I don't dislike Bohls. It's a bit irritating when he writes articles just to show he isn't a homer. He simply has never impressed me at all. His humor is weak as are most of his attempts at analysis. Ultimately he is boring and resorts to the usual sportswriter tactic of trying to "stir the pot" just to draw attention. Sadly, it always works. Halliburton is pretty damned good most of the time. Her articles are usually much more lively and interesting. Maybe getting to spend several summers in France writing about Lance and the Tour were an inspiration. I'm not particularly fond of Kelso -- he comes across as a little bizarre and not in a good way -- but some of his columns are hilarious. Bob Banta always had the best front page and City/State writing. Loved his run-in with Sammy Allred a few years back. You don't see Banta's stories that often these days.
Bohls isnt a bad writer, but I think it's pretty tough to argue that he doesn't engage in just a bit of superfan-baiting. I don't think that's an admirable quality in a journalist.
I know plenty of people who read the paper and the vast majority of those who don't like Kirk, or think he is "an asshat" or a "hack" are HF posters. Most of the other people I know who read his articles like them and tend to agree with most of the stuff he says. But it seems to be the cool thing to hate Bohls here on Hornfans. It's really simple actually, all he does is write his opinion on sports and gets paid for it. He doesn't have some kind of agenda or anti-VY or anti-UT slant. He just writes. Some people here have the same kind of obsessive backwards need to just talk **** about Bohls the same way Merril Hoge does Vince. If someone makes a thread about a Bohls article 5 to 10 people will post a reply with nothing more to say than "F Bohls." If you don't like him, don't read him.
that's a ridiculous take.....i have found him annoying for a long time, not just since i was on hornfans. and i know plenty of people who find him annoying as well.....
Most of the criticism of Bohls is simply blaming the messenger for the message. Bohls says what's needed to be said when no one else will. For that, he is criticized?
I kinda like Bohls because he pisses so many of you Longhorns off, but my opinion of him is, he's a mild version of Skip Bayless. Most - if not all - of his opinions are written to further his career. Shock journalism. AND, complete aversion to being a labeled a 'homer'. Watch, if there is ever a borderline topic concerning OU (Bayless) or UT (Bohls) they'll both ALWAYS take the anti-OU/anti-UT approach, just to show everyone how intelligent and dedicated they are to their profession. Annoys the hell out of me. Bayless is worse, though, because he always prefaces his remarks by reminding everyone what a huge OU fan he is.
I don't expect the "local" newspaper's ace columnist to wear burnt-orange colored glasses, I expect him to stand above the fray and have the courage to put his biases aside and report accurately. Case in point. When the flap at the college world series over Augie's purported unsportsmanlike conduct, Bohls joined the national press in throwing Augie under the bus. After all was said and done and without going into the details of a change in protocol from the previous year, I got the distinct impression that it was all a miscommunication between Augie and one of the WS officials. The bias came about when it was reported that Bohls threw a hissy fit when Augie denied him access to the locker room after the game and he allegedly said "Garrido will pay for this." An except from Bolhs' column after the game:
The one thing I've always wondered about Bayless (and Bohls, too, I guess)... Do they consciously throw out these ******** opinions, knowing that they don't really feel that way, but going with it anyway to further their careers and 'impress' (in their eyes) their fellow journalists, or are they just stupid enough that they even fool themselves into believing their own tripe? Whichever it is (and it IS one of them. My guess: the latter), I despise them for it. That being said. I could ALMOST respect them if they swore me to secrecy and admitted to a concerted effort to deceive for personal gain.
I think it's very unfair to compare Bohls to Skip Bayless. They're different in kind, not just degree. Bohls loves Texas - you can't convince me otherwise. And there are lines that he wouldn't cross. But I do agree that he constructs contrarian arguments because he knows that it'll rub some people the wrong way. It's not a rare quality for someone who wants attention.
Besides writing for the Statesman, what is Bohls' connection to UT? Bayless, like most bandwagon Oklahomans, roots for OU because he was born and raised here.
Bohls attended and graduated from UT and has lived in Austin for years and years. He loves UT, but he is not in the least but afraid to call out his team when he thinks things should be changed. You know I've never seen any of these "flame KB" threads after an article of his about the Cowboys, or after a UT basketball game piece. It just seems that when he points out his percieved flaws of our football team people go apeshit and overreact. It is seriously sad and pathetic that some of you put so much time and energy into hating a guy who writes his opinion for a living. Oh, and to compare him to Skip Bayless is blasphemy.
Kirk Bohls works his *** off not to be a Longhorn homer. Honeslty, his options are to be considered a shill or a traitor. I applaud him for choosing the latter.
I know Kirk somewhat. He likes UT, but he's not afraid to call a spade a spade. When he thinks or knows something is not right, he's not afraid to write about it. Also, he has the respect of the UT Athletic Dept.
kirk writes some good articles and sometimes has a good take, but his over effort at not being a homer is obvious and embarrassing. when he gets the rare chance to just support UT (eg who would have cared if he voted for VY? would he have looked like a homer for doing THAT???? not at all!), he fails miserably and argues for the nearest argument that goes against UT. it is painful....if only because it has become so predictable as to not be "fresh" at all...
He just says what he thinks. I don't always agree with him, but at least he doesn't try to soft pedal his every column.
holy crap, he didn't vote for VY, get over it. seriously, nothing would have changed had he voted for VY, it doesn't matter. get over it.
why are you so defensive of Bohls? if some of us don't like him, why does that upset you so much? if some of us find it inexcusable that he didn't vote for the best college football player of the past decade........is that a big deal? if you want us to get over it, why not just stop reading this thread?
