Category Archives: sportswriting

Then and now

What are the chances, when Notre Dame and Army renew their long-standing college football quarrel in New York City this coming Fall, that some sports journalist—steeped in history of the sport and of the profession—begins his or her game recap with some twist on “Outlined against a blue-gray October sky….”?

That’s how Grantland Rice commenced his report from the Polo Grounds a hundred years ago, a lede that has been called the most memorable in sportswriting history.

Of course, everything has changed since then—the evolution of sports coverage, mostly away from the “Gee-Whiz” tenor of Rice’s time; the rules and strategies and downright danger of football. This time, the two old rivals will meet at Yankee Stadium, long since Army (6-6 last season) has been a football power. In 1924, Army had lost only twice the previous two seasons and Notre Dame was on its way to a perfect 10-0 record.

They essentially were the two “national” college teams at the time, as Indiana University professor Murray Sperber documented in “Shake Down the Thunder,” his 2002 book that traces the history of Notre Dame football. Furthermore, as Allen Barra wrote in a 1999 New York Times recollection of that ballyhooed match, the 1920s “were the golden age of myth-making sports journalism.” And Grantland Rice was “king of the Gee-Whizzers,” the new breed of sportswriter that trafficked in “the most florid and exciting prose.” (And seen as opposing a more circumspect “Aw Nuts” school of scribes.)

Anyway, the story is that a Notre Dame press assistant happened to liken the 1924 Notre Dame backfield to a recent film, “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” and Rice ran with that ball:

Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore they are known as Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death. These are only aliases. Their real names are Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley and Layden. They formed the crest of the South Bend cyclone before which another fighting Army football team was swept over the precipice at the Polo Grounds yesterday afternoon as 55,000 spectators peered down on the bewildering panorama spread on the green plain below.

Rice rhapsodized (and maybe embellished) Notre Dame’s dominance—the final score, after all, was a thoroughly competitive 13-7—“through the driving power of one of the greatest backfields that ever churned up the turf of any gridiron in any football age.” Those Notre Dame backs “seemed to carry the mixed blood of the tiger and the antelope,” and when Layden scored the first Notre Dame touchdown, Rice described the 10-yard run “as if he had just been fired from the black mouth of a howitzer.”

Another factor at work that day was what Sperber cited as Notre Dame coach Knute Rockne’s media savvy, an understanding that playing in New York City—which had 11 daily newspapers at the time—was a marketing gold mine (and birthed the school’s so-called Subway Alumni). And Rice, columnist for the New York Herald Tribune whose work was syndicated widely, was “by far the most famous sportswriter of his era,” according to “King Football,” the 2004 book by Oregon State University liberal arts professor Michael Oriard—a former player, by the way, for both Notre Dame and the Kansas City Chiefs.

Rice’s Four Horsemen narrative, for all its poetic use of imagery and spectacle, left wide gaps of information that would not meet current editing standards. He did not use first names of players. He did not provide cumulative statistics such as team or individual yardage gained. His report was vague about when the scoring transpired. There is not a single quote in the piece, from coach or player or official.

That was the fashion then. Just as the exploits of the Horsemen—fullback Jim Crowley, halfbacks Elmer Layden and Don Miller and quarterback Harry Stuhldreher—were decidedly feeble compared to numbers common in today’s wide-open offenses. Stuhldreher threw only 33 passes all season (completing 25), hardly in the same ballpark as 2023 Notre Dame quarterback Sam Hartman’s average of 25 passes and 16 completions per game. Miller was Notre Dame’s leading rusher during the 1924 season with 763 yards, followed by Crowley’s 739, according to Sports-Reference.com. (There are no game statistics available for the Blue-Gray October Sky game.)

Still, as Barra wrote, the rise of college football in the 1920s, to a status in the American sports pantheon just behind Major League Baseball, “coincided with the rise of the sports pages” and “combined to make each other. And both helped to create Grantland Rice.” Even now, that first paragraph in Rice’s Oct. 18, 1924 Herald Tribune tale of the Four Horsemen riding to victory against Army endures in anthologies of sportswriting.

It could be argued that the opening lines are as memorable in the sports journalism universe as some of the great ledes in literature: “Call me Ishmael.” “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” “It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen.”

Or this one, from Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five,” which, come to think of it, recalls a certain extravagance in Rice’s account: “All this happened, more or less.”

This business will self-destruct in…..

So the suicide watch for newspapers goes on. The New York Times is shutting down its sports section and the Los Angeles Times essentially is doing the same, transitioning away from game stories and team beat coverage to a so-called “magazine” format.

It’s just sports, yes. But as Mark McDonald, one of the countless accomplished ink-stained wretches I have known during a half-century of sportswriting, asked in a Facebook post, “How can you credibly call yourself a first-rate newspaper if you have no Sports section, no baseball standings, no NFL schedule, no Final Four bracket?”

So it’s only sports, and many a condescending newsside reporter has dismissed those of us on the fun-and-games beat as futzing around in the “toy department.” But, to paraphrase the French-born American historian Jacques Barzun, who in the 1950s specifically cited baseball, “whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn” its sports. Because everything in our culture is there in the sports pages: Fair play, competitiveness, illegal drugs, big business, gender equity, race, obsessive attention to celebrity, entertainment, escape.

Yet somehow the New York Times, though sticking with its famous “All The News That’s Fit to Print” slogan, won’t include a sports section anymore, off-loading sports coverage to The Athletic website it purchased last year. George Vecsey, among the most eloquent in a long line of former Times columnists, wrote on his website that the paper’s readers “feel there is a hole in their lives.”

Former sports columnist Mark Whicker, in a post on The Morning After, noted that “once those connections [to the sports section] are severed, fans just walk away. They don’t tell newspapers they are leaving. They’re just gone.

“It’s just another chapter,” he wrote, “in the way newspapers have innovated their way into obsolescence and irrelevance.”

This is a program that was already in progress, of course. Between 2019 and mid-2022, an average of two U.S. newspapers disappeared every week, and a Northwestern University study has estimated that, over the next two years, a third of the nation’s papers will cease to exist.

At Long Island’s Newsday, where I enjoyed full-time employment as a sports reporter for 44 years and continue to do some freelance work, circulation has plummeted from around 600,000 at the start of the century to roughly 97,000 now. Newsday still prints a sports section, but it no longer staffs the Olympics, World Cup soccer, major golf tournaments, Wimbledon tennis, college bowl games or far-flung NCAA basketball tournament games.

The drastic loss of advertising in the digital age has hollowed out budgets that used to support reporters’ travel to teams’ away games. And impossibly early deadlines—so many papers have dispensed with their own printing presses and outsourced that job—leave the likes of Newsday always a full day behind  with final scores and other sports-related information. Radio, television and on-line bulletins—if not nearly as in-depth, analytical or evocative as on-site print reporting has been—is immediate.

And the less a sports staff gives readers, the fewer readers they have.

As a business decision, Tom Jones of the media research organization Poynter reminded that the Times is a union shop and The Athletic is not; so, while the 40 or so members of the Times sports staff reportedly are to be moved to other departments, the shuttering of sports could be a workaround: No need to fire anybody in anticipation that some will leave voluntarily.

Which sounds like another nail in the newspaper coffin. “Media news,” Bruce Arthur wrote in the Toronto Star, “has long been like climate-change news in that there is a lot of it, but very little that doesn’t feel like the first or second reel of a disaster movie.”

From here, it just feels like there won’t be any more sportswriting heroes—from such celebrated names as Frank Deford or Dan Jenkins, Roy Blount Jr. or Robert Lipsyte, Dave Anderson or Roger Angell, to the parade of committed, talented colleagues and fellow travelers who inspired and challenged me.

As Deford put it in his 2012 memoir, “Over Time,” in 50 years “no one will appreciate what sportswriting was really like at its apogee. I fear all you’d know would be blogs and/or statistics—the pole dancing of sports journalism.”

Sure, there’ll be ESPN. But that doesn’t give you elaborate storytelling, the kind of crafted writing that makes you feel you were at the game and had insight into the participants. As Deford wrote, with ESPN “there’s no poetry in its soul.”

I wish I were as optimistic as Dave Kindred, another giant in the business, who responded to the Times news with: “We shall Quixote on, always have, putting words in print, wherever we can, however we can, from cave walls to Substack to whatever’s next.”

Cave walls. There’s an image of how modern newspaper executives think of sports reporting.

TV: Reality?

It’s true. Those of us in print journalism have been known to compare ourselves to our colleagues on the television side with the disdainful question, “Brains or a blow dryer?” The snide generalization was based on a sense that, while our witness-to-history preparations consisted of note-taking and research, theirs appeared to be mostly primping before the cameras rolled.

It was not universally fair, of course, and was at least partially rooted in a jealousy of TV’s widely accepted rank of superiority in the information food chain. Things take on an importance when they’re on TV. Celebrity and newsworthiness are conferred by TV. If a tree fell in the forest but it wasn’t on TV….

Now consider the current situation, that TV is a primary reason big-time sports are so intent on returning amid the raging pandemic. TV is what nourishes and sustains spectator sports.

The idea of carrying on with the world of Fun & Games when it is unsafe to allow fans in ballparks doesn’t make any sense—except that the NFL, NBA and NHL will survive despite empty seats as long as they can provide TV programming to fulfill (partially, anyway) television deals contracted to pay them $10 billion, $2.66 billion and $200 million, respectively, per season.

The same colleges that are hesitant to welcome students back to their classrooms meanwhile want football players on campus. Because, as USA Today reported, there is “at least $4.1 billion” in TV money at stake for the five major conferences to provide gridiron programming.

But here’s the thing: Sports on TV without live witnesses will just be a series of studio shows. Quarantining viewers will get what the camera sees and nothing more. Even the TV commentators, those folks with the enviably nice hair, regularly will not be on site to add context and flavor. (Newsday’s Neil Best detailed how the Yankees and Mets telecasters, for instance, will call their teams’ road games from their home press boxes in New York. While watching TV monitors.)

Worse, social distancing has forced teams to conjure thoroughly understandable guidelines that will prevent my print compatriots—the ink-stained wretches accustomed to ferreting out nuggets of information with original and independent reporting—from their typical canvassing of various participants and decision-makers associated with the games.

All will be restricted to press boxes and, often, to viewing games on TV monitors. Interviewing will be limited to Zoom sessions, with the teams—not the reporters—picking who will be interviewed. (In the case of the U.S. Open tennis championships, scheduled to begin in late August, a “no media on site” directive will reduce reporters to watching the tube and Zoom.)

Old friend Pat Borzi, writing for MinnPost, last week quoted editors and writers in the Twin Cities acknowledging their discomfort with traveling to road games. Especially since reporters will not have access to lockerrooms and clubhouses, they essentially will be working remotely. (Ask your favorite student how well that works.)

“Expect a sameness across all platforms—print, digital and TV,” Borzi wrote, and he quoted St. Paul Pioneer Press sports editor Tad Reeve: “People who are really into reading sports are going to notice really quickly, ‘Hey, I’ve already read this, I read this over at the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune or somewhere.’ [That’s] the problem with the coverage right now. Because we all get the exact same access at the same time and it’s all shared information, these stories are all going to read like all the other stories.”

In a previous century, when I was the New York Giants beat writer for Newsday, I one Monday bumped into a neighbor who was aware of my occupation.

“That was some Giants game against the Cowboys yesterday,” he said.

“It was,” I agreed. “And, boy was it a hot day in Dallas.”

He was startled.

“You went to the game?”

It was not worth attempting to explain that the quotes in my game story were the result of a face-to-face, question-and-answer, gumshoe situation. It was instead a reminder that you cannot give the world a journalism lesson. To most folks: The game was available on TV in your den; isn’t that how everyone follows it?

See, the fun part of being a sportswriter isn’t the spectating. It’s the off-the-field banter, the interrogation, the revelatory answers. Learning stuff you hadn’t known and passing it on to readers. Otherwise, a game-day reporter is like one of those cardboard cutouts that teams want to employ to occupy the stadium seats this fall. Just another pretty face.

It’s probably not relevant to this discussion that my wife has purchased for me a bottle of “News Anchor Hair Wash. (For news anchor thick hair.)” I don’t use a blow dryer.

 

Wink. And a nod to sport’s appeal

There was a parade through downtown Wink, Tex. A marching band with horns, drums, glockenspiel. Baton twirlers. Cheerleaders. Spectators lining the street in that tiny West Texas oil patch. A big deal. Certainly impressive to a 6-year-old, though my older sister couldn’t abide one more example of the constant fuss over the local high school football team.

In fact, I don’t recall any member of my family having an interest in sports. But the communal hullabaloo over the local lads in that little town, way back then, subliminally recruited me to be a member of the fun-and-games tribe.

It might have been later that day, or the next week, that I sat in the stands and watched a player for the Wink Wildcats—outfitted in orange, head-to-toe—sprint 80 yards for a touchdown on the first play from scrimmage. Woo hoo.

To a first-grader, those players—barely old enough to shave and still too young to vote or shape the world—were herculean. They were Wink’s guardians against the foreign invaders from far-off McCamey and Iraan and Marfa—dusty Texas settlements exactly like Wink but somehow perceived as home to “others.” The Wildcats’ weaving, breathtaking journeys across the gridiron—leaving opponents grasping at air—were heroic.

A year later, my family moved to California. Wink no longer was “us.” But the spectacle and the immutable drama of football, and sports in general, followed me to five more states, through high school, college and a half-century as a journalist. Whether spectating from the bleachers, hanging onto radio play-by-play calls, pouring over newspaper accounts, I was hooked on the grand theater of sports.

I suppose it figures that I took up sportswriting. It was a career choice something like that of a fellow I interviewed at a New York racetrack years ago. Known to almost everyone around the backstretches of the nation as Hee-Haw, he said he had gotten his first taste of betting on thoroughbreds when he was 12 and subsequently took any job he could find—buyer and seller of horses, jockey agent, errand boy for a Triple Crown trainer—simply to stay close to those betting windows.

He followed his passion. Isn’t that the advice we all hear from graduation-day speakers? My vocation of chronicling sports hardly was as financially risky as Hee-Haw’s gambling zeal, and meanwhile I long ago ceased to see jocks as heroes. They are not defending a community’s way or life, or representing some higher moral ground. No connection exists between athletic greatness and personal goodness. It’s safe to say that I soon turned to writers and reporters for my role models.

But athletes do have the entertainer’s stage, upon which they absolutely demonstrate skills to be applauded in their context. It turns out, too, that my fascination with the sports domain came to include how it mirrors everything in the Real World: Splendid accomplishments, disappointing failures, cultural differences, big business, glorification of celebrity, and ugly incidents of cheating and racism and sexism.

I’m still drawn to it. A few days ago, I dropped by the field in my Babylon, N.Y., village to catch the second half of the high school game. Babylon’s school colors, like Wink’s, are orange and black. Babylon, like Wink, has a big cat mascot—Panther as opposed to Wildcat.

As I settled into the stands, a Babylon player took the kickoff 80 yards for a touchdown. And the band played on. Woo hoo.

R.I.P. Frank Deford

I crossed paths with Frank Deford only twice, and chatted briefly with him on just one occasion. So I certainly can’t add to the countless personal appreciations of that sportswriting giant, who died last week at 78. Besides, I am not equipped to sum up Deford as artfully as Deford could get to the essence of his subjects—sometimes in one brilliant sentence.

For a 1979 Sports Illustrated profile of Earl Weaver, for instance, Deford began several paragraphs about the feisty Hall of Fame manager, who was ejected by umpires more than 90 times in his career and was widely known for an almost casual profanity, this way:

“Earl says a dirty word.”

As part of his coverage of the 1988 Olympic equestrian event and its “patronizing upper-crust participants,” Deford made a passing reference to famously snippy British rider Mark Phillips, then married to Princess Anne, by slyly noting that “a number of the horses’ asses are not attached to the horses.”

Deford’s writing was conversational yet literate, a model for anyone who aspires to traffic in the English language. It was full of appreciation for its leading characters, while devoid of the gee-whiz gushing that is so common in sports coverage. And so vivid. He once described Olympic marathon champion Frank Shorter and Shorter’s fellow distance runners, at a time when running was just becoming fashionable, as “lean leggy people in a pudgy world of wheels.”

To read his stylish, perceptive prose was to wonder—just as so many sports fans puzzle over some jock’s spectacular play—“How does he do that?”

Don’t ask me. I have spent a half-century as a sportswriter and now teach a college sportswriting course, and the best I can do is cite what a comedian once told aspiring students about her profession: “I can’t teach you to be a good comic. All I can do is introduce you to good comedy.”

So I acquaint the class with really good sportswriting. John Updike’s 1960 New Yorker piece on Ted Williams’ final big-league game. Roy Blount Jr.’s 1984 Sports Illustrated consideration of whether Yankee catcher Yogi Berra could be considered a true yogi (“He loves to sit around reflecting in his undershorts”). Roger Angell’s New Yorker articles on baseball. Kenny Moore’s personal account of the 1972 Olympic marathon for Sports Illustrated.

Anything by Frank Deford.

And still there is the mystery of just how those eminent wordsmiths do that? My best student last semester, in his final class essay, raised the frustration that “we have read wonderful pieces but didn’t really explain how they did what they did. How do you tell a story with a lot of color and detail? How do you write casually? How do you develop your voice?”

Not surprisingly, plenty of admirers had asked Deford, “How do you write?” And his response, recalled in his 2012 memoir Over Time, was, “You mean like: In the morning after breakfast, in my office, on a computer? That’s how I write…” His take was that writing “is such a personal endeavor, people are curious as to exactly how you go about it,” yet guessed that captains of industry aren’t asked what they do in their offices, how they talk on the phone and so on.

Back to the comedian’s system, then: If you want to write sports (or anything, really), the first thing to do is read the best. Read Deford. His work embodied journalism’s ideals, that thorough reporting enhances the quality of writing (his magnificent storytelling always was deeply researched); and that interviewing skills are a key tool in gathering facts. He said he considered the interviewing process akin to flirting, since the purpose is to learn another’s interests, aspirations and grievances.

Then, armed with great detail, he could spin transfixing tales. A treatise on roller derby, an examination of what made cantankerous basketball coach Bobby Knight tick, a study of the Soap Box Derby. Whatever.

He once said that “when people hear you’re a sportswriter, they assume you’re more interested in the first half of that word than the second.” It was obvious that he involved himself in the intricate plumbing of that second half of the word. He often quoted his first Sports Illustrated editor, Andre Laguerre, advising him, “Frankie, it doesn’t matter what you write about. All that matters is how well you write.”

So, even though Deford spent an entire career nettling the American soccer community—he once insisted that the initials U.S.A. stood for “Uninterested in Soccer A-tall”—it didn’t stop him from assigning himself to travel to Cameroon to produce an empathetic account of that nation’s 1990 World Cup quarterfinal showdown with soccer’s Mother Country, England.

Deford found a local bar to witness the Cameroon citizens’ emotional investment in television coverage of the game that was being played in Naples, Italy. When Cameroon, an eventual 3-2 loser, scored the opening goal, “a short, fat lady next to me grabbed me and starting dancing with me,” he wrote in Over Time, “and if only you could’ve seen the unbounded joy on her face. The photographer who was with me took a picture of that moment, and it’s the only sports photograph I keep in my office. It tells you better than anything else about the joy of sports—and the power, too, I suppose.”

In fact, it felt as if Deford’s mastery of his craft best told the joy and power of sports. With the news of his death, I might have said a dirty word.