I must be old, because this column was great (Phil Taylor: The Day Cool Died)

Re: I must be old, because this column was great (Phil Taylor: The Day Cool Died

Golly, we've got some dumbass posters.

 

He only showed emotion because he covered the spread.

 

Great contribution.

 

If I were the centerpiece of a MLB/NFL/NBA-championship winning team, and was interviewed at my moment of triumph, that sideline reporter is going to need some friggin' earplugs.

Handing the ref the ball after you dive over for paydirt is pretty cool, but so is actually providing some sort of representation of your inner feelings. So is saying what's on your mind. Not everyone is the same. People are individuals. Let them act that way. Phil Taylor, who I like quite a bit, should hardly be our arbiter of "cool."

And bringing up Michael Jordan? The guy that sobbed uncontrollably on national TV for 1/3rd of his championship postgame reactions? Not putting his reactions down in the slightest, but I still recall the NBC boom mic distorting due to his shrieks after he was on Father's Day back in 1996.

Don't tell people how to have fun, Phil.

 

It may have been the best column on the back page of SI since Reilly left, simply because the back page of SI has become a total piece of shit since Reilly left.

I didn't think it was a bad column, but I don't really agree with it. I think using KG as an example was bad. I have no problem with anyone letting the emotions flow after winning a championship, I don't care who they are.

He should have waited until about an hour or two into the NFL season started and written about (insert any one of hundreds of names here) celebrating a meaningless first down or a sack that will have little or no effect on the final outcome of the game 8 minutes into the second quarter.

 

It was a very good column.

 

Re: I must be old, because this column was great (Phil Taylor: The Day Cool Died

I smell a 2012 presidential candidate here.

 

I disagree with his posturing, his opinion, and his take on current events.

I appreciate his writing, his tone, his presentation, and his ability to convey a point.

You can't tell the difference? I smell a cable TV politico hack, here.

 

Totally disagree with you Mr. Gibbons. The variety of opinions, styles and topics is much better than the Reilly rotation: outrage, snark, guess what I got to do last week, heart-warmer, REPEAT.
I don't agree with every Point After, but they usually spin off on something that is going on in the sports world at the moment, usually an angle you haven't heard already on sports talk show and they all have a point.

 

I agree with you that Reilly had become predictable, but the Point After pieces since he left have been mostly flat and often unfocused. The fact that they're apparently giving other people a shot at it might suggest that SI feels the same way.

 

You haven't watched a lot of Kevin Garnett then. He's one of the most emotive, hyped-up athletes I've ever seen. He almost killed his own teammate (I think it was Leon Powe) during the playoffs, shaking him and treating him like a ragdoll because he was so excited by what Powe had done. Garnett's persona in press conferences might be beyond subdued, but don't confuse that with his on-court persona.

 

Enjoyed the column, been reading SI for over 34 years; still miss those Reilly golden ones though (e.g. little league one where they pitched around to get to cancer kid)

KG not a great interview? You do realize that he came into the league as an 18 yr. old from the Chicago projects, no college, not even a BMOC college scholarship education. His emotion was genuine, that's all you can ask.