new s.i. -- gary smith on agassi

Here is why I am in awe of Gary Smith: there is absolutely nothing in that piece I could pull off. Nothing. As a sportswriter, it is a natural instinct to read a piece and size it up...could I have written it that well, could I have done that well reporting, could I have gotten that type of access. For this piece, the answer is a resounding no on every question. There is no way I could pull off the second person angle, which Smith has used before (I specifically remember his Magic Johnson piece), without coming off as clunky and cliched and ruining the piece. I doubt there are many people on this board who could pull it off. And the depth of reporting is simply scary. He was able to get Brooke Shields to give him amazing stuff on Agassi's psyche. And overall, he got real insight into a very famous guy who we have all seen transform from punk to highly respected legend and add to our understanding. Simply...wow.

 

And it was one of the best things I've read in years.

I'll read the Agassi piece today.

 

I guess you could say that Smith took a favorite ESPN: The Magazine cliche, "the changed man," and showed them how it's done.

 

That's it. Sorry for the mistake. I read it on a plane to Las Vegas a few weeks ago. It was incredibly well done.

 

i came to terms long ago with the self-knowledge that i could never do what gary does. and i like to think i'm damn good at what i do. but to claim i do the same job that gary does would be self-delusional. we're both sports journalist's in the broadest sense. that's where all comparisons end.

it's like a lead singer in a bar band vs. springsteen. they do the same thing, but not really.

 

That being said, Smith couldn't do what Gammons or Katz or the Chronicle guys or any number of investigative, story-breaking or issues-focused sports journalists do. The Agassi story is terrific. As far as sports journalism goes this year, though, I can't say it's more important than, say, the diploma mills stories, for example. Or George Dohrmann's Mexican steroids piece in the same magazine.

We all have our niches.

 

I was marveling at this piece while I was reading it. I had forgotten a lot of stuff about Agassi, like the fact he had dropped out of school in the eighth grade or that he was of Iranian descent. I'd read that somewhere before but every time I've seen his name I automatically connected it with Italian. Or that he'd opted out of Wimbledon. All of that in my mind had been overwhelmed by the Image is Everything ads. I kept thinking while I was reading this, you knonw, he was Anna Kournikova before Anna Kournikova was Anna Kournikova, but he actually took the step of becoming good at what he does. The Steffi Graf photo credit was interesting -- especially when coupled with the note that she planned to go around the world photographing wildlife. This whole thing was first-rate.

 

I wouldn't say the Kournikova comparison can be stretched that far. He was getting it done on the court before everyone knew his image. I think he won an ATP title at 17 if I am not mistaken.

 

Point taken. The thought I had, though, had more to do with the style/substance clash getting in the way of fulfillment of potential. Kournikova clearly lacked work ethic for tennis -- I don't think we could say that about Agassi -- but even if she did, there's no guarantee should would have won any tournaments. And the overbearing parent angle fits, too, though for some reason Agassi's dad seems to come across in a more positive light than Kournikova's mom.

 

I wouldn't take it for granted that Smith couldn't be a Gammons or Katz type, or an investigative type. He's obviously a dogged and thorough interviewer and reporter, which is what you have to be in order to break stories. He also started out as a newspaper guy. Who knows what he might have produced if he'd been on the BALCO story, for example? I tend to think he'd probably be amazing at whatever type of journalism he devoted himself to.

 

What I've always laughed at is the belief among a few that they could equal Smith's work if they "only had to do three stories a year."

Yeah, right.

 

I wouldn't take it for granted that Smith couldn't be a Gammons or Katz type, or an investigative type. He's obviously a dogged and thorough interviewer and reporter, which is what you have to be in order to break stories. He also started out as a newspaper guy. Who knows what he might have produced if he'd been on the BALCO story, for example? I tend to think he'd probably be amazing at whatever type of journalism he devoted himself to.
i agree. there are reasons michael jordan or wayne gretzky were head and shoulders above all others. gary is like that, a combo of high intelligence, great insight and tremendous pure writing talent. if he bothered to try writing a notes column or a one-liner column like lupica's sunday drivel, i hae no doubt his would be the best of its kind.

which isn't meant to besmirch anyone. it's just that the guy's babe ruth.