Tiger Woods, Lindsey Vonn dating. (Courtesy: Tiger Woods' Facebook page)
Chris Chase, USA TODAY Sports
Sometime in between Monday's relationship announcement/Glamour Shots and now, the media decided that we're going to name the Tiger Woods and Lindsey Vonn supercoupling "Liger."
Newspapers, golf websites, skiing websites, PTI and SportsCenter have all used the celebrity portmanteau in the past 48 hours, meaning this is happening, whether you like it or not. There will be no plural pronouns used to address this coupling, just one inane mish-mash of first names.
A liger is an actual thing -- a lion crossed with a tiger -- made famous by Napoleon Dynamite:
Zoo couplings gone wrong shouldn't inspire a celebrity moniker.
Why do celebrity couples need a name-blend in the first place? Bennifer was sort of funny the first time, but think of how dated it is. The original celebrity name-mash comes from a time when Ben Affleck was a punchline instead of one of the most respected men in Hollywood and Jennifer Lopez was famous for something other than being Jennifer Lopez. (Brangelina's not bad either, but that's because it flows well and is old enough to be grandfathered into acceptable usage.)
What's wrong with "Tiger and Lindsey?" Or "Tiger and Vonn?" Or "them" or "they" or "soon-to-be exes?"
Granted, of all the possible name combinations, Liger works best. The other options were:
Loods (looks too much like slang for Quaaludes)
Tigsey (too cutesie)
Tonn (too non-cutesie)
Voods (too Dracula)
VonnderTiger (too Dracula introducing a circus act)
Windsey (like a five-year-old saying Lindsey)
But this presupposes that they needed a nickname in the first place. They don't, both because it's stupid and because Tiger already has a nickname. TIGER! Now we need to give him a nickname for his nickname? That's like a sportswriter from 1984 trying to figure out what to call Magic Johnson.
So, please. Stop trying to making Liger happen.
USA TODAY Sports