NEW YORK'S BUDDY
I would like to congratulate Alfred Wright on an article that was well done and long overdue (...And a Mighty Met Is He! Sept. 7). I have always considered Bud Harrelson to be one of the greatest things that could ever have happened to New York.
STEVEN J. KNAPP
Glen Ridge, N.J.
I'm glad someone finally gave our Buddy some well-earned recognition.
Your article has explained to the rest of the country what Met fans have known all along: you don't win with superstars alone. Sure, the Mets have one superstar, Tom Seaver. However, the Mets' backbone is made up of the little men, like Buddy and Jerry Grote and Wayne Garrett.
Alfred Wright and SI have finally recognized one of the finest shortstops in baseball. But please, next time you ask a man to pose like that, go get George Frenn or Randy Matson or somebody else, not a featherweight like Bud Harrelson. I like Bud, but that picture on page 22 turns me off.
New Haven, Conn.
In your article on Bud Harrelson and the Mets you call the Houston Astros a collection of whozats. I'll have you know that the Astros have literally buried New York in series play. Before the 1970 season, Houston held an 87-49 lead on the mighty Mets. This year New York won five of the first six games with Houston, only to give up and finish 6-6. Houston also gave Seaver three of his 11 losses. Not bad.
That collection of whozats called the Houston Astros was your pick (in the April 13 baseball preview) to win the NL Western Division. The SI writers are the collection of whozats this time.
Alfred Wright's wonderful story captured George Allen in what must be a unique paradox in the history of pro football (You Win! You're Fired! Sept. 7). As a season ticket holder for Ram games, I'm always amazed to find that no team—except the home team—plays an "away" game in the L.A. Coliseum. There are always more people rooting for the opposition than for the Rams. It seems Dan Reeves knows what he and his L.A. fans want, a loser—not George Allen.
As a loyal fan of the Rams I feel that Dan Reeves would be making a grave mistake in firing George Allen. If 38 of the 40 members of the team stood up in support of Coach Allen, the team must really need him. Dan Reeves had better think about what he is doing.
Everyone wants a winner and will come to see a winner, but the loser will draw only a few hard-core fans. Mr. Reeves has searched for many years for a coach who could give him a winning team. Now that he has Mr. Allen, whom I feel to be one of the finest, if not the finest head coach in football, it would be a shame to see Reeves let him go just because he cannot get along with him.
GEOFFREY L. BERMAN
The article by Pat Ryan (Belly Up to the Bar, Boys, Sept. 7) added further injury to a sport that you have already insulted. Your attitude concerning weight lifters makes me wonder whether your faces have been splattered with sand. In the Sept. 12, 1966 issue Associate Editor Mark Kram made the remarkable generalization that "all lifters...are similar in this respect: they have misshapen, even grotesque, bodies, and they derive the same satisfactions from the sport." The current photographs by Neil Leifer apparently were chosen to perpetuate this "opinion."