Of rivalries and lockout nonsense and no instant "classics"

This is an outstanding question and we should start with it ‘cause there’s precious little else going on, it seems:

Q: Hi Doug: I just finished reading your piece about Frazier, and it got me thinking. Surely there must be other 'combinations' of athletes where the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Can you think of any others, besides Ali-Frazier? Would Magic-Bird be one?

Thanks for keeping the great unwashed informed and highly entertained during this 'low' period in the NBA.

Tim H, Windsor

A: I think what makes rivalries like Ali-Frazier special is their talent and greatness so I’m not sure it’s that the “whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”

But let’s talk.

Sure, Magic-Bird is definitely one that resonates because it’s so relatively recent and was something to behold.

But how would you rank these and which would be your favourite?

Me?

I’m going with ...

DiMaggio-Williams.

Two utter stars back in day when the level of familiarity between athletes wasn’t close to what it is today.

Four others?

Wilt-Russell.

Guess maybe one thing that diminished it was that the same guy always won.

Jack-Arnie

Remember when Fat Jack was the evil one in the duo because he was stealing Arnie’s thunder?

Borg-McEnroe

Stoic, explosive. Two pretty diverse personalities.

Howe-Richard.

Toss in the underlying Anglo-French thing and it was something wasn’t it?

I also think the one thing that makes rivalries special is that the athletes have to be in their primes. I guess there’s an inevitability to a “passing of the torch” scenario but when it really counts, you need them on the top of their games to make it memorable.

Be interested to hear what you folks think.

-

How did it take this long for them to toss that Shrill Nancy Grace off DWTS?

Now I can watch again. She’s stomach-turning.

-

Know what?

If it weren’t so despicable at its base, with an untold impact on arena workers, bar servers, people who depend on it for their living, wouldn’t this NBA lockout make for high comedy? Or at least a nice farcical romp?

Seriously.

Now you’ve got the players turning the tables on the owners by saying they’ll take the 50-50 if they get some other things in the “system” issues; you’ve got a hard-line faction of owners seemingly hijacking the agenda on that side. You’ve got union lawyer Kessler talking about the players being “plantation workers” (which might be the most inflammatory statement of the entire episode) and David Stern replying that Kessler is “routinely despicable.”

There’ve been deadlines come and gone, Roger Mason’s “how u” tweet a month or so ago that made it sound like things were settled, Dan (I Need To Make More Money In Casinos Off My Ownership Of The Cavs) Gilbert’s “trust my gut” line.

You cannot make this stuff up.

And you know what? Normally in these things someone eventually emerges as the deal-maker, the guy who can massage both sides, his and the others, and the fellow who becomes the face and voice of reason.

That guy hasn’t come to the fore, don’t imagine he will and when this ultimately ends, no one will be feted as the guy who got it done.

-

So yesterday’s missive isn’t up on the web 10 minutes before I’m walking to pour another cup of coffee (something has to fuel you starting at 6 a.m.) and Super Wife says:

“You’re a dope.”

Duh!

“Free Bird? Color My World? Stairway To Heaven? All nice but you left the best one out.”

Did I?

-

Can’t remember who I was talking to the other day or the exact context of the discussion but it was a conversation about some game and the dude says, “that’s an instant classic.”

And I almost barfed.

I know we live in an era with a need for immediate gratification, where everything is hyped beyond belief, mostly by television networks or media outlets with a self-serving agenda.

But here are three rules that must be followed before any sporting event can be deemed a “classic.”

At least eight years old.

I could have said 10, or even 15, but you get my point. There has to have been some passage of time to put it truly into context.

It cannot be a regular season game.

The regular season can produce good games, maybe even great ones, and some drama every now and then. It cannot produce true “classics.”

A high level of play.

Yes, you can have “classics” that are poorly played, it helps with the narrative if someone screws up, but a real one has to be with everyone on the top of their game. Right?

What else you got?

-

Since we started with it, better end with it.

It’s getting to be that time of the week when we need to hear from you.

Mail. Here. Please. And thank you.

-

 

 

 

Comments

[Thane]

Maybe it's a generational thing, Doug, but I'm shocked that you'd leave out the Gretzky - Lemieux rivalry.

Two giants of their game, both of whom were 'once a generation' players, playing at the same time.

Blogger's note: Yeah, sure could have put them in, I guess

[Mike D.]

I agree that sports classics have to stand the test of time. However, at the risk of triggering any more near-barfing I respectfully submit that there's a continuum of "classicness" and that, similar to the way we can already predict Kobe will be a Hall of Famer, you can have a pretty good idea at the time that you're seeing something really special.

[john]

I feel so sorry for Hunter and Fisher who have conducted themselves with class during these proceedings. They are fighting a very hard battle and are going to be remembered for negotiating this CBA. For that moron Kessler to put such a black mark on these negotiations is despicable.

[LogicalDude]

I agree with your last two points about classics but I don't think you need the passage of time really. I'm pretty sure Game 6 of the World Series this year is going to be a classic no matter what. I don't need the benefit of 10 years to know that we'll still be talking about that game for a long time. So time isn't a necessary criteria, but I do agree that too often people are way too quick to call something a classic when only the the truly special, i.e. Game 6 should even be considered.

[Jeff D]

I'm not a tennis guy per se, but any time Nadal and Federer are playing I'll sit down and watch. Problem is, the "rivalry" component seems to be missing a seething hatred or at least dislike of the other party. That's the best part of watching Ravens vs. Steelers in the NFL. A certain degree of animosity or contempt is critical.

[Alan C.]

I was sitting here wondering why the Williams-Dimaggio pairing left me a bit cold (other than that they were both on the back side of their careers when I became aware of baseball) when it occurred to me that the direct, personal intensity just can't be there as much in baseball. To my mind, the major sports (and rivalries) by personal intensity:

Boxing, MMA -- they are whaling away directly on each other
Tennis -- in singles, they are competing directly, but not in contact with, with one another
Golf -- both play the course, not each other, but final day pairings and the pressure good shots can put on the other player make it pretty personal
Basketball, hockey, football (?) -- some direct competition (and contact), but it is mediated by other players (part of the one-sidedness of the Russell-Chamberlain matchup)
Baseball -- direct competition is only pitcher-hitter, and I can't think of any such rivalries; so most baseball rivalries, I think, are basically statistical.

Now things like personality and interactions off the playing surface would obviously enter in to enhance particular situations (Ali comes to mind) and help to create or enhance rivalries in any sport.

[Lorie]

Hi Doug!
The sport where I've always looked forward to specific pairings of players is tennis. And back in the day you couldn't tear me away from the television if it the match final featured Steffi Graf against Martina Navratilova, or Andre Agassi versus Pete Sampras. And I agree with the rest of your list - however, the dudes with whom I work are shocked - SHOCKED I tell you - that you omitted a couple of guys by the names of Earnhardt and Gordon. I believe they drove in cars. Not runs. Or something like that. And, Doug, do you remember being at an Olympics you covered and looking forward to a particular event that featured an intriguing rivalry? Cheers!

[LeeZ]

As for the "better than the sum of their parts" thing, I agree with all your picks, Doug, and would add Chrissie and Martina. I think the criterion here should be the two athletes drive one another to new heights through their rivalry (don't think that really applies to Gretzky-Lemieux; they just happened to be two of the all-time greats playing at the same time). But Martina, with her athleticism and physicality, FORCED Chrissie to become a great athlete and eschew the moonballs in favour of a game more patterned after men's tennis. Their fierce rivalry forever changed the sport; you would never have Sharapova and the Williams sisters pounding the crap out of the ball had you not first had Chrissi vs Martina.

[sam]

There's been some great Pitching rivalries over the years -
The memory is a little fuzzy, but I vaugely recall watching a pitchers duel one afternoon on the tube between Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden -

As a young Radio announcer we had a list of long songs to play when we needed some fresh air or natured called - Similar to the last song of the night at the dance. Stairway to Heaven, Let it Be were included - along with American Pie -

[Ryan M in Ottawa]

Hey Doug,

Gotta put Federer-Nadal in the great rivalries. For four years it was always Federer and Nadal in the 1-2 positions and the major finals in a sport it is difficult to stay ontop for more than a year and where players top out in their early-mid twenties. Yes, they are friendlier off court than most, but on court there may not ever be higher level tennis than the two of them played.

[Jon]

One great Pitcher-hitter rivalry that I recall reading a bit about in the past is Reggie Jackson/Nolan Ryan.

[dubz]

So Kobe's 81 point performance wouldn't be classified as a classic? Really? That is the greatest basketball scoring output of this generation and its not a classic?

Blogger's note: Classic performance in a mundane game, yeah. As a "classic game" not even close, no drama, no significance in big picture

[Andrew B]

On the topic of "classics"...how does the "Game 162" from MLB this year rank? It wasn't one game, it was what? Three or four? So how do we work that? You can't say that night won't be remembered throughout the annals of baseball history.

[The J]

When the NY Giants beat the New England Patriots, who were coming into the game undefeated for the season, and when it happened with a near-end of game drive, including the ridiculous helmet catch, I knew I wasn't going to need 8 years to look back on it and determine it was a classic. I don't think I needed to wait 8 years after Joe Carter's home run, or the people in Cleveland needed to wait 8 years after MJ dropped "The Shot" on them. And I'm sure people were calling Canada's winners in 72 and this past olympics classics well before the cut-off. I do think there are instant classics, it might just be that we use term a little too often (BTW game 6 of this World Series will be essentially forgotten in 2 years).

I think rivalries like Lemieux - Gretzky are similar to Kobe - Lebron. They are fan based, and not player driven. None of these players went head to head in any kind of meaningful game, so it's a rivalry on message boards, not reality. Neither one was altogether driven by the other, and neither one had a particular hatred for each other. I think you need some or all of that to be a true rivalry. Sid and Ovechkin, are bordering on a rivalry, but time will tell. Payton Manning vs. Tom Brady, might be more of a fan one.

You can have a rivalry from driving cars? So I guess I have a rivalry with that old lady who was doing about 35km/hr with one of her blinkers on last night?

[Radar]

I disagree on the "passage of time" criteria to define a classic. Watching the 2008 Wimbledon finals between Federer and nadal, even when the match was only two thirds done, I remember thinking "wow! This match will rival the classic 1980 Borg vs McEnroe match as the best ever". And when it was done, that's exactly the comparison it evoked. Sometimes you can just feel it while it's happening.

[LogicalDude]

The J, with all due respect, how can you say Game 6 will be forgotten in 2 years? I've never seen such a painful sports collapse in my life. They were 1 strike away from winning the World Series in TWO different innings and still lost, both times blowing a 2-run lead. This made the Buckner game look like a minor event. If the Rangers had won game 7 I agree it would have negated the impact of Game 6, but since that didn't happen I have no doubt that Game 6 will be remembered for a long long time.

[Tim H.]

Re: “whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” I guess what I meant was that Ali was good; Frazier was good; but putting them together on the same stage somehow made each of them better.
DiMaggio/Williams was a little before my interest in baseball started, but the others I agree with wholeheartedly.

[Nick M]

@ The J,

The old lady doing 35kmh with blinkers on, c'mon...

Now, I remember this time I was on the road, it had to be about eight years ago...

[Michel G]

Thane, the problem with the Lemieux - Gretzky rivalry is that it only occured on the stats sheet, and not in the playoffs. They never met in the playoffs, not even once. Actually, my most vivid memory of Lemieux and Gretzky is them as teammates when they combined to score the winning goal in the 1987 Canada Cup. I guess I never viewed them as rivals because of that. If they had met in the Finals 2 or 3 times when they were in their prime, it would have changed my perception. But they never did.

[sb]

Anyone else notice the change of title to this, our favourite blog? It is now "Doug Smith's Sports Blog". Goodbye NBA...you lost us at "lockout". Or, at least, you seem to have lost a tall forehead or two at TheStar.com...

Blogger's note: More in the morning but the change is not dramatic

[doug]

there are very few sporting events for me that I still remember so as to still feel the emotion I was feeling at that moment it happened, that to me defines a classic, like Jack's 86 Augusta win, that one still gives me goosebumps, the Ali-Frazier fights, Secretariat, when I watch those vids I still am rooting all over again, the Cowboys-Steelers Super Bowls of the Staubach/Bradshaw years and any major with Borg, he just was this unemotional machine....those to me are my classics as they still dredge up the emotion of the moment

[doug]

to those that wonder how i can support the players this article sums it up nicely, ..it's not about me supporting the players blindly it's the venom and let's squash the union mentality from the owners, it's just to me not only uncalled for but despicable when in fact these 2 sides should be and will have to be working in unison to make the game thrive...the owners have missed the ball totally in my view...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/chris_mannix/11/09/nba.labor/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t12_a1

[m]

@doug
I totally agree with you. This article is very revealing and backs up your referenced article.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7186103/why-players-cave

[Bo]

Was the song your wife alluded to 'A Whiter Shade of Pale' by Percy Sledge?