July 8, 1989
Jim Murray's column on the "Darkest Sin" clarified the Pete Rose affair. Sometimes, the darkest sin is ignorance. MARY M. MOORE Van Nuys
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 15, 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
August 18, 1998 |
When Jim Murray put his hands on the keyboard it was like Babe Ruth stepping in the batter's box, Frank Sinatra taking the stage, Charlie Parker putting the saxophone to his lips. If that seems like a pale imitation of Jim Murray's writing, that's because it is. Pretty much every sports column written for the last 30 years has been a cheap knockoff of Murray, the best, the greatest, the king.
November 15, 1997
Finally someone in the media has said what should have been said long ago. Jim Murray's column of Nov. 6 was right on. Why should taxpayers help finance one nickel of a stadium so an owner with more money than God can go and pay some athlete huge amounts of money? As Murray said, why not spend money on cancer research, higher education or a new center for government? I cannot understand how any sports owners could ask taxpayers to pay for a new state-of-the-art stadium, or how any American taxpayer would ever vote for such a thing.