some extent. His struggles are not comparable to that of Tiger. Even in his column, Simmons admits that the two aren’t REALLY the same, and he does a good job painting the picture of what was going on in America at that moment in history. Yet I agree with Keith that simply making the comparison at all is in bad taste.

If Olbermann had just stopped there, it would have been a fair criticism. However, he continued on to maliciously attack Bill Simmons’ talent and openly question how he’s risen to the level he has at ESPN. This statement is strange, because I don’t think anyone looks at Simmons as some kind of modern day J.D. Salinger who writes about sports. He’s not a great writer; he doesn’t pretend to be one. He’s not a journalist; he doesn’t pretend to be one of those, either. He’s simply a fan who started a blog that caught on. He just did what we do here (albeit about 10,000 times better). His talent and insight lies not is his verbal prose, but in his ability to articulate the experience of being a super fan. When I read Bill write about the Red Sox or Celtics, I know EXACTLY how he feels. That’s the way I feel about LSU. He has the best job in the world, and I along with the rest of his audience live vicariously through him. Not because of his talent as a writer but because he’s living the dream. He gets to watch and write/talk about sports for a living. However, he doesn’t do it in the journalistic tradition. He doesn’t have to be out there pumping sources for information so he can break the news about the next big trade. Eventually that would undoubtedly turn into a job. No, Bill just gets to watch sports and then talk about it as a fan, something we all do anyway (except he gets paid for it.) Then, on top of that, he gets to apply that style and talk with sports figures like David Stern or Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey. How great is that life? That’s the appeal of Bill Simmons, he’s not a journalist Keith, he’s something totally different. No, we shouldn’t put more stock in his talent than is called for, but nobody was doing that anyway.