Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Thumbnail Sketch of a Season on Tour, July 22, 2004
I won't flame the book quite as severely as others have, however, I can only mildly recommend it for several reasons. While the book is a nice, cursory overview of the four majors in 1972, it does not, due to its brevity, fully engage the reader ala "A Duel In The Sun" at any one location. Indeed, the PGA is basically an afterthought (covering about 20 pages at the end) due, presumably, to Nicklaus' failure to win at Muirfield.
There is a compelling story here, it is just not fully developed. Yes, there is poignancy to the rapid decline of Palmer; Yes, there is a strong central character in Nicklaus; Yes, Trevino leaps off the page as a charismatic, if troubled, star; Yes, Player is shown as a multi-dimensional man wrestling with the sins of his nation, but with a less than 300 page narrative, the book feels more like an appetizer than a main course.
I will say that in comparison to "The Majors", John Feinstein's book about the 4 majors in 1998, this author made a better choice. Feinstein threw a dart at the wall, essentially hoping that year's majors would offer compelling story lines (they basically did not. O'Meara's two wins .. feh. Vijah at Sahalee ..yawn), whereas this book is written retrospectively with the full knowledge that GREAT story lines existed.
Anyway, it's a shame the factual errors pointed out in other reviews were made (hopefully cleaned up for the paperback version), but otherwise, this is a good, quick read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2.0 out of 5 stars
Poorly written., December 26, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Tour '72 (Hardcover)
There are many problems with this book. 1. Factual errors. Some have been pointed out by previous reviewers. Here are a couple more: - the difference between par and bogey was described as a "margin of two shots". - A player at the Masters was described as birdieing 14, 15, and then makings a putt for "his third birdie in a row on seventeen". Apparently he skipped 16. That's only a couple of mistakes, but add them to others I noticed plus others noticed by the previous reviewer, and this is a sloppy book. 2. Redundancy. Twice we're told that Lee Elder expected an invitation to the Masters after winning the Nigerian Open. Twice we're given an account of Arnie blowing a 7-shot lead to Billy Casper at the '66 Open. I kept feeling that I'd lost my place in the book and accidentally started over on earlier pages. But it was just the author repeating himself for no apparent reason. 3. Failed attempts to put the story into some sort of larger social context. The reader is treated (or subjected) to an endless stream of data -- much of it trivial -- about the societal events, politics, popular culture, economics, and non-golf sporting events of the era. The problem is that very little of it had anything to do with Nicklaus' pursuit of the Grand Slam, Palmer's waning career, Trevino's exploits, etc. The problem seems to be that the author couldn't get a book-length story out of the golf alone, so he padded (and padded, and padded) with extraneous stuff that is irrelevant to the story he's trying to tell. 4. White liberal guilt. This is of course a virtual epidemic among sportswriters and other media types today. They pat themselves on the back, showing how unbiased they are by pointing out how biased other people are. So we find that Bobby Jones was racist, the Masters is racist, Gary Player was racist, Jack Nicklaus -- well, not sure about him but he was a privileged country club kid and that's pretty much the same as being racist. Again, little of this is relevant to the '72 season of Nicklaus, Trevino, et al, but by writing about it at length the author is able to show what a good, non-racist guy he is (and also pad the book some more to meet his word quota). 5. Unoriginality. Something occurred to me in reading this: I believe the author might have been able to write it without ever leaving his office. Most of the information in it can be "Googled". Most of the rest is author's musings or conclusions. It's hard to find evidence of much real research or subject interviewing. In other words, it may be somewhat more sophisticated than a student paper that just regurgitates facts found in encyclopedias and magazine articles -- but not by much. Overall -- the book doesn't do justice to the players or the events of that great golf season.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Boys of Summer Play Golf, August 26, 2002
This review is from: Tour '72 (Hardcover)
What Roger Kahn did for the legendary Brooklyn Dodgers of the mid-1950s, Michael D'Antonio does for the heros and anti-heros of the 1972 PGA tour, a year as important in golf history as the days of Jackie Robinson were to the Dodgers. Today, with the game, or at least media attention on the game, dominated by a single player, it's hard to imagine that there was a Tour of '72, dominated by Nicklaus, Palmer, Player and Trevino - all competing in a single season. A writer who can find the excitement in any subject, from the sex life of mosquitos to the intricacies of a good backswing, D'Antonio's own passion for golf comes shinning through in the Tour '72 just as it did in his earlier Tin Cup Dreams. Anyone who cares about the game of golf and the game's legendary players will want to spend a rainy Saturday afternoon with Tour '72 - and will re-read this gem again and again.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
