The NBA Players Association no longer exists, talks to solve the months-long lockout imposed by the league are over and the whole shebang is headed to the courts.
The law courts.
And that’s never a good thing.
Not only did the union reject the league’s latest offer on Monday, it has filed what’s known as a “disclaimer of interest” – effectively ceasing to exist as a union – and will throw the whole thing into the courts.
It is, by all accounts, a risky move that puts the entire 2011-12 season in serious jeopardy but also is the move of last resort by a union that grew tired of what it saw as threats and ultimatums from a league that’s been asking for take-backs since the talks on a new collective bargaining agreement began.
“Ugly” is how one NBA source put it minutes after the union announced its intentions after player representatives from all 30 teams met in New York.
The former union said it would file anti-trust legislation against the league in next couple of days. It has hired lawyer David Boies, who handled the Al Gore side of the U.S. presidential mess years ago, to help fight its battle.
Of course, in what amounts to a game of $4 billion chicken, this latest union salvo could work to spur even more negotiations. There is a window to not only resume talks to salvage a season and this now puts the pressure on the owners to respond. Commissioner David Stern had told multiple media outlets over the weekend that negotiations were “over” but until the first arguments are made in court, nothing is truly “over.”
“It’s never too late for David to call me,” said Billy Hunter, now the head of something called the NBA Players Trade Association, said Monday.
Whatever comes of it, these are uncharted waters for a league that generated about $4 billion in revenues last year.
No, the full membership of the union did not – and will not – get a chance to vote on what was allegedly the league’s final proposal. And, yes, this may not mean the absolute end of any chance at an abbreviated season but it is a mess. An ugly mess.
Welcome to, I guess, A Blog New World (sorry Aldous) that we presume will be much like the Old Blog World only up earlier in the morning and who needs sleep, anyway?
Not sure what’ll change, maybe the scope a wee bit, maybe the format gets tweaked a little bit, but we’re still going to be all over the map and once basketball gets back – as if! – we’ll still be pretty centred on it.
Guess what we want to do is to try to drive the agenda a wee bit, figure out what you’re talking about and talk about it, let you talk about it and see where it goes.
Now, I’m not going to do this as well as Cathal did or C Young did but figure they never did The Monkees, Francis Albert, favourite Law and Order characters and they never had Irregulars to talk to or Super Son to talk about. So I’m way ahead there.
Oh, yeah, the Tall Foreheads (and there are many) are hoping we get a boost in the hits along with more chatter, more comments and more everything so if you have any friends to tell …
Thanks.
Enjoy.
-
So, today’s Hall of Fame day, I’m told.
For the pucks, that is. With Doug Gilmour (bless his Kingston heart), Joe Niewendyk, Ed Belfour and Mark Howe getting the big enshrinement thingy at the bun toss this evening.
Good for them, they’d sure seem to have the bonafides necessary for such an honour, long and distinguished careers, championships, an impact on the game that was significant.
But, tell me, what do you think makes a Hall of Famer? As we know, I’m a bit of a hard-ass when it comes to that particular honour, I think it’s too easy for too many players in too many sports to be put into a Hall of Fame and it really does diminish it at times.
It’s needs to a combination of all of those things I mentioned – maybe winning and longevity more than the others – to be put into such august company.
One thing that can’t be a factor?
Raw numbers.
Forget goals or wins or points or yards, the numbers have been skewed so much over the years that they’re really meaningless in a lot of cases.
Some guys get 500 goals or 25,000 points or 10,000 yards rushing simply because they last a long time, or play in a better system for their skills. The eras are so different, so impossible to compare that to say a guy should get Hall consideration just because he hits a number makes no sense at all.
That does leave some subjectivity to the process and that’s okay. Aren’t such honours all about discussion and dissecting the relative merits of each individual? Isn’t that what’s one of the great parts of sports? Had a guy once tell me no one could make a Hall of Fame unless you couldn’t write a history of his sport in his era without mentioning him, that makes a lot of sense. Another guy once told me that if someone didn’t at least play for a title – not necessarily win one – he shouldn’t get in.
I’m going back to my old boy Potter Stewart to put it this way:
“I may not know what a Hall of Famer is but I know one when I see one.”
And if that engenders discussion, great; it’s what sports is supposed to do.
So, as part of that discussion, and because we’re all about cross-promotion or something like that, head on over to Faceplant, er, Facebook and vote in our “which is the best Hall of Fame” thingy and tell me why. (And if you want to one of those "like" things there, that'd be sweet of you).
We’ll chat about it tomorrow maybe.
-
Grunt’s Rule No. 1,320,021
If your team’s down 21 points in the second quarter and you score a touchdown, you should simply put the ball down on the ground. You should probably not make a spectacle of yourself involving your cheereleader girlfriend.
This was a tad over the top from Sunday’s Bills-Cowboys fiasco (we’re talking to you, Buffalonians), wasn’t it?
Dude scores, runs length of field, hugs sweetie, gives her the ball and then continues to watch his team get drilled?
-
Grunt’s Rule No. 2,201,911
If you make a play that wins a ball game in one of the most dramatic moments imaginable and you’re a little school against a giant, by all means run into the stands to see your sweetheart.
-
So I’m doing a little bit of a driving during the start of the Bills game Sunday and, of course, it’s on the radio because Psychedelic Sunday was kind of dry at time.
I tell ya, that’s one of the most over-sponsored broadcasts ever, isn’t it?
Coin toss sponsored.
Broadcast booth (even though it was road game) sponsored.
This play sponsored.
That play sponsored.
Timeouts sponsored.
Injury reports sponsored.
Big play brought to you by this company.
Solid hit brought to you by that company.
You hardly had time to listen to them over-analyse every play from scrimmage for all the deals. Can’t wait for the Bills to move to Toronto so we can see what companies here come up with what deals.
-
And what did you do this weekend?
Yeah, about half done, I may have to cut down the 40-foot maple that still hasn’t shed a leaf yet just to make my life easier.
-
Oh yeah, the NBA.
You get the latest?
The league holds some Twitterview Sunday night to allegedly answer legitimate questions about its latest, final, end-of-the-process offer and it, not surprisingly, devolves into something of a mess.
I understand entirely that social media has place in society these days but to try to make convoluted points about something as serious as a deal that could ultimately scuttle an entire season may not best be done in 140 characters or less.
But nothing ventured, nothing gained, I guess.
And to get you up to speed, here are a couple of must-reads ahead of the big union rep meeting today in New York courtesy of Mr. Berger and Mr. Beck, two of the stalwarts of the coverage so far.
I cannot pretend to figure out what may happen when the 30 reps get together, whether the proposal will get to the full union membership to vote or what. But I do believe we’re getting near the end game, which can’t come soon enough.
You go through these while I go wrestle with more leaves.
-
Q: Hey Doug: In your long and illustrious career, what is the single best event you ever covered, and what was the single worst event you covered? I imagine you've hard more than a few good and bad, but I'm hoping you can narrow it down to the absolute best and worst.
Thanks!
Tim H, Windsor
A: I’m sure you’re not talking about mundane regular season affairs, or even one-off playoff games, are you?
So I’ll give you a good and a bad with the proviso that there have been a lot of both.
Good
Raptors-Sixers, NBA East semifinal, 2001
Remember it? The drama of dueling 50-point games by Vince Carter and Allen Iverson, sidebar of Oak and Tyrone Hill, back and forth and back and forth. An awful lot of work for a grunt but, man, was it a lot of fun.
Bad
1996 Atlanta Olympics.
Three weeks of misery. Terrible housing in a dorm with a cement courtyard in a sketchy part of town, citizenry didn’t care, infrastructure sucked beyond comprehension. Oh, and the bomb.
-
Q: Hey Doug. Your comments about 'classics' got me pondering. Could we possibly have a list of your top 5 classic games/matches/events of all time?
Dell V, London
A: Of all time? Wow. Nearly impossible, isn’t it?
But here’s a starter, am sure Irregulars will add and perhaps, like another question soon to follow, we can do this more thoroughly over the passage of time.
So what I’ll do is give you five, each from a different sport, that I recall:
Borg-McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon final.
Some see it as the greatest tennis match ever; must be close if I remember it.
Boston-Phoenix, Game 5, 1976 NBA Final
Triple-overtime, ref gets punched by a fan, more drama than you can imagine.
Montreal Canadiens-Soviet Red Army, New Year’s Eve, 1975
If I remember a pucks game from more than 35 years ago, it must have been pretty special.
Boston-Cincinnati, Game 6, 1975 World Series.
Forget Carlton Fisk, go look at Bernie Carbo’s three-run shot in the eighth as the big play.
Tom Waston-Jack Nicklaus, British Open 1982
The Duel In The Sun, I believe they call it, virtual match play with a major at stake and two of the all-time greats.
-
Q: Hello Doug. So, as this You-Know-What drags on and I'm really struggling to find the tiniest of nuggets of NBA-related news to keep this thing going...And this little corner of the Interweb is apparently still called "Raptors Questions"...do you think The Tall Foreheads are going to rename this and make it more all-encompassing? So we aren't limited to Raptors stuff? Ha! Like I ever was!!! But this is sort of basketball-related: I saw on Twitter (so it was undoubtedly accurate!) that some expensive meal or something for the NBA reporters stuck in the lobby was being "charged" to your "account" as President of the PBWA! Is this true? Is this part of the gig? You get "accounts"? Where? All the best restaurants, hotels and shops in North America? Or do you have "accounts" worldwide??? And are they, you know, "unlimited"? And is one of them for Holt-Renfrew? 'Cause they've got this Great Pre-Christmas thingy coming up...:) Cheers! (And thank you for the Remembrance Day thoughts on the blog! We must never, ever forget to remember. And give thanks.
Lorie P, London
A: Oh, how I with I had accounts all over world – yes, even Holt-Renfrew, which I understand is some high-falutlin’ store somewhere – but, alas, it’s not the case.
What we did, and Twitter was indeed true was suggest the PBWA spring for a meal for those held hostage to the talks, many of whom are/were illustrious members of our little cabal.
The fellow members of the Small But Mighty Three-Man Executive PBWA Board agreed, one of our leaders (VP For Life Asch) was stuck in the lobby so we had some pizza, I believe, delivered. And it wasn’t so much on my account but my suggestion that Steve got done, to be dutifully reimbursed from our coffers.
We’re not a rich little group, but we don’t mind feeding the hungry among us.
Others, like CBA Guru L. Coon, sprung for meals, too, can’t have grumbly stomachs of those waiting out hours of meetings.
-
Q: Oh all knowing seer...Since it is now a pop culture thingy...
What happened to Sara Lee's Banana Cake?
Did they run out of bananas? They have not offered this delight for years.
How about a list of who to watch in the CIS?
How about your dream threesome to be trapped in a cell phone free elevator?
Stay off Funk and Wagnall's front porch!
Bob E, Kanata
A: Never having had Sara Lee’s Banana Cake, I can’t give you an answer but now I wish I’d tried it, although I truly despise bananas.
The CIS stuff is something I do have to get cracking on; maybe this week. I’ve been tardy.
What if I got in an elevator with Hemingway, Red Smith and Scott Young? Think that’d be a story-tellers storytelling time?
But you’ve sparked a great series of lists that I’ve now stored in my cluttered little mind. Different “categories” for different foursomes. Good idea.
And Funk and Wagnall’s front porch isn’t too bad, isn’t everything on it hermetically sealed?
Q: Hey Doug. Keep up the good work. Quick question for you: I know the players have the weekend to mull over the deal, and I really hope they come back with a counter-offer that's reasonable and each side breaks out the clothespins, puts them on their noses, and signs.
But if they don't: What in the world is going to happen with the 2012 NBA Draft?
(It had been a while...)
David T, Ottawa
A: I (heart) the Irregulars.
-
Q: Hey Doug. You're probably getting sick of hearing from me but I don't like studying and am much more interested in this lockout :) I could use someone else's name if you don't want to see mine anymore, haha.
Basically Rick Barry bashes on both the players and Billy Hunter for not making a deal and he makes some very good points. I wish the league had someone with the sense he shows in this article. Maybe things would be different if he was an active player in the league, but his points are valid and I think most fans see things from his point of view.
Anyway, i thought you'd find this interesting and might comment on the story itself, if not my email.
Have a great weekend!
Brett F, Lethbridge
A: It’s a very interesting story with many fine points and I think you could find dozens of ex-players of all levels of fame who can’t quite understand why we are where we are today and who have logical points to make on a variety of issues.
Heck, you could find dozens of reporters who’ve covered this mess who can make equally valid points.
Trouble is, both sides have elected or hired the men they have elected and hired and it’s up to them to find an amenable deal for their constituents.
-
Q: Hi Doug. This is a two-part question which really popped into my mind while I was watching The Replacements with Keanu Reeves. If the NBA players where to proceed with decertification, can the NBA owners use replacement players?
I know how much you like lists, so what is your top 5 "feel good" sports movies (Fields of Dreams tops my list)
Thanks love the blog.
Pintoo S, Los Angeles
A: A move to decertify would throw everything into chaos and the courts that there is no way the league could do anything but be paralysed until the situation (think long anti-trust court battle) was solved. But also know that as soon as a decertification vote passes (and we are months and months and months from that) the union ceases to exist; the words “replacement players” become moot.
Movies?
Well, if Hoosiers doesn’t top that list, there is no list, right?
And how about Rudy, Rocky, We Are Marshall and, oh, sure, Field of Dreams to round out a Top 5?
Have to be others, though, don’t there?
-
Q: Hey Doug. Love the blog. You made an interesting point today about the scant few players who actually live year-round in the city they play in. This begs the question, have there ever been any Raptors that have called this city home year round? Keep up the good work!
James H, Toronto
A: Year ‘round? No. There have been a couple over the years who’ve stayed in the May-June time period because they’ve had kids in school and a lot of players spend a lot of time coming back and forth in the summer to visit but to say “year ‘round” is a bit of a stretch. The one and only Rasho did have a place here he spent large chunks of the summer at but even he’d go away for long stretches.
-
Q: Hey Doug. Let's get your "Final Four" at this point in the NFL season. Who makes the AFC/NFC Final? Who wins those to go on to win the Superbowl? Does it look like a repeat year for Green Bay's videogame-like offence?
Cheers!
Andrew P, Toronto
A: You know me and predictions.
Spurs by 12.
But, sure, why not play along.
Forgetting their very average defence, the Packers simply have too much offence to be denied at least a spot in the conference final, don’t they? So why don’t we put them up against, say, the Giants in the conference final (don’t sleep on the Niners, though) and you can throw a blanket over about six or seven AFC teams today, can’t you? So why not think Baltimore and New England square off.
-
Q: Hi Doug. Not sure if this has been answered before, but what "qualifies" one for the position of Team Rep within the union? It seems that we are *mostly* discussing guys in deep reserve roles. Did they excel academically in their NCAA stints? Are they held in high esteem by their peers for intelligence? Or is this dog work that nobody else wants to do and is thrown to guys who have more of a vested interest given their shorter careers and lower salaries? With all the movement of these second- and third-tier players (and changing of Team Reps), how does the union have any continuity at the membership rank?
Sean S, Toronto
A: Now, I preface this by saying I’ve never actually been in the room when any team I’ve ever covered has chosen a player rep, and they exist in every sport.
But from talking to people who have, a lot of times it’s a matter of “okay, someone’s got to do it, as long as it’s easy I’ll handle it” and it’s generally some young and eager player who’ll take that on. And for most seasons it is entirely easy, maybe a couple of meetings a year, very few fires to put out and a relative piece of cake.
And I don’t think you can say they’re held in esteem as much as they are appreciated for doing what amounts to a thankless task.
Now, as with everything, there are exceptions and there are players who truly want to be involved in the process, of making sure CBAs are adhered to, who want to get involved in larger union issues but I’d submit they are in a big minority.
Mostly it’s people who volunteer, or are volunteered, who aren’t quite sure what they’re getting into.
We don’t do overt displays of emotion or hero worship or even patriotism all that well in this wonderful country of ours and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
I am far more for under-stated appreciation for what we have, more mostly private reflective moments of thought, not as much action.
Except Canada Day.
And today.
I am of the eras that don’t truly know the hell of war, no one in my immediate family served in active duty, no one died, cousins weren’t left without fathers or mothers, my family remained intact.
Only, it would follow, because of the actions of the brave men and women who did take the call and serve the duty, who put life and limb on the line so that we can live as we do today, so that our country – and our world – remains for the most part a hospitable place.
This is the day we need to celebrate them, publicly and privately.
There was a time when I think more than a few of us spent time in the Legion. In small towns and medium cities and big-cit neighbourhoods they were places to go and hear stories, to see the fellas, to perhaps play some shuffleboard and have a pickled egg, a draught and get some perspective on what life was like.
Good afternoons, they were.
Those Legions are dark, mostly, we are losing the men and women who survived the war to the realities of time and that’s too bad.
If you drive by one today, slow down, would you? Tip your cap or bow your head or just look and say a silent thanks. You’ll feel better, I bet.
There isn’t a lot of war veteran history in my family – there are a few medals in Super Brother’s house that I hope he gets a chance to look at for a second today, or perhaps to share with Super Grandpa at some point – and I would venture to guess it’s the same in a lot of Irregular families.
There are, however, tens of thousands of you out there who know the loss of war and it of you we think today.
Think hard.
And be appreciative.
-
Anyway, now back to our regular foolishness.
-
So, the talks drone on.
The weekend for union to mull over the latest NBA offer – or last offer if the dispatches are correct – and thankfully we should have some resolution on Monday or Tuesday.
It would appear to either be acceptance with noses held and a 72-game season or some kind of decertification move and chaos.
Me? I’d love the game to come back but the level of ambivalence and ennui is off the chart.
Will say this though:
With a 75-game starting Dec. 15 crammed in to what appears to be a 130-day period will be a test of even the fittest of grunts. Of which I am not one. Better start training, just in case.
Or not.
-
Okay, you know what I wish?
That this story about soccer player David Testo wasn’t a story.
I wish we didn’t care, or want to know, or need to know his sexual orientation, that he could live and play and we could watch and critique and appreciate without any regard for what he did or does in his private life.
I understand entirely that it may send a wonderful message to youngsters who may be feeling confusion or anger or even shame and I can see the good that it may do.
Just wish it didn’t have to be done, that we didn’t care, the teens in similar situations didn’t have to worry about keeping things secret for fear of repercussion, that they could live as they want to.
They can’t, that sucks, and until they can, we have very much work to do as a society.
I really don’t care which of the athletes I watch are gay, or which are straight, or which are whatever. You shouldn’t, either.
Q: I know you loathe the pucks, but is there any chance you might do another guest appearance on the IGBT for the Leaves?
Jim S, Thornhill
A: Tee-hee.
Nah. I think Zorro and Kevin and Dave F. are fully capable of running that show; no sense me crowding the issue.
But, if we get to Labour Armageddon the first of the week and there will be no NBA season, all bets are off.
-
As I was doing the reporting on this baseball story (yes, we are all over the map these days, aren’t we?) one thought stuck me:
The allure of home must be a powerful, powerful, dangerous, dangerous thing for some young athletes.
You would think after all the past incidences of kidnapping and terror and the perils of wealth that more athletes would use their financial abilities to either take their families to safer, more sane places to live or at least take better security cautions they can likely afford.
But there is something about “home” I guess that draws them back, something stronger than simply the chance to play winter ball with long-time buddies.
We can’t quite understand it, I don’t think, not too many of us have had to leave our comfort zones and homelands in search of a career.
But we can hope – and hope that teams drill this into the heads of their young players from the minute that they join organizations – that kids take all the precautions possible. And that they don’t flaunt their wealth so openly as to almost dare those in dire circumstances to see them solely as dollar signs.
There is a responsibility of youngsters to protect themselves and their families. That may not always be enough but it should be a starting point for all of them.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out the intransigence most NHL teams show – and in particular the one in the city where I work ‘cause it’s the one we read most about – when dealing with injuries to players.
Not entirely sure who they’re protecting with what amounts to a disinformation campaign.
The coaches and players seemingly have to answer the same questions about the same issues almost every day – “When’s so-and-so coming back?” “How’s the old Upper Body doing?” “Why are you making this so hard on everyone concerned?”
And, seriously, I have yet to find an athlete in any sport who, during the heat, speed, emotion of a game, had the presence of mind to size up an opponent either for a hit or a foul and think, ‘hmm, is it his left shoulder? Right ankle? Lower back?” Doesn’t happen.
The “protection” such blatant disregard for the dissemination of information most fans are clamouring for simply smacks of a team management thumbing its nose. It doesn’t have to give stuff up by the letter of the law so it won’t; seems to be more about control than any medical safeguard from this view.
It’s not a huge thing in the whole scheme of things but it does rankle. A simple: Sore shoulder, maybe a week; bad back, could be 10 days; torn muscle, we’ll see when he’s ready might work a bit better, no?
-
Dear You Know Who You Are:
We do not want to hear your telephone conversations while in an elevator with you.
Q: Hey Doug! Just wondering but if you were told you could make millions of dollars a year but you wouldn't be able to pick where to live, you got to travel a lot and stay in luxury hotels, eat expensive food, have chartered flights (all paid for by your boss) and get to use state-of-the-art facilities, would you complain about your working conditions and about not being able to choose where you work?
Sincerely,
Pissed at the Players
Brett F, Lethbridge
A: I’m not sure money, hotels or travel have anything to do with it; that’s part of the job description regardless of where your home base is. It’s the same if you’re playing in a city you love or one you hate.
But the whole thing about not being able to choose where you work is indeed a conundrum. If you were to work, let’s say, for a multi-national corporation, would you like it if your boss showed up in Toronto on Monday and said you work in Riyadh on Tuesday? Probably not, irrespective of the perks of the job.
But all pro athletes know that’s entirely possible, they knew it when they signed up and accept it as a fact of life.
Conversely, I don’t have too much of a problem with athletes in any sport wanting to be able to choose their home base (and that’s all it is, scant few actually live in the off-season where they work) when they decide where to first sign to play. Limiting those choices seems wrong to me, as long as move are made under whatever rules are collectively bargained between a players’ association and a league.
-
So they’ll be back at it at noon in New York today, trying to figure out what they’ve agreed to, what they haven’t agreed to and what to do to resolve this mess.
By all accounts, yesterday was a good day. They seem to have inched closer to solving some of the “system” issues that have derailed the negotiation process but there are still biggies to go and many roadblocks to get past.
Best of luck to ‘em, wake us when it’s over and we can find out when/if a season will start and how long it might go.
-
Hey, you gals and guys notice anything around these parts?
If you call this thing up and look over to the right, it says Doug Smith’s Sports Blog now!
Go figure.
Yes, the Tall Foreheads thought, rightly so, that we’ve become a wee bit more than just the Raptors and Doug Smith’s Blog About Whatever He Fancies Each Morning With Some Pop Culture Thrown In For Good Measure wasn’t graphically pleasing, or doable.
So, presto, change-o, new name.
But the same old stuff, promise. There’ll be more Raptors and basketball than you’d ever want when they get back to playing but now – tee-hee – I have the blessings to broaden horizons under a new name.
Lucky, lucky, readers.
We’ll have some other tweaks starting Monday but figured I should explain the name change.
(And I’m a tad upset only one of you pointed it out; that’s not very observant of you, people).
-
For some reason – mostly because I didn’t want to watch a regular season hockey game between two nondescript teams and Modern Family was pre-empted – the TV stayed set on the Country Music Awards last night.
Great show, actually, there’s some fine music there and now I sort of see what all the fuss is about that Taylor Swift person (Hi, Sienna!)
But there were moments of sacrilege, like when some group came out and sang Georgia On My Mind.
We all know this is the voice that sings that tune.
-
This is classic.
The due Kessler, the outside hired gun of a lawyer who works for the NBAPA, makes the most inappropriate comment of the entire lockout – the one about owners treating players “like plantation workers” – and then offers up an apology that includes an explanation that “the comments that I made in The Washington Post took place in an interview late at night Monday after a very long day.”
What?
That ranks up there with some of the other ridiculous initial explanations or obfuscations over time:
“Someone put a murky white substance in my water bottle.”
“I did not knowingly take steroids.”
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
“My dog ate my homework.”
“His misremembered.”
Seriously, I just want one guy to be stand up enough to say: “Hey, I screwed up, sorry” without some cockamamie codicil that makes you laugh.
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.
Where do we rank Joe Frazier, rest his soul, in the pantheon of sports figures in our era, since many of us seem to be of the same era?
There can be no question about his athletic skill, he was a relentless competitor, a man driven to dominate boxing when boxing matter, the kind of never-take-a-step-back fighter to be admired for his will, skill and heart.
Those fights with Muhammad Ali, back when big-time fights truly mattered to the sports fan, were undeniably classics, moments to be cherished now that the sport has pretty much dropped off the face of the Earth.
The Fight Of The Century was, indeed, the Fight Of The Century, the Thrilla in Manilla was, indeed, a thriller.
They lived up to the hype, moments of true sporting greatness and that is not often the case. It was a far simpler time back then, no over-blown lead-up to monumental sporting events, we let them unfold as much in our imagination than through the breathless analysis of so-called experts. We were able to form our own opinions by watching and reading, not by being inundated with the 24-hour news cycle.
But more than that, more than for his athletic prowess, Frazier filled a role that was perfect for his time.
He was the perfect foil for Ali, who treated him poorly at times, of that there can be no question. He seethed at the treatment he got and it fuelled him and turned him into the fighter he was in those memorable bouts.
Ali was the more famous, the more controversial, by far the more colourful of the two men. But one, I don’t think, could have truly existed without the other; they needed the opposite personality to drive them, to drive their sport, to make them what they were.
There was a coming together late in their lives, Ali and Frazier may not have become the greatest of friends but there were appearances together and, you got the feeling, a realization of what each meant to the other back when they ruled the sports world.
Of all the “rivalries” that we hear about, all the mano-a-mano crap we’re dealt about athletes who are more friends than competitors, we’ll never live another Ali-Frazier.
Too bad.
-
So having read almost all the dispatches, there is a group of owners who hope the players turn down the 50-50 split because they want to go back to 47 with a hard cap and all kinds of draconian measures and a group who want to play.
And you have a group of players who want to decertify the union and send this all to the courts and a group who would take it in a heartbeat and get on with their careers.
Sounds like a deal to me.
Everybody holds their noses, the thing gets signed and life goes on.
One thing I do think it is that Wednesday is not the drop-dead day and even if there is no resolution by Stern’s end-of-business deadline, I certainly don’t expect any announcement that the full season has been cancelled.
There would appear to remain some wiggle room on both sides which means more breathless talks, more, well, more yawning.
-
I’ve been trying to get at this one for some time now and haven’t ever quite done it.
We agree some (most?) of us are Of A Certain Vintage and we don’t mind at all to relive the days gone by.
So, this debate raged.
It’s the early 70s, there’s that special someone at the dance, you know who he or she was, right? Which of these was best?
This one?
This one?
This one?
I know, tough to pick, no?
So which one and why?
-
Know what I did last night?
Watched a Monday Night Football game, almost start to finish. There may have been a half-hour nap thrown in there but other than that, start to finish for the first time this year.
Great game, actually but one thing stuck:
Man, does Jon Gruden ever talk a lot. Wow!
Not sure if that was a particular verbose performance or not but he certainly is chatty.
-
Speaking of Joe Frazier, there wasn’t much memorable about the 2002 NBA all-star game in Philly.
Traffic gridlock downtown, I seem to recall Vince didn’t play because his knee was sore and that became one of the most overblown stories of his tenure and about the best thing was trying to find a restaurant near the hotel to watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympics with The First Lady Of The Beat and My Man Sheridan.
Oh, wait, there was one thing.
These two guys were hanging out; best scene of the weekend.
-
Michelle B. in Toronto writes to ask:
Q: Hi Doug. With all this talk of a mandatory players rep meeting in NY Tuesday, who is the Raptors rep? I believe it use to be Julian, but since he is a free agent, I’d imagine it would have to be a player under contract.
Not sure if it absolutely has to be a player under contract – it would make sense but I haven’t seen the union bylaws – but the best information I have from the players association and a couple of other folks is that Jerryd Bayless has taken over that gig from Julian, who took it over from Jarrett Jack, if my memory is correct.
The thing with the Raptors is that I don’t see a lot of militancy among the players and I’d imagine most of ‘em would take 50-50 and get on with their careers. I could be wrong but that seems to be the collective personality.
You’ve got almost half the team in their native lands (Barbosa, Brazil; Calderon, Spain; Bargnani, Italy; Kleiza, Lithuania; Valanciunas doesn’t count) and the rest strike me as guys who truly just want to play and won’t sweat the minutia of a contract too, too much.
I don’t remember where I specifically was 20 years ago today – it was a seminal sporting moment but not one of those “I was standing in this exact spot when I heard the news” instances – but I do recall a sense of loss, of confusion, of sadness.
It was two decade ago, in what has to be one of the most significant sports events of my lifetime (there's some video over at Faceoff, er, Facebook Central that you should go take a look at and like), that Magic Johnson stood in the Fabulous Forum in Los Angeles, telling the world that his NBA career was over because he’d been diagnosed as HIV positive.
It was shocking. We knew far too little about the disease, had little understanding, comparatively, of how it was spread, what it’s impact was, how a heterosexual man could have it.
He was Magic Johnson, for goodness sakes.
There are and will be all kinds of stories about that day floating out there today (Marc Stein’s here is the best I’ve read) but I wonder how many of them will touch on the present, and the impact of the Magic announcement, rather than the nostalgic look at a life-changing moment.
There is no question that Magic, through public awareness and the untold millions of dollars his foundation has raised, has done tremendous work in education and treatment of a disease that still kills too many worldwide.
There are no idiotic players or people who would fear being on the same court as someone who has the HIV virus like there were back when Johnson mounted a comeback. People have seen him flourish despite being diagnosed with a disease everyone figured was fatal 20 years ago.
I remember wondering – and I was not in the minority with this thought, I don’t imagine – whether we’d see him waste away before our very eyes over the years. That didn’t happen in his case, of course, and for that we should be thankful.
But, really?
Really, Magic has done admirable work and is by far the most high-profile athlete to take up the cause of AIDS prevention and the search for some kind of cure. We are better off for him having done that but there is so much more we can do. Yes, he has thrived in the intervening 20 years, healthy, wealthy, and as prominent a businessman as he was an athlete. But AIDS and HIV are still with us, people die daily while a search for a cure continues, there is more work to be done by us all.
It is all well and good to celebrate Johnson, the work he’s done, the life he’s lived, the person he’s become since he left the game.
It is all well and good to watch the grainy old videos of him as a player and the utter joy he got from playing the game.
But Magic Johnson got the best medical attention anyone in the world could get to help him deal with his illness 20 years ago, until we can make sure others are afforded the same, there is work to do.
Maybe today stands as a reminder of that, rather than of a dark day in sports history.
And maybe that’s the good that comes of this anniversary: There are ways to fight this blight, the battle must continue.
-
Okay, time for fun, and a list.
(Told you there was stuff left over from the weekend to parcel out)
Q: How about a list.
Can you list your top five favourite (and least favourite) sport logos of all time?
S S, Newmarket
A: So many choices, good and bad.
Let me get these off my chest and off the top of my head and we’ll see what you think:
Worst
Memphis Grizzlies
It looks a bit cuddly, doesn’t it? Oh, and there’s the whole “are-there-grizzlies-in-Memphis” part of it.
Dallas Mavericks
Odd, that’s all.
Pittsburgh Steelers
Looks like snowflakes or something, doesn’t it?
Portland Trail Blazers
A bunch of squiggly lines? Um, okay.
And the absolute worst
Carolina Hurricanes
‘Nuf said.
Oh, and I will say that of the four pro sports, the NBA probably has more bad ones than any of them.
Best
Chicago Bulls
Under-stated but forceful. Or something like that.
Detroit Red Wings
Just classy, and timeless.
Montreal Expos
Yes, I’m throwing it in ‘cause it was cool.
Chicago Blackhawks
More traditionalist in me, I guess.
And maybe my all-time favourite
Milwaukee Brewers
I like the subtlety of the ‘M’ and the ‘B’. Don’t you?
-
And, of course some of you had to know this was coming today simply because of the opening lyric …
-
Wonder how Dwane Casey’s feeling today?
Today was the day the Dallas Mavericks, the team he helped coach to an NBA championship just five months ago, were to make their only visit to Toronto.
Now, I’m pretty sure, if history holds, that the Raptors would have taken a big lead, spit it up and lost a heart-breaker but I bet Casey would have loved the chance to compete against his old team.
And, yes, the lockout sucks. I kinda was looking forward to this early season game as some kind of litmus test for Casey and whatever new defensive system he’d devised.
Oh, and it would have been fun to bust on the Dirk-Andrea talk, as it always is.
-
Oh yeah. Wanna talk some football?
Somehow they keep roping me into doing that NFL chat thingy at noon so stop by, it’s fun. Most of the time.
All done and with lots of good lists left over, including all-star TV casts and sports logos. It’s gonna be a good week.
And a good day.
Oh …
-
Q: Hi Doug: How about a couple more lists: For the four major pro sports in North America, what would you say are the (insert number here) best things about each one; and the (insert number here) worst things about each.
And, if you need even more, how about a list of your favourite lists? ;>)
Tim H, Windsor
A: Wow, this’ll make a fella think.
Basketball
Like
The fluidity: There really are aspects of dance and ballet.
The drama: You make a shot, I make a shot, someone else makes a shot and the outcome can change two or three times in mere seconds.
The wow factor: Every game, you see something.
Don’t like
Too many timeouts
Too much one-on-one isolation.
The extraneous crap that takes away from the game.
Baseball
Like
A triple to the corner in right with a close play at third. Maybe best play in sports.
The timelessness of it, it unfolds at its own unique pace.
Defence. Great defence on ground balls.
Don’t like
The over-reliance on stats and advance metrics.
The DH-no DH difference between the two leagues.
That some teams are dead in the water by the first of July.
Hockey
Like
A long breakout pass that his a player in stride.
Playoff beards.
Good Olympic hockey on big ice with no fights.
Don’t like
Scripted fights. Worst blight on any professional sport at any level.
Points for losing: There needs to be a winner and a loser. Period. With no reward for losing a shootout.
The utter dominance it has over every facet of the media.
Football
Like
The once-a-week nature of it, like that there is a day, or day and night, when there are games.
A 20-yard out thrown on a line.
Bad weather games. Who doesn’t like watching it played in a raging blizzard?
Don’t like
The militaristic philosophy that seems to pervade it.
The constant over-analysis.
Super Bowl hype.
What have the Irregulars got?
-
Q: With Opening Night been and gone and no live basketball to be seen, I have been reduced to reliving the golden days by watching classic basketball games (Jordan's 54 vs the Knicks in the Eastern Final in 93' the other night for example), and my question would is: If you had to set your Monday to Friday classic games TV line up what games would you most want to see again? Can be any game: NBA, Intl, College, ABA...
Ollie H, Toronto
A: Wow, specific games?
Hmm. Tough one, especially of the top of the old head.
But I think I’d like to see the Russia-Yugoslavia gold-medal game from the 1998 world championships, the USA-Spain gold-medal game from the 2008 Beijing Olympics, any of the legendary Lakers-Celtics championship games from the ‘80s, the Dominique Wilkens-Larry Bird showdown from Game 7 of their 1988 playoff series and the Boston-Phoenix triple overtime game from the 1976 NBA final.
That’d be a nice week of evenings, wouldn’t it?
-
Q: Hey Doug, quick question. Did you get a chance to catch the interview with Vince, T-Mac, and Oak on Off The Record Yesterday? It was interesting and the theme was "What if?" They had a quote from Kobe Bryant saying that if the Raps team from 2001-02 stayed together they would have won multiple championships. T-mac then mentions that if he were on the team during the Philly series then the Raps would have made the finals. Thoughts on this?
Sean H, Pickering
A: Yeah, I saw it, was a nice trip down memory lane. The Kobe quote’s about as old as the highlights and I’ve always contended, Tracy or not, they would have beaten an underwhelming Milwaukee team in the conference final. And, sure, he would have helped against the Sixers but I don’t know if his presence would have guaranteed victory because you don’t know what it would have taken away from Vince, who was pretty damn good.
-
Q: Hi Doug...No more basketball questions from me until they settle. List time again...
Since you referenced Rear Window …favourite five Hitchcock movies?
The Lady Vanishes in there? Despite the hokey special effects to start the movie, it is a great flick.
After Stones and Beatles, who is number three sixties band?
Remember the clock thingy on Saturday!
Bob E, Kanata
A: I have to admit I haven’t seen The Lady Vanishes, but I probably will now and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything by Hitchcock.
But go to the deep recesses of my mind, and knowing that Rear Window is far and above No. 1 on the list, the next four would be, in no particular order:
Vertigo
Dial M For Murder
Strangers On A Train
North By Northwest
Now, I know this isn’t a band, per se, but the most influential music of the ‘60s outside of the Beatles and Stones?
Has to be this guy, right?
Suppose The Band doesn’t count because it spanned ‘60s and ‘70s, right?
If it does …
-
Q: Doug, a while back in the negotiations David Stern said how his owners want a system where every team has a chance. But even if you don't believe in the referee conspiracy theories, everyone knows the NBA more than any other pro sport has always done everything possible to have its glamor teams succeed. A Finals with 2 solid but unglamorous teams like the Spurs and Pistons a few years ago was a ratings disaster, and the league always does what it can to get teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Jordan's Bulls and now the Heat into the Finals. So what do we make of this idea of everyone having a chance? Is Stern really sincere about this absolute 180 degree about face?
Steve K, Barrie
A: Ratings disaster? Maybe for that two week period but they still have a billion dollars in TV deals so disaster is a matter of perception.
But, sure, as a whole the league would love to have every team in contention, as long as the Lakers and Celtics ultimately played for the championship. Truth be told: Having a dozen teams in legitimate contention is truly better for everyone.
Doug Smith has been a sportswriter for more than 30 years, a journey that's included seven Olympic Games, numerous and varied championships and more dreary regular season games than he'd care to remember. Here, he'll talk about them all, as well as current events and pop culture. (Just don’t ask him about music nowadays — it's not his cup of tea).
TheStar.com
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Toronto Star or www.thestar.com. The Star is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites.
Distribution, transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
Recent Comments