Tour '72 | 
| Author: Michael D'antonio
Brand: Booklegger
Category: Book
List Price: $24.45
Buy New: $0.49
You Save: $23.96 (98%)
New (10) Used (33) from $0.01
Avg. Customer Rating:  4 reviews
Sales Rank: 1771678
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 288
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.5 x 5.8 x 0.9
ISBN: 0786867167
Dewey Decimal Number: 796.352092
EAN: 9780786867165
ASIN: 0786867167
Publication Date: May 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
|
| Features:
| • | General Interest | | • | Hard Cover |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Armed with a reporter's perspective and a passionate golfer's love of the game, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael D'Antonio offers a behind-the-scenes portrait of the 1972 season in which golf legends Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, and Gary Player competed on roughly equal terms
|
| Customer Reviews:
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.
 Poorly written. December 27, 2003
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.
 The Boys of Summer Play Golf August 27, 2002
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.
Could have been so much better..... August 8, 2002
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
I started reading this book with anticipation but it quickly became obvious it was a shallow (and over-priced!) effort with many mistakes that detracted from the story. Who did the proofreading anyway? Gene Littler did NOT win the US Open in 1960, Arnie did (p 136). Muirfield is 20 miles east of Edinburgh, NOT 20 miles west (p 187). Doug Sanders lost the British Open playoff to Jack in 1970 NOT 1971 (p 202), etc. Also, attempting to follow a golfer's progress through their rounds is very difficult as the narrative does not always equate to relation to over/under par. One of 4 main combatants, Arnold Palmer, is not even mentioned in the British Open summary until AFTER the tournament has ended (ie Palmer finished 8 strokes back). Gary Player is ignored quite a lot throughout the book also (I had to doublecheck to make sure he did play in the 1972 British Open) This book was obviously rushed to print - the writing style and accuracy level, or lack thereof, provide sufficient evidence of a lack of organization and lack of attention to detail. Overall, a very disappointing effort that had so much more potential.
|
|
|
