Sports Illustrated dissing motorsports

[Chaparral66]

Here I go on my annual rant about Sports Illustrated and how is continues to ignore motorsports. SI carries monthly NASCAR coverage in their magazine, but it's almost like they have been dragged kicking and screaming into it. They used to be much better with motorsports when I suscribed to the magazine as a kid. Yes, after the season is over, they publish a special edition devoted to showing what happened during the course of the season, and the people who produce this work very hard on it. That's all well and good, thank you SI.

But my issue (pun intended) is with the weekly mag, and how such influential events like naming "Sportsman of The Year" continues to ignore the history being made in racing, especially this year.

I was all set to advocate for Jimmie Johnson being Sportsman of The Year, and if he won that would have been just. While I agree that Drew Brees helping the New Orleans Saints winning their first Super Bowl is the feel good story of the year, that championship was for the 2009 season (which makes the job for SI a bit more difficult), and it almost looks like the deck was stacked before the 2010 sports season really got started. You might think I'm nitpicking here, but it's something to think about. Jimmie Johnson is certainly deserving of it, and anyone or team that wins 5 titles in a row is worthy of such recognition. Johnson was worthy with 3 in a row, but with 5 consecultive titles, I'm not sure what else he has to do to merit consideration. The New England Patriots a dynasty? C'mon. Pats haven't even won 3 in a row, let alone 5. Which is not even a criticism, just pointing out a fact.

But after thinking about it, there were other historical things happening in motorsports this year besides Jimmie Johnson that one could make an arguement for 2010 being the year of racing. And most of it happened here in the US.

The other driver that merits consideration for SI's Sportsman of The Year is John Force of NHRA Funny Car. What Force did this year was nothing short of a miracle. Coming back from a catastrophic wreck and critical injuries that most thought would hamper functioning as a human being, let alone getting back to racing, looked tough enough. But come back he did, and while he gradually got more competitive, he also worked closely with Ford to significantly improve safety in drag racing cars. This year - at age 61, no less - Force fought an intense close battle to win back the Funny Car championship on the last day of racing. Jimmie Johnson's 5 Sprint Cups is a dynasty, but even he is not in Force's league with 15 titles. I consider John Force's return to glory, given the specific circumstances he was in when he won his 15th title, to be just as much a feel good story as Drew Brees. This is not to belittle what the Super Bowl triumph meant to not only first time winner but first time entrant the New Orleans Saints, or to the town of New Orleans; this was critical to the city of New Orleans feeling good about itself after such a tragedy as Katrina. But this award is still about the competitors, not the fans; and in that light, Brees comes up short to both Jimmie Johnson and John Force.

I'd hate to have to decide between Jimmie Johnson and John Force, that would be a tough call. But as I continued to think about it, and I realized there was one more person in racing worth considering (with all due respect to Sebastian Vettel, youngest F1 champion ever).

Chip Ganassi.

Not even Roger Penske has had the kind of year this Ganassi had in 2010. Think about this: Ganassi's teams won the Daytona 500 with Jamie McMurray, Indy 500 with Dario Franchitti, Brickyard 400 with Jamie McMurray, the Indy Car Championship with Dario Franchitti, and the Grand Am Championship with Scott Pruett and Memo Rojas, all in the same year. Absolutely unprecedented. No ower of multiple major sports organizations has ever had a year like this in the history of American sports, and likely not anywhere in the world either. This multi layered performance from a single owner is not likely to be repeated by anyone anytime soon. Managing just ONE team to perform at such a level is a huge undertaking; having all teams performing like that is other worldly. A true testement to one man's committment to excellence and the staff's dedication to the owner. With all due respect to Johnson and Force, it just might be Chip Ganassi who really should looked upon as Sportsman of The Year.

Not that Drew Brees was a bad choice for Sportsman of The Year, he wasn't. He deserved as much consideration as anyone. But in my view, Jimmie Johnson, John Force, and Chip Ganassi represented what competing is sports is all about. Sometimes finding the most deserving recipient means looking in in areas where X does not mark the spot.

[ICWS]

You have to ask yourself if Sports Illustrated considers auto racing to be an actual sport. As far as I know, a sport in SI's, ESPN's, and whoever else's eyes is something that requires remarkable skill and may cause physical exertion that most regular people would never come close to meeting in their own lives. That's why guys like Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, Tom Brady, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, etc. are always gonna be in contention for that award, whereas racers may only get as far as being in consideration/nominated and probably will never win the award unless they do something unheard of: like winning the Daytona 500, Indianapolis 500, Coca-Cola 600, Brickyard 400, 24 Hours of Le Mans, 12 Hours of Sebring, Long Beach Grand Pix, and the NASCAR Cup Series Championship all in the same year. Even then, I don't think that would be enough to win the Sportsman of the Year award over those other athletes, regardless of what they accomplished that year.

[Chaparral66]

You make some good points. The ironic thing is the qualifications you mention the other ball & stick athletes have, racers have as well. The other thing is that there is precedent for SI choosing a racer for Sportsman of The Year; last one I remember is Jackie Stewart - yes, THAT Jackie Stewart, of Formula 1, no less - way back in 1973, his last year driving when he retired as Champion, the only time SI has ever made a race driver Sportsman of The Year. Back then as I mentioned, SI was much more even handed about its coverage which included motorsports. Today, SI seems to follow what it thinks is the popular path. What gets me is that NASCAR has certainly surpassed leagues like the NHL in fan numbers, but hockey continues to get cover treatment much more than NASCAR. I remember SI giving cover treatment on the Daytona 500 as recently as 1996; since then, not much at all, and is one of the reasons I let my subscription lapse after some 20 years getting it, and replaced it with Autoweek and Racer.

[beachbum]

IMHO, SI just reflects the opinions of its readers. There are many who think that "sports" are mostly stick and ball sports and sports where the physical capabilities of the athlete are the primary measures of success. The fact that racers are athletes is lost on many people because of the focus on the machine and the technology of the machine.

There was a story some years ago that suggested that people followed sports they could relate to personally. Many kids play baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis, track and field, or even football. Even old geezers can play golf (badly in my case). While watching the professional sports, they can fantasize about being out there and participating. In effect, they are reliving their own youth.

They just can't relate to racing as a sport. Its expensive, most kids don't play with cars and motorcycles as they once did, and the focus is often on the machine. Cars have become necessary appliances and the teenage car culture has morphed into the teenage computer culture. Racing now is back to being a "thrill" sport "others" do to entertain and thrill the people watching. The average person just doesn't seem to relate to racing in the same way they relate to other traditional sports.

[nigelred5]

I haven't read more than an article or two of SI for probably 15 years or more. I generally have a choice between popular mechanics or SI (or every woman's magazine on the planet) at the Doc's office, I always read the PM. Even a weekly magazine is old news by the time it's printed.

[SoCalPVguy]

SPorts Illustrated is a sister publication to the ultra liberal left TIME magazine. I quit my SI subscription last year after 45 years due to the constant insertion of non sequiter leftist / anti conservative comments in so called sports articles.

You're not going to see much auto racing coverage in a liberal left publication. Auto racing by definition is a sport that leftists hate because: 1) Uses dirty polluting internal combustion engines,
2. Too noisy for the birds or whatever,
3) Its real competition not managed by a central government authority (whoops well maybe liberals like Nascar--NOT)
4. Its basically a 'capitalistic' sport
5. Race fans still like God, beer and the USA all of which liberals hate.

[Easy Drifter]

Motor racing is too complicated for most of the peahead stick and ball sports reporters.
With Baseball you have minor leauges leading to the majors.
NHL has Jr. hockey and minor league pro with some college.
NBA has College.
NFL or CFL has College.
Motor racing has all these different major leagues.
It is just too confusing for those stick and ball little brains. :D

[garyshell]

4. Its basically a 'capitalistic' sport

As if all the other sports are not???


5. Race fans still like God, beer and the USA all of which liberals hate.

Really? Who died and made you the official spokesman for what liberals like and don't like?

Take your politics somewhere where someone gives a rat's ass.

Gary

[booger]

"The only real sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing and auto racing. All the rest are merely games."

[Jag_Warrior]

"The only real sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing and auto racing. All the rest are merely games."

That was also the first quote that ran through my mind when I read this thread. Hemmingway was hardcore, wasn't he?

My "fandom" of stick & ball sports began to wain after I got out of college and stopped playing any sort of stick & ball sports. And except for the swimsuit issue, I don't guess I've even picked up a Sport Illustrated in 20+ years. Even in the dentist's office, I'm more likely to pick up a home decorating magazine than a Sports Illustrated.

[vintage]

SPorts Illustrated is a sister publication to the ultra liberal left TIME magazine. I quit my SI subscription last year after 45 years due to the constant insertion of non sequiter leftist / anti conservative comments in so called sports articles.

You're not going to see much auto racing coverage in a liberal left publication. Auto racing by definition is a sport that leftists hate because: 1) Uses dirty polluting internal combustion engines,
2. Too noisy for the birds or whatever,
3) Its real competition not managed by a central government authority (whoops well maybe liberals like Nascar--NOT)
4. Its basically a 'capitalistic' sport
5. Race fans still like God, beer and the USA all of which liberals hate.

Wow - don't get your I heart Sarah Palin boxers in a bunch!

[harvick#1]

auto racing is not a sport, its a way of life :s mokin:

stick and ball fans will never ever understand why. when I was at Road Atlanta, I was thinkin to myself, how can anyone not think this is the best thing in the world, the most friendliest atmosphere, within both teams and fans. yeah people tailgate at all sporting events, but there is no bigger tailgate than at racetracks, and they continue that all day, and whats even better is that you can basically walk up to any trailer and just start talking to the most random strangers and its all in a friendly mood unlike with other sports where everyone is kinda displaced with their own area not allowing anyone near outside of friends.

but remember, like ESPN, SI is extremely biased

any driver puts him/herself in harms way once they go into the race car. there are no timeouts, no halftimes, no real breaks for a driver. they have to be at 110% at all times or they will crash. not any other athlete except for cycling and a few others can say that

[harvick#1]

Even in the dentist's office, I'm more likely to pick up a home decorating magazine than a Sports Illustrated.

:eek:

only unless there is no Motortrend or something else :p :

[anthonyvop]

"The only real sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing and auto racing. All the rest are merely games."

I never did get the "mountain climbing" part. Isn't that more of a pastime?

[Jag_Warrior]

:eek:

only unless there is no Motortrend or something else :p :

Nah, no Motortrend or Road & Track there. Sadly, the options are pretty limited where I go to the dentist now. It's either a 4 year old copy of Business Week, a 2 year old copy of Time, a coloring book... Sports Illustrated or some sort of home decorating mag that the guy's wife gets.

My girl is on me to get with the "granite counter tops and stainless steel appliance" craze (not sure why... it's not like she's going to move in here anytime soon ;) ), plus real estate is my side business. So I enjoy reading about what people are doing with different architectural styles and features these days... especially lighting and home entertainment.

But yeah, I'd prefer an old copy of Motortrend or R&T over a new copy of most anything else... especially Sports Illustrated.

[Jag_Warrior]

I never did get the "mountain climbing" part. Isn't that more of a pastime?

I think what he was getting at was unless there's a distinct possibility that you could die, it's not a "real" sport. And most every year you hear about some dunder-head falling to his death or getting turned into a popsicle while climbing a snow covered mountain.

[SoCalPVguy]

Wow - don't get your I heart Sarah Palin boxers in a bunch!

OT: If "Only" Sarah Palin would bunch my boxers !!! xxxoooxxx

[ICWS]

The other reason I think auto racing struggles to get reporting coverage in media like Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and other channels is the lack of highlight-making: overtaking another car or executing a crucial pit stop doesn't seem as spectacular as hitting a 400-foot home run, throwing a 50-yard hail mary touchdown, scoring a goal via a bicycle kick, hitting a tennis ball through your legs with your back to the net, dunking a basketball over a 7-foot tall opponent, etc. It seems to me, the main highlights are crashes and if the drivers confront and fight each other like Cale Yarborough and Donnie Allison. Auto racing really is something that people with short-attention spans cannot understand and appreciate.

This may be mean and "politically-incorrect" for me to say, but another way a racer possibly could be considered Sportsman of the Year is if they overcame something like cancer, loss of a spouse/child, poverty, racial/gender issues, etc. and go on to win a championship and significant races within the same year.

[Lee Roy]

One thing that separates motor racing from other sports is that there is a technical aspect to auto racing (the car) that doesn't exist in other types of sports. I know that there is somewhat of a technical aspect to some sports such as bicycle racing, ski racing, and sledding, but the technical impact of the equipment on those sports pale in comparison to the impact of a race car.

Also, most of the stick and ball sports are open for anyone to try. Nearly everyone has the opportunity to try to participate in sports at the school level. For example, basketball and football were open to nearly all of us to attempt to compete in if we just showed up. All it took to compete was the physical ability. That's a little different than having to provide yourself with a several thousand dollar race car if you want to compete.

Just some thoughts.

[Chaparral66]

SoCal, I'm as liberal as anyone, and I've been watching racing since I was 4 years old. There a few other things about me that don't fit the type as well. That's the great thing about this sport, in all its various types, be it F1, NASCAR, rallying, V8 Supercars, etc. It unites like most other sports (with all respect to soccer) can only dream about.

beachbum, there's a lot of truth in what you said, like kids not playing with toy cars like they used to. That fun comes in video games; maybe that's where racing needs to concentrate some of its marketing efforts.

[NaBUru38]

The other reason I think auto racing struggles to get reporting coverage in media like Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and other channels is the lack of highlight-making: overtaking another car or executing a crucial pit stop doesn't seem as spectacular as [...]Auto racing really is something that people with short-attention spans cannot understand and appreciate.
Good point. We could blame cookie-cutters for that, where cars run side-by-side for hours. In paperclip ovals and road/temporary courses, doing a pass is much harder and therefore more highlightable.


Auto racing by definition is a sport that leftists hate
Curiously, Hugo Chávez has been banking Viso's and Maldonado's careers! :confused: My only answer to that is that Chávez' nationalism is stronger than his disgust for high-class sports like motorsport.

[ShiftingGears]

Take your politics somewhere where someone gives a rat's ass.

:up:

[anthonyvop]

I think what he was getting at was unless there's a distinct possibility that you could die, it's not a "real" sport. And most every year you hear about some dunder-head falling to his death or getting turned into a popsicle while climbing a snow covered mountain.

I understand and acknowledge the Danger involved in Mount climbing. Other pastimes have danger as well. I question it's inclusion because it lacks the other essential element of sport....Competition. In the other sports you compete against another competitor and a winner is declared. In Mountain Climbing you just reach the top then turn around and come back down.
Don't give me the old "Man against the elements" excuse. If that was true than everyone who has gone through a blizzard or a Hurricane is a sportsman.

[DBell]

S.I. is a dinosaur doomed to extinction. Last week I was at an orthodontist office waiting for my son and picked one up for first time in a long time. It seemed like a pamphlet compared to what it used to be. I looked at it for around a half a minute and then picked up something else. In the day of multi 24 hour sports channels on TV and the internet, Sports Illustrated doesn't have a chance. I've also noticed Road&Track is half the size it used to be. That probably can be said of all magazines.

[Chaparral66]

S.I. is a dinosaur doomed to extinction. Last week I was at an orthodontist office waiting for my son and picked one up for first time in a long time. It seemed like a pamphlet compared to what it used to be. I looked at it for around a half a minute and then picked up something else. In the day of multi 24 hour sports channels on TV and the internet, Sports Illustrated doesn't have a chance. I've also noticed Road&Track is half the size it used to be. That probably can be said of all magazines.

I've noticed that on their websites, magazines like SI have broader content than on the pages. The reason for that is pretty clear, more room to include a lot more content. I think we've seen the future of most publications, and that is iPad. Car and Driver, Road & Track, and Autoweek are already on it. And yet, as we go forward, we seem to move back a couple of steps; when I see someone reading on an iPad, I'm reminded of how Fred Flintstone looked when he was reading a stone tablet... :)

[Marbles]

"The only real sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing and auto racing. All the rest are merely games."

Or bozxing and motorsports.I got a lot of mileage out that line for years with my stick and ball friends but I could never find where that line could be directly attributed to Hemingway. Some maintain he never actually said it... but I could see him liking it anyways.

Stick and ball reporters are only drawn to write about motorsports when a women is concerned or when a tragedy occurs. They suddenly become experts on such matters.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am Ok with SI ignoring racing. Really...I am. Why? Simple, I am a fan of racing for sure, but I am also a big fan of most sports. Very few sports exist that I cannot sit down and watch and figure out what makes a great athlete in it great. We all grow up playing sports for the most part, and the love I had as a kid playing hockey or football hasn't left me. I enjoy a good hockey game live just about as much as I do the average NASCAR or IRL race.

Racing for me is not the same however as the others. It is special. It is its own entity...and I don't expect those people in SI to get it. They don't really get hockey so they hire a Canadian to come write all their hockey stuff for them. SI is just catering to its audience, and some of them may pay attention to NASCAR on occasion.....

All power to them. The fact they cant grasp the significance of what Jimmie, Force or any other driver has done is not their fault....it is just their ignorance. It isn't really intentional, they just don't get it. Some people don't. My wife doesn't.....makes it hard to watch 8 hours of racing some weekends!!!

[nigelred5]

Don't give me the old "Man against the elements" excuse. If that was true than everyone who has gone through a blizzard or a Hurricane is a sportsman.


Only if you stand bare a$$ on the beach wearing a pair of sunglasses and stare down a Cat 4 storm like a real man ;)

[Chaparral66]

Mark, I can relate to you very well on that; my family, after 45 years of observing me watch racing, still doesn't understand (with the notable exception of my cousin in L.A.) why I'm into it. And you're right, racing in cars is very unique and not everyone is going to understand the passion that drives (pun intended) it.

Having said that, there has to be some journalistic integrity somewhere. Of the things I loved about watching ABC's Wide World of Sports when I was a kid was that it exposed me to many different sports that I otherwise might not have seen. I still get a kick out of watching rodeo. SI is supposed to be a journal that has the same mission, but as you say, in the last 10-15 years, it has really pandered to its audience in an increasingly unapologetic way. They'd be better off calling themselves NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL Marketing than Sports Illustrated. I stopped my subscription because that's all they do for the most part, is pander to what they think their readers want to see, then give it to them ad nuaseum, without much regard to other segments of the audience.

[anthonyvop]

Only if you stand bare a$$ on the beach wearing a pair of sunglasses and stare down a Cat 4 storm like a real man ;)

Cat 4?

Cat 4's are for pussies.

I survived one of the only three Cat-5 storms that has been recorded to have hit the US.

Of course I ended up in my hall closet with a portable TV, my nintendo(Don't ask) and a bottle of Old Grand Dad as the SOB went down my street....at least it seemed like it.

[Will Rogers]

SPorts Illustrated is a sister publication to the ultra liberal left TIME magazine. I quit my SI subscription last year after 45 years due to the constant insertion of non sequiter leftist / anti conservative comments in so called sports articles.

You're not going to see much auto racing coverage in a liberal left publication. Auto racing by definition is a sport that leftists hate because: 1) Uses dirty polluting internal combustion engines,
2. Too noisy for the birds or whatever,
3) Its real competition not managed by a central government authority (whoops well maybe liberals like Nascar--NOT)
4. Its basically a 'capitalistic' sport
5. Race fans still like God, beer and the USA all of which liberals hate.


It never ceases to amaze me what people will say when they have no idea what they're talking about...

[vintage]

I stand corrected.

[Will Rogers]

Garyshell is correct, I did not make it clear that the majority of my post was a quote from a SoCalPVGuy post.

SoCal's claim of SI's "...constant insertion of non-sequitur leftist/anti-conservative comments in so-called sports articles" reminds me of an incident that happened at my local NPR affiliate a couple of years ago which illustrates a similar level of breathtaking cluelessness driven by a political agenda.

The NPR station announced on a Monday in early Oct they were going to do a series of profiles on the three candidate for Gov--a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat. They decided to sequence them alphabetically, with the Republican first, Ind. second, Dem third--one each day for three days. They then ran the profile of the GOP candidate, and as they described later, they got no complaints from listeners. The next day they again set up the profile with the info that they were doing one a day, had done the GOP candidate the day before, and here's the profile of the Ind. candidate. They got two complaint calls from people wondering why they were supporting the Ind candidate. The next day, same set up--"we did the GOP candidate on Monday, the Ind candidate yesterday, today the profile of the final candidate for Gov, the Democrat." They got over 200 calls and e-mails from angry conservative listeners wondering why they only profiled the Democratic candidate, it was obvious they were liberals/socialists/Marxists, why didn't they just admit they were anti-American?, etc.

"What a fool believes, no wise man can reason away."

[Tazio]

I'd like to add my two cents to this discussion. It's a given that SI is not a big promoter of any form of racing. Not only that It's journalism about Baseball, Basketball, and Football are so juvenile I can't even understand why anyone over the age of 14 would even subscribe to it unless they have some clever fantasy team promotions. The information on the internet is free and up to date.
Drew Brees got shafted in San Diego. I know because I live here. He was a complete quarterback when they acquired Philip Rivers. The only down side to Brees is that he is not as tall as the NFL prototype. Then he had a shoulder injury in a meaningless game that required minor surgery. AJ smith decided right then that he had to go. I remember watching a Padre game and Brees came into the commentators booth after he had been released or traded I really don't remember if we got anything for him. But he came in and did a little interview. He said he wanted to thank his fans and went out of his way to say his shoulder was fine. The announcers glad-handed him and said they thought he would do just fine in the future. What he accomplished in New Orleans was nothing short of a miracle, having said that you have to realize the absurdity of trying to compare sports of completely different disciplines, you shouldn't. It has absolutely no basis in reason.
I remember when JV won the F1 crown. It happened to be the same year that Larry Walker won the NL MVP and I think he came reasonably close to the Triple Crown. No Canadian had ever come remotely close to getting this kind of an accomplishment except Ferguson Jenkens and he was a pitcher at a time in Baseball that featured about 5 guys in the same league that were better. JV won the Canadian Sportsman of the year award by a landslide. I scratched my head a little but realized that Canada at that time really only had fans in the cities where they had teams and Walker played for Colorado. Two Canadians that accomplished greatness that year Walker's was unprecedented. You have these awards and they have to give them to someone but there is no way to make it objective if you’re only handing out one award and painting with a broad brush.
Let it go. It is not a comparison at all

[Tazio]

I never did get the "mountain climbing" part. Isn't that more of a pastime?Hemmingway was the most egotistical over-rated American that ever lived. It is no wonder he blew himself away, as did one of his daughters. He was friends with Bogart who introduced himself to John Steinbeck by saying I'm glad to meet you my friend Ernie says he is a better author than you. Bull****! The only American author that was better than Steinbeck was Nathanial Hawthorne, Steinbeck and then Poe. He is not a good reference when defining sport because he had absolutely no clue of what fair play meant. He slides in somewhere after Twain.
.

[Will Rogers]

I have no special insight into how SI views racing overall, but as a longtime subscriber and as someone who has bought advertising in SI for my company, I do know a bit about how they do business. They produce a few different versions of SI which periodically have extra content about different spots--motor racing being one, golf another--I don't have the complete list. When you subscribe to SI, they ask you about your favorite sports and if your answer(s) are any of the ones for which they produce special content, then you get those editions. It is sad but a fact of US media life that there are more fans of NASCAR than there are for open-wheel series or sports cars, so the extra motor racing content that SI produces focuses most heavily on NASCAR--which is also true of ESPN, the Sporting News, Forbes, WSJ, USA Today, and everyone's local newspaper and local TV stations.

There's a scene in "An American President" where a character who is a conservative senator says "For all our complaining about liberal media bias, publishers and station owners care about circulation and ratings." Like every other media company, SI covers those sports, and does so in a manner, that they think their audience likes and will pay for. They do extensive research and surveys to make sure they're accurately taking the pulse of their current and potential audience, and while they may have an editorial point of view about sports, trust me it doesn't begin to extend to any criticism of capitalism, God, or beer. Anyone who's read more than the mailing label of an SI in the past 10 years knows how much they love the sports we all love, how much they celebrate the great American values and traditions of hard work, persistence, little heros taking on long odds, family, teamwork, etc. A recent issue had a heartwarming story about a family led by a man who'd played college football and now was a lobbyist and advisor to former Alaska senator Ted Stevens--he was killed in the same plane crash that claimed Stevens. The story celebrated how the family pulled together after the death of the father, focusing mostly on the oldest son who plays on the offensive line for Stanford. It's just one of the human interest stories linked to sports that they frequently publish, showing their complete support for what makes America great--which, thankfully, doesn't extent to writing a numbered list stupid things that don't begin to be true.

[anthonyvop]

Hemmingway was the most egotistical over-rated American that ever lived. It is no wonder he blew himself away, as did one of his daughters. He was friends with Bogart who introduced himself to John Steinbeck by saying I'm glad to meet you my friend Ernie says he is a better author than you. Bull****! The only American author that was better than Steinbeck was Nathanial Hawthorne, Steinbeck and then Poe. He is not a good reference when defining sport because he had absolutely no clue of what fair play meant. He slides in somewhere after Twain.
.

Your disdain for Hemingway not withstanding the discussion was about the quote not the man.

BTW Steinbeck was a hack who was the Michael Moore of his time. I can list dozens who were and are better than he was.

My favs are Poe, Tennessee Williams, Faulkner and Zane Grey.

[Jag_Warrior]

I have no special insight into how SI views racing overall, but as a longtime subscriber and as someone who has bought advertising in SI for my company, I do know a bit about how they do business. They produce a few different versions of SI which periodically have extra content about different spots--motor racing being one, golf another--I don't have the complete list. When you subscribe to SI, they ask you about your favorite sports and if your answer(s) are any of the ones for which they produce special content, then you get those editions. It is sad but a fact of US media life that there are more fans of NASCAR than there are for open-wheel series or sports cars, so the extra motor racing content that SI produces focuses most heavily on NASCAR--which is also true of ESPN, the Sporting News, Forbes, WSJ, USA Today, and everyone's local newspaper and local TV stations.

There's a scene in "An American President" where a character who is a conservative senator says "For all our complaining about liberal media bias, publishers and station owners care about circulation and ratings." Like every other media company, SI covers those sports, and does so in a manner, that they think their audience likes and will pay for. They do extensive research and surveys to make sure they're accurately taking the pulse of their current and potential audience, and while they may have an editorial point of view about sports, trust me it doesn't begin to extend to any criticism of capitalism, God, or beer. Anyone who's read more than the mailing label of an SI in the past 10 years knows how much they love the sports we all love, how much they celebrate the great American values and traditions of hard work, persistence, little heros taking on long odds, family, teamwork, etc. A recent issue had a heartwarming story about a family led by a man who'd played college football and now was a lobbyist and advisor to former Alaska senator Ted Stevens--he was killed in the same plane crash that claimed Stevens. The story celebrated how the family pulled together after the death of the father, focusing mostly on the oldest son who plays on the offensive line for Stanford. It's just one of the human interest stories linked to sports that they frequently publish, showing their complete support for what makes America great--which, thankfully, doesn't extent to writing a numbered list stupid things that don't begin to be true.

You haven't posted very much in your nearly five years here. But I have to say, when you post, you do make it count. :up:

[Tazio]

Your disdain for Hemingway not withstanding the discussion was about the quote not the man.

BTW Steinbeck was a hack who was the Michael Moore of his time. I can list dozens who were and are better than he was.

My favs are Poe, Tennessee Williams, Faulkner and Zane Grey.

Have you ever read "Of Mice and Men"? "East of Eden" "The Grapes of Wrath"
"The Pearl" "Cannery Row"? Nobody captured the tragedy of the human experience like Steinbeck.
A hack, please explain.
Poe was a genius. He was an under rated poet but the content of his stories didn’t carry a message. He never wrote a single story that had a moral. I have read four or five biographies of Eddie Poe. The biggest detriment to him ever writing a real Novel was that he had to make money as a magazine editor and it cut into his time severely. The creation of the Detective story is probably his greatest achievement. The body of his poetic work was sabotaged by himself by writing worthless poems about women whose money he wanted. He may have been the most talented American that ever lived. While at West Point He did a Running Broad Jump of 20 ft considered a record at the time. Hawthorne was the master of allegory. Rappacinni's Daughter, Young Goodman Brown, The Ambiguous Guest, The Birthmark, The Haunted Mind, The Hollow of the Three Hills
had everything Poe's Stories had and more. The Scarlett Letter is a brilliant study in human character bravery and guilt.
I do love Falkner. In fact He took Hemingway’s "To Have and have Not" and wrote one of the Best Screen Plays ever. There are many significant American Men of Letters I say to each his own.
Kurt Vonnegut and James Irving Did great things as well IMO
.

[garyshell]

Did I mistakenly click on a lnk to Oprah's book club or something. Just kidding folks, I have actually enjoyed this bit of literary repast.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

Have you ever read "Of Mice and Men"? "East of Eden" "The Grapes of Wrath"
"The Pearl" "Cannery Row"? Nobody captured the tragedy of the human experience like Steinbeck.
A hack, please explain.

Here is the plot of every Steinbck story:
Poor people good! Rich people bad! We get it. Salt of the earth, simple lives, oppressed working man.....blah, blah blah.
One or twice is fine but every single time? Like I said....he was the Michael Moore of his time.


Poe was a genius. He was an under rated poet but the content of his stories didn’t carry a message. He never wrote a single story that had a moral.

So? Does a story need to have a moral to be good?


I do love Falkner. In fact He took Hemingway’s "To Have and have Not" and wrote one of the Best Screen Plays ever.

Faulkner was great but what he did to Hemingway's greatest novel was criminal. If it wasn't for the title you would have been hard pressed to recognize it.

[downtowndeco]

Charles Bukowski could kick all of their asses falling down drunk with one hand tied behind his back. At least he thought he could. : )

[Tazio]

Here is the plot of every Steinbck story:
Poor people good! Rich people bad! We get it. Salt of the earth, simple lives, oppressed working man.....blah, blah blah..
Then you didn't read Of Mice and Men. It's about a clever man that had to take the life of a simple man that left to his own devices would have lived a life so horrible
that his best friend put him to death like an old hunting dog.
You also did not read East of Eden as the protagonists are rich.
..

One or twice is fine but every single time? Like I said....he was the Michael Moore of his time...In the early 1960's they did not give out Nobel Peace prizes in Literature to "hacks". Why are you politicizing this? It’s like saying: "The DaVinci Code" isn't factual. Of course it's not its fiction.






So? Does a story need to have a moral to be good?
Now where and when did I say that it did? Poe had a hard time dealing with the idea that Europeans were getting $500.00 for very mediocre poetry and he got $5.00 for "The Cask of Amontillado" and "The Pit and The Pendulum". Plus he got on the bad side of the Knickerbockers Club, and was alienated in New York to a degree. What I said about Poe's style is true. It was still brilliant. He was exceptional at the frozen moment. "The Tell-tale Heart" is a great example of that. The appreciation of art is subjective. My opinion is no more valid than yours. If you think Hemmingway was a greater writer than Steinbeck you would not be alone in believing so.






Faulkner was great but what he did to Hemingway's greatest novel was criminal. If it wasn't for the title you would have been hard pressed to recognize it.It is called Hollywood. I don't know of any adaptation that is true to the story line of a Novel, short stories I have. Novels can't be handled in a few hours. To have and Have not is the greatest movie that gets the least recognition, largely due to the vision of Falkner Not the title. You and I can disagree there. I have the utmost respect for Hemingway the Author.
As a man it does not surprise me that you would identify with an arrogant S.O.B.