Simmons nails one: Good column on Elgin Baylor

Some of the best stuff written is done by people going back, doing proper research and writing about things that happened before they or even their grandparents were born. In my case, I just didn't like the standard, relentless insertions of Simmons into Simmons' piece, starting with the "come back with ME [my caps] to 1958" approach. Simmons wasn't "there" and readers don't need him "there" to read a great reminisence about Baylor.

 

In past when Simmons has written about the old days of the NBA it was painfully obvious he was talking out of his ass. ( see his Pete Maravich column)

He did a much better job on this column.

 

As Joe said the "so come back with me to 1958" is BS.
I have no problem with people writing history as long as they don't put themselves in a place where the could not possibly have been.
There are other portions where Simmns writes it as if he saw Baylor glisding and hanging in the air.

Again, no problem with history stories, big problem with a writer recreating a scene to put himself in the scene.

 

Spnited, YOU ARE MY HERO sandwich.

 

This is such a fucking load of BS that I am choking on the stench. First of all, Simmons said he watched video of early Elgin Baylor. And he wrote factually about how Baylor transformed the league. But because you got the impression that Simmons talked about Baylor as if he watched him every day, you got your gander up because..well...that's what you do. Simmons accurately described Baylor's impact on the league and did it in a way that allowed readers to understand why he was so influential and should not be forgotten. You may not like Simmons, but the man has done his homework on the NBA and, in this case, on Elgin Baylor. Find me an error in how Simmons described Baylor's style or career or personality or anything. Otherwise go back to yelling at young journalists to stay off your ratty lawn.

 

What is "gander?"

 

Don't bother. Some on these boards will never give Simmons due, even when he writes a perfectly acceptable piece. I say it's jealousy.

Much better than the cringeworthy Manny Ramirez novel of a column. Very good stuff here.

 

1) I think it's fair to say that most people in the United States have a reasonably good clue what the racial climate of the 1950s and 60s was in this country. There has been kind of a lot written about that over the years. I don't think we need to have been there to make references to it.
2) If you did have to be there in order to write about something, that would pretty much disqualify most of the soccer gamers I've written in my career.

 

Again, I read this part:

So come back with me to 1958, the year Elgin took Seattle University to the NCAA title game and then skipped his senior season to join the Minneapolis Lakers. If you don't think Minneapolis is teeming with black people now, you should have seen the city in 1958.

and it tells me Simmons was there when we know he was not. Sorry if I have trouble getting past such stuff.
For the most part, I have no problem with the rest of the column (compared to the shit Simmons usually writes) but it really bothers me that he sets up the column by implying that he was there in 1958.

 

At least he didn't write, "Come back with me, Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson to 1958, the year Elgin took Seattle University to the NCAA title game that we all attended..."

 

Looking back nearly 50 years, it is difficult to view history through any lens other than present, particularly if you didn't live through it.

There were no separate Color and White drinking fountains in Minneapolis or anywhere else in Minnesota or Iowa or the Dakotas or Wisconsin (I'm not positive about Wisconsin, but that's my own bias.)

The two revered sporting figures (outside of Bernie Bierman) were Willy Mays, who took the Twin Cities by storm in 1951, and Elgin.

He was helluva player and a hero to all the Scandahoovans and a few Finlanders, too — even more popular than George Mikan or Sid.

 

Yes, it's jealousy. :