1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Simmons on Maravich. Yes, it's good.

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. Clever username

    Clever username Active Member

    Like 36 or 37, I believe.
     
  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    That is what makes Simmons a bit of a fraud. He is writing about a era that in 1975 would have made him 6 . I mean do the math .

    He makes it sound like he remembers the era . I say bs:

    The book world has just produced a similar head-scratcher: two competing biographies of Pete Maravich, one by acclaimed author Mark Kriegel, the other by Wayne Federman and Marshall Terrill, who spent five years putting their book together in collaboration with Pete's widow, Jackie. On the surface, dueling Maravich books seems even stranger than dueling Prefontaine movies. After all, Pistol Pete died 19 years ago, didn't win anything other than some scoring titles and never played in the Final Four -- or past the second round of the NBA playoffs. His 10-year pro career spanned the depressing '70s, a decade marred by drug and alcohol abuse, overpaid head cases, tape-delayed playoff games, violent fights and sagging attendance. We always hear that Bird and Magic saved the NBA. Doesn't that mean they saved it from people like Pete Maravich?


    Of course, I plowed through both Maravich books in a week. When my family owned Celtics season tickets in the 1970s, I cared about seeing only five visiting players: David Thompson, Bill Walton, George Gervin, Julius Erving and Pistol Pete. Maravich was like 12 Globetrotters rolled into one. No pass was too far-fetched, no shot too far away. He'd glide across the court -- all rubbery limbs, ball attached to his hand like a yo-yo, blank expression on his face -- and nobody knew what would happen next. The scoreboard never seemed to matter as much as the show. Kids from that era remember his appearances on CBS's halftime H-O-R-S-E contests more fondly than any of his games. Even his basketball cards were cool, like the one from 1975, when he sported an extended goatee and looked like a count.
     
  3. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    He does claim a bit more expertise than personal experience could give him, yes.

    But as someone who has written about baseball in the Dead Ball Era, I have to disagree on principle that writing about an era you didn't live through makes someone a fraud. (What he's doing, of course, is a bit different. But still.)
     
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    yes but its all how you present it. Simmons make it sound like he remembers the era. He also makes statements that many would disagree with

    Take this one :

    depressing '70s, a decade marred by drug and alcohol abuse, overpaid head cases, tape-delayed playoff games, violent fights and sagging attendance

    I would disagree - the early 70's had great basketeball - much better than the product of today. Simmons would have be age 3 in 1972 .

    The drugs did not hit the NBA until the late 70's
     
  5. jaredk

    jaredk Member

    Oh, this?
    "....Kriegel delivers a lyrical look at Pistol's life that is well written and weighty. It's a little full of itself, but big-picture biographies work only when they're written that way. I really liked it. The Federman/Terrill effort isn't crafted as well, but it examines Maravich's life more comprehensively (better research, better detail, tons of pictures). I liked it, too....."

    So, this is what makes it a "good" column? He "liked" both books? I'm just trying to learn something about the state-of-the-art sports column.
     
  6. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    I don't get this. Don't you have to read it to know you don't like it?

    And if you don't like it, why is it wrong to say so?
     
  7. Montezuma's Revenge

    Montezuma's Revenge Active Member

    I don't want to overanalyze it.

    But the column was a good read. What's wrong with him liking both books?
     
  8. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Good point.

    Simmons is one of those polarizing topics on this board on whom most people have made up their minds already. If you're looking for him to be a sports "journalist", to do real reporting and real legwork, then you're barking up the wrong tree. That's not what he does -- and why anyone still thinks he should puzzles me.
     
  9. ballscribe

    ballscribe Active Member

    C'mon, you know he's a huge Jared Leto fan, from back in his My so-called Life days. That's how he knows about Steve Prefontaine. :)
     
  10. HoopsMcCann

    HoopsMcCann Active Member

    this bugs me:

    "Nike would launch a line of Pistol shoes"

    um, bill, adidas already did:

    [​IMG]
     
  11. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Boom, I believe Simmons has previously stated that he has been going to Celtics game since 1975-76ish, when his dad bought season tix. And if you are a little kid, I would think Pistol would be a fav to watch just because he was so unlike any other player.
     
  12. jaredk

    jaredk Member

    I'm sorry. I thought Sportsjournalists.com was about sports journalists. I even thought ESPN The Magazine was a sports journal. So I read the advertised Simmons as an example of sports journalism. I won't do that again. Thanks. But tell me. What do you call that dreck he commits?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page