Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, But Shockingly Sloppy
Review: An interesting read, and precislely the kind of from-the-hip commentary you would expect from Miller. But the book is also an editorial mess. Sloppy, sloppy sloppy. Aside from a variety of sentences with missing words, the book at one point reports that Hal Sutton played a Ryder Cup match against himself! Mickelson's career earnings are variously reported at "$23 million" and "roughly $25 million" and the citations come only 10 pages apart from each other. How hard is that to get right?
Miller also repeatedly contradicts himself. In an early chapter he calls Woods "the best player the world has ever seen." Later he says of Nicklaus, "I remain firm in my belief that he is the best who ever lived." Which is it? By the way, still later Miller lists "the five greatest players who ever lived," and Woods is not included.
It's fine to shoot from the hip, but in the context of a book, where you have time go back and edit, there is no excuse for such a shoddy display. Plus, how much credence can you give to a writer who thoughtlessly contradicts his own strongly-stated opinions and doesn't take the care to fix sloppy errors prior to publication? It shows a lack of the regard for the reader.
I can only imagine the harsh criticism Miller would dish out to a golfer who conducted himself in such an unprofessional manner. It seems the sign of an unhealthily inflated ego to take pride in doling out no-holds-barred criticism of others, while holding oneself to the most meager standards.
He labels his "friend" Jay Don Blake a "mediocre" player and suggests he really isn't trying hard and is taking advantage of the Tour's exemption system at the expense of hungier, more deserving players. He no doubt considers that admirable straight talking. But he takes huge offense to minor comments made at his own expense. Miller relates how Azinger once called him a big "moron," and then later playfully recanted, saying he had been misquoted and had really called Miller a big "Mormon." Miller is greatly offended by this, calling it "blasphemy" and a "joke about my religion." How is playfully refering to a Mormon as a Mormon either blasphemy or degrading to Mormonism?
Miller has tons of interesting things to say about golf and golfers, but giving your readers a book with numerous errors and irreconcilable contradictions is arrogant and shoddy. One can't help but wonder whether there may be lots of other unstated errors underlying the opinions he offers. Does his ego get in the way of his ability to hold his own work up to the same strict standards he unhesitatingly (and insensitively) applies to his own peers?
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining and Worthwhile Read Despite Editing Flaws
Review: As a player, Johnny Miller - at least for a brief period of time - was one of the purest ball strikers the game of golf has ever seen, firing at any flag without fear or conscience. He carried his style of play into the broadcast booth with great sucess, and continues to do so on the printed page. My fellow reviewers have noted many of the factual errors contained in the book; however, they do not (or should not) take away from the sheer entertainiment value of Miller's straight-shooting observations about the state of golf today. While not always right (Johnny is critical of Sergio Garcia's swing changes, yet since the book has gone to press, Garcia has won twice), Miller is never afraid to challenge golf's bromides ("'Drive for show and putt for dough' is a crock"). Moreover, his love and passion for the game is genuine, and for all of his supposed criticism of players, it's obvious that Miller would love to see all (or most) of them ultimately succeed. If read with this in mind, most readers interested in golf should be able to enjoy this book in spite of the errors noted elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining "up" and "down"
Review: As an earlier reviewer mentioned, there are a few typos (or mistakes), but do not let this stop you from buying this book. It is an excellent read. Miller discusses his current view on the game of golf. He is very candid in his discussion and pulls no punches -- he feels that Tiger is older than he really is and because of this, his dominance in the sport will quickly diminish. I felt the best part of the book was his detailed discussion on introducing your children to the game of golf. If you have kids and want to educate them on golf, read this book. He discusses the great influence that his father had on him while growing up and how this made him a better person and a better golfer. If more than anything, I came away feeling that Johnny Miller is an excellent parent/father to his children.
Rating:
Summary: Despite amateurish mistakes, a good book
Review: First, I agree with the many reviewers here regarding being amazed at the many factual errors in this book. (Any halfway decent knowledgable golf fan could have edited this in one sitting.) Irwin, Casper, Tiger, Ballesteros, Faldo etc. all had their records misrepresented in the pages (i.e. both Faldo and Seve had identical records on the PGA tour, which is 9 wins if you count their British Open wins, or 6 wins if you count only American wins. Johnny claims that Faldo had the better record.) Also, in his section on the best of today's players, he of course talks of Tiger, Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Mike Weir, even Sergio Garcia and David Duval (??), but neglects to talk about Vijah Singh !! That was an annoying ommission that I couldn't understand. But all in all, if you can somehow ignore these amateurish mistakes, this is an interesting golf book from a former Hall of Famer turned great announcer who isn't afraid to give his opinion. He gives a good argument as to why Tiger will NOT break Jack's record of 18 majors, and that might be worth the price of the book. He also gives a decent analysis of the best dozen golfers he's ever seen up close (from Jack to Lee to Seve to Lanny), and THAT might also be worth the price of the book. And he gives a good analysis of the best golf courses he's played (and why Shinnecock is even better than Pebble Beach.) And he also has a good chapter on chocking, and names names (i.e. Tom Kite, Mark Calcaveccia, Greg Norman, Hale Irwin, Seve Ballesteros, even Lee Trevino.) I liked the book a lot, and if not for the stupid factual errors (and ommission of Vijah) would have given it 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Honest and Interesting
Review: Johnny bring honesty in his broadcasting and in this book. For those of us who love golf, it is interesting on its own merit. Johnny entertains us and those who follow golf occasionally for a major event or tournament. The book will not win him any more friends but he probably has enough. And let's keep bring the human element into the game through great insights and stories.
Rating:
Summary: delightful golf read
Review: love it or leave it, miller puts forth well argued positions and analysis on a wide variety of topics: tiger versus jack, individual tour players -- both current and former, the rules of golf, pga tour requirements, golf instruction, golf courses and announcing. just when you think he can't get any more candid or personal out pops another pointed passage about a specific individual. it's as close to a no-holds-barred discussion you can have with a golf insider, without actually having one. what really comes through is that miller loves the competitive side of golf and he sees the larger dimensions that surround it. his individual analyses of the players from his era (nicklaus, trevino, watson, player, etc) are especially good and you will come away with a strong sense of what competing against each one of them was like. a real page-turner and definite must-read for fans of golf.
Rating:
Summary: Passionate/Creative Read on Greatest Game
Review: Miller exudes his passion for the game and his creative touch with it. I really enjoy his uncanniness to give titles and such that add such fun to golf advocates, e.g. calling Seve "Golf's Greatest High-Wire Act" or likening playing Faldo to a python slowly squeezing the life out of its victim.
His passion pours forth in opinion after opinion about courses, players (notice Arnie not included), rules, junior golf, etc. His concern over such as Tiger's swearing after a bad shot is admirable, and his overall enthusiasm for other players is refreshing.
He was a terrific champion, and relates much of the foundation coming from his father, and his thoughts on parents applying it to their children.
A great read which is not diminished at all by a few overlooked editing mistakes.
Rating: 
Summary: Par for Miller, DQ for the Editor and Publisher
Review: Miller rates a par for the book (if that's damning by faint praise, so be it) but the ghost writer, editor, and publisher should get a DQ (disqualified) for the effort. The misprints, factual errors, bad grammar, and typos detract to the point of cancelling out anything good Miller says. I wanted to like this book because Miller himself is so likeable and his TV commentary is so good,but thanks to the poor production value it's as hard to enjoy as a triple bogey. For instance,two questions: did Seve win three times on the PGA tour(pg 202)or six times(pg 203)? And how do you hit a ball with the clubshaft perpendicular to the ground? To do that, it would have to be dangling from your hands like a plumb bob. Maybe Johnny can demonstrate that during the rain delay at the British Open.
Rating:
Summary: I Call An Editor
Review: The insights and entertainment value of this book are worthwhile if, and this was a very big if for me, you are not distracted and frustrated with the poor editing of Miller's book. Here are four examples in the first 60 pages:
1. On page 27 Johnny(?) writes, "I have always admired Hale Irwin, not only for winning two U.S. Opens ...." Chances are you know Hale won three U.S. Opens, certainly Johnny Miller knows this, too.
2. On page 50 Johnny Miller talks about Tiger winning the 2000 U.S. Open by a record margin, he writes, "...[Tiger] tied the record for a winning score at the U.S. Open, at 12 under par." Then in the last sentence of that very same paragraph it reads, "[Tiger] putted so well that he shot 16 under for the tournament...." Well, what was it 12 or 16 under? Let the editor ask Johnny.
3. On page 56 Hale is now recognized for winning three U.S. Opens, "Irwin's nerves may have been good enough for him to win three U.S. Opens...."
4. On page 58 the book's most frustrating sentence so far, regarding the 1999 Ryder Cup, it reads, "For the afternoon 4-ball matches, captain Ben Crenshaw had arranged for Jeff Maggert and Hal Sutton to tackle Miguel Angel Jimenez and Hal Sutton." No wonder the U.S. won this Ryder Cup, we had Hal Sutton on our side and theirs! It's a shame that the book's content and significance are severly compromised by its shabby editing.
Rating:
Summary: The editor should be fired!
Review: This is an interesting book, because Johnny Miller is an interesting guy. But MY GOD whoever edited this thing should be fired immediately! I have never seen so many mistakes and contradictions in a book in my life. Here is just a small sampling: 1. When Miller talks about the "Tiger Slam," he gets the tournaments wrong AND the years wrong.
2. On one page he states that Tiger is "a very good putter, but not a great putter." Then, on a later page he states that "Tiger is a fabulous putter." Well, which is it, Johnny, very good, not great, or fabulous?
3. Miller states that Tom Watson won six British Opens, when in fact he won five. He states that Hale Irwin won two U.S. Opens, when in fact he won three.
4. Here is my favorite one of all: Miller exalts in the fact that his U.S. Open record score of 63 at Oakmont in 1973 "has stood up for more than 40 years." That's mighty impressive, Johnny, especially considering the fact that 1973 was only 31 years ago. Now, any one or two of these mistakes could be easily forgiven, but there are literally dozens of them - so many, in fact, that it becomes distracting. The only thing that saves the book is that Miller is so opinionated on so many subjects that it actually does make an interesting read, despite the embarrassing lack of editing.
|
