but they tend to overstate the significance of their subject(s). You know they "defined an era" or "revolutionized the game" or "nobody had ever seen anything like this before". I am sure there will be a ton of that in this one.
Yep. Two blithering idiots, one with the most annoying voice known to man and the other an arrogant blowhard who doesn't know a fraction of what he thinks he does.
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
If you can'trealize the revolutionary affect they had on the sports talk industry then I'm sorry but you really are not too perceptive. They were an indelible mark on the NY sports landscape for 2 decades. Yea some of the banter was over the top but they really got the best guests and asked the tough questions. The radio they supplied particularly in 3 runs- the 94 Rangers/Knicks, the 1990 Giants run and the '96 Yanks run was some of yhe most entertaining radio I've heard
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
Fiddy I love you man and I listened to Mazer and Art Rust Jr. They were Menschs and good men no doubt but there's a reason nobody listened to sports talk radio back then. It was like listening to paint dry. M & Md brought life to the industry. Unfortunately they spawned a bunch of wannabes who suck.
I listened since day one and there was almost nothing new (besides the 9/11 caller but that was reported in media a few months ago) in it and I felt I was being conned into a infomercial for a Sirius reunion.
Also, while they were great for a while, Francesa has been a laughing stock since Russo left even if he gets ratings. It would have been nice if they explored it. I always thought one reason was they motivated each other to make good arguments, once they were apart Francesa became increasingly unprepared and cartoonish.
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
I mean the XFL doc was longer and it didn't last one year. So much more they could've done - interviews with guys like Calipari, Mike's internet/social media fame post-Russo, etc.
The ending with all the fans saying how they wish they would get back together, I really think it's gonna happen. Maybe on ESPN radio, which is why they got the 30 for 30.
I also thought the inclusion of the 9-11 Israel thing was a complete and total waste of time.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
Them getting back together is the worst kept secret in the world Â
I was a Mike and The Mad Dog fan. Listened riding shotgun every time I was in the car with my dad from the time I was 10. I enjoy hearing their voices together. Hope it happens.
In the 1970s WBZ in Boston had an evening sports call-in show Â
but with only one host, whose name I will never remember. But on Sunday night there was the three hour joy of The Sports Huddle, starring three guys who talked sports in a bar after work and were overheard by a radio executive.
A genuinely funny show which I much needed after the most recent Giants' loss, which is about all they did in the 70s. Eddie Andelman, Mark and Jim, but Eddie Andelman drove the show as a genuinely funny guy who didn't have to scream and shout to get attention.
One night after Andelman had added local sports newscaster to his resume he introduced the new Bruins goaltender, which was a real bear cub with goalie gloves and stick chained to a real net.
Well, maybe you had to see it to appreciate the humor.
but it was too short, and had way too much of an ESPN'ie feel to it. You can't expect ESPN to make a big long PSA for Francesa who consistently beats their radio networks ratings. I think Michael Kay got more screen time in interviews than Minko, Roberts, Beningo & Chernoff.
I also thought the inclusion of the 9-11 Israel thing was a complete and total waste of time.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
The whole drama behind the 9/11 thing was that it was alleged for years and it involved their great antagonist Mushnick bringing it up. That they could have dispelled it the next day (surely they had the tapes at that time) made no sense. Also, don't know if Mushnick didn't want to cooperate or they chose not to have him, but no Mushnick in this was like having a documentary about "moby dick" without ahab. Like or not like Mushnick is irrelevant, he was their biggest public critic, always got under their skin, and he needed to be in it. I hope it was Mushnkck's decision and not the filmmakers to make it a more pro-Mike and Dog peace.
RE: RE: I thought it was too rushed for 60 minutes. Â
I also thought the inclusion of the 9-11 Israel thing was a complete and total waste of time.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
The whole drama behind the 9/11 thing was that it was alleged for years and it involved their great antagonist Mushnick bringing it up. That they could have dispelled it the next day (surely they had the tapes at that time) made no sense. Also, don't know if Mushnick didn't want to cooperate or they chose not to have him, but no Mushnick in this was like having a documentary about "moby dick" without ahab. Like or not like Mushnick is irrelevant, he was their biggest public critic, always got under their skin, and he needed to be in it. I hope it was Mushnkck's decision and not the filmmakers to make it a more pro-Mike and Dog peace.
They forgot corey lidle. I wish simmons did the doc
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
Fiddy I love you man and I listened to Mazer and Art Rust Jr. They were Menschs and good men no doubt but there's a reason nobody listened to sports talk radio back then. It was like listening to paint dry. M & Md brought life to the industry. Unfortunately they spawned a bunch of wannabes who suck.
Stu, I hear you, but in fairness, Sports talk with Mazer and Rust, Jr., was in its infancy..Trial and error..It wasn't until Howard Stern and then Neil Rogers(Miami) that obnoxiousness permeated Sports talk..Now it's no holds barred
Their show was a poor imitation of what went on in the Brooklyn neighborhood bars every night ... and I don't like either of these 2 clowns ... but the part on their backgrounds was informative. Explains Mike's insecurity and MD's pompous, arrogant, rich kid anus like ways.
I also thought the inclusion of the 9-11 Israel thing was a complete and total waste of time.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
The whole drama behind the 9/11 thing was that it was alleged for years and it involved their great antagonist Mushnick bringing it up. That they could have dispelled it the next day (surely they had the tapes at that time) made no sense. Also, don't know if Mushnick didn't want to cooperate or they chose not to have him, but no Mushnick in this was like having a documentary about "moby dick" without ahab. Like or not like Mushnick is irrelevant, he was their biggest public critic, always got under their skin, and he needed to be in it. I hope it was Mushnkck's decision and not the filmmakers to make it a more pro-Mike and Dog peace.
They forgot corey lidle. I wish simmons did the doc
I always felt that Dog got a bad rap on Lidle. Dog was a jerk to him, but that is sports radio. He didn't know Lidle was going to die in a plane crash a few days later.
was 1991-1995. Then they became too big for their bridges and were never as smart as they thought they were. But they had the platform and used it to their personal benefit.
Anyone have any idea when this will be rebroadcast? Â
was 1991-1995. Then they became too big for their bridges and were never as smart as they thought they were. But they had the platform and used it to their personal benefit.
Pretty good summary. The 30 for 30 - which I agree was interesting but pretty much a puff piece - included both Mike and Chris generally admitting their success went to their heads.
The point it made is their early success was largely driven by the dynamic of 2 regular joe New York fans talking sports. The part of the story it failed to explore is they assumed their ratings success somehow verified them as experts.
How many times, when challenged, has Francesa generally growled that since he's "numbah" one, how dare anyone question him? Dozens.
While Mushnick isn't exactly a redeemable character himself, a truly unbiased documantary would have included him and explored more of the reasons why these 2 earn so much criticism
The ending with all the fans saying how they wish they would get back together, I really think it's gonna happen. Maybe on ESPN radio, which is why they got the 30 for 30.
I always liked Mike in a way. If i had a gun to my head and I had to listen to any radio show, Id pick him. His voice is not as annoying as others. Very easy to listen to, a bit boring though. He does have great knowledge for a lot of sports.
I liked his tough stubborn NY persona or whatever, that was all well and good. Of course, prior to Super Bowl 42, Russo was doing his best “trash the Giants” quest for ratings prior the Super Bowl. Ok, he wasn’t doing anything really bold by predicting a 12 point favorite would win the Super Bowl outside of doing it in NY, but I think Frances picked the Patriots as well. I know he said this team wasn’t going to go on a Super Bowl run and was 100% sure of it after the Washington game.
The thing I really don’t like about guys like these is they constantly run their mouths and put down teams claiming they have no chance prior to games as if they’re opinion is all that matters but when they’re proven wrong, its automatically trivialized. Id love to see most, especially these two, handle it in a more humiliating way, unlike the way they did after Super Bowl 42. Didn’t you idiots just say there was no chance prior to the game? You were wrong. Fess up to it.
I think Mike mentioned Strahan attacking someone in the media in his Super Bowl speech because they said something negative and Strahan didn’t like it. Mike didn’t like it at all and ripped him apart for it. Oh? You’re just supposed to have someone run their mouth and call your team lousy, claim you have no chance for 2 weeks and not get fired up about it? Fuck that. If you are going to be so cocky as a media persona and when you’re wrong, take it on the chin like a man.
(I know Strahan and Mike don’t like each other from a while back but shit, own up to being wrong and when someone gets called out on it, thats fair game.
I don’t know, I guess its different than a Craig Carton who obviously doesn’t care about the outcomes of the games but he’s just annoying for the sake of being annoying. When he’s wrong, it just doesn’t matter as much because its way too obvious what Craig is doing.
like a usual 30 for 30 production. Like others have said, it was like an hour long infomercial that never really scratched the surface or tackled any controversies.
I feel like every 30 for 30 I learn something new or see footage I never had before, but I don't feel this one broke any new ground or even shed light on anything we didn't know.
like a usual 30 for 30 production. Like others have said, it was like an hour long infomercial that never really scratched the surface or tackled any controversies.
I feel like every 30 for 30 I learn something new or see footage I never had before, but I don't feel this one broke any new ground or even shed light on anything we didn't know.
Pretty poor.
Iirc, when many were bashing Reese and extolling the talent-acquiring virtues(though many of his core were already in place there) of Gettleman, you were essentially saying that Gettleman was BBI's newest flavor of the month, that DG could do no wrong (paraphrasing)..You certainly hit that one up the alley
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
You come off like an old curmudgeon. You may not have liked their show but they most definitely changed sports talk radio.
Personally I found their show entertaining despite finding Francesa a blow hard know it all. I liked Mad Dog goofiness and they played well off each other. I still listen to Mad Dog on Sirius if I dont like whats on Howard's channels or the NFL channel.
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
You come off like an old curmudgeon. You may not have liked their show but they most definitely changed sports talk radio.
Personally I found their show entertaining despite finding Francesa a blow hard know it all. I liked Mad Dog goofiness and they played well off each other. I still listen to Mad Dog on Sirius if I dont like whats on Howard's channels or the NFL channel.
So you think Francessa's a blowhard and you like Mad Dog's goofiness, but me thinking they were unlistenable, makes me an old curmudgeon. Fine..Btw, Francessa in the '80s/90s on TV was TO ME, the most informed..Now he's a showman and paired with that idiot they were extremely difficult to listen to, especially with Dog's incessant yelling/shouting, I'm an old curmudgeon because I think they suck?
They had a radio show for years on the air. They were pretty annoying or "controversial". The end. Meh. Boring.
Yep. Two blithering idiots, one with the most annoying voice known to man and the other an arrogant blowhard who doesn't know a fraction of what he thinks he does.
Fiddy I love you man and I listened to Mazer and Art Rust Jr. They were Menschs and good men no doubt but there's a reason nobody listened to sports talk radio back then. It was like listening to paint dry. M & Md brought life to the industry. Unfortunately they spawned a bunch of wannabes who suck.
Also, while they were great for a while, Francesa has been a laughing stock since Russo left even if he gets ratings. It would have been nice if they explored it. I always thought one reason was they motivated each other to make good arguments, once they were apart Francesa became increasingly unprepared and cartoonish.
Getttt lawstttt
They just kept saying they were "significant" "influential" etc, which was true but I didn't need a doc to tell me so.
As a documentary is was really poor.
+1
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
I was a Mike and The Mad Dog fan. Listened riding shotgun every time I was in the car with my dad from the time I was 10. I enjoy hearing their voices together. Hope it happens.
A genuinely funny show which I much needed after the most recent Giants' loss, which is about all they did in the 70s. Eddie Andelman, Mark and Jim, but Eddie Andelman drove the show as a genuinely funny guy who didn't have to scream and shout to get attention.
One night after Andelman had added local sports newscaster to his resume he introduced the new Bruins goaltender, which was a real bear cub with goalie gloves and stick chained to a real net.
Well, maybe you had to see it to appreciate the humor.
Maybe a WFAN doc would have been better idk.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
The whole drama behind the 9/11 thing was that it was alleged for years and it involved their great antagonist Mushnick bringing it up. That they could have dispelled it the next day (surely they had the tapes at that time) made no sense. Also, don't know if Mushnick didn't want to cooperate or they chose not to have him, but no Mushnick in this was like having a documentary about "moby dick" without ahab. Like or not like Mushnick is irrelevant, he was their biggest public critic, always got under their skin, and he needed to be in it. I hope it was Mushnkck's decision and not the filmmakers to make it a more pro-Mike and Dog peace.
Quote:
I also thought the inclusion of the 9-11 Israel thing was a complete and total waste of time.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
The whole drama behind the 9/11 thing was that it was alleged for years and it involved their great antagonist Mushnick bringing it up. That they could have dispelled it the next day (surely they had the tapes at that time) made no sense. Also, don't know if Mushnick didn't want to cooperate or they chose not to have him, but no Mushnick in this was like having a documentary about "moby dick" without ahab. Like or not like Mushnick is irrelevant, he was their biggest public critic, always got under their skin, and he needed to be in it. I hope it was Mushnkck's decision and not the filmmakers to make it a more pro-Mike and Dog peace.
They forgot corey lidle. I wish simmons did the doc
Agreed, they definitely could have gotten into more details of some of the story lines. As someone mentioned above like Corey Lidle.
Was surprised to see Michael Kay interviewed. As much as he bashes Francesa on his show.
Quote:
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
Fiddy I love you man and I listened to Mazer and Art Rust Jr. They were Menschs and good men no doubt but there's a reason nobody listened to sports talk radio back then. It was like listening to paint dry. M & Md brought life to the industry. Unfortunately they spawned a bunch of wannabes who suck.
Stu, I hear you, but in fairness, Sports talk with Mazer and Rust, Jr., was in its infancy..Trial and error..It wasn't until Howard Stern and then Neil Rogers(Miami) that obnoxiousness permeated Sports talk..Now it's no holds barred
Quote:
In comment 13527888 shockeyisthebest8056 said:
Quote:
I also thought the inclusion of the 9-11 Israel thing was a complete and total waste of time.
I would've liked more time spent on the battles with local athletes (Strahan, Shockey, etc.) and managers/coaches (all of the drama with Mets managers and others).
I disagreed with them A LOT, but they were still the best listen on the radio by far.
The whole drama behind the 9/11 thing was that it was alleged for years and it involved their great antagonist Mushnick bringing it up. That they could have dispelled it the next day (surely they had the tapes at that time) made no sense. Also, don't know if Mushnick didn't want to cooperate or they chose not to have him, but no Mushnick in this was like having a documentary about "moby dick" without ahab. Like or not like Mushnick is irrelevant, he was their biggest public critic, always got under their skin, and he needed to be in it. I hope it was Mushnkck's decision and not the filmmakers to make it a more pro-Mike and Dog peace.
They forgot corey lidle. I wish simmons did the doc
I always felt that Dog got a bad rap on Lidle. Dog was a jerk to him, but that is sports radio. He didn't know Lidle was going to die in a plane crash a few days later.
Pretty good summary. The 30 for 30 - which I agree was interesting but pretty much a puff piece - included both Mike and Chris generally admitting their success went to their heads.
The point it made is their early success was largely driven by the dynamic of 2 regular joe New York fans talking sports. The part of the story it failed to explore is they assumed their ratings success somehow verified them as experts.
How many times, when challenged, has Francesa generally growled that since he's "numbah" one, how dare anyone question him? Dozens.
While Mushnick isn't exactly a redeemable character himself, a truly unbiased documantary would have included him and explored more of the reasons why these 2 earn so much criticism
I'd really like to see this.
Will happen on XM before ESPN Radio.
http://www.espn.com/watch?id=3121515 - ( New Window )
I liked his tough stubborn NY persona or whatever, that was all well and good. Of course, prior to Super Bowl 42, Russo was doing his best “trash the Giants” quest for ratings prior the Super Bowl. Ok, he wasn’t doing anything really bold by predicting a 12 point favorite would win the Super Bowl outside of doing it in NY, but I think Frances picked the Patriots as well. I know he said this team wasn’t going to go on a Super Bowl run and was 100% sure of it after the Washington game.
The thing I really don’t like about guys like these is they constantly run their mouths and put down teams claiming they have no chance prior to games as if they’re opinion is all that matters but when they’re proven wrong, its automatically trivialized. Id love to see most, especially these two, handle it in a more humiliating way, unlike the way they did after Super Bowl 42. Didn’t you idiots just say there was no chance prior to the game? You were wrong. Fess up to it.
I think Mike mentioned Strahan attacking someone in the media in his Super Bowl speech because they said something negative and Strahan didn’t like it. Mike didn’t like it at all and ripped him apart for it. Oh? You’re just supposed to have someone run their mouth and call your team lousy, claim you have no chance for 2 weeks and not get fired up about it? Fuck that. If you are going to be so cocky as a media persona and when you’re wrong, take it on the chin like a man.
(I know Strahan and Mike don’t like each other from a while back but shit, own up to being wrong and when someone gets called out on it, thats fair game.
I don’t know, I guess its different than a Craig Carton who obviously doesn’t care about the outcomes of the games but he’s just annoying for the sake of being annoying. When he’s wrong, it just doesn’t matter as much because its way too obvious what Craig is doing.
I feel like every 30 for 30 I learn something new or see footage I never had before, but I don't feel this one broke any new ground or even shed light on anything we didn't know.
Pretty poor.
I feel like every 30 for 30 I learn something new or see footage I never had before, but I don't feel this one broke any new ground or even shed light on anything we didn't know.
Pretty poor.
Iirc, when many were bashing Reese and extolling the talent-acquiring virtues(though many of his core were already in place there) of Gettleman, you were essentially saying that Gettleman was BBI's newest flavor of the month, that DG could do no wrong (paraphrasing)..You certainly hit that one up the alley
You come off like an old curmudgeon. You may not have liked their show but they most definitely changed sports talk radio.
Personally I found their show entertaining despite finding Francesa a blow hard know it all. I liked Mad Dog goofiness and they played well off each other. I still listen to Mad Dog on Sirius if I dont like whats on Howard's channels or the NFL channel.
Quote:
Long before their buffonery there was Bill Mazer, John Sterling (yes, that JS), Art Rust, Jr. and many others across the nation in the 60s and 70s and years moving forward
You come off like an old curmudgeon. You may not have liked their show but they most definitely changed sports talk radio.
Personally I found their show entertaining despite finding Francesa a blow hard know it all. I liked Mad Dog goofiness and they played well off each other. I still listen to Mad Dog on Sirius if I dont like whats on Howard's channels or the NFL channel.
So you think Francessa's a blowhard and you like Mad Dog's goofiness, but me thinking they were unlistenable, makes me an old curmudgeon. Fine..Btw, Francessa in the '80s/90s on TV was TO ME, the most informed..Now he's a showman and paired with that idiot they were extremely difficult to listen to, especially with Dog's incessant yelling/shouting, I'm an old curmudgeon because I think they suck?
I still don't think Francesa calls it quits this December. He's got too healthy of an ego to fade into the darkness.