Ever heard of the movie landmark series that has a number, indicating age, followed by "Up"?
It's a British idea for a documentary. The first film took a bunch of 7-year-olds and interviewed them about their lives at the time for a film called "7 Up." Then, seven years later, a second film was made called "14 Up." The series has gone through age 56 now, and it's fascinating.
Some people come and go from the series, but all travel through a variety of typical human changes as part of life's journeys. Luckily, there are frequent flashbacks to previous films in order to provide context. Go rent it, one after another, and thank me later.
Then again, there's an easier way to see the process in action. Just go to high school reunions. You'll miss the first couple of episodes, but the concept is the same.
We just had another one Saturday night, 40 years and counting, and it was a typically happy affair. The high school experience is an intense one, of course, but the typical issues of those times eventually fade away for most and high school graduating classes more or less turn into one big happy family. Well, that may not be true for those who never want to look back at their high school days for whatever reason (and I know they are out there), but usually they aren't around to infect the atmosphere.
(Note: In our case, one person did do exactly that one time in our many reunions - anyone who tried to start a conversation in a lone reunion appearance came away shaking his or her head. I took an informal vote Saturday night, and the vote was perfect - no one missed that person this time.)
I'm a good candidate to go back to these reunions. I've stayed in the area, and several high school friends are still pals today, so I know I'll have a good time in that sense. One year, I showed up when I was unemployed; this time I showed up with a book coming out within days. In that sense, this time was better. At least I had a ready answer when someone said, "What's new?" But in both cases, I came away with a smile on my face at the end of the evening.
Besides all that, there are a couple of reasons why I find this tradition to be worthwhile:
I find out how stories turned out. I tell stories for a living, mostly about people, and the twists and turns are often dramatic. People show up with new jobs, new spouses, and new stories about parents and children. The quiet kid in the corner turns out to be a huge success story, the person considered to be the most brilliant person in the group falls on hard times and disappears. There's no way to guess what happens, even now. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong.
I make new, or at least better, friends constantly. I sometimes joke about having the longest conversation of my life with people at reunions, but it's often true. Since I only went to a high school in suburban Buffalo for the final three grades, it's not as if I had 12 years to get to know everyone. Sometimes people didn't pop up in my classes, and I missed them. But we still had some common experiences through mutual friends, classes, etc.
Eight years ago when we had a group 50th birthday party for the class, I struck up conversations with two classmates who I never knew particularly well. You know how you exchange email addresses with such friends and say you'll keep in touch? We actually did it, and it's been very rewarding. The same thing happened to me in 2003 when I attended the reunion of the high school I would have attended had I stayed in Elmira. I got back in touch, and stayed in touch, with people I hadn't seen in 33 years.
By the way, I even signed a yearbook of someone I didn't know at all until Saturday night ... a mere 40 years and two months after publication. Haven't done that in a while - 40 years and two months, come to think of it.
I noted in one brief philosophical moment Saturday that the conversation at reunions had gradually gone from what we hope to be into what we are. The biographies are more or less written; now we're working on happy endings. Toward that end, I also noticed that the r-word, "retirement," started to pop up this time. My guess is that I'll be hearing that word a lot more in 10 years when the next installment of this personal documentary is written.
Can't wait.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Friday, August 16, 2013
Let me explain...
The other day, veteran journalist Jack Germond died. Germond was one of those old-time reporters who had seen it all, knew everybody, and could crank out stories with the best of them. You might remember him as a liberal on such panel shows as "The McLaughlin Group."
When I saw the news on Facebook - welcome to the new world of news-gathering - I thought of his book, "Fat Man in a Middle Seat." It was more than 300 pages of Germond looking back of his career, written more than 10 years ago.
But my Facebook comment, designed to be quick and easy, had nothing to do with that in recalling the book. It was connected to the fact that Germond sure seemed to have a lot of cocktails along the way. I believe he made a few reference to missing the days when he could sit down with politicians for "a few jars," meaning drinks.
Really, that's too short of a comment to make to be fair to a fine reporter. But it does deserve a little further explanation, and I'll do it here.
I've read a variety of memoirs from journalists over the years, and enjoyed almost all of them. But alcohol seemed to play a part in the job just as much as a typewriter and notepad did. Reporters would frequently get together with the people they covered for an off-the-record cocktail or three. Some of the stories in the books about what happened after the third cocktail are designed to be humorous.
But for in many cases - and I'm not specifically pointing at Germond by any means here - those stories merely came off as sad. We've much more aware since those days about the dangers of drunk driving, not to mention the damage that drinking to excess can do to families. Obviously, times sure have changed.
And looking back, I can tell you the exact moment when I reached "a tipping point" on the issue. When I worked for the Sabres in public relations at first (1986), the cooler in the press box always had cold, free beer in it. Most people who liked an adult beverage during the game didn't abuse the situation, but there were a few people who did.
Then at the summer meetings of the NHL, someone raised the issue. What would happen if someone who had consumed several free alcoholic beverages drove home and, God forbid, killed someone? Could the team be considered partly liable? I didn't want to find out. The following fall, beer was out of the cooler. I'm sure there were some complaints about that which I never heard directly, but I think most understood the situation.
I'm hardly saying that drinking by journalists doesn't take place. As long as there are road trips and deadlines and bars, alcohol will be consumed. But my unscientific guess is that we've become quite a bit more professional in this area over the years.
Reporters like Germond were simply from a different era, with different standards. I'm sure if he had come along 50 years later, he would have scooped everyone under the new rules.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
When I saw the news on Facebook - welcome to the new world of news-gathering - I thought of his book, "Fat Man in a Middle Seat." It was more than 300 pages of Germond looking back of his career, written more than 10 years ago.
But my Facebook comment, designed to be quick and easy, had nothing to do with that in recalling the book. It was connected to the fact that Germond sure seemed to have a lot of cocktails along the way. I believe he made a few reference to missing the days when he could sit down with politicians for "a few jars," meaning drinks.
Really, that's too short of a comment to make to be fair to a fine reporter. But it does deserve a little further explanation, and I'll do it here.
I've read a variety of memoirs from journalists over the years, and enjoyed almost all of them. But alcohol seemed to play a part in the job just as much as a typewriter and notepad did. Reporters would frequently get together with the people they covered for an off-the-record cocktail or three. Some of the stories in the books about what happened after the third cocktail are designed to be humorous.
But for in many cases - and I'm not specifically pointing at Germond by any means here - those stories merely came off as sad. We've much more aware since those days about the dangers of drunk driving, not to mention the damage that drinking to excess can do to families. Obviously, times sure have changed.
And looking back, I can tell you the exact moment when I reached "a tipping point" on the issue. When I worked for the Sabres in public relations at first (1986), the cooler in the press box always had cold, free beer in it. Most people who liked an adult beverage during the game didn't abuse the situation, but there were a few people who did.
Then at the summer meetings of the NHL, someone raised the issue. What would happen if someone who had consumed several free alcoholic beverages drove home and, God forbid, killed someone? Could the team be considered partly liable? I didn't want to find out. The following fall, beer was out of the cooler. I'm sure there were some complaints about that which I never heard directly, but I think most understood the situation.
I'm hardly saying that drinking by journalists doesn't take place. As long as there are road trips and deadlines and bars, alcohol will be consumed. But my unscientific guess is that we've become quite a bit more professional in this area over the years.
Reporters like Germond were simply from a different era, with different standards. I'm sure if he had come along 50 years later, he would have scooped everyone under the new rules.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Schaudefreude
Another major championships has come and gone in the world of professional golf, and late Sunday night, when the PGA trophy was handed to Jason Dufner, I let out a large sigh of relief.
Tiger Woods had been blanked for another year.
It's an oddly emotional reaction to me, a person who is almost clinical in looking over the sports scene and who tries to be more fair and balanced than a room full of Fox News commentators (granted, the bar isn't too high in that particular analogy).
I have all the respect in the world for Woods' individual brilliance. At his peak, he probably was the greatest golfer in the history of the sport. Four straight majors, in this day and age? I would have thought that was impossible. I would have been willing to argue that the talent pool was so strong that no one was capable of winning so many big tournaments in such a short time. In fact, there's no one in history I'd rather see putting for the United States if the Ryder Cup came down to just one 20-footer.
That doesn't mean I am predisposed to root for him. Growing up, my dad was the Jack Nicklaus fan, preferring to root for consistent brilliance and gentlemanly play. Me, I rooted for Arnold Palmer, who never seemed to take the safe way out and was something of a thrill ride. Who would have been more fun to meet?
It's been the same story lately. That's Woods in the role of Nicklaus, and Phil Mickelson playing Palmer. Lefty recently had one of the great finishes in golf history, coming from way back to win the British Open - just like Palmer did in the 1960 U.S. Open.
For years, it looked as if Mickelson would be stuck playing Avis to Woods' Hertz, but then a funny thing happened - Woods' wife took a well-placed iron to the back of Tiger's car on Thanksgiving after learning of some of his, um, exploits. Woods hasn't played as well as he used to play in majors - zero wins - and Mickelson has driven through the vacuum to ensure his legacy as one of the most beloved athletes of his generation.
In the meantime, Woods certainly has the right to make a living at his chosen profession, and he's doing that. He's the number one player in the world, and can draw people into galleries which translates into sponsorship and appearance fees. Fine. But Tiger had always set his sights on the Nicklaus record of 18 major championships - he's at 14 at holding. And Woods' personal actions, and corresponding arrogance that went with them, were so over the top that it's difficult to root for him.
The Germans have a word for it - schaudefreude, pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. I have to admit I feel some of that when someone else holds up one of those big trophies at the end of a major golf tournament. I'm not proud of that feeling, but it's there. And it's not going away.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Tiger Woods had been blanked for another year.
It's an oddly emotional reaction to me, a person who is almost clinical in looking over the sports scene and who tries to be more fair and balanced than a room full of Fox News commentators (granted, the bar isn't too high in that particular analogy).
I have all the respect in the world for Woods' individual brilliance. At his peak, he probably was the greatest golfer in the history of the sport. Four straight majors, in this day and age? I would have thought that was impossible. I would have been willing to argue that the talent pool was so strong that no one was capable of winning so many big tournaments in such a short time. In fact, there's no one in history I'd rather see putting for the United States if the Ryder Cup came down to just one 20-footer.
That doesn't mean I am predisposed to root for him. Growing up, my dad was the Jack Nicklaus fan, preferring to root for consistent brilliance and gentlemanly play. Me, I rooted for Arnold Palmer, who never seemed to take the safe way out and was something of a thrill ride. Who would have been more fun to meet?
It's been the same story lately. That's Woods in the role of Nicklaus, and Phil Mickelson playing Palmer. Lefty recently had one of the great finishes in golf history, coming from way back to win the British Open - just like Palmer did in the 1960 U.S. Open.
For years, it looked as if Mickelson would be stuck playing Avis to Woods' Hertz, but then a funny thing happened - Woods' wife took a well-placed iron to the back of Tiger's car on Thanksgiving after learning of some of his, um, exploits. Woods hasn't played as well as he used to play in majors - zero wins - and Mickelson has driven through the vacuum to ensure his legacy as one of the most beloved athletes of his generation.
In the meantime, Woods certainly has the right to make a living at his chosen profession, and he's doing that. He's the number one player in the world, and can draw people into galleries which translates into sponsorship and appearance fees. Fine. But Tiger had always set his sights on the Nicklaus record of 18 major championships - he's at 14 at holding. And Woods' personal actions, and corresponding arrogance that went with them, were so over the top that it's difficult to root for him.
The Germans have a word for it - schaudefreude, pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. I have to admit I feel some of that when someone else holds up one of those big trophies at the end of a major golf tournament. I'm not proud of that feeling, but it's there. And it's not going away.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Monday, August 05, 2013
In the locker room
ESPN recently aired a documentary on women in sports journalism called "Let Them Wear Towels." It was very well done, as the filmmakers spoke to most of the women who fought the battles to do their jobs in the 1970s.
The reporters involved certainly were tougher than their male counterparts, which includes me, since they had go through many more hoops just to get a story. The film made me think of my own experiences as something of a bystander to the story.
Let's state the obvious first. Interviewing someone who isn't wearing any clothes is an odd experience under any circumstances. When the President of the United States is done with the State of the Union, does he go to a locker room and tell reporters while he's undressing how he thought the speech went? Thankfully, no. But, traditionally it was part of the job and everyone learned to accept it.
That could lead to the odd bizarre moment. I remember covering a Canisius basketball game at the Koessler Center with a male newspaper reporter who was on a tight deadline. He needed quotes in a hurry, and I didn't want to make the Canisius player repeat his answers. So we talked to him at the entry to the shower as he was toweling off. I'm surprised I didn't have "Could you pass the talcum powder?" in the middle of a radio sound bite about the Griffins' zone defense.
My former radio news director once told a story about how he had to fill in on Bills coverage one time at then-Rich Stadium. The game was over, and he was in the Bills locker room collecting audio tape. He told me how he had looked over in the room, and saw me talking to Fred Smerlas, the Bills' defensive tackle. We were carrying on a normal conversation, except for the fact that Smerlas was naked. To his outsider's viewpoint, this was bizarre journalism. To me, it was another day at the office.
Women were rather scarce during the time I covered Bills' games. Most of them were put lower on the totem pole when it came to assignments as they were new and had to work their way up the ladder. That meant hockey led the way. I don't recall that there were major fights over press box access by the time I was a regular at Sabre games.
That battle was an easy one; credentials were merely written. But certain teams were tougher than others when it came to locker room access back then. I remember some issues coming up in that area, and about all I could do is be supportive to the journalists involved. At some point, the Sabres used to have a public relations person come into the locker room to announce that a woman was in the night's press corps, so that they would have the option to dress appropriately or go into another room entirely to avoid potential embarrassment. Of course, the women didn't have that option.
By the time I was in public relations with the Sabres from 1986 to 1992, I don't recall any major problems since it was league policy to accept female reporters. I remember Lisa Olson, involved in a celebrated incident involving the Patriots, coming to Buffalo to cover a hockey game while her status was being sorted out. I made sure to try to make her feel welcome, figuring she'd gone through enough stuff on that job.
One local women's reporter in the Nineties, when I asked if others wanted to know if she saw the Sabres naked in her job, quickly answered, "All the time." But even the cramped Aud locker room added a small changing room along the way which helped the situation; the visiting room didn't have that luxury.
When the Sabres moved to their new arena a block away, it was a little easier for the players to gain privacy. The First Niagara Center, as it is now called, is filled with off-limits spots and hiding places. Come to think of it, after a tough loss sometimes the media members of both sexes would file into the locker room and see ... no one. I haven't covered a Bills or Sabres game for years, but I would guess players have the opportunity to dress without prying eyes of all types staring at them.
There's one other issue involved here. It's a lot easier than it used to be to get "candid" photos in a lockeer room. About fifteen years ago, we just had to make sure television and still camera were only turned on and used in interview situations. Now, everyone has a cell phone with a camera, and the potential for mischief on the Internet is ever present.
I now have been covering the Bandits for five years, and there finally is true parity there. No one, male or female, is admitted into the locker room. It's a small area, and it's fair to say that it would be difficult for anyone to move around if six people were trying to talk to the same person at one time. Therefore, players are brought to a separate room, one at a time, and interviewed by the whole group collectively.
The thought has struck me that the policy does hurt the quality of my stories a little. Every interview is put up on the Internet shortly after it is recorded. It's a little tough to get quotes that no one else has under those circumstances. I do miss the chance to bounce from interview to interview in search of the best quotes, and maybe catch someone alone who can provide original insight.
But, to be fair, the system does provide equal opportunity, something that the women journalists of the past often didn't have. Men don't go into the locker rooms in women's tennis or golf, and stories still get written or produced. It seems as if all of the major sports are headed toward that approach. We may need time to get used to it, but the end result - equal access - strikes me as being worth the effort.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
The reporters involved certainly were tougher than their male counterparts, which includes me, since they had go through many more hoops just to get a story. The film made me think of my own experiences as something of a bystander to the story.
Let's state the obvious first. Interviewing someone who isn't wearing any clothes is an odd experience under any circumstances. When the President of the United States is done with the State of the Union, does he go to a locker room and tell reporters while he's undressing how he thought the speech went? Thankfully, no. But, traditionally it was part of the job and everyone learned to accept it.
That could lead to the odd bizarre moment. I remember covering a Canisius basketball game at the Koessler Center with a male newspaper reporter who was on a tight deadline. He needed quotes in a hurry, and I didn't want to make the Canisius player repeat his answers. So we talked to him at the entry to the shower as he was toweling off. I'm surprised I didn't have "Could you pass the talcum powder?" in the middle of a radio sound bite about the Griffins' zone defense.
My former radio news director once told a story about how he had to fill in on Bills coverage one time at then-Rich Stadium. The game was over, and he was in the Bills locker room collecting audio tape. He told me how he had looked over in the room, and saw me talking to Fred Smerlas, the Bills' defensive tackle. We were carrying on a normal conversation, except for the fact that Smerlas was naked. To his outsider's viewpoint, this was bizarre journalism. To me, it was another day at the office.
Women were rather scarce during the time I covered Bills' games. Most of them were put lower on the totem pole when it came to assignments as they were new and had to work their way up the ladder. That meant hockey led the way. I don't recall that there were major fights over press box access by the time I was a regular at Sabre games.
That battle was an easy one; credentials were merely written. But certain teams were tougher than others when it came to locker room access back then. I remember some issues coming up in that area, and about all I could do is be supportive to the journalists involved. At some point, the Sabres used to have a public relations person come into the locker room to announce that a woman was in the night's press corps, so that they would have the option to dress appropriately or go into another room entirely to avoid potential embarrassment. Of course, the women didn't have that option.
By the time I was in public relations with the Sabres from 1986 to 1992, I don't recall any major problems since it was league policy to accept female reporters. I remember Lisa Olson, involved in a celebrated incident involving the Patriots, coming to Buffalo to cover a hockey game while her status was being sorted out. I made sure to try to make her feel welcome, figuring she'd gone through enough stuff on that job.
One local women's reporter in the Nineties, when I asked if others wanted to know if she saw the Sabres naked in her job, quickly answered, "All the time." But even the cramped Aud locker room added a small changing room along the way which helped the situation; the visiting room didn't have that luxury.
When the Sabres moved to their new arena a block away, it was a little easier for the players to gain privacy. The First Niagara Center, as it is now called, is filled with off-limits spots and hiding places. Come to think of it, after a tough loss sometimes the media members of both sexes would file into the locker room and see ... no one. I haven't covered a Bills or Sabres game for years, but I would guess players have the opportunity to dress without prying eyes of all types staring at them.
There's one other issue involved here. It's a lot easier than it used to be to get "candid" photos in a lockeer room. About fifteen years ago, we just had to make sure television and still camera were only turned on and used in interview situations. Now, everyone has a cell phone with a camera, and the potential for mischief on the Internet is ever present.
I now have been covering the Bandits for five years, and there finally is true parity there. No one, male or female, is admitted into the locker room. It's a small area, and it's fair to say that it would be difficult for anyone to move around if six people were trying to talk to the same person at one time. Therefore, players are brought to a separate room, one at a time, and interviewed by the whole group collectively.
The thought has struck me that the policy does hurt the quality of my stories a little. Every interview is put up on the Internet shortly after it is recorded. It's a little tough to get quotes that no one else has under those circumstances. I do miss the chance to bounce from interview to interview in search of the best quotes, and maybe catch someone alone who can provide original insight.
But, to be fair, the system does provide equal opportunity, something that the women journalists of the past often didn't have. Men don't go into the locker rooms in women's tennis or golf, and stories still get written or produced. It seems as if all of the major sports are headed toward that approach. We may need time to get used to it, but the end result - equal access - strikes me as being worth the effort.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Monday, July 29, 2013
On Mount Rushmore
Every so often, ESPN does something silly like ask America who should be on our sporting Mount Rushmores. This is usually broken down into states and big cities, since doing so for the entire country probably would be a little diffuse. And, it is usually done in the summer, somewhere between the end of the NBA Finals and the beginning of NFL training camps.
All right, I'm a little late to the party. The Bills had their first training camp practice Sunday.
Still, the question is fun to consider. In case someone starts building a sports equivalent of Mount Rushmore in between the two falls at Niagara Falls (I'm thinking tourism and not geology in this case), who should be the four people on it?
It's relatively to come up with the ground rules. It can be anyone connected with local sports, but there's only four winners. Splitting up the sports is a nice touch but not absolutely necessary.
The Bills get first crack at it. It's fair to say that O.J. Simpson would have been on it at one point. It's also fair to say I'm not sure we need a tourist attraction with his face on it at this particular time. Luckily, we have other candidates. Ralph Wilson brought the Bills here and kept them here for more than 50 years, and he deserves credit for that. Still, I'm not sure owners belong on the mountain, which - jumping ahead a bit - means Seymour Knox of the Sabres won't make it. Marv Levy is clearly the greatest Bills coach in history, and maybe the best Buffalo coach ever. If the space by the Falls was a little bigger, we'd have an argument.
After some thought, I'd start with Jim Kelly. Quarterbacks have the biggest impact on the game, and Kelly was one of the all-time best. If you wonder how tough it is to find someone like that, consider the revolving door at the position since he left. Jack Kemp deserves consideration with his two titles, but Kelly's body of work probably is more impressive. I'd put Kemp with Bruce Smith and Thurman Thomas.
The Sabres are next, and at least we know who the two finalists are. Gil Perreault and Dominik Hasek are clearly the best candidates. Perreault helped establish the credibility of the franchise and was exciting from the first day to the last. Hasek might have been the best goalie ever if you needed to win one game. In other words, he didn't have the best career ever, perhaps yielding to Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy or Terry Sawchuk. But Buffalo was attacked by raging hockey hoards from Montreal, Boston or Toronto, I'd want Hasek on my side. Still, Hasek's exit was clumsy, so Perreault gets a narrow win here.
How about basketball? The best pro player to ever call Buffalo home was Bob McAdoo, while two obvious college standouts were Bob Lanier and Calvin Murphy. McAdoo was a comet, an absolutlely thrilling performer during his days with the Braves. The rest of the country doesn't remember how good he was in those days, but we know. But I'd take Lanier's longevity over McAdoo's brilliance in terms of a sculpture. Besides, Lanier was born here, raised here, and went to college here. That earns him some points.
Then there's the fourth spot. Buffalo hasn't been a major league city very often in baseball, and I would doubt that Pud Galvin and Dan Brouthers deserve a spot on the mountain for their work in the 1880s. The Bisons haven't had anyone long enough to make a huge impact in the modern era; it's the nature of the business. If I needed a baseball player, I would lean to Warren Spahn, who was raised here and went on to have the best career of any left-handed pitcher in history. Still, he left town after he was finished with high school, and I'd like more of a connection.
We've still got an open spot on the hill, and I think I would pick John Tavares of the Bandits. He has been here since 1992, and he has set records in indoor lacrosse that may never fall. Tavares has become a consensus pick as the best player ever in his sport, and how many people with Buffalo connections ever can say that? I'm a little biased because I cover the sport, and I know some would never put a lacrosse player on such a mountain, but his career is unmatched.
So, I've got Kelly, Perreault, Lanier and Tavares, although I could be convinced to replace Tavares with Levy. You may disagree. Come to think of it, I hope you do.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
All right, I'm a little late to the party. The Bills had their first training camp practice Sunday.
Still, the question is fun to consider. In case someone starts building a sports equivalent of Mount Rushmore in between the two falls at Niagara Falls (I'm thinking tourism and not geology in this case), who should be the four people on it?
It's relatively to come up with the ground rules. It can be anyone connected with local sports, but there's only four winners. Splitting up the sports is a nice touch but not absolutely necessary.
The Bills get first crack at it. It's fair to say that O.J. Simpson would have been on it at one point. It's also fair to say I'm not sure we need a tourist attraction with his face on it at this particular time. Luckily, we have other candidates. Ralph Wilson brought the Bills here and kept them here for more than 50 years, and he deserves credit for that. Still, I'm not sure owners belong on the mountain, which - jumping ahead a bit - means Seymour Knox of the Sabres won't make it. Marv Levy is clearly the greatest Bills coach in history, and maybe the best Buffalo coach ever. If the space by the Falls was a little bigger, we'd have an argument.
After some thought, I'd start with Jim Kelly. Quarterbacks have the biggest impact on the game, and Kelly was one of the all-time best. If you wonder how tough it is to find someone like that, consider the revolving door at the position since he left. Jack Kemp deserves consideration with his two titles, but Kelly's body of work probably is more impressive. I'd put Kemp with Bruce Smith and Thurman Thomas.
The Sabres are next, and at least we know who the two finalists are. Gil Perreault and Dominik Hasek are clearly the best candidates. Perreault helped establish the credibility of the franchise and was exciting from the first day to the last. Hasek might have been the best goalie ever if you needed to win one game. In other words, he didn't have the best career ever, perhaps yielding to Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy or Terry Sawchuk. But Buffalo was attacked by raging hockey hoards from Montreal, Boston or Toronto, I'd want Hasek on my side. Still, Hasek's exit was clumsy, so Perreault gets a narrow win here.
How about basketball? The best pro player to ever call Buffalo home was Bob McAdoo, while two obvious college standouts were Bob Lanier and Calvin Murphy. McAdoo was a comet, an absolutlely thrilling performer during his days with the Braves. The rest of the country doesn't remember how good he was in those days, but we know. But I'd take Lanier's longevity over McAdoo's brilliance in terms of a sculpture. Besides, Lanier was born here, raised here, and went to college here. That earns him some points.
Then there's the fourth spot. Buffalo hasn't been a major league city very often in baseball, and I would doubt that Pud Galvin and Dan Brouthers deserve a spot on the mountain for their work in the 1880s. The Bisons haven't had anyone long enough to make a huge impact in the modern era; it's the nature of the business. If I needed a baseball player, I would lean to Warren Spahn, who was raised here and went on to have the best career of any left-handed pitcher in history. Still, he left town after he was finished with high school, and I'd like more of a connection.
We've still got an open spot on the hill, and I think I would pick John Tavares of the Bandits. He has been here since 1992, and he has set records in indoor lacrosse that may never fall. Tavares has become a consensus pick as the best player ever in his sport, and how many people with Buffalo connections ever can say that? I'm a little biased because I cover the sport, and I know some would never put a lacrosse player on such a mountain, but his career is unmatched.
So, I've got Kelly, Perreault, Lanier and Tavares, although I could be convinced to replace Tavares with Levy. You may disagree. Come to think of it, I hope you do.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Liar
I distinctly remember the words of my co-worker Jim Kelley one time, talking about the business of journalism.
A member of the Buffalo Sabres had told him directly that he had not asked for a trade to another team. Then Kelley discovered that the player had indeed asked to go elsewhere.
Kelley was incensed. To paraphrase Jim's argument, he said that people speaking for the public record could dodge a question, say no comment, hem and haw, etc. But, as he put it, "just don't lie to me."
No, that should be put another way. "JUST DON'T LIE TO ME!"
If you look at the rage issued by the nation's sports commentators in the past couple of days, you can see that they agree with Jim. Ryan Braun lied to them, lied to the fans, lied to everyone when it came to performance enhancing drugs. The fallout is one big mess. Braun accepted a suspension for the rest of the season, admitting he had taken PEDs in the Biogenesis probe.
You might remember how Braun had tested positive on a sample from the fall of 2011. An investigation showed that the specimen hadn't been handled in a completely proper way, and thus had to be thrown out. Braun then protested the entire episode, and continued to proclaim his innocence loudly to anyone who would listen.
And now this, complete with a statement with the comment, "I realize now I have made some mistakes."
There aren't many winners here. Many other major leaguers have commented that they are glad Braun was punished for his actions, so the MLB office gets credit for concluding this case relatively quickly.
On the other hand, Braun has a completely ruined reputation. He's done for the rest of this year, and when he gets back, his life on road trips is going to be, um, difficult. I'd say the good citizens of Milwaukee might not give him a warm welcome, but I remember San Francisco's fans not caring too much about Barry Bonds' situation as long as he was hitting home runs for the Giants.
The Brewers might be an even bigger loser. They picked Braun to be the face of the franchise in the form of a nine-figure contract, and Braun will get most of it in the years to come. The team had a choice of keeping either Braun or Prince Fielder, because they couldn't afford both. If they had to do over again, what would they do now?
If you think this case interesting, consider the angles of the Alex Rodriguez case. A-Rod already has admitted previous PED use, and reports have leaked out that the case against him is stronger than the one against Braun. Rodriguez's body has become more and more injury-prone in the past few years, and his huge contract mixed with a lack of production continues to be an anchor around the franchise. Are the Yankees quietly hoping that somehow A-Rod receives a lifetime ban from baseball? There's a history-making event that we didn't see coming a while ago.
Meanwhile, the pennant races go on, and several other players are at least possible targets of the Biogenesis probe. That could affect the pennant races in bizarre ways, such as having players who are appealing decisions take part in September and October games.
The other players would do well to remember the words of Jim Kelley. Just don't lie to me.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
A member of the Buffalo Sabres had told him directly that he had not asked for a trade to another team. Then Kelley discovered that the player had indeed asked to go elsewhere.
Kelley was incensed. To paraphrase Jim's argument, he said that people speaking for the public record could dodge a question, say no comment, hem and haw, etc. But, as he put it, "just don't lie to me."
No, that should be put another way. "JUST DON'T LIE TO ME!"
If you look at the rage issued by the nation's sports commentators in the past couple of days, you can see that they agree with Jim. Ryan Braun lied to them, lied to the fans, lied to everyone when it came to performance enhancing drugs. The fallout is one big mess. Braun accepted a suspension for the rest of the season, admitting he had taken PEDs in the Biogenesis probe.
You might remember how Braun had tested positive on a sample from the fall of 2011. An investigation showed that the specimen hadn't been handled in a completely proper way, and thus had to be thrown out. Braun then protested the entire episode, and continued to proclaim his innocence loudly to anyone who would listen.
And now this, complete with a statement with the comment, "I realize now I have made some mistakes."
There aren't many winners here. Many other major leaguers have commented that they are glad Braun was punished for his actions, so the MLB office gets credit for concluding this case relatively quickly.
On the other hand, Braun has a completely ruined reputation. He's done for the rest of this year, and when he gets back, his life on road trips is going to be, um, difficult. I'd say the good citizens of Milwaukee might not give him a warm welcome, but I remember San Francisco's fans not caring too much about Barry Bonds' situation as long as he was hitting home runs for the Giants.
The Brewers might be an even bigger loser. They picked Braun to be the face of the franchise in the form of a nine-figure contract, and Braun will get most of it in the years to come. The team had a choice of keeping either Braun or Prince Fielder, because they couldn't afford both. If they had to do over again, what would they do now?
If you think this case interesting, consider the angles of the Alex Rodriguez case. A-Rod already has admitted previous PED use, and reports have leaked out that the case against him is stronger than the one against Braun. Rodriguez's body has become more and more injury-prone in the past few years, and his huge contract mixed with a lack of production continues to be an anchor around the franchise. Are the Yankees quietly hoping that somehow A-Rod receives a lifetime ban from baseball? There's a history-making event that we didn't see coming a while ago.
Meanwhile, the pennant races go on, and several other players are at least possible targets of the Biogenesis probe. That could affect the pennant races in bizarre ways, such as having players who are appealing decisions take part in September and October games.
The other players would do well to remember the words of Jim Kelley. Just don't lie to me.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Tied up in cable
Here's something to do when lounging around in a hot summer day: Make up a list of your favorite utilities, in reverse order of how much you hate them. Electricity, heat, etc.
I'll wait.
Was the cable company at the top of the list? I thought so.
Customer service is the usual problem. If something goes wrong with the power, there's a good chance that you'll can call a phone number and have someone at least understand the situation. But traditionally, that's never true about your favorite cable television outlet.
Here's today's real-life example.
The New York Mets played the Pittsburgh Pirates today. The game was not on SportsNet New York, which is owned by Time Warner Cable. It was on WPIX in New York City, but out-of-town cable systems can pick up the broadcast and show it on another station. In this case, the game was on Channel 87, which is a local access channel that usually shows the ARTS network. This station broadcasts opera videos among other items; it is nothing if not restful.
Once David Wright replaced Maria Callas at 1 p.m., we were ready with baseball ... with one problem. The sound level of the broadcast was basically a whisper. Our television goes from 1 to 100 in sound, and 100 wasn't loud enough. Obviously, there was a problem with the feed into the cable system as all of the other channels were fine.
Experience teaches us much about dealing with a cable problem on a Sunday afternoon. The first issue will be talking to an actual person who knows what he or she is talking about. It's not exactly easy to find a number that doesn't have a recording in such circumstances. Lots of "call during business hours from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m)" or something.
But if you do get through, you can bet that he or she won't be able to solve the problem too easily. And that was the case today, and the person on the other end of the phone had us try some techniques with the converter that were doomed to failure.
Admittedly, it's fair to say the phones weren't ringing off the hook at the home office. I don't know what percentage of people can even get Channel 87, since a converter is needed. And, not many of those people are interested in seeking out a Mets' broadcast under most circumstances. Anyone eager to see the game probably gave up after thinking of picking up the phone and moved on to the two other games on the dial.
At our house, we turned up the volume - closed captioning wasn't even working - and did the best we could. At least there was a partial happy ending for the Mets' fan of the house, as the New York beat Pittsburgh.
In the meantime, the cable company dropped further down the national rankings for monopolies. You wouldn't think you could fall further than last.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
I'll wait.
Was the cable company at the top of the list? I thought so.
Customer service is the usual problem. If something goes wrong with the power, there's a good chance that you'll can call a phone number and have someone at least understand the situation. But traditionally, that's never true about your favorite cable television outlet.
Here's today's real-life example.
The New York Mets played the Pittsburgh Pirates today. The game was not on SportsNet New York, which is owned by Time Warner Cable. It was on WPIX in New York City, but out-of-town cable systems can pick up the broadcast and show it on another station. In this case, the game was on Channel 87, which is a local access channel that usually shows the ARTS network. This station broadcasts opera videos among other items; it is nothing if not restful.
Once David Wright replaced Maria Callas at 1 p.m., we were ready with baseball ... with one problem. The sound level of the broadcast was basically a whisper. Our television goes from 1 to 100 in sound, and 100 wasn't loud enough. Obviously, there was a problem with the feed into the cable system as all of the other channels were fine.
Experience teaches us much about dealing with a cable problem on a Sunday afternoon. The first issue will be talking to an actual person who knows what he or she is talking about. It's not exactly easy to find a number that doesn't have a recording in such circumstances. Lots of "call during business hours from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m)" or something.
But if you do get through, you can bet that he or she won't be able to solve the problem too easily. And that was the case today, and the person on the other end of the phone had us try some techniques with the converter that were doomed to failure.
Admittedly, it's fair to say the phones weren't ringing off the hook at the home office. I don't know what percentage of people can even get Channel 87, since a converter is needed. And, not many of those people are interested in seeking out a Mets' broadcast under most circumstances. Anyone eager to see the game probably gave up after thinking of picking up the phone and moved on to the two other games on the dial.
At our house, we turned up the volume - closed captioning wasn't even working - and did the best we could. At least there was a partial happy ending for the Mets' fan of the house, as the New York beat Pittsburgh.
In the meantime, the cable company dropped further down the national rankings for monopolies. You wouldn't think you could fall further than last.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)