This is Too Much

[Derek21]

Fischler actually was on that idiotic Stephen A. Smith show and took part in a debate about what the greatest sports achievement with some cyclist guy, Larry King and the dolt .

And when Stan made the argument for Gretzky and dissed basketball cause "it's just dunking" which really isn't true, half the audience booed.

God. This is so embarrassing. You had King arguing DiMaggio and of course the cyclist guy arguing Armstrong and Smith arguing Jordan.

And Stan made a good point. "What did he win before Pippen?" And Stephen A. couldn't even answer it without going, "What?" Because even though he was really talented he didn't win jack until he got his supporting cast.

Anyway, Stan made a valid point about the pressure Gretzky faced as a kid and lived up to it despite as he termed being "a toothpick" breaking all sorts of individual records and winning so many MVPs.

He also was wise enough to take a shot at King and bring up Babe Ruth which none of the other nimrods mentioned. Kind of funny.

At least a hockey player got mentioned. More than we can say for football or tennis or track, boxing, etc.

To honestly debate such a topic would mean to examine every sport.

I just can't believe Stan was actually on this show. And man, was he animated .

[Derek21]

Haha... and he again mispronounced Fischler's name. But now he realizes Gretzky had all these records and cited 9 Harts because they showed him the stats. And you have Smith terming Gretzky "the pretty boy" and citing Messier as sticking up for him. Which further validates Stan's argument.

[RowdyFan42]

I don't think I've ever heard of this show. What's it on, ESPN? Will they rerun it?

[Satans Hockey]

I refuse to touch anything involving Stephen A Smith with anything shorter than a 30' cattle prod.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, I refuse to listen to his show on espn radio, I think the guy is a pompous ass.

[Derek21]

It's brutal. The fact he's even the face of ESPN speaks volumes. He's a basketball guy. That's what he should be doing.

According to him, Muhammad Ali or Ted Williams are not Michael Jordan .

Cmon. I can't believe Stan didn't mention Orr. Does he dislike him Sue? I gotta believe he doesn't like Mario either cause he got zero mention either.

[LOTCB]

What is ESPN?

[NJDF]

What is ESPN?

ESPN is this network that gives shows/facetime to whomever gives the loudest, least thought out, and/or most theatrical opinions.

go devils!

[thefiestygoat]

What is ESPN?

ESPN is this network that gives shows/facetime to whomever gives the loudest, least thought out, and/or most theatrical opinions.

go devils!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if they give out post of the year here, but this is one I will remember as being great!

[SueNJ97]

It's brutal. The fact he's even the face of ESPN speaks volumes. He's a basketball guy. That's what he should be doing.

According to him, Muhammad Ali or Ted Williams are not Michael Jordan .

Cmon. I can't believe Stan didn't mention Orr. Does he dislike him Sue? I gotta believe he doesn't like Mario either cause he got zero mention either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, Stan loves Orr, much more than he loves Gretzky, I've never thought of Stan as much of a Gretzky fan. I've heard him make the case that Orr, not Gretzky was the greatest because he revolutionized the way his position was played (which he did). That doesn't mean he's right, he's just judging it differently. Put it this way, there may not have been a Brian Leetch if there hadn't been an Orr. I'm not sure there will ever BE a someone like Gretzky again, his skill level was on a vastly different plain.

I think he chose Gretz because there was no way to explain the case for Orr to the nimrods on that panel. Where you could actually explain the case for Gretzky fairly easily using the statistics.

When Steven E. Smith is on I change the channel/station. He spends most of his time yelling. It's not that I mind an intelligent discussion of basketball, even though it's not my favorite sport. But I can have one of those with my friend Shirley. She thinks he's an idiot as well, and says he resents the fact that he got hurt and never got to play in the pros and feels he has to take it out on everyone around him.

[PeteyNice]

Fischler actually was on that idiotic Stephen A. Smith show and took part in a debate about what the greatest sports achievement with some cyclist guy, Larry King and the dolt .

And when Stan made the argument for Gretzky and dissed basketball cause "it's just dunking" which really isn't true, half the audience booed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right Derek, basketball is more than just dunking, it's also foul shots.

They really could not get someone better than Stan? BTW, not to veer too far off this topic, but the fact that ESPN did not use one of "their" hockey guys to me is telling.

To me, the greatest sports achievement was when Babe Ruth hit more home runs by himself than any other team in baseball comebined. That is something you will simply never see again. It's possible that someone will hit in 57 straight games, or score a ton of goals and break Gretzky's records or have more titles than Jordan but you'll never see one guy hit more HRs than any other team ever again.

[Derek21]

Actually, Stan loves Orr, much more than he loves Gretzky, I've never thought of Stan as much of a Gretzky fan.  I've heard him make the case that Orr, not Gretzky was the greatest because he revolutionized the way his position was played (which he did).  That doesn't mean he's right, he's just judging it differently.  Put it this way, there may not have been a Brian Leetch if there hadn't been an Orr.  I'm not sure there will ever BE a someone like Gretzky again, his skill level was on a vastly different plain.

I think he chose Gretz because there was no way to explain the case for Orr to the nimrods on that panel.  Where you could actually explain the case for Gretzky fairly easily using the statistics.

When Steven E. Smith is on I change the channel/station.  He spends most of his time yelling.  It's not that I mind an intelligent discussion of basketball, even though it's not my favorite sport.  But I can have one of those with my friend Shirley.  She thinks he's an idiot as well, and says he resents the fact that he got hurt and never got to play in the pros and feels he has to take it out on everyone around him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points Sue. I was kind of curious cause he did mention Howe afterwards.

Smith is a bozo. I can't believe they gave him his own show. It's embarrassing. When I heard Stan was on, I had to watch.

That station is going so downhill. Now they're going to have a Sports Hollywood show .

I wish someone would put them out of business. They have lost their minds.

[Derek21]

You're right Derek, basketball is more than just dunking, it's also foul shots.

They really could not get someone better than Stan? BTW, not to veer too far off this topic, but the fact that ESPN did not use one of "their" hockey guys to me is telling.

To me, the greatest sports achievement was when Babe Ruth hit more home runs by himself than any other team in baseball comebined. That is something you will simply never see again. It's possible that someone will hit in 57 straight games, or score a ton of goals and break Gretzky's records or have more titles than Jordan but you'll never see one guy hit more HRs than any other team ever again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's also clutch shooting Pete. But let's not get too technical.

They stomped on hockey. It pisses me off. I almost feel like calling my former boss and telling him off. But I bet he had nothing to do with what happened. It's that other jerk above.

I'm just so appalled at what this station has become since I left. When they cover sports, it's fine. I watch Baseball Tonight and NFL Live and SC and NBA Fastbreak. But now, they're just going so far off the radar that it begs the question if they forgot who they were. Nobody wants to watch a silly poker show or dumb second rate movies or a self-proclaimed basketball guy trying to make sense of other sports when they have ZERO CREDIBILITY.

It's just so disappointing.

Pete... on topic, I agree with ya about The Babe. That's something that will never happen again.

How can they be serious about having a panel like that when football, boxing, track, tennis and even horse racing aren't considered?

Fools.

[Akuma]

I believe this article from January in Slate really says it all the best, why sports commentary and sports writing have taken such an awful turn...

Unpardonable Interruptions

How television killed the newspaper sports column.

By Stephen Rodrick

Posted Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2005, at 2:14 PM PT

Stephen A. Smith is the hardest-working man in sports show business. The ubiquitous basketball pundit appears on ESPN about 10 times a day as a regular on the show NBA Fastbreak, a guest commentator on SportsCenter, and a pundit on ESPNEWS. This fall, he was also a judge on the network's American Idol knockoff, Dream Job. He also has a day job: top sports columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. In a recent Philadelphia magazine profile of Smith, Inquirer sports editor Jim Jenks said the multitasking hadn't affected his newspaper work. "I don't know how long this is going to last, but he puts the column first. He knows it gives credibility to what he does on TV." Jenks offered an example of Smith's dedication: On the night of the NBA draft, Smith BlackBerryed in his column between television appearances.

Oh, Lord. Once upon a time, maybe five years ago, anyone filing a crucial column via a thumbs-only device would have been busted down to covering high-school cross-country meets. Being a columnist at a major daily paper was every sportswriter's dream job. Legends like Jim Murray at the Los Angeles Times and Shirley Povich at the Washington Post were the most beloved guys at their papers. They'd write a cherished column for 30 years, and that was it. There was nothing else to do, no higher job to attain. Now, a sports column is nothing more than a springboard, a gig that starts you on your way to becoming a multimedia star.

As with many things in sports media today, television

[Triumph]

The real problem began with sports talk radio - sports journalists now understand that being opinionated is more important than good reporting or good writing.

As for ESPN, televised poker costs less and gets far higher ratings than hockey ever did.

[Akuma]

I agree the problem started with radio but ESPN furthers it by recruting respected (respect earned through good writing) sports journalists and giving them money for expressing outrageous opinions in the most outlandish way possible, they get on through their reputation and stay on by drawing ratings by being a bigger a$$ then the next guy, hoping enough idiots tune in to watch them aimlessly rant. This turns respected writers and researchers into people who simply yell and scream the loudest until they get enough attention to stay on the air and earn TV money...while ESPN isn't the beginning or the only cause, I think its a major one. And really if your gonna get paid very well for doing nothing but standing on a soap box without having to make deadlines or do research or secure ur own interviews and do real in depth analysis, wouldn't that be more attractive then really working?

[Triumph]

I agree the problem started with radio but ESPN furthers it by recruting respected (respect earned through good writing) sports journalists and giving them money for expressing outrageous opinions in the most outlandish way possible, they get on through their reputation and stay on by drawing ratings by being a bigger a$$ then the next guy, hoping enough idiots tune in to watch them aimlessly rant.  This turns respected writers and researchers into people who simply yell and scream the loudest until they get enough attention to stay on the air and earn TV money...while ESPN isn't the beginning or the only cause, I think its a major one.  And really if your gonna get paid very well for doing nothing but standing on a soap box without having to make deadlines or do research or secure ur own interviews and do real in depth analysis, wouldn't that be more attractive then really working?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yes, but I think what a lot of these uptight 'journalists' forget is that sports are about bravado and ridiculous talk in some way - maybe I'm jaded, but I'd much rather hear the outrageous opinions than interviews with 95% of athletes - as a result of the predatory nature of sports journalism, most guys repeat the same boring crap. Now what I do disagree with is the personality cult that surrounds sports journalists now, and that they end up writing articles about themselves rather than the athletes they cover.

It has been proven by the success of the Fox News Channel and now with ESPN that most people do not want to hear what happened - they want to hear what happened with spin on it as well.

[Akuma]

I agree the problem started with radio but ESPN furthers it by recruting respected (respect earned through good writing) sports journalists and giving them money for expressing outrageous opinions in the most outlandish way possible, they get on through their reputation and stay on by drawing ratings by being a bigger a$$ then the next guy, hoping enough idiots tune in to watch them aimlessly rant.  This turns respected writers and researchers into people who simply yell and scream the loudest until they get enough attention to stay on the air and earn TV money...while ESPN isn't the beginning or the only cause, I think its a major one.  And really if your gonna get paid very well for doing nothing but standing on a soap box without having to make deadlines or do research or secure ur own interviews and do real in depth analysis, wouldn't that be more attractive then really working?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yes, but I think what a lot of these uptight 'journalists' forget is that sports are about bravado and ridiculous talk in some way - maybe I'm jaded, but I'd much rather hear the outrageous opinions than interviews with 95% of athletes - as a result of the predatory nature of sports journalism, most guys repeat the same boring crap. Now what I do disagree with is the personality cult that surrounds sports journalists now, and that they end up writing articles about themselves rather than the athletes they cover.

It has been proven by the success of the Fox News Channel and now with ESPN that most people do not want to hear what happened - they want to hear what happened with spin on it as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right that it is what most people want to hear and FNC is a perfect example of it. Maybe I'm too much of a purist about this but when I think of journalism I think of objective criticism and evidence-based reporting. Now I do get a kick out of watching some people, sometimes I enjoy the banter of PTI but when I want serious sports news, when I want to hear an analysis of the new NHL for example I don't really want to hear something like "Goals are up this game is awesome now!" followed by some other guy "So its not 1-0 games anymore but it still sucks!!" I want to hear comments from fans, reactions to the new parity by fans or management of original six teams, stats analysis thats more then goals, what the changes means for minor leaguers, how defensive strategies have adjusted, what vetern players or coaches think....I want to hear reporting and the kind of analysis that is becoming harder and harder to find. But then again that's just me from the purists view.

[Derek21]

In a recent Philadelphia magazine profile of Smith, Inquirer sports editor Jim Jenks said the multitasking hadn't affected his newspaper work. "I don't know how long this is going to last, but he puts the column first. He knows it gives credibility to what he does on TV."

:in Valentine and Winthorpe raised voices from Trading Places when they say, 'CLARENCE BEEKS!!!!!!!!!':

JIM JENKS!!!!!!

He used to be one of the guys in charge at ESPN News when I worked there. Might explain how Smith got hired there in the first place. Contacts.

[Derek21]

Cranky and supremely talented Los Angeles Times sports columnist T.J. Simers, a former ATH panelist, gave a look inside the sausage factory when he told the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2003 that "ESPN will hire you for your credibility, but after a minute, they've had enough of that," he said. He also disclosed that the money he got from the show would "pay for my daughter's wedding." Not surprisingly, Simers was soon relieved of his duties.

Exactly right. They do it all the time. Especially with Baseball Tonight. Had former player Brian McRae as an analyst and even though he was great, they let him go a couple of years ago to go after John Kruk and others. They always do this.

It doesn't even matter sometimes if someone is good. They'll go for the big name without even knowing how it will project.

Very good article. P.S. FAN is heading down the same road.

One other thought. I've always felt that sports should be about the athletes or teams. Now, you have reporters trying to make it about them. Like they're bigger than the stories they cover. But without the sports they cover, where would they be?

Edited August 14, 2005 by Derek21