Ding Liren Exploits Ian Nepomniachtchi's Blunder to Win Game 12 and Tie the World Chess Championship at 6-6

Even in today's era with computer-assisted preparation, top level chess does not have to consist primarily of draws if both players are willing to fight. Fighting chess creates winning chances for both players, and fighting chess also creates a state of heightened psychological tension that can result in blunders. As Viswanathan Anand once put it, success at top level chess is "a question of nerves." If we want to see perfect--or at least "ideal"--chess then we can watch two computers play against each other. As a strong amateur chess player, I enjoy playing fighting chess and I enjoy watching top level players who play fighting chess.

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ding Liren versus Ian Nepomniachtchi has featured fighting chess in almost every game, and after 12 games the score is tied 6-6 with each player winning three games. The first player to score 7.5 points wins the match, and there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends in a 7-7 tie.

Nepomniachtchi won game two after a game one draw, and he has never trailed during the match. He enjoyed a one point lead from game seven until his collapse in game 12 today, when he built an advantageous position only to squander his edge by playing too quickly before committing a one move blunder that lost the game. Game 12 featured daring play by both players. 

Chess fans who complain about too many draws should not then make fun of top level players who blunder while playing enterprising chess. Taking risks to win also means that you can lose. I respect  Nepomniachtchi's fighting spirit, and as someone whose fighting spirit has led both to great victories and ignominious defeats I can empathize with how he must be feeling after game 12.

A drawn chess game may or may not feature highly accurate play, but a decisive game inevitably includes at least one mistake. There is a tendency for some people to assume that the level of play in matches featuring many decisive games is lower than the level of play in matches that have fewer decisive games. In 2018, Carlsen retained his World Chess Championship title with three wins in rapid play after he and challenger Fabiano Caruana drew all 12 classical games that they contested. One should not assume that the 12 classical games were error-free just because they were all draws, nor should one assume that Carlsen would win a match against the current match competitors based on his prior results. Each match takes on its own flavor.

Objectively speaking, based on chess ratings it is reasonable to suggest that Magnus Carlsen--who declined to defend his World Championship title--is still the world's strongest chess player. However, the notion that if he had played in this World Chess Championship match he would have made fewer mistakes than the current match participants is not supported by the evidence. It is easy to forget--and many people seem to have forgotten--that Carlsen made many mistakes in his World Chess Championship matches. For example, Carlsen missed a winning continuation in game one of his match versus Caruana and the game ended in a draw. Also, in game six of his 2014 match versus Anand, Carlsen made a ghastly blunder that should have cost him the game on the spot--but Anand returned the favor by overlooking the winning move.

In short, Carlsen is a great player and a resourceful fighter but even in his prime he did not play perfect chess, so it is not fair to the current World Chess Championship players to compare them unfavorably to a player who declined to participate. Chess can be a very tension-filled game because a chess player can play 50 correct moves in a row, build up an overwhelming position, and then throw away the game with just one mistake. Most other sports are not like that; if a basketball team takes a 20 point lead, the opposing team cannot come back on one play, and the same concept holds true for baseball, hockey, and football: a large lead cannot be erased by just one mistake.

Chess tests every fiber of your mind, body, and soul. That is one reason why chess is a great game, and that is why I have so much respect for uncompromising players who fight to win every game. Bobby Fischer used to say that a game was not drawn until he said it was drawn, a mindset that resulted in him winning the 1963-64 U.S. Championship with an 11-0 score before later winning 20 straight games against elite Grandmasters without yielding a single draw en route to capturing the World Championship in 1972. That stubborn attitude served Fischer well in chess, even if it may have been counterproductive for him away from the 64 square board. 

In some ways, Nepomniachtchi is fighting against himself as he tries to become the World Chess Champion. If he succeeds in this attempt despite his agonizing game 12 loss, he can truly say that he did it his way. If he falls short, he is young enough to make another attempt to reach the summit, and he can decide if his uncompromising approach may need some modification, at least in terms of the time he spends on each move before making very committal and potential risky decisions.

Ding is harder to read. He comes across as a low energy person, but rest assured that anyone who has qualified for a World Chess Championship match has a fierce fighting spirit regardless of his demeanor. I do not look at his facial expressions or body language and conclude that he is in psychological peril each time that he loses a game, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is strong enough to overcome adversity. 

Whoever wins this match is a worthy successor to Carlsen.

"You've Got to be Kidding": Ian Nepomniachtchi Says What We Are All Thinking During World Chess Championship Press Conference

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ian Nepomniachtchi versus Ding Liren for the title vacated by Magnus Carlsen has featured some exciting games--including three wins by Nepomniachtchi and two wins by Ding--but the postgame press conferences have been marred by journalists in name only asking idiotic questions. 

After today's game 11 ended in a draw, the press conference moderator Keti Tsatsalashvili asked Nepomniachtchi, "Do you think that the most difficult part of the match is already behind, and now you just have to finish the job, or do you think that the most critical games are still ahead of you?"

Nepomniachtchi immediately turned toward her, looked her in the eye and said, "You've got to be kidding." She said, "Sorry?" and Nepomniachtchi repeated, "You've got to be kidding, no?" She said, "No, I'm not." 

Nepomniachtchi then said, "Indeed, (there are) three games (left in the match) and I should give my all to do the job, let's say. Of course it is not anything like it's over--obviously not. It's pretty much an unclear match, I think."

Keti Tsatsalashvili then turned to Ding to ask another question before thinking better of it, and asking the assembled media members if they had any questions.

Game 11 was a relatively short and uneventful draw, so media members who struggle to think of competent and relevant questions even after exciting, decisive games were completely baffled today. Thus, the topic of conversation shifted from the World Chess Championship match to how to detect and prevent chess cheating. Chess cheating is a relevant topic for the chess world in a broad sense, but it is not relevant to this match because there is zero reason to believe that any cheating is taking place, or could take place given the strict precautions that are in place.

Nevertheless, Leontxo Garcia of "El Pais" admitted that he needs help writing his game story for today, and thus he asked both players to comment about chess cheating in general and also specifically if they believe that any of the top 25 players in the world have cheated in over the board chess. Again, it is obvious that chess cheating is a relevant topic for discussion, but it is not obvious why that should be brought up after game 11--except for the fact that Garcia admitted that he needs help writing his game story (at least some people who struggle to do their jobs are candid enough to admit this).  

After Garcia sent the press conference spinning away from the World Chess Championship, Mumbled Name (perhaps he prefers to preserve his anonymity to the general public by not clearly identifying himself) from "Die Zeit" in Hamburg asked both players if they are aware that "500 meters from here Hans Niemann is playing in an open tournament. Do you know about that and what do you think about that?" Nepomniachtchi looked at Mumbled Name as if to inquire, "What is wrong with you?" before noting that he is aware that there is a strong chess tournament taking place nearby "but still, I don't get your question." Mumbled Name mumbled something about Niemann's presence overshadowing the World Chess Championship, and Nepomniachtchi retorted, "No, I don't think so."

The main thing overshadowing the 2023 World Chess Championship is the low quality of the media coverage.

Dreaming of Becoming a Journalist Covering the World Chess Championship

I recently asked Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials? but after further thought I decided that I just have to work harder to reach the incredible intellectual level of the brilliant people who are privileged to cover the chess world's most important and prestigious event. 

The questions below are modeled after some of the excellent, insightful inquiries made in recent World Chess Championship press conferences, because I realize that there is no way that I could independently think of such questions myself--seriously, I cannot imagine ever asking such questions, but maybe I can dream of reaching such a journalistic pinnacle!

1) "Is this match more enjoyable for you than your previous World Chess Championship match?" This is a great question to ask to a player who is leading 4-3 after losing the previous World Chess Championship match following a series of blunders.

2) "Are you familiar with (insert the names of players from an obscure game played a long time ago)? Did this game influence your preparation?" This is a great question because during the World Chess Championship match the players are very much inclined to provide all of the details and background regarding their preparation.

3) "Today is (insert the name of a holiday from a religion that neither player observes). On this holiday (insert elaborate description of how that holiday is observed). Do you plan to celebrate your victory by observing this holiday?" This may be the most brilliant question yet! During a World Chess Championship match, players cannot wait for the opportunity to engage in elaborate comparative religion discussions.

4) "Your opponent experienced tremendous time pressure today. How did that make you feel?" The sheer insight of this question renders me speechless.

5) "Did you choose today's opening for sentimental reasons, or did you have a strategic reason for your choice?" This question is the most brilliant question yet! Clearly, with the World Chess Championship title on the line, we must not ignore the very realistic possibility that the players are choosing openings for sentimental reasons.

6) "Every game in this match has featured a different opening. Do you plan to play a different opening in the next game, or will you repeat one of the openings you already played during this match?" Again, it is brilliant to expect the players to reveal specifically what they plan to play in upcoming games. Such a question is guaranteed to generate a fascinating answer.

7) "From 1-10, how do you evaluate your self-confidence now?" This brings to mind the time that a reporter thought that it would be brilliant to ask Chris Paul if he thought that his team would win their next playoff game. Paul replied, "What? I'm on the team. What do you expect me to say, that it's over?" Clearly, Paul failed to appreciate the brilliance of that question, but it is wonderful that this line of questioning has been brought back to life in the World Chess Championship.

8) "Do you get excited watching other people play online chess games?" After being asked this question by Mike Klein, Ding Liren pretended that he could not understand the question and kept asking Klein to repeat it. Obviously, the question was so brilliant that Ding wanted to hear it over and over again. What else would world class chess players be doing other than watching other chess players play online games and then getting excited about that? I mean, there is no way that Ding would ask Klein to repeat the question just to highlight how ridiculous the question is, right? After hearing the question several times, Ding stated, "I am not excited to watch the other games played online."

I am quite sure that I have never thought of such questions before, but the fine journalists at the World Chess Championship have inspired me to stretch my thinking into previously unexplored territory. I doubt that I will ever be asked to cover the World Chess Championship--I appear to lack the requisite intellectual requirements--but I think that I have proven that, if presented the opportunity, I am ready jump into the fray! 

Side note: I think that World Chess Championship press conference questions prefaced by "Mike Klein, Chess.com," are destined to be revered in the same way that NBA press conference questions prefaced by "Mark Schwartz, ESPN" have become legendary! All Klein needs to do to reach that status is to ask one player if he knows the mental state of the other player, and then keep asking different versions of that same question after the question has been answered. Schwartz won a couple of Sports Emmys for asking questions like that, setting the high bar that other journalists just hope that we can attain with a lot of hard work and deep thought. Schwartz and Klein specialize in asking the questions that all fans wish they could ask. Why would fans want to know about strategy when we could instead recklessly speculate about the mental and emotional states of other people?

Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials?

The World Chess Championship is a significant cultural, artistic, and sporting event. In the most recent World Chess Championship, Magnus Carlsen retained his title by defeating challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi, 7.5-3.5. Subsequently, Carlsen declined to defend his crown again, although he still plays in elite level over the board and online chess tournaments. Thus, the current World Chess Championship match--which began in Astana, Kazakhstan on Sunday--pits Nepomniachtchi, the winner of the most recent Candidates Tournament, versus Ding Liren, who finished second in the most recent Candidates Tournament.

Nepomniachtchi and Ding drew game one on Sunday, but in today's game two Nepomniachtchi sacrificed the Exchange and won in sparkling fashion after Ding played an unusual move order in the opening. Thus, Nepomniachtchi leads 1.5-.5 in a race to 7.5 points; there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends with a 7-7 score.

After each game, the players participate in a press conference, fielding questions from a moderator, from online questioners, and from credentialed media members attending the event.

I have worked as a credentialed media member covering sports events, so I have been "treated" to listening to idiotic questions asked by the likes of Andre Aldridge and Vincent Thomas. Mike Klein is a FIDE Master who has won a host of journalism awards. He should know better than to ask idiotic questions at a World Chess Championship press conference. His job is to ask questions that inspire the players to provide insights about the game of chess in general and about this prestigious event in particular.

Instead, today after game two Klein asked Nepomniachtchi who does he expect will be the first person to send him a congratulatory text message after Nepomniachtchi finally won a World Chess Championship game for the first time. In one question, Klein managed to combine a backhanded compliment--was it necessary to remind Nepomniachtchi that this was his first win in World Chess Championship play?--with a question that cannot possibly generate a meaningful answer. Nepomniachtchi replied that he will probably receive congratulations from his parents and from his friends, but that he is mostly avoiding social media to concentrate on the event. Klein followed up by noting that former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov liked the number 13 and then asking if Nepomniachtchi ascribes any significance to the number 13 since he obtained his first World Chess Championship win in his 13th World Chess Championship game. Nepomniachtchi replied, "No."

If Klein is trying to be funny, no one is laughing. If he thinks that he is asking insightful questions, no one with any modicum of intelligence would agree.

Grandmaster Irina Krush, a member of the World Chess Championship online commentary team (along with former World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand), provided a welcome contrast to Klein's foolishness. She asked Nepomniachtchi if during the game he realized that a position similar to one of the game's opening positions had previously been seen in an online blitz game (Ding Liren-Levon Aronian). He replied that he was not sure, because during the game he was focused on figuring out the position's nuances. Nepomniachtchi went into some detail about his in-game thought process. Then, Krush asked Ding if he had been surprised by the recapture ...gxf6. Ding candidly admitted that he had been surprised, and that he had only considered ...Qxf6. He then stated what he had planned to play. Krush's questions were on point, and elicited thoughtful answers from both players. Chess.com can send Klein home, and cede their press conference time to Krush.

If the tone of this article seems harsh, part of the reason is that Chess.com is a repeat offender in terms of being an organization whose World Chess Championship reporters are woefully unqualified. During the previous World Chess Championship, "Sean from Chess.com" asked Nepomniachtchi if he had shaved off his famous "man bun" after a loss as an act of shame like samurais used to do. That kind of idiotic question does nothing to promote chess, the World Chess Championship, or the journalism profession. As a strong amateur chess player, a fan/historian of the World Chess Championship, and a journalist, I am saddened and offended by such nonsense.

Is it too much to ask of Chess.com that they hire competent journalists who are capable of asking questions that are not idiotic?

Side note: is it too much to ask of the various organizations that present awards to journalists that they honor people who are capable of stringing together coherent and insightful thoughts? Klein is just one of many people who have won so many journalism awards that they may actually have deluded themselves into believing that they are credible journalists.

UConn Defeats San Diego State 76-59 to Claim Fifth NCAA Title Since 1999

Few people expected to see the University of Connecticut (UConn) Huskies face the San Diego State University (SDSU) Aztecs in the NCAA Championship Game. Other than Huskies fans, few people are likely to remember much about UConn's 76-59 win. This was not high level basketball as much as it was one team outmatching the other from opening tip until final buzzer; SDSU made a second half run to cut the margin to 60-55 with 5:19 remaining, but UConn closed the game with a 16-4 burst to leave no doubt about their clear superiority. 

UConn's size, speed, and athleticism overwhelmed SDSU in the first half. UConn built a 16 point lead, and enjoyed a comfortable 36-24 halftime advantage. The Aztecs shot just 8-28 (.286) from the field while committing nine turnovers. Yes, SDSU had more first half turnovers than field goals made! The 60 combined first half points were the lowest total in an NCAA Championship Game since 2011, when UConn defeated Butler 53-41.

UConn's Tristen Newton scored a game-high 19 points, and he tied for game-high rebounding honors (10) with Adama Sanogo, who added 17 points and received the 2023 Final Four Most Outstanding Player award. Keshad Johnson paced SDSU with 14 points, while Lamont Butler and Darrion Trammell added 13 points each.

Since 1999, the Huskies have won five NCAA titles under the direction of three different coaches (Jim Calhoun: 1999, 2004, 2011; Kevin Ollie: 2014; Dan Hurley: 2023). 

UConn never trailed en route to a 72-59 win over Miami to advance to the NCAA Championship Game, and the Huskies won each of their NCAA Tournament games by double digits. As a fourth seeded team they were hardly a pre-Tournament favorite, yet in retrospect their championship run looks inevitable. Even though UConn had a dominant 2023 NCAA Tournament, it is difficult to picture this team even being competitive against NCAA champions from previous eras that had multiple future NBA All-Stars who stayed in school for three or even four years. 

In today's era, the best players play one year of college basketball--at the most--and then they receive highly paid on the job training in the NBA. Thus, the talent in college basketball is watered down, but the NBA is watered down as well, because the league is full of young players who do not yet really understand how to play--and who often miss games due to injuries or load management. Instead of watching Zion Williamson make multiple NCAA Tournament appearances, we watch him sit on the sidelines of NBA games in street clothes.

It never ceases to amaze me when anyone argues that college basketball is more fundamentally sound than NBA basketball. College basketball, even at the highest levels, is filled with young players who have not yet mastered the sport. The worst NBA team would beat either NCAA Finalist by at least 30 points, as I noted in my 2022 NCAA Tournament recap:

There are many reasons that the quality of play at the highest levels of college basketball is not as good as the quality of play in the NBA. The first, most obvious, and indisputable reason is that in no field of endeavor would it be reasonable to expect apprentices to outperform seasoned professionals: an apprentice craftsman is not superior to an experienced craftsman, and apprentice basketball teams/players are not superior to experienced professional basketball teams/players. The second reason is that there is very little continuity in major college basketball because the best players leave school after just one season; this is not to suggest that players should not be allowed to leave or that they should choose not leave: the point is that the best college-age basketball players in the world are, for the most part, playing in the NBA, not in college. The talent drain of young players going to the NBA means that every year the best college teams are rebuilding, which in turn means that rivalries--at least in terms of individual player matchups--cannot be sustained, and it also means that the best teams do not have a chance to build chemistry or work much on skill set development. Each college season consists of a breathless race to determine which group of talented freshmen can gel as quickly as possible to peak during the one and done NCAA Tournament before the best players jump straight to the NBA. This is the basketball version of fast food, not gourmet cooking, and that is why we see unwatchable games with wretched field goal percentages.

There is no question that the worst NBA team could beat the best NCAA team by at least 20-30 points. Not only are the NBA players more athletic, more talented, and more fundamentally sound, but they are coached better.

Tonight's telecast was the record 32nd--and last--Final Four of Jim Nantz' incredible career. Prior to Nantz' first Final Four in 1991, no broadcaster had worked more than six Final Fours. It is safe to say that Nantz' mark will stand for a long time. Nantz is a versatile broadcaster who will continue to work the Masters and the NFL, but for many sports fans he will forever be identified with and connected to college basketball's showcase event. 

Nantz prides himself on his thorough preparation:

Every basketball assignment Nantz has called for CBS (the number is somewhere in the vicinity of 575 broadcasts) includes a "game board": a white, wide, sturdy paper that is his colorful prep sheet of information and statistics about the players and coaches. Every one of them is treated as a treasured document. 

"No shortcuts," Nantz says, eyes down, pen to page and filling out the final board of his career. "Doesn't matter if it's a game like this or it's a regular-season game. The effort, the work behind it, has to be there. And otherwise you can't be comfortable. And I happen to enjoy this process." 

Nantz has never lost or thrown a single game board out. Every one from his career is archived, by year, at his Pebble Beach home in California. Last year, Hill stopped by Nantz's house, and while he was there, Jim pulled out his board from Dec. 22, 1990, the 10th game of Hill's Duke career--a game at Oklahoma.

When Nantz began doing Final Four games, I was still in college. It will feel strange next year when he is not part of CBS' NCAA Tournament coverage. Ian Eagle will do a great job, but the passage of time is relentless, and seems to accelerate the older that one gets.

Further Reading:

The NCAA Tournament Provides Drama, but Does it Provide Great Basketball? (April 2022)

Baylor Dominates Gonzaga to Win the 2021 NCAA Title (April 2021)

Separating the Grownups From the Kids in Basketball (November 2018) 

Heels Stomp Spartans (2009 NCAA Championship)

C(h)alm in the Clutch: Kansas Defeats Memphis in OT, 75-68 (2008 NCAA Championship) 

Early Entry Players Have Diluted Both College and Pro Basketball (March 2008)

"Reggie": A Personal Portrait of One of the Greatest Clutch Baseball Players of All-Time

Reggie Jackson is one of my favorite athletes of all-time, and I will always remember being captivated as a young child by his three home runs off of three different pitchers in game six of the 1977 World Series. "Reggie," a documentary about Jackson's life that includes extensive interview footage with Jackson, premiered recently on Amazon Prime. I just watched the film, and it was great to see the story not only of Jackson's rise as a great baseball player but also how he overcame racism. Also, before watching "Reggie" I did not know that my favorite basketball player of all-time--Julius Erving--has long been close friends with one of my two favorite baseball players of all-time (Eric Davis is my other favorite baseball player).

Jackson bashed 563 home runs to rank sixth on MLB's career home run list when he retired, though he has now officially dropped out of the top 10 after his numbers were surpassed by PED cheaters. MLB ranks Jackson 14th now, but if you take out the PED-enhanced numbers posted by Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Rafael Palmeiro then Jackson ranks ninth; regarding the other three players who passed Jackson, Ken Griffey Jr. never had the body changes or numbers changes denoting PED usage, while Albert Pujols and Jim Thome are--according to what is publicly known and documented--the two greatest clean sluggers of the PED era.

Jackson played on five World Series championship teams (1972-74 with the Oakland A's, 1977-78 with the New York Yankees), capturing regular season MVP honors in 1973, and the World Series MVP in 1973 and 1977. That legendary three home run performance in 1977 cemented his reputation as "Mr. October," a nickname first given to Jackson not as a compliment but as a sarcastic remark by teammate Thurman Munson, who did not always see eye to eye with Jackson. Munson died in a 1979 plane crash. 

Near the beginning of the documentary, Jackson looks into the camera and says, "I have hesitation with this documentary because I don't have control of it." Despite his hesitation, Jackson welcomed the cameras to his home, and he set up a gorgeous shot with some of the classic cars from his legendary collection. He also let the viewer be privy to a phone conversation with Pete Rose, who needled Jackson that he is "shrinking," quipping that if Jackson gets any shorter he could ride horses as a jockey. Jackson laughed and admitted that he is only 5-10 now (Jackson was listed at 6-0 during his playing career).

Jackson talked with Hank Aaron about Aaron's pursuit of Babe Ruth's home run record. Aaron contrasted the invective directed at him by some people for breaking Ruth's record the praise that Pete Rose later received for breaking Ty Cobb's hits record. Aaron concluded, with a sad and weary look on his face, "Baseball has been backwards for a long time." 

Jackson recalled being drafted by the Kansas City A's and then being sent to play minor league baseball in Birmingham, Alabama, home to the infamous Bull Connor. It is chilling to see archival footage of Connor looking into the camera and stating that he may not be able to keep Birmingham segregated forever but that he will "die trying." In the South, Jackson's teammates had to bring food to him on the team bus because restaurants refused to serve Black patrons.

Jackson soon was promoted to the big leagues with the A's in 1967. The A's moved to Oakland in 1968. Jackson quickly became a big star, but he ran afoul of team owner Charlie Finley after requesting a raise. Jackson held out of spring training, and then was benched upon his return to the team. Jackson fumed at being relegated to a limited role, but when he got an opportunity to pinch hit he made the most of it: "I had to honor the guy in the mirror that I looked at, and really say that I got everything out of what I could do. That was my goal in the game: just go out there and do something, and you won't need to talk. I hadn't played, I hadn't had spring training, but this is what I do. I'm in charge here. Once I get out of here [the playing field], and you have control of me, I'm boxed up. But not here. He's got to throw the ball over here past me, and it ain't passing." Jackson chuckled at the end of that statement, and then he concluded the story: "I hit a home run to center field with the bases loaded, and it won the game for us. And when I got around to home plate, I saluted Charlie Finley like this" (in the documentary, Jackson mimicked the well-known one finger salute, without actually making the gesture on camera).

Jackson injured his leg stealing home in the deciding game of the 1972 American League Championship Series versus Detroit, and he was unable to play in that year's World Series. He will never forget Jackie Robinson being publicly honored during the 1972 World Series for the 25th anniversary of breaking MLB's color line. When Robinson spoke to the crowd, he mentioned how proud he would be when the day finally came that he would see a Black manager in MLB. That stuck with Jackson. Robinson died nine days later. In 1975, Frank Robinson (not related to Jackie Robinson) became MLB's first Black manager. 

Jackson mentioned that the most important thing for a pro athlete is to win championships--not one championship, but more than one, to prove that you can be consistently dominant. Jackson dominated in 1973, winning MVP honors in the regular season and the World Series. 

After showing highlights from that triumph, the documentary shifted to the current time, with Jackson visiting Julius Erving's home. Car aficionado Jackson looked with admiration at Erving's 1985 Rolls Royce, pointing to the car's distinctive hood ornament and asking Erving if he knows what it is called. Erving did not know, and Jackson said, "That's called the lady of ecstasy." Erving chuckled: "You know more about my car than I do."

Erving and Jackson asked members of the camera crew how old they were in 1985. Answers ranged from four and five to "I wasn't born yet."

It was a surprise and a treat to see Erving highlights in "Reggie." Jackson commented, "When someone says, 'You've got something in common with Dr. J,' you know what I say? That I'm bad!" Erving laughed, and with his typical modesty replied, "You know it's the other way around." Jackson insisted, "No way," and he tried to imitate Erving's famous reverse layup from the 1980 NBA Finals when Erving floated through the air from one side of the hoop to the other, holding the ball aloft over the out of bounds line, before flipping in a sensational shot like it was a routine move. Pro athletes do not tend to gush about other pro athletes--particularly other pro athletes who are from their generation--but I have noticed over the years that Erving is one of the few sports icons who turns even Hall of Famers into gushing little kids.

Erving is an eloquent speaker, and it brought tears to my eyes when he explained his heartfelt feelings about his friendship with Jackson: "The 70's was a good time. In my lifetime, I have had a few special relationships when somebody has extended the hand of friendship, and then after that it's like no strings attached. Maybe there is some divine intervention just saying that you should stay connected with this person, like a second family. I lost my brother and my sister in life, but I have a brother in you. I'm not a big baseball fan, but I'm a Reggie Jackson fan. So nobody can say anything bad about you." Erving paused for a beat, and jokingly added, "No matter how much cause you give them. They can't say nothing bad about you around me."

Erving and Jackson talked about role models who influenced them. Erving noted that Jackie Robinson had a "turn the other cheek" mentality, while Jim Brown represented a "get out of my face" attitude, so athletes had a choice to decide which path to take. Erving and Jackson both emphasized how much they respect Robinson, while also stating that they identified more with Brown's approach. 

Jackson's time with the A's ended after the 1975 season, when Finley refused to pay market value to keep his star-laden team together. Jackson found out that he had been traded to Baltimore by hearing the news on the radio. Erving, who led the New York Nets to two ABA titles in his three seasons with the team, was also traded by an owner (Roy Boe) who was unwilling or unable to pay market value (though Boe's hands were probably more tied than Finley's, as Boe had to pay various costs associated with the ABA-NBA merger, including an indemnification fee to the New York Knicks for being based in the same market).

Jackson played one season for Baltimore before signing with the New York Yankees. He wanted to wear number 42 in honor of Jackie Robinson, but that number was unavailable, so he chose to wear number 44 in honor of Hank Aaron.

To this day, Jackson says that he does not understand why he and Yankees Manager Billy Martin had such a contentious relationship. Jackson respected Martin's scrappy personality. However, Jackson also feels that race and racism impacted Martin's attitude toward him. Jackson believes that Martin initially refused to let him hit cleanup--his natural spot in the batting order--because Martin did not want a Black man to fill that role for the Yankees. Things came to a head when Martin felt that Jackson did not hustle to go after a ball in the outfield, and Martin pulled Jackson from the game in the middle of the inning, a humiliating move that Jackson did not accept blithely. The two men confronted each other in the dugout and had to be separated. Jackson noted that Black baseball players such as Bob Gibson, Hank Aaron, and Frank Robinson were wrongly depicted as angry when in reality they "are hurt. They are disappointed. They are searching for dignity."

Martin eventually put Jackson in the cleanup role. Not surprisingly, Jackson thrived, and the Yankees moved up in the standings, setting the stage for the team's dramatic 1977 run to the World Series title.

There are few images in pro sports as dramatic and dynamic as Reggie Jackson's home run swing. He seemed to corkscrew his legs into the ground as his powerfully muscled torso exploded into the ball and sent it on a one way trip out of the ballpark. Jackson poured every ounce of his mental, emotional, and physical energy into that swing, and the ball fled his bat as if it feared the power he had just unleashed.

Jackson believes that his biggest advantage was that around the 120 game mark of the season everyone else was tired but he was not. During his career, he clearly showed on more than one occasion that he possessed the ability to produce when it mattered the most. "Stat gurus" can insist that the hot hand does not exist and that elevated performance by some players in clutch situations is a myth, but if you have ever played competitive sports and took it seriously then you know better. Reggie Jackson epitomizes clutch play in a way that few athletes in any sport ever have. In team sports, a rare athlete like Reggie Jackson not only elevates his own play when it matters most, but his attitude, approach, and confident demeanor infuse his teammates with confidence. Of course, a player who lacks those traits can infect his teammates with doubt. 

Jackson will forever identify himself and be identified as a Yankee, even though he spent just five seasons with the Bronx Bombers. Yankees owner George Steinbrenner later lamented that letting Jackson leave was his biggest mistake. Jackson continued to be productive for several years after departing New York, but as he approached his 40th birthday he realized that mentally he was not quite where he once had been, and so he knew that it was time to retire.

After retiring, he worked for the Yankees as a special advisor for many years, but he yearned to become a team owner, and he still laments not receiving that opportunity. Jackson candidly admits that he was depressed for a while without even realizing it. Jackson, feeling that his opportunities with the Yankees were limited, joined the Houston Astros, and now serves as a special advisor for that franchise. His love for the game and his eagerness to pass down his knowledge to the current generation of players are palpable.

Bonus film clips accompanying the documentary include brief excerpts from separate conversations that Jackson had with Hank Aaron, Franco Harris, Rick Hendrick, and Bob Kendrick. Aaron, who passed away in 2021, recalled growing up in Mobile, Alabama, and how his mother would call him into the house to hide under the bed when she knew that the Ku Klux Klan was in town. Harris and Jackson talked about the honor and privilege of having your number retired. Hendrick recalled spending a whole day with Jackson at a ceremony when the legendary race car team owner was honored as the car dealer of the year. Jackson had tears in his eyes by the end of that day, and when Hendrick--who had never seen Jackson be that emotional--asked why, Jackson said that at the ceremony he did not see anyone who looked like him. Hendrick said that Jackson's comment made a deep impression on him; afterward, Hendrick developed a leadership academy to mentor people of color to find the individuals best qualified to work in his organization. Hendrick also provided Jackson with the opportunity to own a car dealership in Raleigh, North Carolina. Kendrick took Jackson on a tour of the Negro Leagues Museum, and discussed how the advocacy of Babe Ruth and Ted Williams helped Negro League players receive deserved recognition that they might otherwise have not received from the general baseball community (including the Baseball Hall of Fame).

During the documentary, Jackson admitted to wondering if he has done enough to help his community. It should be noted that Jackson's Mr. October Foundation has worked with thousands of children in underserved communities to provide STEM educational opportunities.