4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Contrary to popular opinion, very credible and objective, May 25, 2011
This review is from: Under The Tarnished Dome: How Notre Dame Betrayd Ideals For Football Glory (Paperback)
This book may be one of the most important sports books ever published. Okay, I've read all of the reviews of the people on this site who say there was nothing objective in it or that players being interviewed were subjective because they're bad apples. I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Anyone who says that is not reading this book, or simply assuming that because it has a lot negative things (and valid ones, by the way) to say about Notre Dame's football program that it's a "tabloid" book, or a smear campaign.
Okay, some of these players may have had disciplinary problems, been steroid users, or were kicked out of school. Does that mean that they're not telling the truth, or that they were all treated fairly? None of the allegations were disproven anywhere, and there were numerous testimonials that supported the claims that the authors made. How can you argue when that many people support the allegations?
I will give two examples: Lou Holtz and Steve Huffman. Two things about Holtz: he is a phony hypocrite, and he has no compassion. Holtz did say, before the 1988-89 Fiesta Bowl against West Virginia, when asked if the winner should be national champion, that it's "not for us to say." Then, the very next year, when Notre Dame was 12-1 (after beating Colorado 21-6 in the Orange Bowl, and their only loss coming at the hands of a 27-10 beating from the Miami Hurricanes) said that he wanted justification as to why the Irish didn't get the nod as national champs because they played a tougher schedule than Miami. Excuse me, but if Miami won their bowl game, had an identical record, and beat the Irish in a head-to-head game, why shouldn't they be number one?
I agree with the book, saying that Holtz is indeed a hypocrite who will say anything to further his agenda. The only reason he was saying nonsense like "other people make that decision" about who should be national champion in 1988, when the Irish did win the title, was that he was obviously trying to create the appearance of objectivity and political correctness to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He did this for two reasons: one, it was pretty clear that ND was the better team and would most likely beat West Virginia; and two, the more neutral he appeared to be the more votes he would obviously garner and more points he would score with the voters, not to mention the press and the public. Again, he was just saying whatever he could to further his agenda. But back to the book.
Chapter 2 "You Gotta Play Real Hurt" is a very credible account of Holtz's, and Notre Dame's, very cold, cruel, and improper treatment of injured players. It talks about how when Holtz was at Minnesota, he clashed repeatedly with the team's orthopedic surgeon (one of the most respected in the country, by the way) Dr. Rob Hunter, over the proper treatment of athletes injuries. Holtz wanted players to play Hurt, but Hunter would always intervene.
Holtz argued mainly about the way Dr Hunter would treat injuries to the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (the critical knee ligament). Dr Hunter performed rebuilding and corrective work, rather than just tightening up the joint (the way they treated the ACL injuries at Arkansas) which took about a year for the player to recover. Dr Hunter did it that way because in the long run, the player had a healthy knee, instead of coming back quicker and ending up with an excellent possibility of being "forty and crippled."
Holtz suggested that he consult with the Doctor in Arkansas because he got his players back much faster when the surgeries were perfored there. Hunter, and rightfully so, was outraged that his medical expertise would be challenged, particularly by a coach with no medical training. Furthermore, Holtz was putting winning over the long-term health of the players. Dr. Hunter was adamant because the way it was being done at Arkansas got players back quicker, but on a loose knee, which would result in permanent damage because they surgery wasn't being done correctly.
One player who supports the information about the issues of maltreatment of injuries by Lou Holtz and Notre Dame, and Dr. Hunter's claims of improprer knee surgery at Arkansas, is former Notre Dame center Steve Huffman. Huffman said in an article titled "I Deserve My Turn" published in the August 27, 1990 issue of Sports Illustrated, and I believe him, that he quit because Holtz wanted him to play hurt. He had a bad shoulder, which prevented him from pass blocking effectively, and was told by a respected doctor from his hometown in Dallas, Texas that it needed major surgery.
Huffman wasn't looking for sympathy or special treatment, but simply stating that he had a medical problem that needed to be treated, and corrected. Holtz called him "a pussy" for not playing hurt, so Huffman quit. I don't blame him, because for any coach to put winning over the long term health of a player is not only sick, but the lowest level of win-at-all costs. Huffman also substantiates Dr. Hunter's claim about improper surgery being done at Arkansas during Holtz's time there. According to the article, Huffman has an older brother who played under Holtz at Arkansas, had a knee injury, and cannot walk without the use of a cain.
Perhaps something should be said here about the "macho men" attitude about playing injured. In his book "The Fighting Spirit: A Championship Season at Notre Dame" covering the 1988 season when ND won the national title, Holtz says "We don't expect anyone to play injured, but you must play with pain." That's not toughness, that's stupidity! God gave us pain for a reason, it's a signal, and if you don't listen to it, the pain can turn into injury, and maybe even permanent damage. You wouldn't drive more than 50 miles an hour with a spare tire on your car or use drive with it for more than a temporary period of time. The human body is the same way, you have to treat it properly, especially when it means allowing injuries to heal, or you're in trouble.
This is an entertaining, objective, and informative book on Notre Dame football's corruption and the level that it sunk to during this point in time. It discusses rampant steroid use, academic misconduct, and questionable medical care at Notre Dame. I would recommend this book for anyone who wants to know about important issues in college sports, mainly questions along the lines of "Is winning games our top priority, or is it more important to be morally correct?" Anyone who calls this book unfair, a hatchet job, or subjective is either a biased Notre Dame fan, or wasn't paying attention. Sorry folks, this book is the real deal, and no one, NO ONE, has proven otherwise.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
What Could've Been...., July 31, 2005
This review is from: Under The Tarnished Dome: How Notre Dame Betrayd Ideals For Football Glory (Paperback)
I picked up this book at a tremendously discounted price, and at this point, I'm certainly glad I did. The book has a great premise - looking behind the scenes at Notre Dame. However, what it turns into, is mud slinging of the highest quality.
Instead of taking the good and bad from the controversial University, the authors take the low road and simply report the bad. They get interviews from a few players who belittle both ND and Holtz, but coincidentally, most tranferred because of lack of playing time and some even were kicked out of the University for disciplinary reasons.
The few players/coaches in the book that try to defend Holtz (and who ended up being NFL All-Pros) are made to look like imbeciles and only get one quote, whereas someone telling a "sob story" gets pages upon pages.
It's really a disgrace that something of this quality is considered good journalism. It's nothing more than a glorified tabloid. And a bad one at that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
