atlasmb
It has been more than 8 years since a review of this show was posted. In that time, things have changed.Tony Reali is still the host. Some of the old guard still peddle their viewpoints on plasmas 1-4. But my, how things have changed.The original idea was to present a diversity of ideas, from various columnists and sportscasters around the country. Usually featured are writers from Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. They usually cover the professional sports teams in their city. This geographical spread assures that the opinions of "homers" will be balanced by other opinions.In recent years, the show has apparently sought more diversity among its panelists. That is to say they represent a wider representation of the cultural diversity of America, based upon race, gender, and sexual identity. This does not mean there is greater diversity of opinion. In fact, the opposite is true. Not just on this show, but on virtually all shows, we now hear nearly uniform views about issues that are political (and more of them are). Sponsors fear backlash from special interest groups. The network fears the loss of sponsors. The newspapers and television shows that employ the panelists fear negative publicity. As a result, you may get differences of opinion about what is going to happen on the playing field, court, or ice, but when it comes to stories about player behavior, for example, the panelists only differ in the degree of their opinions, falling over each other to condemn what ESPN wants them to condemn. And they toe the "company line" in asserting that all athletes in the news should be regarded as role models (despite Charles Barkley's view).The only other problem I have with the show is that the panelists, like many sports writers elsewhere, tend to advocate for behavior by athletes that makes their jobs easier. This means they like athletes (or coaches) who act erratically, who give fiery opinions, who give "color" to the game by wildly celebrating, by being combative. Personally, I would rather they advocate for good sportsmanship. This means good behavior, respect for your competitors, and a respect for rules of the game.Despite what these talking heads tell us, the athletes are not always right in their battles with team owners. And the sports leagues are not always wrong when their opinions differ from athletes. And sports can be about more than athletes getting as much money as possible in the shortest possible time period. I happen to like most of the panelists on this show. I just wish the debates were not so homogeneous.
baseballfanjm
Around the Horn is pretty much proof the sportswriters have no business passing themselves off as experts. Usually, this show's panelists are unbearable to watch. Most of the time they know almost nothing about the subject they're taking a stand on and come off as arrogant fools. The general sense of arrogance is the biggest turnoff. These guys love to hear themselves talk, and they don't care about giving any actual insights to the topics they talk about. The exceptions, as someone mentioned, are JA Adande, Michael Smith, and Tim Cowlishaw. The show is interesting to watch when they're on.If you want an entertaining sports talk show, wait the half hour until this is over and watch PTI. Wilbon and Kornheiser are smart, funny, and never try to pass themselves off as geniuses. Don't bother with this crap.3/10, because the show is occasionally good when the aforementioned writers are on.
lilblig7
Around the Horn is a pretty good show on espn. It pits four newspaper writers to try to get as many points as they can by giving good comments about the subject. Bad comments mean they lose points. Good concept but I would rather watch four reporters stay for the whole show, but on this show they get voted off if they don't have enough points. This I don't like. I want to hear their opinions for the whole show. Other than that it's not that bad. The reporters all have their different views and express them different ways. Some are calm and collective and some are yellers and screamers. Another problem I have with this show is that they talk about the same things as Pardon the Interruption does. I would rather watch PTI so when I happen to flip over to Around the Horn I'm spoiled with the headlines.So in conclusion it's a good show but PTI is still much better
Hancock_the_Superb
When I started watching this show in the fall of 2003, like many people I originally watched it as a lead-in to "Pardon the Interruption". I was entranced by the hilarious cast of characters, including the smarmy-but-kinda cool Max, the exceptionally obnoxious Disembodied Voice (Bill Wolff), and, of course, the Immortal WOODY PAIGE! Until early February, everything was good as gold, and this show was challenging PTI for my favorite sports show, until Max left and Tony "Stat Boy" Reali came in as a seemingly temporary replacement (though six months later he's still around. . . THE HORN!). To be honest, I can stand Stat Boy, though he doesn't have Kellerman's sense of humor, and his sparring with Woody isn't anywhere near as entertaining as Kellerman's. But Max's leaving was merely an indicator of what was to come. When Max began his "I, Max" for FSN, Michael Holley and the Disembodied Voice eventually left. But Woody and Jay, the backbones of the show, remained. There was the Dream Team of Woody, Jay, Bill Plaschke, and Michael Holley, disrupted of course with the latter's leaving, but Bob Ryan/Michael Smith were good, and the Dallas guys were okay in small doses. Woody remains extremely entertaining, with his indescribably wacky sight gags (eating a raw steak onscreen? His talking toy parrot?) and dead-on humor, while Jay, though annoying, at least provides a good counterpoint to Woody (who didn't laugh when they showed up together at the Super Bowl, on what I believe was Max's last show?).However, let me bring you up to speed on the current situation (as of 8/12/04): Now Woody and Mariotti are going to disappear for a month, covering the Olympics. Add to that the fact that Plaschke hasn't been seen in a few weeks now, and it's obvious that there's no earthly reason to watch this show for a good while. It's going to be a long month . ..So I'll classify ATH into three eras: the Kellerman Era, the Post-Kellerman Stat Boy Era, and the Current Situation. And my ratings for this show go thusly: (on a scale of 1 to 10) 9.5/7.5/4
