As the world-captivating Tiger Woods saga finally has cooled down (thankfully), I started thinking about another superstar who everyone agrees was an equally accomplished philanderer and playboy…

Babe Ruth.

Now, I’m not going to get into a discussion on Woods’ acts, or whose transgressions were worse, Tiger’s or the Babe’s. I think we can all agree that a married man should not be cheating on his wife with one woman, let alone multiple women.

What I find interesting is this question: How would the escapades of the biggest figure in American sports, Babe Ruth, be handled by today’s media?

Simply put: He would have been destroyed. The mythic hero status he enjoyed then, and still does now for the most part, would never have happened in this instant news, internet, and blogging age of sports media coverage.

As legendary Celtics coach Red Auerbach said in a 1985 Dallas Morning News article on the topic of media and athletes: “Today’s athletes are under much greater scrutiny. Babe Ruth, in this era, would have been torn to pieces by the media.”

And that was BEFORE the internet!

Now, I don’t think we would have heard all the sordid details of the Babe’s life. Much like Tiger, my guess is the Babe would have been savvy enough to build a PR and marketing empire around himself to develop an image he wanted to portray to the public.

But all it would have taken was one slip up — say a car wreck at 2 a.m. in front of your own house — to allow all the dirty laundry to be aired out.

A lot of people like to say that things were better “back in the day” when we didn’t find out about these things. I don’t subscribe to that. I’m not saying it’s necessary to know about every athlete’s extramarital affairs, because it isn’t.

What I am saying is I don’t want to place a player on a pedestal of hero worship who doesn’t deserve it. I accept that Tiger Woods is human, just as I accept that Mickey Mantle was human along with countless other athletes. I think the typical sports fan is in the same boat.

What we don’t like are phonies and fakes. When an athlete portrays a squeaky clean image that is manufactured, I’m fine with the court of public opinion destroying that image when it’s found to be wholly untrue. We know now that Tiger’s image was the product of great marketing. That image is destroyed.

And frankly, I’m fine with that.

Here’s a link to Sam Blair’s 1985 Dallas Morning News story.

What do you think? Was it better “back in the day” when the media wasn’t so intrusive into the lives of superstar athletes? Comment here, or you can e-mail me at gerry.fey@erickson.com.