Monthly Archives: April 2013

Faldo, Chamblee calling on Woods to DQ himself

Posted on by

Nick Faldo and Brandel Chamblee have the same advice to Tiger Woods: DQ yourself.

On the Golf Channel, Faldo said: “This is dreadful..The greatest part of our game is the rules are black and white….Tiger should stongly consider disqualifying himself”

Chamblee said: “He knows he is  in violation of the rule. He knows it is the right thing to do. He hasn’t done it yet. That’s sad.”

Chamblee added, “He gained an advantage by breaking the rule.”

If Woods does play, it will be interesting to see if Faldo is as vocal about his views on CBS today?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in CBS

History of Masters TV: Remember Vin Scully on 18? Brent Musburger, Dick Enberg working Butler cabin?

Posted on by

Classic Sports TV and Media did a terrific post chronicling the history of the Masters on TV.

There was plenty of good stuff in there that I didn’t know or forgot about it. For instance:

Vin Scully manned the 18th tower from 1975-82. Pat Summerall didn’t take over until 1983.

Brent Musburger and Dick Enberg each served as hosts in the Butler Cabin.

In 2003, the telecast went without sponsors in the wake of the Martha Burk furor over the no women membership. I definitely remember that one.

Frank Gifford actually worked the Masters while he was at CBS in the late 60s.

When was Gary McCord’s last Masters on the CBS telecast? The answer: 1994, when he made his infamous “bikini-wax” remark about Augusta National’s green.

Chris Schenkel and Bud Palmer called the first Masters for CBS in 1956.

That first televised tournament had 2.5 hours of coverage. This year, they will be 18 hours. As I have written often this week, that’s not enough.

 

 

 

Mixed reviews for 42: ‘Ground-rule double’; director could have done more

Posted on by

The new movie on Jackie Robinson, 42, opens in theaters today. I was interested in what the critics had to say. While some critics raved, the general consensus seems to be that director Brian Helgeland could have done more with the story.

A.O. Scott in the New York Times appeared to be underwhelmed:

But while “42,” Brian Helgeland’s new film about Robinson, gestures toward the complicated and painful history in which its subject was embroiled, it belongs, like most sports biopics, in the first category. It is blunt, simple and sentimental, using time-tested methods to teach a clear and rousing lesson.

In other hands — Spike Lee’s, let’s say, or even Clint Eastwood’s — “42” might have taken a tougher, more contentious look at the breaking of Major League Baseball’s color barrier. But Mr. Helgeland, whose previous directing credits include “Payback” and “A Knight’s Tale” (and who wrote “Blood Work” and “Mystic River,” speaking of Clint Eastwood), has honorably sacrificed the chance to make a great movie in the interest of making one that is accessible and inspiring.

High praise from Ann Hornaday in the Washington Post:

Anchored by a solemn, quietly compelling lead performance from Howard University graduate Chadwick Boseman, “42” possesses the solid bones, honeyed light and transporting moral uplift that define an instant classic. With luck, audiences will treat it as such, and flock to it in numbers that encourage Hollywood to keep making ’em like this.

 

Good, not great, is the assessment from Richard Roeper at RogerEbert.com:

(This) is more a ground-rule double than a grand slam.

As written and directed by Brian Helgeland, “42” is competent, occasionally rousing and historically respectful — but it rarely rises above standard, old-fashioned biography fare. It’s a mostly unexceptional film about an exceptional man.

To be sure, there are scenes of racist fans heckling Robinson and many of his own teammates signing a petition demanding Robinson not be allowed to join the Dodgers — but “42” falls short in giving us a full measure of the man himself. The Jackie Robinson of “42” is a high school history lesson, lacking in complexity and nuance. Even the domestic scenes with the beautiful Nicole Beharie as Rachel Robinson paint an almost too-perfect picture. The real Rachel Robinson was also a hero, but in “42,” she’s portrayed as a near-saint, patiently counseling Jackie to hold his temper, and looking like a movie star as she quietly endures the morons in the stands behind her.

Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune also felt the movie comes up short:

This is a smooth-edged treatment of a life full of sharp, painful, inspiring edges. Helgeland tips the narrative balance in the direction of Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, played here in a sustained grumble by Harrison Ford, opposite Chadwick Boseman’s implacable Robinson. The latter’s story cannot be brought to life without Rickey’s, and vice versa; their fates and their places in history belonged to one another. But “42” settles for too little, for being an attractive primer, an introduction to the legend of Robinson and the faith that saw him through. The movie doesn’t condescend. Rather, it protects and enshrines.

Owen Glieberman at Entertainment Weekly says it is a B+:

The movie covers just three years of Robinson’s life, beginning in 1945, when he’s a World War II veteran playing in the Negro Leagues and gets recruited by the forward-thinking Dodgers general manager, Branch Rickey, to join his minor-league club, the Montreal Royals. As Rickey, a stogie-chomping grump with a heart of gold, Harrison Ford seems to have reinvented himself as an actor. He gives an ingeniously stylized cartoon performance, his eyes atwinkle, his mouth a rubbery grin, his voice all wily Southern music, though with that growl of Fordian anger just beneath it. Calling Robinson into his office, he tells him that he needs a player who doesn’t so much have the guts to fight back as the guts not to fight back. 42 is a rousing tribute to how impossible, and therefore heroic, a stance that was.

Scott Foundas in Variety felt the movie was too ordinary:

(Brian) Helgeland, a fine screenwriter (“L.A. Confidential,” “Mystic River”) with a patchy career as a director, doesn’t even try for any of the irreverent stylistic touches here that he brought to his earlier “Payback” and “A Knight’s Tale,” framing the action in the same, unwavering procession of medium shots and closeups whether we’re on the field, in the dugout or in the locker room. Shot by regular Robert Zemeckis collaborator Don Burgess, the images have the overly lit, diffuse halo effect that seemed to attend Redford every time he stepped up to plate in “The Natural,” while the entire movie bears the too-new look of certain period films, with every freshly pressed costume and vintage automobile gleaming like it just came off the assembly line. A movie about Robinson isn’t obliged to be dark or edgy, but for all of “42’s” self-conscious monument building, the cumulative effect is to render its subject markedly smaller and more ordinary than he actually was.

 

 

Best part of ESPN’s Masters coverage: No Chris Berman; Augusta National doesn’t want him

Posted on by

Did you notice what you didn’t hear on ESPN’s Masters coverage yesterday? No promos for upcoming shows (won’t miss hearing the endless plugs for Two Broke Girls on CBS this weekend); obviously limited commercials; and drum roll please, no Chris Berman.

Each year, ESPN commits a major golf crime by allowing Berman to be part of its early-round U.S. Open coverage. His schtick is completely out of place at such a huge event.

You know Berman only is there because he tells ESPN he wants to be there. He enjoys golf and this is his chance to have his shot at a major. ESPN has to know he is horrible, but the network goes along with it because he’s “Boomer.” They want to keep him happy.

In 2008, ESPN lands early-round coverage of the Masters. Well, if Berman loves doing the Open, you would think he would take up residence in Augusta for a chance to work the Masters. Make no mistake, he definitely wants to be part of ESPN’s team for the biggest tournament of the year. It’s “a tradition unlike any other.”

So why isn’t he? Unlike the United States Golf Association, which mysteriously allows Berman on its telecasts, I am certain the august officials of Augusta National said, “No Boomer.” They don’t want his prattle (Clifford “The Big Red Dog” Roberts) messing up the pristine Masters telecasts.

As a result, we heard Mike Tirico handle the host chores Thursday. Now there is an ideal fit for ESPN and the Masters. We heard the familiar voices of CBS; the birds chirping when the fans, er “patrons,” went quiet; and the cheers when somebody rolled in a birdie putt.

We didn’t hear Chris Berman. The sound of that silence was beautiful.

 

 

 

 

 

New book on Lenny Dykstra: Downfall of a bizarre man

Posted on by

As part of his 30 baseball books in 30 days package, Tom Hoffarth of the Los Angeles Daily News, has a write-up on the new book: Nailed! The Improbable Rise and Spectacular Fall of Lenny Dykstra.

First, though, Hoffarth writes how Dykstra once tried to recruit him for his magazine:

“I’ll pay you a dollar a word to write for my magazine,” he said about five years ago, after I’d finished having a discussion concerning the MLB draft status of his son, Cutter, about to graduate from Westlake High.

“Lenny, that’s ridiculous, no one gets paid like that,” I told him.

Dykstra gave me the name and number of the editor of “The Players Club,” a very high-end magazine he published that targeted athletes with money to burn.

Kinda like him.

As for the book, it is written by Christopher Franke, who Dykstra hired to edit his newsletter in 2007. Franke documents the whole bizarre tale, which wound up with the former baseball and financial star in jail.

Hoffarth writes:

This is no Mona Lisa. No smiling allowed. To repeat the litany of Dykstra transgressions here would take a few blog holes, and we’re not even up to stomaching any of that, really. As PhillyMag.com wrote in a headline about a review of the book: “Lenny Dykstra is Grosser, More Racist, More Self Destructive Than You Ever Thought.”

But in a book that, frankly, had a lot to be desired in how the way the pages are laid out and the typeface is presented in such small print, Frankie lays it all out there — disgust and all.

“There were plenty of red flags that would have sent many running for the hills, but there were equal reasons for me to believe success was right around the corner,” Frankie writes on page 160, explaining how Dykstra recruited him to the Players Club. “Plus, I had grown accustomed to the chaos.”

 

No play-by-play man: Will TNT idea work for tonight’s game?

Posted on by

Steve Kerr had a great line while appearing on Tom Waddle and Marc Silverman’s show on WMVP-AM 1000 yesterday.

When asked about tonight’s Oklahoma City-Golden State game on TNT (10:30 ET), which won’t feature a traditional play-by-play man calling the action, Kerr said: “We told them it was time to get rid of Marv Albert.”

Kerr, of course, was joking. After tonight, he likely will have greater appreciation for Albert, Jim Nantz, Kevin Harlan and other play-by-play voices.

In an interesting experiment, TNT is using Kerr, Reggie Miller, and Chris Webber for tonight’s game. Kerr said he will serve as the traffic conductor, but he won’t be doing play-by-play.

USA Today’s Reid Cherner reports:

The idea for the new booth came from a conversation between Turner Sports COO Lenny Daniels and Senior VP Craig Barry.

“Lenny and I are always talking that television has always been done the same way for the last 40 or 50 years,” Barry told USA TODAY Sports on Tuesday. “Why not just have a team captain and have three guys who know the game inside and out?

“They are all charismatic, they are all capable of carrying a show, so why not just have them talk basketball?”

I applaud innovation, and it’s good way to spice up a late-season NBA game. However, I don’t think play-by-play men should get too nervous that the concept will put them out of jobs.

 

 

 

Posted in TNT

Master tweeter: Dan Jenkins excels in 140 characters; Golf Digest editor talks about working with him

Posted on by

Quite simply, the best thing going on Twitter is an 83-year-old man who struggles to operate a computer.

Dan Jenkins is back tweeting at the Masters this week. He is a must follow. You’ll never read a better use of 140 characters in social media.

It’s all about witty insights, biting sarcasm, and laugh-out-loud punchlines for Jenkins. Basically, Twitter is an extension of what he’s done for his entire career.

The week is young, but Jenkins already has zinged poor Colin Montgomerie:

Saw Colin Montgomerie looking for gifts in the golf shop, but they’re already out of majors for guys who have never won one.

Michael O’Malley, executive editor for Golf Digest, assists Jenkins with his tweets at golf’s four majors and the Ryder Cup. He definitely has the best seat in the house.

I asked O’Malley for his observations about working with the great one.

When did you start the tweets with Dan? What was his reaction when you first broached the subject? Was he aware of Twitter?

He made his debut at the 2009 U.S. Open at Bethpage, his 200th major, and was an immediate hit. He wasn’t familiar with the format but instantly recognized that it was made for him and allowed him to make quick observations on things that might not make it into a story. When a writer dropped by and said, “I never thought I’d see the day: Dan Jenkins on Twitter,” Dan replied, “It’s a new world.” Dave Kindred, who was there at Bethpage, said it best: “Now everyone is going to be able to hear all the funny lines that people in press rooms have been listening to for decades.”

How does the process work between you and him? Do you have to serve as a filter?

Dan likes to say, “Electricity hates me,” so he throws out a line and I’ll plug it in, and if he’s exceeding the 140-character capacity, we’ll talk it out. The first story of his I ever edited was from 1996, my first year at Golf Digest. When I hemmed and hawed about a suggestion, he put me at ease by saying, “Hell, Mike, everyone needs an editor.” He’s been great to work with.

What subjects/players intrigue him? For instance, he seems to enjoy sticking the needle in Sergio Garcia.

As Dan likes to say, “I root for my story,” meaning the bigger the drama, the better. High-profile players are part of that. I think Sergio’s body language is such that sometimes it looks like he’s wearing a “kick me” sign, and Dan obliges. But it’s just for fun, and Dan can take it as well as receive it. He loved it when David Ogrin called him “a hostile voice from a previous generation.”

Easy question, but why is he so good at it?

He’s the wittiest, funniest, most knowledgeable golf writer of this or any other generation. Pretty good combination. Most people can’t remember what they ate for lunch, but when something happens in a tournament he can instantly come up with the historical perspective and deliver it in a way that makes you laugh out loud.

Can you recall a couple of your favorite Dan tweets?

My favorite is from the 2009 British Open, when Ross Fisher said he would withdraw if his wife went into labor with their first child. Fisher then took the lead in the final round before making a quadruple bogey. Dan’s tweet: “Women say men don’t know what labor is like. Ross Fisher, whose wife is due any moment, just gave birth to an 8. They’ll call the child Quad.”

Some others:

–On Tiger Woods, after he kicked his 9-iron at the Masters: “Best contact he’s made all day.”

–At the British Open: “Miguel Angel Jimenez’s warm-up routine remains so suggestive that spectators are trying to stick dollar bills in his belt.”

–On Keegan Bradley’s pre-shot routine: “He kind of looks like the kid at the pool who’s not quite ready to go off the high board the first time.”

–After the 2012 British Open: “Lee Westwood finishes 13 strokes out of the lead and remains the Best Pretty Good Player Never to Have Won a Major.”

–Assessing John Daly’s fashion sense: “John Daly, the trailer park called after seeing your pants. They want their shower curtains back.”

–After Louis Oosthuizen’s double eagle on the second hole at last year’s Masters: “Requirements before they build a monument to Louis after his double eagle: 1. He wins. 2. They know how to spell Oosthuizen.”

 

Same old complaint: Not enough TV coverage of Masters

Posted on by

Tiger Woods tees off at 10:45 a.m. ET on Thursday. That means he will be nearly done with his round when ESPN comes on the air at 3 p.m. ET.

Here’s another “tradition unlike any other”: Complaining about the lack of Masters TV coverage.

While all the others major golf tournaments receive virtually sun-up-to-sun-down telecasts, the Masters, the one event we want to watch the most, continues to dish out the smallest portions in the game.

My complaint is more about Thursday and Friday than the weekend. At least on Saturday and Sunday, there is 18-hole coverage of the leaders. During the final round, CBS comes on at 2 p.m. ET, almost an hour before the last group tees off.

What tests the patience level are the first two rounds. To make fans wait until mid-afternoon to see play from Augusta National is ridiculous. You miss virtually the entire wave of morning pairings.

When Billy Payne took over as chairman, he initially relaxed some of the club’s antiquated notions about limiting TV coverage. He expanded the weekends to track all 18 holes with the leaders. ESPN is televising the Par 3 contest today. There’s live coverage of holes and groups on Masters.com.

This year, CBS Sports Network will have On The Range shows from 11 a.m-1 p.m. ET during the four days of the tournament. A new addition to the menu.

Yet I thought Payne would do more. The add-ons are nothing but morsels. Golf fans want more. We’d watch pre-dawn coverage of the course superintendent’s crew cutting the grass at Augusta National.

I mean, why show viewers On The Range programs on tournament days when you have actual play occurring on the course? What happens if one of the morning players comes to 18 with a chance to break the course record during the 11 a.m.-1 p.m. window? Would CBS Sports Network be able to show it?

I asked CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus if he saw any upcoming increases in live Masters coverage. As you would expect, he was diplomatic, saying CBS is “satisfied with the level of coverage” on the weekend.

That’s corporate speak. I know McManus and ESPN president John Skipper, behind the scenes, are pushing for more coverage. Gently pushing, because that’s the way things are done at Augusta.

Ultimately, it is up to the chairman to make the call. C’mon Billy, it’s 2013. There’s cable TV. It’s time to give us what we want: All day coverage of the Masters.

 

 

 

Is there any change on the horizon?

 

 

 

Not just a name: Jim Nantz is serious about making impact as winemaker

Posted on by

Part 3

Jim Nantz is on a mission. He is determined to get me one of his bottles of wine.

Even though he is running late, the veteran voice of CBS is scurrying through the lobby to find a box of his wine that has been dropped off at the Palmer House in Chicago. He asks at the front desk, but they haven’t seen it. He checks the bell desk. Nope.

I say, “Don’t worry about it.”

“No,” Nantz said. “I want you to have a bottle.”

Finally, we go down an escalator and find another bell desk that has the elusive box. He cuts it open and proudly pulls out a bottle.

“A lot of work went into this,” Nantz said.

If being the play-by-play man for CBS on the NFL, golf and the NCAA tournament is priority No. 1 for Nantz, making wine has vaulted to No. 2.

Nantz and industry entrepreneur Peter Deutsch have combined on The Calling, a label that currently features four wines on the market.

Nantz has quite a lofty vision for The Calling.

“We want to create the next great premium American wine brand,” Nantz said.

Indeed, this isn’t a hobby for Nantz. He is totally immersed in the business. Nantz and his wife, Courtney, moved out to California so they can be closer to the vineyard that produces the wine. He says they literally get their hands in the dirt while working on the property.

Considering Nantz’s jammed broadcast schedule, where does he find the time?

“Well, you find the time,” Nantz said. “This is something I love.”

Courtney handles much of the day-to-day business operation of the label, while Nantz grinds on the promotion end. He made several appearances for the wine while in Chicago for the Big Ten tournament. When he’s on the road to call an event, he tries to find a restaurant that carries The Calling. If Jim Nantz walks in, it’s a show of support for the brand, he said.

Yet Nantz’s biggest commitment might be in the name. Early on, Deutsch asked Nantz, “Does your name need to be on the bottle?”

“No,” Nantz said. “He said, ‘Good, let’s keep talking.'”

Nantz said the success rate for “celebrity” (“A word I hate,” he said) wine is extremely low. With few exceptions, people don’t take those wines seriously.

Hence, The Calling. Obviously, it plays on Nantz being on the call for sporting events. However, the biggest message, he says, “is about finding your calling in life.”

Not to get too sappy, but Nantz believes he has a calling to make wine (OK, I got sappy). He has a high interest in fermented grapes, and it is something that he has wanted to do more than decade.

“I am a spokesman for a lot of companies, but I don’t own anything,” Nantz said. “This is something I own. It is so rewarding. It’s a thrill to go into a restaurant, open the menu, and see The Calling is available.”

The Calling is in 3,000 restaurants, and the reviews have been highly favorable. Nantz gave me a bottle of the Russian River Chardonnay.

While I am more of a Guinness guy, in a tribute to Roger Ebert, I’d give The Calling an enthusiastic thumbs up.