Reporters should *write* about what they *really* know about only - From SI

"jj-ng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please read if you have the time...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/bill_syken/07/07/daily.blog/index.html

I'm a "July-wonder" visitor to this newsgroup and I do not pretend to
*really know about* bicycle racing and even I recognize the incredible
imbecility of this column. His column is the equivalent of a peasant in
China who has no TV complaining about how Michael Jordan hasn't provided any
"did you hear" moments. Sheesh!

Rich

"rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:i6HCe.23253$Tx1.20142@trnddc03...

Quoted message said:

"jj-ng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please read if you have the time...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/bill_syken/07/07/daily.blog/index.html

I'm a "July-wonder" visitor to this newsgroup and I do not pretend to
*really know about* bicycle racing and even I recognize the incredible
imbecility of this column. His column is the equivalent of a peasant in
China who has no TV complaining about how Michael Jordan hasn't provided
any "did you hear" moments. Sheesh!

I don't think it's imbecile. I think he is touching an important point.
Until the 1950's bicycle racing in general and the Tour in particular were
in Europa the most popular sports of them all. And yet nobody was seeing it.
Spectators saw only a flash, journalist and theam magamgers a few aspects,
even riders themselves saw only a little bit and more than once didn't even
know if they had won or not. But it wasn't popular in spite it couldn't be
seen, but just because of that. Bicycle was to hear about it, to read about
it and in that aspect no other sport could compete with it. This situation
changed only with the introduction of sports on television. From that moment
on as a sport than could be seen (to a certain amount anyway) it had to
compete with soccer, football, basketball, tennis, etc.and dropped
dramatically in popularity. For instance, until 1954 and 1955 bicycle racing
was in France and Italy still sport number one,. always on the front page of
the Equipe of the Gazetto dello Sport. And know? Page seven or eigth at its
best.Of course, there are still devotees I'm one of them), but let's be
fair, compared tot the 1940's they are only a small minority.

Benjo

"rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:i6HCe.23253$Tx1.20142@trnddc03:

Quoted message said:

I'm a "July-wonder" visitor to this newsgroup and I do not pretend to
*really know about* bicycle racing and even I recognize the incredible
imbecility of this column.

[censored]! His commentary was spot on. Aside from `Cross and some track
events, cycling has always been a sport of subtetly and intrigue. The grand
tours (especially in the modern era) have more in common with chess that they
do with sport. The moments the SI writer yearns for are there, but are often
invisible to anyone other than the initiate. To a large extent, I think fans
were better served by reading accounts of races than by witnessing them. No
doubt much of the drama and significence Claude Tillet captured from Coppi's
remarkable performance in the `46 MSR was lost on most of those who saw the
race firsthand. No, it seems you don't really know about cycling, and you'll
be doing yourself (all of us, really) a favor if you take some time to learn
about it before you run off calling other people imbeciles.

"Tim Mullin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:i6HCe.23253$Tx1.20142@trnddc03:

Quoted message said:

I'm a "July-wonder" visitor to this newsgroup and I do not pretend to
*really know about* bicycle racing and even I recognize the incredible
imbecility of this column.

[censored]! His commentary was spot on. Aside from `Cross and some track
events, cycling has always been a sport of subtetly and intrigue. The
grand
tours (especially in the modern era) have more in common with chess that
they
do with sport. The moments the SI writer yearns for are there, but are
often
invisible to anyone other than the initiate. To a large extent, I think
fans
were better served by reading accounts of races than by witnessing them.
No
doubt much of the drama and significence Claude Tillet captured from
Coppi's
remarkable performance in the `46 MSR was lost on most of those who saw
the
race firsthand. No, it seems you don't really know about cycling, and
you'll
be doing yourself (all of us, really) a favor if you take some time to
learn
about it before you run off calling other people imbeciles.

Still I don't really see his point. If I watched a game of basketball with
Michael Jordan in it, there is a good chance I wouldn't see why people think
so highly of him. The memorable moments he mentions don't happen every game,
right? He doesn't shoot over Craig Ehlo (whoever that may be) in every game
of basketball, I would assume. Similarly, you can't just turn on the final
stage of the Tour and expect to see why Armstrong is so legendary.

So you need to search for specific games or races where these events happen.
And in the case of Lance Armstrong, they're not so difficult to find. Like
when he won on Alpe d'Huez, or another col. His win on the Hautacam was
slightly more difficult to understand (because you need to know how the
classification of a GT works) but there's nothing there that a good
journalist couldn't explain.

And in the Netherlands, we do have memorable moments in cycling, like when
Michael Boogerd won in La Plagne. A lot of people watched that, and the
gesture where he kisses the pendant around his neck is repeated quite often.
Nobody finds it difficult to understand the achievement of Erik Dekker when
he wins three stages in one tour. Armstrong is admired by many, but I do
think that from next year on the Tour will become more popular because it
will be more open.

On 18-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, Tim Mullin <[email hidden]>
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:

Quoted message said:

[censored]! His commentary was spot on. Aside from `Cross and some track
events, cycling has always been a sport of subtetly and intrigue. The
grand
tours (especially in the modern era) have more in common with chess that
they
do with sport. The moments the SI writer yearns for are there, but are
often
invisible to anyone other than the initiate. To a large extent, I think
fans
were better served by reading accounts of races than by witnessing them.
No
doubt much of the drama and significence Claude Tillet captured from
Coppi's
remarkable performance in the `46 MSR was lost on most of those who saw
the
race firsthand. No, it seems you don't really know about cycling, and
you'll
be doing yourself (all of us, really) a favor if you take some time to
learn
about it before you run off calling other people imbeciles.

Maybe the guys not a dope (maybe), but he certainly doesnt care about, nor
does he understand, cycling. And if he wants heart stopping moments in
cycling he can find many of them if he cares enough to look. He doesnt, so
he opines out of ignorance and indifference. In that sense he is something
of an idiot.

I recall watching Olympic track cycling when I was a kid...probably around
68 (was that an olympic year?), and two sprinters are in a track stand
watching one another for a good 30 seconds. Im screaming at the TV (Im 9
years old) "Go! Why dont you go?!", and the announcers say nothing more
than ..." Uh, there's a lot of strategy involved...as if it's all a psych
game...no mention of drafting. They didnt understand the sport and they
didnt help me to understand it.

In the last wuinter olympics I was watching short track speed
skating...obviously drafting is key..and the lead skater swung wide to let
the second man lead. He then accelerated in that guys slip-stream and went
on the attack. The announcers didnt get it at all. They didnt see him
voluntarily give up the lead, and instead they credited the #2 skater for
the move. They never mentioned the slingshot attack as such.

Why clueless people are hired to comment on sports they dont like and dont
understand is beyond me.

steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill

benjo maso said:

I don't think it's imbecile. I think he is touching an important point.
Until the 1950's bicycle racing in general and the Tour in particular were
in Europa the most popular sports of them all. And yet nobody was seeing it.
Spectators saw only a flash, journalist and theam magamgers a few aspects,
even riders themselves saw only a little bit and more than once didn't even
know if they had won or not. But it wasn't popular in spite it couldn't be
seen, but just because of that. Bicycle was to hear about it, to read about
it and in that aspect no other sport could compete with it. This situation
changed only with the introduction of sports on television. From that moment
on as a sport than could be seen (to a certain amount anyway) it had to
compete with soccer, football, basketball, tennis, etc.and dropped
dramatically in popularity. For instance, until 1954 and 1955 bicycle racing
was in France and Italy still sport number one,. always on the front page of
the Equipe of the Gazetto dello Sport. And know? Page seven or eigth at its
best.Of course, there are still devotees I'm one of them), but let's be
fair, compared tot the 1940's they are only a small minority.

Benjo

Brilliantly said.
As a kid I probably watched one baseball game a week on tv, but
listened to all the rest on the radio, and read everything the next
day. Good writers and commenators can make an event, and people much
more exciting and larger than they would seem if you had seen them.
They don't even have to distort what happens, just highlight it and put
it in a great frame. Then we would all get to discuss the differing
opinions being offered, argue who told the story best, who was most
accurate etc...
A great author can take a good event, or even mediocre and make it
magical, today everything is based on sound bites, news clips, and
quick gratification, but don't ever really understand why those moments
happened. Those of us who watch carefully and take the trouble to learn
why things happen along with just watching have much better resources
to understand, enjoy, and form opinions on our sports today, but for
the average schmuck, what they want is continual highlights, not a
story.
Europe is more patient than the US as they will watch soccer, and F1,
where here it's Nascar, basketball, and football because theres a
collision or highlight every minute of some sort.
A lot of it is really summed up by some of the older basketball
people, both coaches and players, saying that the game no longer has
fundamentals and teamwork because it's become a game of individual
highlights, and about the individual and what they can market, not
learning all the intricate ins and outs that made the great teams.
Instant gratification is killing the newspaper business here in the
States too. People want their news pre-packaged by their favorite
talking head, who must be right, in 30 second bites, then on to the
next bit. Life is constantly getting faster and shallower. Not a good
trend IMO.
Bill C

Tim Mullin <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

...The moments the SI writer yearns for

Quoted message said:

are there, but are often invisible to anyone other than the initiate.

Yet they're often plainly visible to those who bother to watch the
television coverage. The SI writer's complaint is that there are no "did
you see?" moments in Armstrong's victories. This from someone who makes it
clear that he doesn't watch the race.

Quoted message said:

No doubt much of the drama and
significence Claude Tillet...

(who presumably saw the race firsthand...)

...captured from Coppi's remarkable

Quoted message said:

performance in the `46 MSR was lost on most of those who saw the race
firsthand.

A quick question for those of you who count yourselves among the
"initiate": Was there terribly much hazing at the initiation ritual?

No, it seems you don't really know about cycling, and

Quoted message said:

you'll be doing yourself (all of us, really) a favor if you take some
time to learn about it before you run off calling other people
imbeciles.

Fatuous pomposity. (Or pompous fatuousness, not sure which...)

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

Still I don't really see his point. If I watched a game of basketball with
Michael Jordan in it, there is a good chance I wouldn't see why people think
so highly of him. The memorable moments he mentions don't happen every game,
right?

<snip>

Dumbass -

In regular season games, you might not see that, but you wouldn't see
any GT contenders doing anything memorable during Ruta del Sol either.

In playoff games you would. Jordan would just take over when the game
was on the line. It was incredible, his competitive willpower, and it
was very visible, hence his popularity.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

steve said:

I recall watching Olympic track cycling when I was a kid...probably around
68 (was that an olympic year?), and two sprinters are in a track stand
watching one another for a good 30 seconds. Im screaming at the TV (Im 9
years old) "Go! Why dont you go?!", and the announcers say nothing more
than ..." Uh, there's a lot of strategy involved...as if it's all a psych
game...no mention of drafting. They didnt understand the sport and they
didnt help me to understand it.

So picture your 9 year old self watching the Tour coverage on OLN. Are
Phil and Paul doing anything that would heolp him understand what's
going on? Really? That's the point of view the SI columnist was
watching from. He doesn't know [censored] about bike racing, and no one was
helping him understand what he was (or wasn't) seeing. That's not a
knock on Sherwin and Ligget, BTW. If they dumbed down their coverage
people here would be [censored] about it. Probably many of the same
people [censored] about this guy's column.

On 18-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, [email hidden] blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:

Quoted message said:

So picture your 9 year old self watching the Tour coverage on OLN. Are
Phil and Paul doing anything that would heolp him understand what's
going on?

That's a good point, althouigh there are enough hints that anyone who
watched for a while would begin to catch on. I do hear phrases like "coming
out of his slipstream at the last possible moment" or "sitting at the back
taking a free ride" from time to time. The biggest difference is that these
guys know what they're talking about and, if they have a mind to, can
explain it and sometimes do.

And, of course, who would understand football or baseball from the
commentary after a few minutes of viewing?

Quoted message said:

That's the point of view the SI columnist was
watching from. He doesn't know [censored] about bike racing, and no one was
helping him understand what he was (or wasn't) seeing.

Agreed. My point is that he should educate himself about the sport before
he pronounces it to be without drama.

steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill

steve said:

On 18-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, [email hidden] blindly
formulated
the following incoherence:

Quoted message said:

So picture your 9 year old self watching the Tour coverage on OLN. Are
Phil and Paul doing anything that would heolp him understand what's
going on?

That's a good point, althouigh there are enough hints that anyone who
watched for a while would begin to catch on. I do hear phrases like "coming
out of his slipstream at the last possible moment" or "sitting at the back
taking a free ride" from time to time. The biggest difference is that these
guys know what they're talking about and, if they have a mind to, can
explain it and sometimes do.

And, of course, who would understand football or baseball from the
commentary after a few minutes of viewing?

Exactly. I don't follow non-cycling sports at all, but periodically
someone at the office has a Super Bowl (American football for the
non-Americans reading) party. It's mostly social, with the TV going but
people not watching much, which is why I go. When I do watch for 5-10
minutes straight, I have a hard time following some of the strategies.
This is not a knock on football, it's just that I'm happily ignorant of
the game, and 5-10 minutes isn't enough to pick it up.

The SI writer is likewise completely ignorant of cycling. He says he
has never watched cycling much more than I've watched the Super Bowl.

The stupid part is that he somehow thinks this qualifies him to comment
on cycling. His article can be summed up by "I don't watch cycling much
at all, and I don't understand it, but I think it's dull."

Reminds me of a Peanuts cartoon - characters are laughing at something
on the radio. Another character asks why they are laughing. "Because
we don't understand it."

Mark

Tim Mullin a écrit :

Quoted message said:

[censored]! His commentary was spot on. Aside from `Cross and some track
events, cycling has always been a sport of subtetly and intrigue. The grand
tours (especially in the modern era) have more in common with chess that they
do with sport.

Well that last part certainly shows you don't understand much about
chess.

-ilan

[email hidden] wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

...That's the point of view the SI columnist was
watching from.

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. But don't take it from me, take it from
the writer himself:

"I haven't actually seen the race."

He then goes on to argue that there have been no memorable moments. This is
simply nonsensical.

Mike2 said:

"I haven't actually seen the race."

Perhaps he means he hasn't seen it in person? If you read the whole
thing you might have noticed he also said, "I tried to watch the last
stage of last year's Tour."

Quoted message said:

He then goes on to argue that there have been no memorable moments. This is
simply nonsensical.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the whole thing, or if you did,
didn't understand it.

Mike2 a écrit :

Quoted message said:

...The moments the SI writer yearns for

Quoted message said:

are there, but are often invisible to anyone other than the initiate.

If there's one sport in which you can't see what is really going on,
it is motor racing where the action is going on inside the car
with the driver's feet doing stuff like double clutching.

-ilan

[email hidden] wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps he means he hasn't seen it in person?

? You can't be serious.

Quoted message said:

Obviously you didn't bother to read the whole thing, or if you did,
didn't understand it.

Well, I must say I am utterly destroyed by that last salvo. I've been
maneuvered into that Usenet corner where the only possible retort amounts
to something along the lines of "no, YOU are!" Check and mate. Well played
sir, well played.

Quoted message said:

Well that last part certainly shows you don't understand much about
chess.

It's played on horseback, with slingshots, right?

Quoted message said:

So picture your 9 year old self watching the Tour coverage on OLN. Are
Phil and Paul doing anything that would heolp him understand what's
going on? Really? That's the point of view the SI columnist was
watching from. He doesn't know [censored] about bike racing, and no one was
helping him understand what he was (or wasn't) seeing. That's not a
knock on Sherwin and Ligget, BTW. If they dumbed down their coverage
people here would be [censored] about it. Probably many of the same
people [censored] about this guy's column.

But, this guy is a professional sportswriter (I think), not a
9 year old. So what if he didn't grow up watching cycling? I never
watched or played much basketball, and someone had to explain
to me what a pick-and-roll was, but after I learned, I got more
out of the game. As a professional, he should learn a little bit about

it before writing a column. For example, if he talked to anyone who
knew even a tiny amount about the sport, he would have known that he
should watch a mountain stage rather than the last stage of last year's

Tour to see the decisive moment he is looking for.

If he learns something about the sport and still finds it boring
or too subtle or just that it makes bad television, that's fine.
What bothers me about this type of article is the unprofessionalism.
It implies (fictional quote) "I don't need to do any background
research or learn the rules and customs of the sport to write about
it, even though my job pays me to be knowledgeable about sports."

You've photographed sports, right? Would you say that knowing
something about the sport helped you find the moments that made for
a good photograph? This is a sincere question, not rhetorical.
Of course there are some moments that speak for themselves (like
a winner's celebration) but doesn't anticipating the flow of the game
generally help you know where to look?

Mike2 said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps he means he hasn't seen it in person?

? You can't be serious.

I can't? Why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Obviously you didn't bother to read the whole thing, or if you did,
didn't understand it.

Well, I must say I am utterly destroyed by that last salvo. I've been
maneuvered into that Usenet corner where the only possible retort amounts
to something along the lines of "no, YOU are!" Check and mate. Well played
sir, well played.

How else do you explain missing the part where he says he, "tried
towatch the last stage of last year's tour in search of such a moment."
You either didn't read it, or didn't understand it. Which is it?