30 for 30 complaint

I don't recall it being brought up then. But Bo does theorize in his book "Bo Knows Bo" that he thought Culverhouse's Alabama allegiance might have played a role.

 

Of course I understand the criticism. It struck me watching, too.
With that said, I thought Chuck was pretty-damn good. (As was Heisler.)

 

.390, pine tar, and the '80 World Series, yet he's a Hall of Famer in my book for this:

 

The theory doesn't make any sense to me. If he didn't want Jackson, why waste a No. 1 overall pick on him?

 

Culverhouse did want Jackson, but he flew him to Tampa on the team plane to negotiate. That was an NCAA violation, and cost Bo his baseball eligibility for the rest of his senior season. Whether or not he did so on purpose is the issue.

 

It's fun seeing the Klosterman chatter because I can compare it to some talks I've had with a friend who's an academic historian and I always love hearing his stories about who's considered an expert, who gets to be a talking head on the TV shows or documentaries, etc. It's the same things we debate, only about history. The Times had a story about the historians Obama invited to the White House for chats, and my friend said one of the guys was an absolute joke and became known because he has nice hair and gets on TV. And when I went to a panel for the New Yorker festival, a woman named Annette Gordon-Reed talked about Jefferson and he was...not impressed that she'd be the one asked.

 

I had the same thought.

Since when is Klosterman the authority on Jackson? If there was any tie whatsoever, it was lost on me. And I agree, he ate up far too much time. Imo, the best interviews were with Bo himself and his old coaches. The show would have been fine with those alone -- and Harold Reynolds. But wait, did they even interview Reynolds? (Sorry, I watched it a while ago.)

Also, interviewing a biographer is WEAK when your subject is still alive (and quite lucid).

Bottom line: I think ESPN mis-assigned this one. The producer picked some poor sources and relied far too much on talking heads in general.

 

I don't think it's weak to interview a biographer when a subject is alive. Should Maraniss never be asked about Clinton or Obama? Should Kriegel never be interviewed about Mancini or Namath (well, with Joe you might have the lucidity angle...)?

And even if you do have the subject alive and talking on the project, a biographer can examine issues the subject might not be willing to talk about. It's the difference between reading an autobiography and a biography. Roland Lazenby wrote a Jerry West bio, then West wrote his own book. West would obviously have things that Lazenby wouldn't, but at the same time, Lazenby - or any biographer - will have talked to all kinds of people who can offer new information.

And I did like Klosterman's contribution. Mark Ames would surely disagree with me, but I do think he's a guy you can talk to about pop culture phenoms, which is what Bo was back in the day.

 

I haven't liked any of the 30 for 30 specials. If I am going to watch a documentary, I want it to involve new reporting or new footage, not a bunch of guys sitting around and talking about something that happened 20-30 years ago with nothing new to say. Hoop Dreams was a great documentary.

 

Yup, George is 60 in May. I saw him at the All Star Game from a close range. Very tan. Thick around the belly. Probably playing lots of golf and "being George Brett".

 

I would expect the nation's leading dork-chic hipster writer to ruin a sports documentary by talking endlessly about a Nintendo game.
Chuck Klosterman will still be talking and writing about this stuff when he's 60 years old.