Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
Don't you dare try and prove me wrong, as I have 3,000 words at my fingertips to tell you why I'm right just itching to get out. Cosell was not well liked by many of his media contemporaries, but he never came even 10 percent close to facing the scrutiny, vitriol and 24/7 blog and Twitter microscope that our current media feuds face. (How great would Cosell have been on Twitter, by the way).
This one has gotten to the boiling point so quickly that yesterday Olbermann wrote that Simmons has lapped the field as, "the most uncontrollable, unmanageable talent in the history of ESPN" and is openly wondering if, based on correspondence with ESPN brass, the World Wide Leader won't eventually dump The Sports Guy. Now, the particulars:
Simmons was lambasted by virtually everyone after saying in an ESPN chat last week that Tiger Woods will have a harder time in his return than Muhammad Ali did. Rather than realize how historically inaccurate he was and move on, Simmons penned a lengthy "I'm right and here's why" column, backed up with a podcast conversation with Rick Reilly on the topic.
It's one thing to make an erroneous comment in a chat, but it's entirely another to fight back against all semblance of reason and write the column Simmons tried to write in an effort to prove his ridiculous point that Tiger Woods will face more scrutiny than Ali because, as paraphrased above, the 24/7 news cycle won't let Tiger be. Simmons tried to make points that were not only outlandish, but a white-wash of history, so much so that Keith Olbermann has become a voice of reason. You know when people start openly agreeing with Olbermann's take on anything involving a feud between pompous journalists, you've done something terribly wrong.
Olbermann fired a missive at the Sports Guy on his MLBlog post on March 5 that included the following:
If the writer can let me know when Woods is punitively drafted by the military even though he is about eight years older than almost all the other draftees, I'll begin to take him seriously. In the interim I am again left to marvel how somebody can rise to a fairly prominent media position with no discernible insight or talent, save for an apparent ability to mix up a vast bowl of word salad very quickly.Point, Olbermann. Simmons took to the tweets to fire back, with his most damning retort coming in the shape of:
KO, please know the feeling is mutual. You're my worst case scenario for my career in 12 yrs: a pious, unlikable blowhard who lives alone.Point, Simmons.
Now, to the point of the issues. I'm not sure for one second that Simmons actually believes what he originally said in that chat. I contend that Simmons boxed himself into the comment and rather than apologize and move on – thereby admitting he was (gasp) wrong about something – Simmons challenged himself by thinking he was a good enough writer to get out of that box. As good as he is, and he's one of the best of our sports-loving generation at stringing together words to form sentences, he's not a good enough writer to get out of a situation like that.
He should have known better, and has been crushed by better writers out there. Consider Olbermann one of them. Simmons is infinitely more popular as a writer than Olbermann, but when it comes to stringing words together to form sentences, Olbermann will win that fight and say good night and good luck to you every single time, sir.
So, thusly, Olbermann shot back on his MLBlog yesterday:
This assumes that Mr. Simmons' career now is where mine was twelve years ago (anchoring SportsCenter, then my own MSNBC political show, anchoring NBC Weekend Nightly News, writing a best-selling sports book, etc). In fact, this assumes that this is Mr. Simmons' career, which is remarkable. Also, anybody who could write as many words without saying anything of consequence really should throw around the word "blowhard" as frequently as he would a street sewer cover.And then comes the biggest blow in the entire back-and-forth, when Olbermann offers that high-ranking members of ESPN, including people Simmons works for, gave him virtual high-fives after his direct shot at the column. In fact, Olbermann intimates that some at ESPN are so sick of Simmons they may just let him walk at the end of his current contract:
I am surprised, however, to be able to shed some light on something that has been a prominent topic of late around the internet: the prospect that Mr. Simmons is leaving ESPN. Admittedly I am something of an authority on this process. Nonetheless, I was stunned to receive several emails from some of Mr. Simmons' bosses there, thanking me for pointing out the absurdity of, and the embarrassment to ESPN provided by, the Woods/Ali comparison.To this point, Simmons has chosen to take the public high road, saying, "I've said enough. This was not why I got into writing." Rob King, EIC of ESPN.com, however, did take the time to respond, telling Mediaite:About five years ago, I guess, somebody said Tony Kornheiser was the most uncontrollable, unmanageable talent in the history of ESPN. I was, of course, crushed (although I believe I got honorable mention). When ESPN bosses are writing me for helping them about somebody they claim has now lapped Tony and myself, I am left to conclude only that if Mr. Simmons does leave ESPN, it may not be entirely of his own choosing.
To be clear, John Skipper, John Kosner and I are the three people at ESPN responsible for determining how this all plays out. We believe Bill’s a uniquely gifted writer and thinker who makes us great and meaningful to sports fans. And we hope to keep him as a central part of what we do for a long time to come.Simmons was not wrong when he called Olbermann an unlikable blowhard, an assertion, I'd suspect, with which Olbermann may agree. But this "hello kettle, my name is pot" situation illustrates just how far off the deep end Simmons can go as he dances the tight rope of columnist in an ESPN-protected bubble with being the everyman. As I said yesterday, I wonder how 1999 Bill Simmons would trash 2009 Bill Simmons. To that end, I wonder how Howard Cosell would trash Bill Simmons.
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
15 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
they are both right-simmons went too far in his analogy, and well, lets face it, olberman is a pretentious ass who gets his ratings’ ass kicked every night by….fox news.
i’m sure keith loves that fact.i haven’t really found one soul on either side of the aisle who can stand olberman for more than 5 seconds.
cosell tweets would only be a sentence long, but somehow would take 3 minutes to read.
by psudrozz on Mar 9, 2010 10:22 AM EST reply actions
<!—[if gte mso 9]>
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
<![endif]—><!—[if gte mso 9]>
<![endif]—>
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
<!—[if gte mso 10]>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:“Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:“Calibri”,“sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:“Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:“Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
<![endif]—>
I’m not entirely convinced that Olbermann is truly better at
constructing words into sentences better than Simmons. Olbermann seems obsessed
with using large words and portraying himself as an intellectual, which is just
one blowhard aspect of Olbermann. For the most part he is unreadable and
unwatchable because his poorly navigated tangents and mixing of unrelated
politics.
Simmons sometimes also includes politics but mostly of the harmless
eye roll inducing variety. His points are sometimes silly and his explanation
for his comment I only made it halfway through but for the most part his stuff
is very readable and at least entertaining. I don’t feel like I’m being
lectured and hectored for my miserable existence the way that Olbermann often
presents his point of view.
I think that Simmons wins this by backing down. In total,
this whole kerfuffle is silly. After all, this is all about sports and
considering everything just not that important. After a couple NBA columns and a
mailbag this thing will blow by and he can continue as normal. While the
seemingly insecure Olbermann and his “sources” at ESPN (probably the voices in
his head) will remain a blowhard who has no concept of the existence of anyone
who disagrees with him.
by vetes on Mar 9, 2010 11:11 AM EST reply actions
Simmons getting let go would be the end of Page 2. I can’t see that happening. He could start a start up that would instantly pull unbelievable page views, but I just can’t see how letting Simmons go because you find his opinions odious is a good business decision. Running a company by feel is not a good idea, and isn’t how ESPN got where it is.
by josephus on Mar 9, 2010 11:31 AM EST reply actions
joesphus makes a good point.
look at it this way-how was espn’s ratings affected when olberman was fired?
what would happen if bill simmons was fired?
by psudrozz on Mar 9, 2010 12:32 PM EST reply actions
With Olby’s TV ratings tanking, he shouldn’t question Simmons’ job security.
by bveo12 on Mar 9, 2010 1:16 PM EST reply actions
I don’t really care for Olberman’s politics, but I can watch his show all day and all night compared to that hack Rachel Madcow, or Maddow or whatever her name is. She is like the annoying person in your office who tells jokes and laughs the whole way through them and then doesn’t understand why you don’t think it is funny.
by Hendu1976 on Mar 9, 2010 1:45 PM EST reply actions
olberman lost all credibility when he went from being a parody of bill o’reilly to being bill o’reilly. as far as simmons goes, yeah he’ll reach from time to time to write an article (or just fall back on boston sports), but at least he’s not afraid to take an unpopular stance and stick by it. espn would be fools to let him walk. "talent" like olberman are a dime a dozen.
by bashbro1 on Mar 9, 2010 2:05 PM EST reply actions
olbermann is a massive douche…while bill simmons is actually pretty funny and a cool dude…for a Ma$$hole red sox fan…that is.
by lordhlatts on Mar 9, 2010 2:07 PM EST reply actions
You know, Simmons does have a point when he talks about the media scrutiny being more intense and tougher for Tiger. By the time Ali came back in 1970 I think the public perception was that he had been a victim, and the media welcomed him back with open arms. The media glare is much brighter nowadays and I don’t think they are going to be as friendly and welcoming to Tiger. And this is from someone who has lived through both eras.
by tedchinook on Mar 9, 2010 4:25 PM EST reply actions
Flush them both!
by snowhill on Mar 9, 2010 4:41 PM EST reply actions
Olbermann is a prick.
by Over43 on Mar 9, 2010 5:17 PM EST reply actions
To the person who asked ‘what if Bill Simmons were fired?’ Well, a bidding war would erupt for his services amongst si.com, yahoo, cbs, fox, etc….
That won’t happen. Simmons’ readership is 2nd only to Peter Kings, and ESPN knows that.
by Iloveyoujohnnycakes on Mar 9, 2010 6:02 PM EST reply actions
Simmons was making a valid point. His point was not that Tiger’s comeback was more important, or that Ali taking a stand for his belief was not hard. His point was that Ali did not have to deal with ESPN, 24 hour news cycle, twitter, camera phones or TMZ. He admitted in his podcast that if Ali had to deal with these things his probably would have been harder. He also points out some differences. Boxing is more physical, while golf is more mental. The vast majority of the time, the more gifted boxer will win, while this is not the case in golf. Also, the article claims Simmons is not as good a writer as Olberman. This is a pedantic and pretentious thing to say. So, Simmons doesnt have the high brow pedigree of other writers. That is why people read him. Simmons is the best at what he does, which is to make witty references to various topics while making people think about interesting sports topics. Simmons doesnt have to be a walking thesaurus to be a great writer.
by sethcm on Mar 9, 2010 8:11 PM EST reply actions
Keith Olbermann’s act is about fifteen years beyond it’s expiration date. Not only that, but he has managed to make Simmons look even better by portraying those in power at ESPN as hating Simmons and his "unmanageability" , giving Simmon’s an outside-the-beltway likeability. Olbermann is a lot like writer and broadcaster Walter Winchell, who was at first admired as he was one of the first to call Adolph Hitler the antichrist he was. Later, Winchell was reduced to a scoundrel as he helped Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts. Olbermann had many salient points in the beginning about George W. Bush, but has become as nearly fascistic in his views as W.
by bbaroo on Mar 9, 2010 9:10 PM EST reply actions
I think somehow Simmons would be okay if he were to leave ESPN. I get the feeling he is no novice to the blogosphere and just might figure out a way to find an audience.
Olberman is unbearably pompous and self righteous – but he has a point in the Ali/Woods debate. However, he negated that by taking the spat to a place it should not have gone – lower.
It has occurred to me that this spat might be a staged affair, but that might be affording either of these gentlemen more credit than due.
I wonder when they will realize that they sound like a couple of little girls arguing over Barbie’s next dress.
BTW: What is a kerfuffle?
by guardian of the galaxy on Mar 9, 2010 9:32 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed