Jones/ESPNMAG

I am not even sure if you understand what you write.

As far as this thread goes be assured that it has not gotten to 9 pages because of your contributions.

 

70,

I suppose that comes from the beating heart of SportsJournalists.com.

o-<

 

Sirs, Madames,

World's thinnest book: BASW, guest editor Boom70.

o-<

 

I learned a long time ago that, given a respectful reasoned response, the poster in question will reach behind himself and scratch his brain. It is pointless to mention that, if you want to write about the topic of legacy (who really owns it? How can it change? Can it change at all?), one might just begin -- with a quote, mind you, of your subject relating a relevant anecdote -- in the past. It is pointless to mention that it is well within bounds while writing a year-end feature to base it partly in events that happened earlier. (Let's write about the Obama campaigh without mentioning the 2004 speech, or the McCain campaign without talking about Vietnam.) These are things that actual writers do. All of this is pointless, so fair enough.
And, Boom, if NR offered me $20K and expenses to write for them -- hell, they pay Lowry and Godlberg more than the dime-a-word those two hacks deserve - I'm on it like a shot, although I suspect that what I turn in may not be what they were looking for. And the fact that you could postulate that the late Mr. Buckley's startlingly advertising-free little magazine would offer that kind of money pretty much proves you don't know dick about the subject of this thread.

 

Fenian - I grant that when writing about John McCain you would want to go back to his experiences in Vietnam to color how the man McCain is today came to be who he is. But that is a red herring on your part.

The questions still stand - what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008 that warrants a section in a Year in Review piece and what the heck does Armstrong have to do with Tyree? The piece was not supposed to be about legacy. It was supposed to be about a 2008 year in review. Instead what Jones tossed out was a jumble of vignettes he probably couldn't use elsewhere. Here's Jeter at his locker signing stuff, here's a bit about Jones buying a frozen pretzel at his first game at Yankee Stadium, here's a bit about Lance Armstrong talking to Bill Clinton about magnolias, here's a bit about Jones standing at the Mexican border. Take the bits boil em, mash em and stick em in a stew and tell ESPN the Mag - here's your Year in Review and now where's my check?

For all the people signing praises about the piece - I'm still waiting for someone to explain what was so great about it.

 

If there was a way to lock--no, check that--destroy beyond recognition, my own thread I would do it to this one. Evil Bastard: as you've said, you don't get this piece. So just move on.

 

Boo freakin hoo.

 

Well, he announced his return to competitive cycling, which is a fairly big deal, given his story and how he's a seven-time TdF winner and all. Also, Armstrong played a perfect role in what I think Jones was trying to go after, in what Fenian pointed out; legacy.
After retiring the first time, he could have devoted all his time and energy to fighting cancer off the bike, but something pulled him back in. Whether that's actually wanting to provide exposure for his foundation or because he missed the competition, it was enough for him to endure the grueling training for another season.
It's clear that despite all he has done in the world, Armstrong is not satisfied with what he has already accomplished. So in 2008, he set out to redefine his legacy and jumpstart a process that would likely alter how we remembered him.

In the strict sense of 2008 Moments of the Year, did Armstrong do anything in the sports world that warrants special mention? No. But if that's all Jones was going to do, he could have just listed the top 11 moments, said Fuck it, and be done.
But I find the idea of The Things We Forget very compelling, because every December we look back and remember those standout moments from the last 12 months. Every stupid year in review does it. But as the years progress, this year's awesome moments will be reduced to trivia and rough sketches, or forgotten altogether. The details of Armstrong's seven wins have dropped off and the fact that he won them remains.

It's clear Armstrong's not satisfied with that being his footnote on the world, and that's what he has to do with David Tyree, who opened the year with one of the most chance/spectacular Super Bowl catches ever. He doesn't want the helmet grab to briefly define him forever in a game of sports word association, just as Armstrong wants more than to be Armstrong=7 TdF. Is it a foolish venture for Tyree, who might never gain that kind of notoriety again? Maybe, but it's clear he, both of them want to try.

 

The WORLDS biggest HACK - friend of no one

 

Fenian - you are contradicting your own stated philosophy:
" You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work."

 

Sirs, Madames,

Boom is on my Secret Santa list -- I'm getting him an AP style guide and an apostrophe.

o-<

 

Your work makes straight AP copy look good.