I wrote about Johnny Miller this week in my column for the National Sports Journalism Center site.
In my mind, Miller is the best analyst in sports. Not just golf. All of sports.
Agree? I know the players don’t, which is a big reason why I like him so much.
From my post:
Miller’s mix of brutally frank analysis, plus his own unique “Millerisms”, makes him a must-listen whenever he pops up on the tube. Really, how many analysts command your attention the way Miller does? Off the top of my head, I only can think of a handful: Charles Barkley, John McEnroe. John Madden in his prime. Dick Vitale still rates with me on college hoops, and Jeff Van Gundy also is a new entry on my short list.
Apologies to anyone I left off, because there are many talented people out there. But when it comes to Miller, we’re talking about taking it to another level.
It is often said that Miller lacks a filter between his brain and his mouth. Whatever pops into his head comes out. It also isn’t in his nature to hold back. His style is the golf equivalent of reaching for the big club for that really long shot over water on a par 5. No risk, no reward.
“In the booth, you can play it safe and down the center of the fairway,” Miller once said in a Golf Magazine interview. ”Or you can go for glory. That means you’ll be close to water hazards and O.B. stakes. I could be Joe Namby Pamby and say trite, obvious things, but growing the game is part of what I do. Viewers tell me all the time, ‘If you’re not announcing, I don’t even turn it on.’”
It often seems in golf commentary, you’re either really good or really bad.
Miler and Faldo? Good.
Wadkins and Strange? Bad. And I don’t blame them, they’re doing their best. I blame whoever hired them.
What does it mean that one would like Miller because most players don’t? Are there any details about why this direct relationship should hold? I suppose it is because of the long history of sycophants that Miller gets attention. I encourage Mr. Sherman and other readers to avoid the mistake of interpreting impertinent or boorish commentary for meaningful insight. Television golf viewers deserve better. We have no choice when we want to follow the U.S. Open. It is not as simple as turning down the television speakers and listening to the radio, as many like to do with other sports.
I can see some being attracted to Miller’s style, but to say he is the best analyst in golf is highly suspect. To say he is the best analyst in sports is laughable. The statement makes one question Sherman’s judgement.
F