"Let Me Know When the Days of Great Sports Writing Return"

An editorial by Ed Zintel in Editor & Publisher thinks modern sports writing isn't as good as it was previously: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/TopStories/Article/Editorial--Let-Me-Know-When-the-Days-of-Great-Sports-Writing-Return2013-12-19T08-26-39

 

Yet he never actually articulates what modern sports writing is lacking. Is it not serious enough? Is it not informative enough? Are writers sacrificing the aforementioned qualities in an attempt to entertain? What am I missing here?

 

Shorter Ed Zintel: Goddammit, Jim Murray died.

Personally, I wish basketball would stop sucking. Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan and Michael Jordaned everything and now nobody ever Michael Jordans anymore.

 

I would argue that the public does not want to read great sportswriting anymore.

We all do. We can appreciate a good investigative piece or a well-sourced feature. I'm not sure most people do.

I think they can appreciate a good column, but not much beyond that.

I was talking with a friend who works at one of the big websites and he said the big-name feature writer who they paid a fortune for (it's not Wright Thompson) barely generates any clicks. That same writer is a board favorite who we all go nuts for everytime he writes. It's at the point where they're discussing if this guy is worth keeping when his contract is up.

If this guy was let go, he'd be unemployed for about a day, but it is interesting that the guys who write the long-form features or the good investigative pieces aren't appreciated the way most of us think they should be.

People want Bill Simmons columns or MMQB or stuff like that.

 

There is more great sportswriting than there used to be - more crap though too.

 

Long-form features and investigative pieces aren't the same thing -- there's more audience for the latter than the former, IMO -- and not all (or even much) long-form sportswriting is necessary, even if it's good.

I disagree my share with Wetzel, but he's the best in the business. He's usually at the right events, or writing about the right events, his commentary is sharp and incisive, and the length of his pieces rarely overstay their welcome. He's not real funny. That's about all you don't get.

 

Oh, and let's not sniff our noses too damn hard here. MMQB is, for readers, damn good. Who are we kidding? I read MMQB every week. I'd read that before anything Gary Smith wrote.

And folks know my general take on Simmons -- that without ESPN, his audience wouldn't follow, in part because he's a limited writer -- but he is funny and witty.

 

I'm with DanOregon....either Zintel hasn't been reading widely enough or he's reading too widely....

 

That was definitely not a shot at either of them. I'm a huge PK fan and I've come around on Simmons.

 

Check out Kevin Van Valkenbergs twitter time line for a great takedown of this article.

 

There's so much good sports writing out there that most of us don't have time to read it all. Which is telling because we can now read it on about a dozen or so different platforms. It takes one second to click on a link, a luxury the good ol' boys didn't have.

I didn't even read the article because the premise is so fucking stupid.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the point about long-form. I find a lot of long-form stories to be belabored and overwrought with minutiae. They come across like verbose sales pitches where you can feel the writer straining to convince you to care about things that aren't as important as the writer thinks they are.