Jeff Pearlman on Walter Payton

I'd have to reread it, but I don't recall it being so much different in tone than Pearlman's book.

He had a lot of bad stuff about Lombardi.

He had a ton of bad stuff about Bill Clinton.

 

Well, Dick, I'm very sorry to disappoint you of all people. I did read the books as I told you I read them. Maybe not the parts in the Clemens and Cowboys books that would have allowed me to see the light, I did say I only read the excerpts there.

Anyway, I don't think I can say more than I've said on the topic, and others here obviously feel Walter Payton's private personal life is worth laying out there in the open for everyone to pick over now that he's gone, so I will just be content to know that Jeff Pearlman will never find me interesting enough to tear down.

 

I know you don't like me, and what's more I don't really give a fuck.

 

Pearlman's Mets book didn't have a lot of new stuff that the Klapisch/Harper book written 15 years previous did. Everyone knew they were scumbags.

 

OK, the real question is this: How could you not be Walter Payton fan? I don't know anyone -- even diehard Packers fans -- who aren't Payton fans. Seriously, how is that possible? Bad experience at Jackson State? Intense hatred for Roos? Relative of Charles Martin?

 

I guess I misspoke on that part. I was answering that I wasn't a Payton fanboy (to Bob Cook's question about whether I would look at my Payton jersey differently). Packers fan yes, so I can't say he was one of my favorite all-time players, but sure I liked him.

 

Got ya.

 

Pearlman has chosen topics guaranteed to sell a lot of books and generate discussion. Subjects that have been very well-documented by others ... except for this.

 

Sounds like this is no different than Jane Leavy's recent Mickey Mantle book, except that we just happened to already know a lot about the Mantle stuff.

Why is Jeff Pearlman obligated to adhere to the myth?

One of my favorite sports books is "Shake Down the Thunder" by Murray Sperber, about Knute Rockne. He debunked almost every Rockne myth there is. And, from what I can tell, even the message board Notre Dame fans loved it.

With rare exception, people eventually want the truth. Even about their heroes. The historical record deserves it.

 

LTL -- Pearlman chose to write a book about a famous athlete because that is what he does for a living. He sort of has to choose a person that is interesting. And complex. And flawed. You are accusing Pearlman of wanting to destroy Payton's reputation. You have no evidence of that.

And how do you know the sordid details overwhelm everything else in the Payton book? You have not read it. The excerpt is obviously going to contain the sordid stuff -- it's how a book like this is sold.

And I really did not walk away from that excerpt thinking Payton was a "bad" person. He did bad stuff. But I don't think that behavior defined him.

 

Why did Shakespeare have to include all that stuff about Hamlet's flaws?

 

Your beginning brings back where I jumped into the thread: That he would set about to write books like these shows much about Pearlman's character. He wasn't drafted into that role in the world, he seeks it out.