January 5, 1985
Re Jim Murray's column on Mike Ditka: I was at that Coliseum game many years ago and it was not a drunk that Ditka forearmed into oblivion; it was a boy who was playing wise guy and ran into the Bears' huddle. The punch, in full view of 75,000 fans was greeted with shock and ultimately many minutes of booing. The game had to be held up because of the noise, dissatisfaction and disbelief over Ditka's display of brutality. Since that day, I have always been a great fan of Ditka's opponents.
April 15, 1989
It has been 17 years since my father passed away. Jim Murray's column (April 14) made me realize how much I really miss him. Yes, he drank a lot. He drank to kill the pain of arthritis in his hips and ankles. He was a good father, stern but fair, and loyal to his wife, family and friends. He had a tremendous dislike of phony people and could spot them from a mile away. He also never forgot an injustice. His loves were the game of football and his roses. As we grew up we learned early on--don't bother him during a football game and don't play around the flowers.
August 8, 1987
Reader G.R. Turgeon, in his critique of Jim Murray's column on Bob Gibson, mentioned a number of pitchers' earned-run averages that were lower than Gibson's 1.12 in 1968. As a critic, however, he, too, proves human. How else to explain his unforgivable omission of Ferdinand M. Schupp's ERA of 0.90 for the 1916 New York Giants? JAMES B. DOWLING Torrance
December 10, 1988
It is my understanding that the Heisman Trophy is given to the best college football player, not the best pro prospect. To imply that Barry Sanders doesn't deserve the trophy because his team played some very bad teams (Jim Murray's column, Dec. 2) is ludicrous. Sanders may have gotten a lot of his yards against inferior teams, but he also had great games against Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas A&M. He was truly outstanding. He deserves the award. Please don't demean his receiving of it. JAMES R. EWING Santa Monica
July 18, 1987
Jim Murray's column on former Dodger executive Al Campanis was neither amusing nor illuminating; it was a disgusting piece that angers me greatly. For reasons beyond my comprehension, Murray appears to be serving as an apologist for the words (and deeds) of Campanis. According to Murray, Campanis was "confused" the evening of April 6 when, appearing on the "Nightline" program, he spoke of the "lack of necessities" which, he contended, bars blacks from front office and on-field managerial positions in baseball.
May 2, 1987
I am no radical feminist, but the women's movement has raised my consciousness to a certain degree. Such consciousness was hit smack between the eyes today by Jim Murray's column on Mary Decker Slaney (April 21). Murray made some valid points, but he was way off base when he commented: "In a sport practiced by a lot of women who look as if they should be running tugboats, Mary looks as if she just stepped off the runway at Givenchy's." Such irresponsible reporting is a slap in the face to woman athletes, and Murray should be censured for such commentary.