Don Shula's Legacy of Winning With Integrity

Don Shula, the NFL's all-time leader in regular season coaching wins (328) and combined regular season/playoff wins (347), passed away on May 4 at the age of 90. Shula is best known for leading the 1972 Miami Dolphins to a 17-0 record and the Super Bowl title, the only perfect season in NFL history (three other teams--the 1934 Chicago Bears, the 1942 Chicago Bears, and the 2007 New England Patriots--enjoyed undefeated regular seasons but did not win the NFL Championship or Super Bowl). The Dolphins repeated as Super Bowl champions in 1973, posting a 15-2 overall record. From 1971-73, the Dolphins went 44-6-1 overall with three straight Super Bowl appearances and two Super Bowl titles.

Before he became a coach, Shula had 21 interceptions while playing for three teams during his seven season (1951-57) NFL career. Shula spent two seasons as a college assistant coach before becoming an assistant coach for the Detroit Lions in 1960. He then served two seasons as the Lions' defensive coordinator (1961-62) before becoming the Baltimore Colts' head coach in 1963. At that time, Shula was the youngest head coach in NFL history. The Colts went 7-7 in 1962 (the season before Shula arrived), and by 1964 they were a 12-2 team that advanced to the NFL Championship Game before losing 27-0 to the Cleveland Browns. 

During his 33 year NFL head coaching career, Shula made 19 playoff appearances, won 16 division titles (including four straight from 1971-74, and five straight from 1981-85), won five AFC titles (1971-73, 1982, 1984), led Baltimore to the 1968 NFL title (the Colts lost Super Bowl III to the AFL champion New York Jets), and posted a 2-4 record in the Super Bowl. Only Bill Belichick (nine) has been a head coach in more Super Bowls than Shula. Shula is one of 13 coaches who have won at least two Super Bowl titles, and only Belichick (six), Chuck Noll (four), Bill Walsh (three), and Joe Gibbs (three) have won more Super Bowls than Shula. Shula is the only four-time winner (1964, 1967, 1968, 1972) of the AP NFL Coach of the Year award, an honor that has been presented since 1957. Only four NFL coaches amassed at least 250 regular season wins: Shula, George Halas (318), Bill Belichick (273), and Tom Landry (250).

Shula long ago established his position in the NFL coaching pantheon, but during the first portion of his coaching career he battled the stigma that he could not win the big game. He did not win a playoff game until his sixth season in Baltimore, when he took the Colts to the 1968 NFL title, but much of the luster of that accomplishment was wiped away by the Colts' loss to the Jets in Super Bowl III. Shula lasted just one more season in Baltimore before moving to Miami to coach the Dolphins, a 1966 AFL expansion team entering its first season as an NFL team. The Dolphins had not won more than five games in a season prior to Shula's arrival, but they went 10-4 in his first season, dominated the league for the next three seasons, and only posted two losing records during Shula's 1970-95 tenure with the franchise. By the time he retired, Shula--much like former UCLA coach John Wooden--had conclusively overcome the stigma/perception/narrative that he could not win the big game.

Former NFL coach Bum Phillips once said of Shula, "Don Shula can take his'n and beat you'n, and he could take you'n and beat his'n." Shula's record speaks for itself, but Shula was most proud of how he compiled that record: "If I'm remembered for anything, I hope it's for playing within the rules. I also hope it will be said that my teams showed class and dignity in victory or defeat."

In addition to integrity and sustained excellence, Shula's coaching career is also distinguished by the adaptability that he displayed. His early Dolphin teams were characterized by a tremendous running attack plus a stout defense, but in the 1980s Shula opened up his offense to take full advantage of Dan Marino's passing ability. The Dolphins advanced to one Super Bowl with Marino, and they were a perennial playoff team during the early to mid 1980s before having a few subpar seasons in the second half of that decade. Shula led the Dolphins to four playoff appearances in the first six years of the 1990s--including a trip to the AFC Championship Game after the 1992 season--before he retired.

Shula left big footprints to fill. The Dolphins have made just two playoff appearances since 2001, and they have not advanced to the AFC Championship Game since the 1992 season. Hall of Fame Coach Jimmy Johnson inherited a 9-7 team from Shula, and went 8-8, 9-7, 10-6, and 9-7 in his four seasons with the Dolphins.

Refuting False Narratives About the Legacies of Tom Brady and Bill Belichick

Tom Brady has publicly announced that he plans to leave the New England Patriots via free agency, though he has yet to announce where he is going. Not surprisingly, Brady's statement has unleashed a wave of commentary about his legacy, and Bill Belichick's legacy, as well as a reexamination of previous all-time greats who could have played their entire careers for one team but elected to see if the grass was greener elsewhere--with Joe Montana, Michael Jordan, and Peyton Manning being perhaps the three most prominent examples.

Both Belichick and Brady have more than secured their individual legacies. Belichick was a key contributor to two Super Bowl champions as an assistant coach before winning six Super Bowls as New England's head coach. Any short list of the greatest football coaches of all-time must include his name, and nothing that happens in the rest of his career will change or diminish that. Belichick is the second oldest head coach in the NFL now, and he is tied with several others as the eighth oldest head coach in NFL history. A career is judged by the overall body of work, with an emphasis on what happened in the prime years; Belichick's career is not going to be defined by what happens in his final seasons. Of course, if he wins Super Bowls as an elder statesman coach that could potentially add to his already established legacy, but no sensible person is going to hold it against Belichick if he does not win another Super Bowl. Don Shula, Chuck Noll, and Tom Landry are three of the greatest coaches of all-time, and their careers ended long after their final Super Bowl victory with no damage done to their legacies.

Brady is a six-time Super Bowl champion quarterback who is nearing the end of his career. If he wins another Super Bowl, he can add to his legacy, but few quarterbacks have even played as long as Brady, let alone won championships at his age; if Brady does not win another Super Bowl, it does not hurt his legacy any more than Joe Montana's time as a Kansas City Chief did.

Speaking of which, without looking it up do you even remember how long Montana played in Kansas City, what statistics he posted, and how the team performed? Unless you are an NFL addict with a great memory or you are lying, the honest answer is "No."

Before revisiting the end of Montana's career, it is worth briefly mentioning Joe Namath, whose name is sometimes brought up in this context. While it may have been painful at the time for NFL fans to watch him finish his career as an L.A. Ram, Namath secured his legacy by leading the New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl III. Nothing that happened after that caused long-term damage to Namath's legacy. He will always be remembered as a triumphant Jet, and no one spends much time thinking about his brief time as a stumbling Ram.

Back to Montana, who spent two years as a Chief, making the Pro Bowl in 1993 (his first season with the team) and compiling a 17-8 regular season record (he missed seven games due to injury) in 1993-94. Montana led the Chiefs to the 1993 AFC Championship Game, but the Chiefs lost 30-13, and Montana was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the third quarter. Montana quarterbacked the Chiefs to a 9-7 record and a loss in the Wild Card round in 1994 before he retired at 38. Those two seasons are a solid postscript to a Hall of Fame career, but they had no impact on the legacy that Montana had already forged by winning four Super Bowls as a San Francisco 49er.

Consider an example from a different sport. Michael Jordan had already retired and come back once as a Chicago Bull before he came out of retirement in 2001 to play for the Washington Wizards. Jordan never averaged less than 28 ppg in a full season with the Bulls, and he never averaged more than 23 ppg in his two seasons with the Wizards. Jordan led the Bulls to six titles in six NBA Finals appearances, and he was not able to take the Wizards to the playoffs even once. No, Jordan the Wizard did not accomplish as much as Jordan the Bull, but Jordan the Wizard added some clips to his career highlight reel, and did not harm Jordan's legacy at all.

Brady and Manning spent much of their careers battling for individual honors and Super Bowl titles. Manning won one Super Bowl in 13 seasons as a Colt before finishing his career as a Denver Bronco. Manning earned three Pro Bowl selections as a Bronco while also making the All-Pro First Team twice, and winning another Super Bowl title. Interestingly, his two playoff runs that ended in Super Bowl wins are two of his four worst postseasons statistically (based on the NFL's passer rating system). Winning a second Super Bowl--albeit while no longer a star player (he had nine passing touchdowns and 17 interceptions in his final regular season before the Broncos won the Super Bowl)--perhaps added a bit to Manning's legacy, but certainly no one dwells on how limited a player Manning was by that time, nor would any rational commentator have held it against Manning if his Bronco years had not been capped off with a championship.

Supposedly, next season is going to represent some kind of referendum in a made up Belichick versus Brady competition: Can Brady win without Belichick? Can Belichick win without Brady? Will neither one win?

This is nonsense. If there were to be a genuine, meaningful Belichick versus Brady competition then we would need to pit them against each other when both were in their primes, and we would need to supply them with comparable supporting casts. Give prime Brady a different coach and a solid supporting cast, and how much would he win? How much Brady wins as a past his prime quarterback can only tell us so much.

The other side of the question is how much would prime Belichick win with a different quarterback and a solid supporting cast? 

Actually, we did get a glimpse of that during the 2008 season that Brady missed with an ACL injury, and we saw the Patriots go 11-5 with Matt Cassel as the starting quarterback. Cassel left the Patriots after that season, and went 26-40 as a starter during the rest of his career. During his first head coaching job, Belichick inherited a 3-13 Cleveland team and in four years he turned them into an 11-5 squad that won a playoff game (which is the last playoff game that the Browns have won). So, we do have some evidence about what Belichick can do as a coach without Brady.

All that we know for sure is that the Belichick-Brady tandem is the greatest coach-quarterback duo in NFL history (throw in the AAFC years, and you could make an argument for Paul Brown-Otto Graham, who won seven championships and made 10 championship game appearances in 10 seasons together). Whether or not either of them win any more Super Bowls in the final years of their respective careers does not change the significance of what they accomplished together, nor "prove" that one was more integral to their shared success than the other.

UEFA's Strong Response to Cheating Emphasizes MLB's Incompetence

The public recently learned The Disgraceful Secret of the Astros' and Red Sox' Success: Cheating, and we also saw Major League Baseball (MLB) Commissioner Rob Manfred set the price that an MLB owner must be willing to pay for cheating to win a World Series title: $5 million. Manfred made it clear that if a team cheats to win the World Series then that team keeps the title and "the piece of metal" (as he dismissively referred to the trophy awarded to his sport's champion). How many MLB owners would pay $5 million to win a World Series title?

Fortunately, not every sport responds so casually to cheating. In Foul Balls and Red Cards: How Baseball and Soccer’s Different Approaches to Cheating Illustrate the Power of Organizational Response, authors Reid Whitten and J. Scott Maberry (both from the law firm SheppardMullin) contrast the punishment that MLB prescribed for the Houston Astros with how UEFA (the governing body of European soccer) dealt with cheating committed by Manchester City, one of the English Premier League's top teams (footnotes omitted):

In both cases, the team's cheating threatened the integrity of the whole sport. In both cases, the integrity of the sport is critical to the business model of the respective leagues. If fans begin to think one side has been allowed an unfair advantage, they will quickly lose faith in the competitive nature of the sport. Fans would then, slowly but surely, lose interest in spending money to support their teams.

For those reasons, in both cases, the governing leagues needed to respond quickly and decisively to reassure fans that the games are fair and to restore the integrity of their respective organizations. Where soccer succeeded in doing so, baseball has failed.

The highest prize in European soccer is the UEFA Champions League trophy. The Champions League is a season-long competition where the best club teams from countries from Ireland to Russia, from Poland to Portugal play in an international tournament of the champions of the various national systems (Manchester City, for example, is one of the most dominant teams in the English Premier League). It is an honor just to make the Champions League tournament and, when a team wins that tournament, it stakes its claim as the best team in Europe.

Among other violations, the UEFA's investigation of Manchester City found that the team's owner, a billionaire from the United Arab Emirates, funneled his own money to companies who had signed sponsorship agreements with the team, which enabled the team owner to evade limits on spending his own money on the team. The punishment, announced in February, is a two-year ban from playing in the Champions League. No trophies, no mid-week competitions on the world's biggest stage for soccer clubs, no ticket sales, television rights, or website clicks for updates. Done. Two years. You cheated, you're out of the Big Dance...

We predict that the UEFA's approach will help lead to a healing of Manchester City's wounds to European soccer, whereas MLB's response has merely magnified the Astros' threat to baseball.

In MLB's missed opportunity is a lesson for all organizations: sometimes it feels too harsh to punish wrongdoers inside an organization. But when the organization's very integrity is threatened by the cheating, the cheaters have to be dealt with.

When the walls of your house have rotten boards, you need to find the rot and cut it away, not paint it over. Cutting out the rot is difficult and sometimes painful. But it may be just the thing that keeps your house standing.

MLB has been a bad joke for more than a quarter century, dating back at least to the 1994 strike that wiped out the sport's crown jewel event, the World Series. We have also witnessed fake home run records (and, in some cases, inflated pitching statistics) created by PED cheaters, and the 2002 MLB All-Star Game ending in a tie as clueless Commissioner Bud Selig shrugged his shoulders impotently on national TV. MLB's simultaneous embrace of Alex Rodriguez--who should have received a lifetime ban--and ostracism of Pete Rose (even as MLB makes millions of dollars now by partnering with legalized betting operations) is bizarre, though not quite as bizarre as the fact that Selg is in the Baseball Hall of Fame but Rose is not.

What Mariano Rivera Taught Walter Iooss Jr. About Gratitude and Humility

The December 12, 2011 issue of Sports Illustrated included an article by Walter Iooss Jr. and Chris Ballard titled "The Education of Walter Iooss Jr." Iooss' stories about athletes he photographed ranging from Jim Brown to Muhammad Ali to Michael Jordan to Tiger Woods--and many more--provide fascinating insights not only about those athletes, but also about Iooss and the art of photography.

What stopped me in my tracks, though, and inspired this brief article, is an exchange that Iooss had with Mariano Rivera, the New York Yankees' great closer. The conversation began when Iooss asked Rivera how he learned the pitch that brought him so many victories, the cut fastball (or cutter):

Then one time I asked him, "Who taught you that cutter?"

He said, "God."

I said, "God did?" Being an atheist, I said, "God never taught me anything."

Mariano said, "Oh, yes, he did, Walter."

He was very calm. He said, "He gave you your great talent. You should be thankful."

That humbled me. The truth is, I see photos everywhere. I look at someone sitting next to me at lunch, and instantly I'm putting up a background in my mind. That's just churning all the time. If the beauty's there, I want to take a picture of it.

Rivera's gratitude and humility are qualities well worth emulating. Iooss' drive to use his gift to capture beautiful images and share them with others is likewise inspirational.

Dr. Jonathan Gelber Examines The Intersection of Law and Medicine in Sports

Dr. Jonathan Gelber's book Tiger Woods's Back and Tommy John's Elbow: Injuries & Tragedies That Transformed Careers, Sports, and Society packs a lot of interesting information into less than 200 pages. Dr. Gelber begins with the legend of the "Cobra Effect," which is an example of the sociological concept of unintended consequences: as the story goes, an Indian Raj sought to curb the presence of cobras in his territory by offering a bounty for dead cobra skins--but the unintended consequence was that his citizens bred cobras in order to kill them for the bounty, and then after the Raj canceled the bounty the breeders set these cobras loose in the countryside since there was no longer any value for killing the cobras.

There are many examples of the "Cobra Effect" in Dr. Gelber's book, and here is one to whet your appetite to read about the rest of them.

It is well known that L.A. Dodgers' pitcher Sandy Koufax retired in 1966 at age 30 to prevent permanent damage to his left (pitching) elbow. Dr. Robert Kerlan, the Dodgers' team doctor, diagnosed Koufax with arthritis, the result of years of trauma to Koufax' elbow. A few years after Koufax retired, Dr. Kerlan partnered with Dr. Frank Jobe to form the Kerlan-Jobe Clinic, which later became world-famous for treating athletes from a variety of sports.

In 1974, Tommy John--then a pitcher for the Chicago White Sox--suffered an elbow destabilization injury that Dr. Gelber suggests was similar to the one that had eventually forced Koufax to retire. Dr. Jobe, consulting with hand surgeon Dr. Herbert Stark, decided to perform a radical new surgery, taking a tendon from John's forearm and carefully threading it through John's elbow to stabilize the joint. John went on to win more games after undergoing the procedure than he had won before, and the operation is now known as Tommy John surgery.

The "Cobra Effect" here is that Tommy John surgery has gone from being a radical solution to an injury that threatened to end a pitcher's career to a procedure that has become commonplace among young pitchers, many of whom undergo the surgery not to cure injury but based on the false belief that the surgery inherently increases performance levels. As a result of this, Tommy John has publicly stated his opposition to how prevalent his namesake surgery has become among young athletes, noting that over half of such surgeries are performed on patients who are between 15-19 years old, and that one in seven of those kids will never fully recover.

Other "Cobra Effect" stories examined by Dr. Gelber include Magic Johnson and HIV, Lyle Alzado and steroids, Len Bias and drug abuse/mandatory minimum sentencing, Hank Gathers and athlete screening for underlying health issues, Ayrton Senna/Dale Earnhardt and race car safety issues, Duk-koo Kim and efforts to make boxing safer, Tom Brady and measures to protect the quarterback from injury, plus Tiger Woods' back injury and the use/abuse of opioid drugs. 

This book is thought-provoking, and I recommend it with just two caveats: (1) The existence of a "Cobra Effect" is suggested but not conclusively proven in some of the examples and (2) the book would be even better if it had been lengthier so that some of the issues raised could be discussed in more depth.

The Disgraceful Secret of the Astros' and Red Sox' Success: Cheating

The Houston Astros have been widely portrayed as a model franchise in terms of utilizing analytics to build a successful team: the Astros tanked to accumulate draft picks, and then they used analytics to decide which players to draft, which veteran players to acquire, and how to maximize the talents of those players during games.

All of that sounds great in theory--but the reality is that the secret edge that pushed the Astros over the top and enabled them to win the 2017 World Series was old fashioned cheating: the Astros stole the opposing team's signs during games and then made noise in their dugout to alert their hitters about which pitch to expect.

If Bud Selig were still the Major League Baseball Commissioner, the Astros would have probably received a slap on the wrist while Selig broke his arm patting himself on the back, which was baseball's version of crime and punisment as Selig presided over the "Steroids Era." Fortunately, Rob Manfred at least has some sense of how serious this offense is: Commissioner Manfred assessed a $5 million fine against the Astros, stripped the franchise of its first and second round picks in both 2020 and 2021, and suspended General Manager Jeff Luhnow and Manager A.J. Hinch for the 2020 season (the Astros subsequently fired both men, neither of whom will be permitted to work for any other MLB team next season). Many baseball insiders have publicly expressed surprise at these supposedly draconian punishments but Manfred--although he showed more sense than Selig, an admittedly low hurdle to clear--did not go far enough. The Astros still go down in history as the 2017 World Series champions, and not one player who participated in the cheating has received any punishment.

It is becoming increasingly hard to understand why Pete Rose is burdened with a lifetime ban, while cheating players such as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez are embraced by Major League Baseball, and cheating teams like Houston and Boston (see below) retain their coveted (but forever tarnished) World Series crowns.

MLB has a lot to learn from other sports. In track and field, cheaters like Ben Johnson, Marion Jones and others are stripped of their Olympic and World Championship medals. In cycling, Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles were voided.

If MLB and its leadership had any courage or any sense, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez and every other "Steroids Era" cheater would be removed from the record book and banned from Hall of Fame consideration--and the Astros would be stripped of the 2017 World Series title, with every player who was involved in the cheating being disciplined by MLB. Manfred's excuses for not punishing the players--too many players were involved, many of the players play for other teams now, and he did not feel like he could determine the relative guilt of each player--are weak, and provide an open invitation to players to cheat in the future, with the knowledge that if they are caught then they will keep their World Series rings while their manager and GM take the fall.

The investigation into the Astros' wrongdoing revealed that Alex Cora--who played a major role in Houston's cheating as a bench coach--similarly participated in cheating perpetrated by the Boston Red Sox as he served as that team's manager during their 2018 World Series championship season. Cora should be banned for life, and the Red Sox should be stripped of their title--but it is possible that Cora will get off with no more than a one year suspension, and it is likely that the Red Sox will pay a price that does not include losing their championship.

Of course, Boston is another franchise that has been lauded for profitably utilizing analytics.

Analytics have proven their value in many fields, from science to retail to law; law is my profession, and as a Customer Success Manager for Lex Machina--the pioneer and leader in the legal analytics field--I am well aware of the tremendous value provided by analytics that are accurate, complete and relevant. However, this MLB cheating scandal renews the question of just how valuable or reliable baseball analytics are; if the analytics provide a decisive edge, then why would two teams that are deeply immersed in analytics risk getting caught stealing signs?

I have often written about the strengths and limitations of "advanced basketball statistics" and the application of real basketball analytics, but the widely held assumption for quite some time is that analytics work better in baseball than in basketball because baseball is a station to station game of discrete actions, not a free-flowing game of interconnected simultaneous actions.

The Houston and Boston cheating scandals do not "prove" that baseball analytics have no value, but these scandals do legitimately raise the question of how much of an advantage Houston and Boston gained through analytics compared to how much of an advantage they gained by breaking the rules.

Why do I criticize the Astros and Red Sox after previously expressing the opinion that the so-called "Spygate" and "Deflategate" situations involving the New England Patriots were overblown by the media? Simple. The Astros and Red Sox unambiguously and deliberately cheated, and their cheating led directly to the championships that they won. In contrast, the Patriots committed a technical rules violation in "Spygate" that may not have even conferred a significant competitive advantage, and it is not even clear that they did anything wrong in "Deflategate." While baseball pitch signals are concealed, the signals that the Patriots filmed during "Spygate" can be viewed by anyone watching an NFL game on TV; the systematic gathering and collection of those signals for later analysis is not permitted (and that is why the Patriots were punished by the NFL), but this is not the same as intercepting a catcher's signals in real time and banging a trash can in the dugout to let the batter know in real time the exact pitch that is coming. Further, the Astros and Red Sox attempted to conceal what they were doing, while the Patriots' videographers were wearing team colors, and their presence could not have been more obvious if they had been waving semaphore flags. Regarding "Deflategate," independent scientists examined the evidence and concluded that the methodology and conclusions of the infamous Wells Report were flawed.

NFL cheating incidents that should outrage fans include (1) the 2010 Saints putting "bounties" on opposing players en route to winning the Super Bowl, (2) the Denver Broncos circumventing salary cap rules to stack enough talent around John Elway to enable him to win two Super Bowls in the 1990s, (3) the San Francisco 49ers circumventing salary cap rules during the 1990s, and (4) the massive steroid use that fueled the Pittsburgh Steelers' 1970s championship teams (and may be responsible for the sad, early demises suffered by many of the players from those teams).

Of course, the media picks and chooses who to target and who to absolve in these situations. New England Coach Bill Belichick rarely provides useful soundbites to the media, so it is OK for the media to dub him "Belicheat." The Saints were a fairy tale story in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, so their intentional maiming of opposing NFL players is readily forgotten; Gregg Williams, the ringleader of the Saints' bounty scheme, is back in the NFL and is a respected coach, even though some players say that he is still coaching his players to intentionally injure opposing players. Elway's Broncos, and the 1990s 49ers are also popular, so their transgressions are forgotten. The Steelers are part of the NFL's ancient and storied history, so no one cares to examine their widespread steroid abuse.

It will be interesting to see how the media choose to depict the Astros and the Red Sox. For me as a baseball fan, Major League Baseball has not been the same since the strike canceled the 1994 World Series, and then the "Steroids Era" combined with Bud Selig's bumbling (remember the 2002 All-Star Game that ended in a tie while Selig shrugged?) permanently stained the sport and its once-hallowed record book--though, as a basketball fan, I thank MLB for having a strike that lasted so long that it helped push Michael Jordan back to the NBA. This latest scandal just confirms to me that the baseball record book before 1994 was nonfiction, while the baseball record book post-1994 is fiction, replete with fraudulent home runs, fraudulent MVPs and, now, fraudulent champions. This is not to say that other pro sports are pure or flawless, but the past 25 years or so have been brutal for MLB.

NFL Responds Quickly to Myles Garrett's Criminal Foolishness

"Is he on steroids or is he mentally ill?"

That was my first thought after I saw Myles Garrett rip off Mason Rudolph's helmet and then hit Rudolph upside the head with that helmet near the end of Cleveland's 21-7 win over Pittsburgh on Thursday Night Football. The two previous helmet-wielding offenders who immediately came to my mind fit into at least one, if not both, of those categories: Lyle Alzado (who later admitted being a steroid user) and Kyle Turley (who was subsequently diagnosed with CTE, a brain injury that either caused or exacerbated mental health issues including rage, depression and suicidal thoughts).

In a 1982 playoff game between the Oakland Raiders and the New York Jets, then-Raider Lyle Alzado ripped off Chris Ward's helmet and threw it at Ward. The helmet did not strike Ward. At the time, there was not a specific rule against what Alzado did, so Alzado was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. Subsequently, the NFL enacted Article 17--informally known as the "Alzado rule"--stipulating, "A player may not use a helmet that is no longer worn by anyone as a weapon to strike, swing at, or throw at an opponent." The penalty for this offense is 15 yards and automatic disqualification, and an automatic first down if a defender commits the penalty.

In a 2001 regular season game between the New Orleans Saints and the New York Jets, then-Saint Turley ripped off Damien Robinson's helmet and threw it across the field (but not at any particular person). Robinson had committed a facemask penalty against Saints' quarterback Aaron Brooks, bending Brooks' body awkwardly in the process. Turley and Robinson received offsetting personal fouls, but Turley was ejected for the helmet toss. Saints' Coach Jim Haslett contemplated cutting Turley immediately, but after seeing what Robinson did to Brooks--who initially thought he had suffered a broken neck--the Saints instead fined Turley $25,000 and recommended that he seek anger management counseling.

Garrett, his Cleveland teammate Larry Ogunjobi, and Maurkice Pouncey of the Steelers were each ejected from yesterday's game; Ogunjobi pushed Rudolph from behind during the scuffle, while Pouncey threw punches at Garrett and then kicked Garrett while Garrett was on the ground. The NFL announced today that Garrett is suspended indefinitely without pay, meaning he will miss at least six regular season games plus the playoffs if the Browns qualify, and he will have to apply for reinstatement before he is permitted to play again. Garrett was also fined an undisclosed amount. Pouncey was fined and suspended for three games without pay and Ogunjobi was fined and suspended for one game without pay. The Browns and Steelers were each fined $250,000. It is possible that the league will issue additional fines and/or suspensions upon further review of the entire incident, including the actions of players from both teams who left their respective bench areas to join the fracas.

After the game, Cleveland Coach Freddie Kitchens insisted that he does not condone fighting or any actions that would result in penalties, but the reality is that the Browns are the most penalized team in the league. They have signed numerous players who are clowns and/or criminals, so it should surprise no one that the Browns often act like clowns and criminals. The Garrett incident on Thursday is just the dramatic low point in a season packed with Browns players committing stupid and/or dangerous penalties, and engaging in various forms of conduct on and off the field that reflect a lack of discipline. As the saying goes, "You are either coaching it, or you are allowing it to happen."

If Kitchens does not condone undisciplined football, then it is his job to cut, bench or coach up players who are not disciplined. Undisciplined players and teams rarely win anything of consequence.

It must be noted that the Steelers are hardly blameless, though their role in the fracas is overshadowed by Garrett's over the top foolishness; the situation began with Rudolph trying to take off Garrett's helmet, and according to some accounts, kicking Garrett in the groin. It should also be noted that after Garrett and Rudolph were separated it was Rudolph--sans helmet--who charged at Garrett before Garrett hit him. Rudolph should absolutely be fined, if not suspended for one game. Pouncey was almost as out of control as Garrett, but this is Pouncey's first offense (at least to my knowledge), and he was taking on a player his size who had just assaulted his quarterback. Pouncey earned every bit of his suspension and fine, but he is not in the same category as a serial offender like Garrett who committed an act that could have caused serious injury.

The bottom line is that nothing that happened excuses what Garrett did, which could have resulted in serious injury if he had hit Rudolph from a different angle. The difference is that what Rudolph did is essentially commit a personal foul as a play was concluding, and Pouncey retaliated after seeing his quarterback get hit upside his bare head with his own helmet, while Garrett committed the most dangerous and flagrant offense of anyone involved in the melee--and Garrett did not just fling the helmet impulsively, like Turley had done; Garrett clearly aimed directly for Rudolph's head.

This is also not Garrett's first offense. He has had multiple late hits/dirty hits, including one that caused a season-ending injury to Jets' quarterback Trevor Simien and resulted in a fine from the league. The Browns are unlikely to cut ties with Garrett; he has rare physical talent, and the Browns will be leery of getting rid of him only to then see him possibly blossom somewhere else. However, this is where the league must step in--thinking about Garrett's mental health, and the physical health of opposing players--and must not permit Garrett to take the field again until there is a definitive answer to the question posed at the beginning of this article. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the league's purported emphasis on player health and player safety.

Myles Garrett needs help--and the players who play against him need protection.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic Reconsidered--and Why Borg Still Stands Alone

Rafael Nadal's triumph in the 2019 U.S. Open is his 19th Grand Slam singles title, placing him just one behind Roger Federer on the all-time list. This is the closest Nadal has been to Federer on that list since 2004, when Federer led Nadal 1-0 in Grand Slam singles titles won. Federer had captured four Grand Slam singles titles by the time Nadal won his first, the 2005 French Open.

The thin reed upon which Federer fans prop their man over Nadal appears to be about to snap. Federer is 38 years old, while Nadal is 33 years old. Some may have assumed that Federer's much-praised finesse style would prove to be more enduring than Nadal's pounding, powerful style, but--despite Federer's five year lead in age--Nadal is now the first male to win five Grand Slam singles titles after the age of 30, and Nadal seems likely to add to that total no later than the 2020 French Open. If Nadal matches or breaks Federer's record, there will be no rational basis to rank Federer ahead of Nadal--but the reality is that a rational evaluation of these players has favored Nadal for quite some time.

The first time that I wrote about Nadal versus Federer was Federer's Fifth Wimbledon Final is One for the Ages, when I wondered if Nadal would soon surpass Federer: "Will the younger Nadal eclipse Federer on grass next year and become the sport's undisputed number one player or will Federer continue to hold him off as he marches toward Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles? I think that Nadal is closer to beating Federer on grass than Federer is to beating Nadal on clay and that 2008 could very well be Nadal's opportunity to match another Borg feat: winning the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year."

That analysis proved to be prophetic, as Nadal not only routed Federer 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in the 2008 French Open Final (tying Bjorn Borg's record by winning that Slam for the fourth straight time) but Nadal then defeated Federer in an epic five set Wimbledon Final, after which I wondered why anyone would rank Federer higher all-time than Nadal: 

Even when Federer was at the absolute peak of his powers Nadal still held the head to head advantage, a fact that some people dismissed by noting that the vast majority of Nadal's wins over Federer came on clay--but that is not relevant in a discussion about the greatest player of all-time, because the greatest player of all-time should be able to win on multiple surfaces and should not have a losing record against his main rival. Nadal is just entering his prime years but he already owns four more Grand Slam wins than Federer did at the same age. Just like I thought that it was too soon to call Federer the greatest of all-time two or three years ago, I think that it is too soon to call Nadal the greatest of all-time now--but in many ways Nadal seems to be making a more potent case to claim that title than Federer ever did. Who can say for sure that in four or five years Nadal won't own more career Grand Slam titles than Federer's 12? Nadal has more speed and hits with more power than Federer and Nadal is also in better physical condition; perhaps Federer has a more delicate touch on certain shots but that is not enough to cancel out Nadal's advantages.

Federer is a great and graceful player, but his public image and status have been boosted by the adoring fan letters disguised as analysis that many writers have penned on his behalf, as I noted in my 2013 article titled Why is Rafael Nadal Not Praised Now the Way that Roger Federer Was Praised in 2006?: 

When David Foster Wallace gushed over Roger Federer in an August 2006 essay, the 25 year old Federer had won eight Grand Slam singles titles in 29 appearances (.276 winning percentage) and had amassed six first round losses--yet Wallace and others openly and enthusiastically touted the notion that Federer had already established himself as the greatest tennis player of all-time. The first dubious aspect of such a wide-ranging declaration is that it is unfair--if not impossible--to compare Open Era players with players from earlier eras; the rules, conditions and overall context were just too different. If Rod Laver had been permitted to play in the Grand Slam events during his prime years then he likely would have set unbreakable records--but we cannot know for sure what he would have accomplished, so all that can be intelligently said is that Laver deserves to be prominently placed in any discussion of the greatest tennis players ever: he should not be punished for "only" winning 11 Grand Slams, nor can he be credited with all of the Grand Slams that he almost certainly would have won.

The second dubious aspect about declaring Federer to be the greatest player of all-time is that he has never established the simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open dominance displayed by Bjorn Borg. When Borg made his final Grand Slam appearance in 1981--at just 25 years old--he held the modern male record for both Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six) and he had won the "Channel Slam" (capturing Wimbledon and the French Open in the same calendar year) a still-unmatched three times in a row. Sampras and then Federer dominated Wimbledon during their primes and Nadal has dominated the French Open but no one has ever mastered grass and clay at the same time the way that Borg did...

While Borg-Nadal is difficult to call, it is very hard to understand how anyone who supported Federer's greatest player of all-time candidacy circa 2006 would not be even more strongly in favor of Nadal now: Nadal has achieved more at a younger age than Federer did, Nadal has a much better Grand Slam winning percentage, Nadal has consistently dominated Federer head to head and Nadal does not have a problematic individual matchup or surface. The only advantage that Federer has ever held over Nadal is that Federer has been healthier/more durable, which will make it even more remarkable if Nadal wins four more Grand Slams to tie Federer's mark.

Mary Carillo offered a very insightful and objective take on the Federer-Nadal rivalry:

I have said and argued with John McEnroe and Ted Robinson during our French Open telecasts for many years that you cannot anoint Roger Federer the greatest of all time if he isn't the greatest of his own time. And it's not just on red clay. Nadal has the edge on hard courts as well. Like in boxing, it's all about the matchup. When Roger is playing at his luminous best he has no need to worry about the other side of the net. But if he is playing Nadal, even his best is often not enough.

People conflate [Federer's] beauty with supremacy and blur the line between high art and [Nadal's] impossible-to-ignore domination. I think Roger Federer is the most stylish, elegant and gifted tennis player I've ever seen. Roger is all that is right in this tennis world. Rafa Nadal is his perfect rival--powerful, explosive, gritty and gutsy.

While Federer's fans struggled to accept the notion that Nadal is greater than Federer, another player showed up as a worthy challenger to both champions: Novak Djokovic. Djokovic won his first Grand Slam singles title at the 2008 Australian Open and on July 4, 2011 he became the first player in seven years other than Federer or Nadal to be ranked number one in the world. Except for a 10 month run at the top enjoyed by Andy Murray from November 2016 through August 2017, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been the only players ranked number one since 2004.

Djokovic has held the top spot since November 2018, but Nadal's U.S. Open win puts him in great position to be the year-end number one ranked player for the fifth time (which would tie him with Jimmy Connors, Federer and Djokovic for second most all-time behind Pete Sampras, who accomplished this feat six times). The ranking system has typically been weighted to reward activity and other factors that do not necessarily correlate with greatness, and thus the ranking statistics should just be considered a small part of evaluating the greatest players of all-time. It is doubtful that any reputable tennis evaluator would consider Sampras and Connors to be among the top five players of all-time or to be greater than Bjorn Borg, who was the year-end ranking leader just twice even though he had a four year stretch during which he made the Finals in 11 of the 12 Grand Slams that he entered, winning seven of them (he did not play in the Australian Open in any of those years, and he skipped other tour events as well, which negatively impacted his ranking). It is worth noting that from 1946-76, the Australian Open was won by a non-Australian just four times; the Australian Open has been a Major/Grand Slam event in name since 1924/25 but for most of its history non-Australian players did not treat it as such.

Federer holds the male singles record with 20 Grand Slam titles, but he has played in 78 events. His winning percentage of .256 is not dominant compared to the other players who are in the greatest player of all-time conversation. Federer achieved his peak career Grand Slam winning percentage (.366) in 2009 after he won Wimbledon, his 15th title in 41 Grand Slam events. Federer has won six times in 20 appearances (.300) at the Australian Open--the least important of the four Grand Slam events--and he has won 14 times in 58 appearances (.241) at the other three Grand Slam events. He has one win and five Finals appearances in 18 trips to the French Open, an event that he skipped three times. Federer has lost in the first round of the French Open four times and he has lost in the first round of Wimbledon three times.

Nadal has won 19 Grand Slam singles titles in 58 appearances (.328). His peak career Grand Slam winning percentage was .368, achieved after he won the 2014 French Open, his 14th Grand Slam singles title in 38 appearances. While Federer padded his career numbers by winning the Australian Open six times, Nadal is 1/14 in his Australian Open appearances (with five total Finals appearances) but 18/44 (.409) in the three most important Grand Slam events. He has lost in the first round of a Grand Slam event just twice, once at Wimbledon and once at the Australian Open.

Nadal has a 24-16 career head to head record versus Federer, including a 10-4 record in Grand Slam matches. Nadal is the only player who has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam Final on grass, clay and hard court; if you believe that Nadal is a one surface wonder then you have been reading too much propaganda and not enough objective analysis.

Djokovic has a 16/59 record in Grand Slam singles events (.271) and this is essentially his peak career winning percentage (he stood at 16/58 prior to the 2019 U.S. Open, .275). Even more than Federer, Djokovic's Grand Slam singles record is boosted by his performance in the Australian Open, where Djokovic has won seven titles in 15 appearances. He is 9/44 (.205) in the other three Grand Slam events, including just 1/15 (with four total Finals appearances) in the French Open. Djokovic has lost in the first round of a Grand Slam event twice, both times in the Australian Open.

Djokovic owns the advantage in his career head to head matchups with both Federer and Nadal. Djokovic leads Federer 26-22, including 10-6 in Grand Slam events and 4-1 in Grand Slam event Finals. Djokovic leads Nadal 28-26 overall, though Nadal is up 9-6 in Grand Slam events and they are tied 4-4 in Grand Slam event Finals.

The mainstream media narrative is apparently etched in stone that everyone is chasing Federer, but when you look at the numbers and the percentages without considering subjective propaganda, it is difficult to see how anyone would rank Federer first among these three players, let alone as the greatest player of all-time across eras that operated under vastly different conditions and circumstances. Nadal is the all-time career leader with 18 victories in Wimbledon/the French Open/the U.S. Open, ahead of Federer (14), Sampras (12), Borg (11) and Bill Tilden (10). Nadal has a decisive head to head advantage over Federer, has played Djokovic essentially to a standstill overall (and with an edge in the Grand Slam events) and Nadal has a significant edge in overall Grand Slam event winning percentage. While Djokovic enjoys the head to head advantage over both of his rivals, his overall accomplishments do not quite measure up: fewer Grand Slam titles, a worse Grand Slam event winning percentage than Nadal, and nearly half of his Grand Slam event wins coming in the Australian Open. Djokovic is perhaps the greatest Australian Open player of all-time, though!

Anyone who sees the larger historical perspective is amused by all of the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic talk, because none of those guys measure up to Bjorn Borg, who I described as the "Sandy Koufax of tennis." Borg outdistanced his contemporaries by a greater margin than any player in the Open Era. Consider these statistics:

* Borg was the youngest player to win the Italian Open, the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg's records for the French Open and Wimbledon have been broken but he is the only player who was simultaneously the youngest ever champion of all three events.

* Until the age of 21, Borg never lost to a player younger than he was.

* Borg achieved the French Open/Wimbledon double each year from 1978-80. No player before or since has accomplished this feat in three straight years, or even two straight years.

* Borg tied the all-time record by winning three Grand Slam titles without losing a set (1976 Wimbledon, 1978 French Open and 1980 French Open).

* Borg simultaneously held the record for most career French Open singles titles (six) and most career Wimbledon titles (five). While both records have since been broken, no other player in the Open Era has simultaneously held both marks. For half a decade, Borg was the best grass court player in the world and the best clay court player in the world. In other words, he was Nadal and Federer rolled into one, while competing against at least two players who should still be listed among the 10 greatest of all-time (Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe).

* Borg won five straight Wimbledon titles from 1976-80, a feat that had not been accomplished since the 1880s, when the defending champion was automatically seeded into the next year's Finals.

* When Borg retired from Grand Slam competition at the age of 25 he ranked second all-time with 11 Grand Slam singles titles, trailing only Roy Emerson. Emerson won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, but six of his were in his native Australian Open; until the 1980s, non-Australian players regularly skipped the Australian Open, and Borg only played the event once, as a teenager.

* Borg remains the youngest player to ever win 11 Grand Slam singles titles (25 years old).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407; 11/27).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam match winning percentage (.898; 141-16).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam five set match winning percentage (.889; 24-3).

* Borg remains the only player who posted five straight years with a Grand Slam match winning percentage above .900 (1977-81).

* Borg still holds the highest career Wimbledon match winning percentage (.927; 51-4).

* Borg still holds the record for consecutive Wimbledon matches won (41).

The main knocks against Borg are his lack of longevity and the fact that he never won the U.S. Open. The funny thing about Borg's longevity is that he won at least one Grand Slam title in eight straight years (1974-81), a record that stood alone until Sampras matched it in 2000. Federer achieved the feat from 2003-10, and Nadal now holds the record with 10 (2005-14). In terms of Grand Slam dominance--as opposed to mere Grand Slam participation--Borg enjoyed enviable and nearly unmatched longevity. Regarding the U.S. Open, Borg reached the Finals four times in nine appearances, and his Finals losses all came at the hands of Connors or McEnroe, two of the most decorated U.S. Open champions ever. The lack of at least one U.S. Open title is the only legitimate mark against Borg, and in terms of ranking the greatest players of all-time that one negative mark does not outweigh all of the positive marks listed above.

Borg remained solidly in second place with 11 Grand Slam singles titles from 1981 until 1998, when Sampras tied him. Sampras passed him in 1999 and retired in 2002 as the all-time leader with 14 Grand Slam singles titles. Sampras won 14 of the 52 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.269). He never made it to the French Open Finals, and he only made it to the French Open semifinals once in 13 tries. Sampras was not nearly as dominant as Borg. While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have each subsequently passed both Borg and Sampras in terms of total Grand Slam event wins, no one has approached Borg's .407 Grand Slam event winning percentage or his astonishing 16 Finals trips in 27 appearances (.593). Borg on his best day could beat anyone from any era on grass or clay. That is clearly not true of Sampras, Federer or Djokovic, particularly regarding clay. Borg versus Nadal on clay would be an incredible spectacle but Nadal at his best is not beating Borg at his best on grass.

It will be interesting to see if Nadal surpasses Federer in term of total Grand Slam events won. I suspect that if this happens, the Federer acolytes in the media will shift the goalposts (apologies for mixing sports metaphors) and find some other reason/excuse to still rank Federer ahead of Nadal--and no one will seriously talk about why Borg should still be listed ahead of both. Borg is the victim of a phenomenon brilliantly described by William Goldman in the wonderful book that Goldman co-authored with Mike Lupica, Wait Till Next Year. Goldman wrote, "The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware it's begun and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. Stripped of medals, sent to Siberia...It really is a battle to the death." He noted that Wilt Chamberlain's accomplishments were so outlandish that he is the exception to this rule, but that most athletes are downgraded--if not forgotten--as time passes.

Think about how even Michael Jordan has seen his status decline in the less than 20 years since his final retirement. Many commentators say, with a straight face, that LeBron James is greater than Jordan--never mind that James has won fewer championships, fewer regular season MVPs, fewer Finals MVPs, fewer scoring titles and fewer of just about anything else that matters. Another aspect of this that was true when Goldman wrote those words over 30 years ago and is even truer now is that the sports/entertainment business makes its money by promoting today's games and today's players. If ESPN states that LeBron James is not as great as Michael Jordan or--gasp--Julius Erving then ESPN is essentially devaluing the product that it paid billions of dollars to broadcast. The same is true to a lesser but still significant extent for other media outlets. You are not going to make much of a living as a writer, commentator or analyst talking about how great Bjorn Borg, Julius Erving and Michael Jordan were; maybe you can write a retrospective about them to commemorate the 20th or 30th anniversary of one of their accomplishments, but on a day to day basis your bread is buttered and your paycheck is signed based on praising Federer and LeBron James. How/why the media picks favorites among athletes who are/were contemporaries--why Federer over Nadal, or James over Kobe Bryant when they were both active and Bryant was winning championships--is an entirely different discussion that extends beyond the scope of this article.

When Did Sports Journalism Lose its Way?

In an ideal world, reporters would report facts/news, commentators would offer their opinions about the facts/news and entertainers would not pretend to be reporters or commentators. That ideal world never existed in reality, but there were times and places where it came closer to existing than it does in our current time and place.

The issue is much broader than sports, but here we will focus on the decline of sports journalism. Anyone under 45 years old probably does not remember that there was a time when Tony Kornheiser, Mike Wilbon and other television personalities were first-rate sportswriters/commentators.

Here is an example of an excellent Wilbon column: Lacy Leaves Towering Legacy.

Here is an example of an excellent Kornheiser column: Astros' Ryan Going Out In Glory, if Not a Blaze.

Wilbon, Kornheiser and other talented reporters and columnists traded in their newspaper bylines for the fame and riches they could acquire by screaming at each other on television. Maybe most people who were offered fame and riches would have made the same Faustian bargain, but the deal comes with a price--for them, and for us. I discussed this with Woody Paige more than a decade ago and he readily acknowledged that he did not derive the same satisfaction or meaning from appearing on television that he did from writing a great article or column.

T.J. Simers, a long-time co-panelist with Paige on ESPN's "Around the Horn," once said that he hated the show but "I hear a cash register going off in my head when I do it. TV makes us do this. They want us to be stupid, to try to top ourselves. On 'Around the Horn,' if you're low-key and sensible, you aren't going to be on the show anymore. You have to be over the top. ESPN will hire you for your credibility, but after a minute they've had enough of that...The producer is yelling 'Conflict! Conflict!' in your ear. TV wants conflict. TV wants outrageous opinions."

It does not have to be that way, though I do not have much hope that things will substantially change any time in the near future. ESPN and its imitators have dumbed down sports discourse, and there is no clear path out of the murky swamp back to dry, sane land. Many of the top sportswriters traded in their credibility for TV's cash, and as a result we are now cursed with both low quality TV and with a large amount of low quality sportswriting. There are very few great all-around sports writers now, as the few who know sports often lack writing chops and the few who have writing chops often do not know sports. Someone who has a deep understanding of sports--the strategy, the personalities, the psychology of competition--and the capacity to tell a coherent and compelling story is rare indeed. That combination has always been uncommon, but if you look at an old copy of Sport--particularly when it was edited by Dick Schaap--or Sports Illustrated you will find many articles and columns that are thoughtful and thought-provoking. Sadly, there is no publication or online site that has that cachet now, or that deserves it.

Speaking of Schaap, he was perhaps the first great sportswriter to transition successfully to television, but Schaap found a way to conform to the limitations of that medium while also retaining his intelligence and wit. When he hosted the Sports Reporters there was more light than heat--more substance than hot air, more intelligent debating as opposed to mindless screaming and bickering.

It is too much to expect anyone to be another Dick Schaap, but it should not be too much to expect writers to get their facts straight, commentators to provide intelligent opinions about those facts and TV personalities to scream less and think more. I hope that the general public is not as dumb as ESPN and its imitators think but I fear otherwise.

Tiger Woods Experiences the Full Career Arc of A Champion

Tiger Woods, who just became the second oldest winner of The Masters, is experiencing the full career arc of a champion. That arc begins with the wonder years, when the prodigy becomes the youngest to accomplish certain feats or win specific events. It would be wrong to say that at this stage championships are inevitable--nothing about competition involving skill is inevitable--but there is an expectation that the prodigy will achieve and sustain greatness. Because of that expectation, the first championships may come more with a feeling of relief than of joy, and there may be an accompanying feeling of pressure to maintain a high standard of play.

After those first titles, the champion goes through his prime, when winning titles appears to be effortless. That perception is incorrect, of course; championships are only achieved after much hard work is put in, and the margin between winning and losing is rarely large, even if the final score suggests otherwise.

Father Time is undefeated, so at some point the champion ages and new contenders enter their own wonder years. Each title won by the champion at this point may be his last, and thus these latter titles may feel more meaningful or precious; the hard work that must be put in to win these titles is apparent to everyone: Tiger Woods has to get up in the middle of the night to loosen up his back before playing the final round at Augusta.

Winning a first title is great but winning a title in your 40s--when there is much doubt (including, perhaps, even at least a little self-doubt--is very satisfying.

The images of Tiger embracing his children--who are too young to remember prodigy Tiger or dominant Tiger--are priceless, and it is an added blessing that his mother was able to witness Tiger's triumph as well; Tiger's father is no longer with us but he is surely smiling down on his son.

Watching Tiger win a major as an older player who is no longer consistently dominant brings to mind Bill Russell's last title run with the Boston Celtics and Pete Sampras' final U.S.Open title. The difference, though, is that Russell had already announced his pending retirement and Sampras never played again on Tour (though he did not formally announce his retirement until shortly before the next year's U.S. Open), but Tiger iso regaining his mental and physical strength; it is doubtful that he will ever dominate to the extent that he did during his prime, but he could conceivably be a credible contender in majors for the next several years, and--with his 15th major win under his belt--possibly even renew his quest to break Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 wins in majors.

Patriots' Sustained Greatness Demands Respect

In a defensive struggle during which the teams set the record for the fewest points scored in a Super Bowl, the New England Patriots prevailed 13-3 over the Los Angeles Rams. The tandem of coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady has advanced to nine Super Bowls and won six of them. Brady has won more Super Bowls than any other quarterback has played in and he has won more Super Bowls than any other player has won, breaking Charles Haley's more than two decades old record of five. Brady has won a record four Super Bowl MVPs (breaking Joe Montana's record of three) but this year Brady's trusted slot receiver Julian Edelman won the Super Bowl MVP after compiling 10 catches for 141 yards.

Brady is now the oldest quarterback to win a Super Bowl and Belichick is now the oldest coach to win a Super Bowl. Belichick tied George Halas and Curly Lambeau for most NFL titles won by a coach. The unprecedented run for Belichick and Brady has lasted for nearly two decades, a dynasty of unparalleled length and success in NFL history; other NFL dynasties include the 1990s Dallas Cowboys (three Super Bowl wins), the 1980s San Francisco 49ers (four Super Bowl wins), the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers (four Super Bowl wins) and the 1960s Green Bay Packers (five NFL titles, plus two Super Bowl wins against the AFL champions). The only football dynasty that compares with New England's is the 1940s/1950s Cleveland Browns, who won four All-American Football Conference titles in four seasons and then captured three NFL titles in the first six seasons after that league merged with the NFL. The Browns are the only North American professional sports team that has appeared in the championship game or championship series in each of its first 10 seasons of existence.

The 2018 NFL regular season was marked by a record setting scoring explosion, and two of the highest scoring teams were the Rams and the Kansas City Chiefs. The Patriots not only defeated both teams but they shut out both teams in the first halves of their respective playoff encounters. Belichick has an uncanny ability to dissect game film and devise a strategy that enables his players to maximize their strengths, minimize their weaknesses and take away whatever the other team does best.

Casual fans may have found Super Bowl LIII to be boring but football purists understand that they witnessed a strategic masterpiece, a theme that ESPN's Steve Young expounded upon right after the game. Young called this game Bill Belichick's "Sistine Chapel," a masterpiece capping Belichick's tremendous career (or at least capping it thus far, as Belichick and his Patriots show no signs of slowing down and could very well win more championships). Young added that there are many "haters" in this era of social media and hot takes but that we "are fools" if we don't step back and appreciate the greatness being displayed by the Patriots in general and Belichick in particular. Belichick modestly insists that it is all about the players but Young said to Belichick that he is going to "push back" a bit against that notion because Belichick is doing things with his players that no other coach could do.

Think about it. While Brady is arguably the greatest quarterback ever, this Patriots team is not brimming with Pro Bowl or Hall of Fame level talent. The Rams almost certainly have a more talented roster from top to bottom--but Belichick has an unparalleled ability to put his players in position to succeed while also making the other team's best players look and feel confused. The Rams' young quarterback Jared Goff appears to have a bright future but against the Patriots he looked hesitant, uncertain and largely ineffective.

When Young and the NFL Primetime crew interviewed Patriots' owner Robert Kraft, Kraft noted that the league's structure is designed ensure parity: teams that don't do well get higher draft picks and an easier schedule than teams that do well, in order to maximize the chances that in a given season one of several teams could emerge as the champion. The Patriots have defied that structural obstacle to be perennial contenders and multiple-time champions.

You don't have to like the Patriots or root for them, but if you love football and/or if you love competitive greatness then you have to respect what they have accomplished and how they have accomplished it. Young said that the Patriots have perfected turning football into an "intellectual, academic" exercise.

William Nack's Kentucky Derby Memories

William Nack, who passed away earlier this year, is considered one of the greatest horse racing writers of all-time. I am not a huge fan of the sport, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about it, but I respect greatness in any endeavor, so I read with interest an article by Nack in the December 31, 2018 issue of Sports Illustrated. The article is an excerpt from a memoir that Nack was working on before he died and it tells the story of the race that, as the article's subtitle puts it, "inspired his lifelong love of the sport--the 1958 Kentucky Derby."

Nack recalls his uncle Ed Feeney, then a sports photographer for the Chicago Tribune, inviting him to go to the 1958 Kentucky Derby. Nack was just 17 at the time, a horse racing fanatic who had not yet attended the race of his dreams. Nack soaked up every minute of the experience.

A few years earlier, he had memorized the names of every Kentucky Derby winner since the initial 1875 race. In 1971, as Nack describes it, his journalism career was "plodding along as a political writer at Newsday" when that memorized list helped change his life forever. At the newspaper's Christmas party, Nack recited the list and the newspaper's editor, David Laventhol, asked Nack, "Why do you know that?" Nack told him about his love for the Kentucky Derby and his trip to the 1958 event, and within minutes Laventhol tapped Nack to be the newspaper's new thoroughbread racing writer.

The rest is history.

In 2008, Nack returned to the Kentucky Derby and posed for a picture right by the spot where he had stood 50 years earlier to watch Tim Tam beat Lincoln Road by half a length.

Nack's article concludes on a note that could bring a wistful tear even to the most cynical eye:

Alas, all of them from those good old days are turned to fading shadows now and gone--Ed and Dave, Mom and Dad, Ben and Jimmy, Tim Tim and Gen. Duke, Charlie and the Shoe, Lincoln Road and Silky Sullivan, all those pretty horses.

Long gone, so long.

All these years later, I can still see them all. And I cannot shake, not in my dreams, not in my sleepless hammock reveries, that haunting line from William Faulkner set to the poignant rhythms of his poetry: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Magnus Carlsen Retains World Chess Champion Title After Sweeping Fabiano Caruana 3-0 in Rapid Tiebreak

After the first World Chess Championship match that did not have a single decisive game, Magnus Carlsen won three straight games against Fabiano Caruana in the Rapid Tiebreak to retain his title. Carlsen squeezed Caruana in the first game and then almost let Caruana escape with a draw before relentlessly punishing Caruana's endgame mistake in time pressure. Carlsen won game two convincingly and then took game three as well after Caruana went for broke, as a draw would have produced the same match outcome as a loss.

Carlsen was heavily criticized for offering a draw in a winning position in game 12 of the classical portion of the match and there was much speculation about why Carlsen failed to push for a win but it seems that the simple answer is that--based on the skill sets of the players and the match format--he decided that his best strategy was to steer the match toward the Rapid Tiebreak. While these two players are evenly matched at slow time controls, Carlsen enjoys a clear and significant advantage over Caruana in faster time controls. Carlsen's game 12 draw offer is therefore understandable--his job is to win the match/retain his title, not satisfy the expectations of others--but perhaps reveals that the match format is flawed. One thing that can be said in favor of the current format is that the faster time controls to some extent deemphasize the importance of computer preparation and thus reintroduce human elements of natural talent, calm nerves and fighting spirit that are not as evident during slower time controls in this computer-dominated era.

Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik did not like Carlsen's game 12 draw offer. Kramnik declared after game 12 and before the Rapid Tiebreak that in order to prevail Carlsen must get over his fear of losing the title. This is reminiscent of the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear from Frank Herbert's Dune, which states "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." The ability to control one's fear/nerves plays a huge role in championship level play, as I noted in "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship (my recap of the 2010 World Chess Championship match in which Viswanathan Anand defeated Veselin Topalov, 6.5-5.5), but the Litany Against Fear can be meaningfully applied in many areas of life.

Kramnik conceded that Carlsen should be considered the favorite in the Rapid Tiebreak but he cautioned that Caruana has legitimate practical chances if he has proper opening preparation.

Kramnik's comments make sense, but it seems a bit hypocritical for him to criticize another player's alleged fear when he dodged a rematch with Garry Kasparov, as mentioned in the interesting article Garry Kasparov: King without a Crown. While there is no question that Kramnik earned his match victory against a stubborn and complacent Kasparov, there is also no question that Kasparov deserved a rematch and should not have been forced to play in a qualifying event to get that rematch. As Kasparov stated of Kramnik, "He made new discoveries and pushed chess towards new horizons. It was not the most attractive style, but that does not matter. He came up with a strategy that took me by surprise and it is important for the development of chess that I was forced to make corrections to my style. I had been winning too many tournaments. You can't learn from your wins, only your defeats. It was a very painful defeat, but I deserved it because it taught me that I needed to change. It took a long time for me to do this--and I am still in the process of doing this--but I am winning while learning."

Kasparov retained his highest rated player in the world status even after losing to Kramnik and Kasparov absolutely dominated the subsequent tournaments. He even finally beat Kramnik's fabled Berlin Defense. "All my claims for a rematch and that I was the best player would have been weakened had I failed to win," Kasparov noted. "Kramnik should play me anyway, but my victory sent out a very important message. I finally broke down the 'Berlin Wall.' I believe it is the duty of the world champion to defend his title against the most dangerous opponent. When I beat Karpov in 1985 I was forced to defend my title against him within eight months. The organizers and the public believed that Kramnik was the most dangerous opponent, so I had to play him--I had no choice. Kramnik knows this and now he is champion he must prove to the world he is 'real,' by facing his most dangerous opponent--me. In the last six months I have proved I am still the world number one and I beat Kramnik recently. But now Kramnik, who was not made to win a qualifier to play me, implies that I must qualify to play him. I don't want to diminish the importance of his victory. He deserved to win. But it is Kramnik's turn to prove Kasparov didn't go mad in London. The public need another match to prove Kramnik is the real thing."

The point of this tour down memory lane is that, while Kramnik has the right to express his opinions, it should not be forgotten that at the peak of his career as World Champion he displayed fear, if not outright cowardice. At least Carlsen embraces the opportunity to play against the second highest rated player in the world; Kramnik ducked a Kasparov rematch and eventually Kasparov retired in frustration, still the highest rated player in the world.

Interestingly, Kasparov shared Kramink's viewpoint regarding Carlsen's game 12 draw offer and Kasparov predicted that Caruana would win the Rapid Tiebreak because, according to Kasparov, the most important trait in Rapid is strong nerves and Carlsen had demonstrated that his nerves were shot. While it does appear that Carlsen's nerves or fighting spirit may not be quite what they were at the start of his reign, his performance today suggests to me that Carlsen really was just being very calculating and practical. He has enough self-awareness and enough knowledge of his opponent to understand that they are basically equal in slow games but that there is a big difference in their skills at faster time controls. It was once said of Jack Nicklaus in his prime that he knew that he was the best golfer in the world, his opponents knew and he knew that they knew. There is more than a trace of that psychological warfare in Carlsen's match strategy: he knows, and he knows that Caruana knows, that Rapid and Blitz immensely favor Carlsen.

This is the second consecutive time that Carlsen defended his title by winning a Rapid Tiebreak--he defeated Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in the 2016 World Chess Championship Rapid Tiebreak--and this is Carlsen's third title defense overall.

The World Chess Champions who dominated their eras for a long time and/or were significantly better than their contemporaries include Paul Morphy (unofficial World Champion but clearly the best player of his time), Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Carlsen, who has achieved the highest chess rating of all-time and won World Championships in Classical, Rapid and Blitz formats, deserves to be included in that group. Is he better/greater than those players? Would he have beaten them in a match? Those questions are impossible to answer, because of the differences in eras, rules, computer preparation and so forth. My opinion is that Fischer is the greatest player of all-time because he was further ahead of his contemporaries (based on the official ratings) than anyone else has ever been. It is worth mentioning that Fischer thought very highly of Morphy, who was far ahead of his contemporaries in an era when chess ratings did not exist. Carlsen's current rating, which is dozens of points below his peak rating, is still higher than Fischer's then-record 2785, but when Fischer was 2785 he was 125 points ahead of everyone else, which is more than half a rating class (a rating class is 200 points). That is a staggering margin. Caruana is currently just three points behind Carlsen and no one would put Caruana in the same sentence with Morphy, Steinitz, et. al.

Ross Sprague (1940-2018) Played Master Level Chess For More Than Five Decades

Ross Sprague, a dominant force in Midwest chess from the 1950s through the mid-2000s, recently passed away. Sprague achieved the National Master title during an era when there were only a few dozen Masters in the entire country and he later earned Senior Master status with a rating well over 2400.  He did not have the opportunity to play FIDE rated chess during his prime or he certainly would have attained FIDE Master status and he quite possibly could have become an International Master. National Master David Presser, the 1964 Ohio co-champion, told me years ago that he believes that Sprague is the most naturally talented native Ohio chess player of all-time. Sprague was a powerful attacker who knew a lot of opening theory and was blessed with a tremendous memory. If you survived the opening and middlegame against Sprague you then discovered that he seemed like a walking endgame tablebase. He had an incredible sense of how to optimally place his pieces and pawns during the latter stages of the game.

Sprague's chess career began in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1950s. He often told stories about playing ping pong and speed chess against Bobby Fischer during one of the U.S. Junior Opens in the late 1950s. Sprague also formed a friendship with Grandmaster Pal Benko, who called him "Poopsie" and taught him a lot about endgame play. Sprague served as an airplane mechanic during the Vietnam War and later became a practicing attorney.

Sprague won or shared first place in the Ohio Chess Congress four times (1958, 1975-76, 2005). He holds the record for longest time span between OCC titles (47 years), breaking the record of 35 years set by James Schroeder. Based on my recollection of conversations with Sprague, I believe that he said that he won several other state championships, including (I think) Illinois, but I cannot find official confirmation of this. Sprague also won the Dayton Chess Club Championship twice (2005-06).

After Sprague first moved to Dayton in the mid-2000s, I received many endgame lessons at his hands as I drew seemingly winning positions and lost seemingly drawn positions. He was past his prime (his U.S. Chess Federation rating had dropped from 2400-plus to the mid-2200s) but he could punch above his weight, as former World Chess Championship Challenger Gata Kamsky found out when Sprague held him to a draw at the Kings Island Open. I will never forget Sprague's concise recap: he said that Kamsky grumbled after the game that he had five different ways to win, to which Sprague replied in typical Sprague fashion "But you chose number six, which draws."

Clearly, I am far from the strongest player who crossed swords with Sprague but since 1991 (when the USCF first began keeping such records) I faced him 52 times in regular rated games, making him my most frequent opponent during that time frame. I am also listed as Sprague's most frequent opponent, one game ahead of International Master Calvin Blocker, but of course those records omit nearly 40 years of Sprague's chess career. Sprague scored 25 wins, 11 draws and 16 losses in our regular rated games.

I am Sprague's most frequent Quick chess opponent by a larger margin of 132-73 over Daytonian Mark Kellie. Sprague scored 56 wins, 28 draws and 48 losses against me in Quick chess.

He kept playing tournament chess until he completely lost his sight. He was too proud or stubborn to use the special equipment that is available to assist blind players to participate in tournament chess.

I believe that competing against and analyzing with Sprague is one of the major factors that helped elevate my rating from fluctuating in the low 2000s to consistently being above 2100 for several years (and peaking at 2190 before various life events put tournament chess on the back-burner for me for a while).

We first faced each other in a John Carroll University Action Tournament held on June 5, 1992; the 2427 rated Sprague beat me (I was then rated 1980) en route to finishing tied for second behind International Master Calvin Blocker. Our last regular rated game took place 19 years later to the day as I beat him in the final round of the 2011 Gem City Open. Sprague's rating was floored at 2200, while I was rated 2087; Sprague had been battling severe vision loss and other health problems for quite some time, so I have no illusions about my peak playing strength compared to his.

Sprague was well-read and our conversations were always interesting. If you caught him in the wrong state of mind, he could be a bit blunt and abrasive but he always treated me with respect and I think he knew how much I respected his chess abilities. We were from different generations and had different life experiences but we connected because of our mutual love of chess.

Here is my loss with Black against Sprague from the April 2005 Gem City Open. Sprague was rated 2205, while I was rated 2012. After an innocuous opening, we traded into an equal ending, whereupon Sprague methodically outplayed me:

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Bg5 Qa5 5. Qd2 Nbd7 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bxf6 Nxf6 8. e5 dxe5 9. Nxe5 Be6 10. Bc4 Bxc4 11. Nxc4 Qb4 12. b3 Nd5 13. Nxd5 Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 cxd5 15. Ne3 e6 16. Rhe1 Kd7?! 17. Kd3 Rc8 18. c4 dxc4+ 19. bxc4 Be7 20. Rab1 b6 21. f4 Rhd8 22. f5 exf5 23. Nxf5 Bf6 24. Ne3 Kc6 25. Nd5 Rxd5?! 26. cxd5+ Kxd5 27. Rbc1 Rxc1 28. Rxc1 Bxd4 29. Rc7 Be5 30. Rxf7 a5 31. h3 Bf6 32. Rc7 Kd6 33. Rc8 Kd5 34. a4 Ba1 35. Rc1 Bf6 36. Rb1 Bd8 37. Rb5+ Kc6 38. Kc4 Bf6 39. Rd5 Ba1 40. Rd1 Bf6 41. Re1 Bd8 42. Re6+ Kd7 43. Kd5 Kc7 44. Re8 Bf6 45. Rf8 b5 46. axb5 Kb6 47. Rb8+ Ka7 48. Re8 Kb6 49. Kc4 a4 50. Re6+ Kb7 51. Ra6 Be7 52. Rxa4 Kb6 53. Ra6+ Kb7 54. Kd5 Bg5 55. Rg6 Bf6 56. Rxf6 gxf6 57. Ke6 1-0.

I miss our nearly weekly friendly but fierce chess battles for Dayton Chess Club supremacy but I cherish the memories of competing against such a talented player who helped me to come closer to maximizing my potential. It is good to be challenged, to be pushed, to find out what you can do when you are tested. Thank you, Ross, and Rest in Peace.

World Chess Championship Heads to Tiebreakers After 12th Consecutive Draw

Game 12 of the 2018 World Chess Championship match came to a sudden, surprising and disappointing end after World Champion Magnus Carlsen offered a draw in a very promising position and relieved Challenger Fabiano Caruana accepted. The match, tied 6-6 after 12 straight draws, will now be decided by tiebreaker games to be played on Wednesday. The first tiebreaker is a best of four match of Rapid Chess (25 minutes per player per game, with a 10 second increment added after each completed move). The second tiebreaker is a series of up to five Blitz Chess matches of two games each played at a time control of five minutes per player per game, with a three second increment added after each completed move. If neither the Rapid nor Blitz tiebreakers prove decisive, then the World Chess Championship will be determined by a one game, winner take all Armageddon showdown during which White has five minutes and Black has four minutes plus draw odds (thus, a draw is a win for Black). An increment of three seconds per move will be applied after move 60 of the Armageddon game. The players will draw lots for color assignments in these games. The prize fund would have been split 60/40 had the outcome been decided during the 12 Classical games but now it will be split 55/45.

For those who love chess as an art and violent sport, it is sad that the linear, classical World Championship will once again be decided by games contested at fast time controls. This is exactly what happened in the previous World Championship match when Carlsen retained his title by defeating Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in a Rapid tiebreak match. At the time, I acknowledged the entertainment value of those Rapid games but also stated unequivocally that this is a "terrible" way to determine who is World Champion. There are separate championship events for Rapid and Blitz, so deciding the classical World Championship with Rapid (and possibly Blitz and even Armageddon) tiebreaks is like determining the NBA Championship with a Three Point Shootout followed by a Slam Dunk Contest; those are great events but they have nothing to do with crowning a champion.

Bobby Fischer, arguably the greatest chess player of all-time and a tremendous fighter, once responded to a draw offer by growling, "I determine when it is a draw!" He won the 1964 U.S. Championship with an unprecedented 11-0 sweep, fighting to the bitter end to win the last game even though the second place finisher (former U.S. Champion Larry Evans) was hopelessly behind with 7.5/11. It was later said that Evans won the tournament and Fischer won the exhibition. Fischer later won 20 straight games en route to claiming the 1972 World Chess Championship; the mental power, psychological tenacity and personal drive that it takes to prevail in 20 consecutive games against the best players in the world is difficult to quantify or explain--but it stands in marked contrast to Carlsen's approach in this match and particularly in game 12, about which he said flatly, "I wasn't in a mood to find the punch." As Gurney Halleck told Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's Dune, "What has mood to do with it? You fight when the necessity arises--no matter the mood! Mood's a thing for cattle or making love or playing the baliset. It's not for fighting."

It is evident that, based on Carlsen's match strategy to minimize risk as much as possible in the 12 classical games and then seek victory at faster time controls, Carlsen did not believe that "necessity" had arisen in game 12. Carlsen's strategy may make statistical sense based on a comparison of his prowess at faster time controls compared to Caruana's relative ineptitude at such time controls but this situation indicates that the match's format is flawed if fan excitement and decisive games are paramount values.

It also seems that Carlsen in general has lost some of his fighting spirit/motivation, his confidence or perhaps both. Carlsen's confidence may have been shaken after missing a winning shot in game one. Carlsen's public lament about his favorite chess player being himself several years ago--even if offered tongue-in-cheek--strikes an odd note for a World Champion and the highest rated player ever who one would expect to have tremendous confidence in his repeatedly demonstrated abilities.

Is it possible that, having been World Champion and having surpassed the rating record once held first by Fischer and then by Garry Kasparov, Carlsen has lost the drive to be the champion? He wants to win--anyone in his position would want to win--but does Carlsen still want to work hard enough to win or is he content to just kind of coast and accept whatever outcome happens? Prime Carlsen used to show at least some semblance of the fighting spirit that Fischer almost always displayed, for prime Carlsen used to press minuscule edges until his opponent cracked. Now, Carlsen lacks the willpower or patience for such long-term maneuvering.

Grandmaster Alex Yermolinsky, whose pithy, blunt and informed post-game video commentaries have been a treat to watch, speculated that the problem "may not be the format, but the players." He hypothesized that because Carlsen and Caruana have lived and are living rather sheltered lives without deprivation or risk they do not understand or appreciate what is at stake in a World Championship match. Yermolinsky stated that regardless of the outcome on Wednesday, life will proceed the same way for both players, with invitations to closed tournaments with guaranteed paydays and not much at risk.

Carlsen has already accomplished a lot in chess, and defending his crown against the second highest rated player in the world would further enhance his legacy but from the larger viewpoint of the future of the sport this kind of match is not good from an artistic or sporting standpoint--nor is there reason to believe that circumstances would improve if Caruana becomes World Champion, because throughout this match he has alternately been unable or unwilling to push Carlsen despite the fact that it is obvious that Carlsen is content to have 12 draws. If I were Caruana, I would resent the notion that I am easy prey at any time control.

It remains to be seen if either player has saved up any special opening preparation for these final games. If Carlsen has done so, then Caruana--who is uncomfortable anyway at fast time controls--is toast; if Caruana has a surprise up his sleeve then it will be interesting to see Carlsen forced to react to a novelty with limited time to think.

The tiebreaker games will likely be entertaining, but not as entertaining as it would have been to see the title determined by a decisive result in the classical portion of the match.

Carlsen Misses a Crushing Shot and Caruana Secures a Draw in Game One of the 2018 World Chess Championship

Game one of the 2018 World Chess Championship match between champion Magnus Carlsen and challenger Fabiano Caruana provided drama, inspiration and a blunder that can only evoke knowing nods from any club player. Anyone who has played tournament chess for even a brief period of time is well-acquainted with the classic lament, "I was winning but..." followed by a painfully detailed description of chessboard self-immolation. Several years ago, National Master Will Aramil became so exasperated from hearing these tales of woe that he said he was going to design t-shirts for chess players on which the front reads "I was winning but..." and the back reads "Shut up, you lost!"

Some world chess championship games fail to live up to the hype, as the players steer the game into safe waters and are content with a draw. Game one was, thankfully, not like that at all. It featured imaginative play that can inspire club players, and even Carlsen's blunder is inspirational in a way: it serves as a reminder that this game is difficult even for the best players and that it is possible to achieve great success without being perfect.

I was fortunate that the dramatic time scramble--including Carlsen's fateful blunder--took place during my lunch break, so I was able to watch that portion of the game live and enjoy the commentary of Grandmaster Robert Hess and International Master Daniel Rensch.

Carlsen did not lose game one but tonight he is surely beset by thoughts of "I was winning but..." High level, detailed analysis of each match game is available at a variety of websites, so since I am a chess Expert--and not a Grandmaster or a chess computer--I will mainly confine my commentary to the psychological and sporting aspects of the match. Carlsen has enjoyed decent success against Caruana with black and Carlsen played the Sicilian Defense in game one, which provided an indication that Carlsen was ready to fight and not merely try to "hold serve" with black. The opening moves were nothing special and one wonders what Caruana had in mind, as he used up a lot of time without gaining any kind of advantage; in fact, before move 20 it was already clear that if anyone would be pushing for an advantage it would be Carlsen, not Caruana.

Soon, Caruana faced pressure not only on the board as his position deteriorated but also on the clock, as Caruana had less than six minutes (plus the 30 second increment added after each move) to make 15 moves to reach the time control at move 40. The game looked like it had all the makings of a classic Carlsen python-like death squeeze--but Caruana has shown before that he can resist Carlsen's attacks (or at least defend stoutly enough that Carlsen loses his edge and lets the advantage slip away) and on move 34, with Caruana barely surviving on the increment and his position about to collapse, Carlsen missed a forced win. The winning sequence would not necessarily be obvious to a club player but it was well within the capabilities of a player of Carlsen's caliber.

After Carlsen missed his chance, Caruana steered the game out of the danger zone and to a pawn down endgame that is a technical draw with correct play. Carlsen did not readily concede the draw and the game lasted 115 moves, the longest game that these two competitors have played against each other--but he did not succeed in putting any further dents in Caruana's armor.

Objectively, this was a good result for Carlsen in many ways. The strategy for professional players is typically to draw with black and seek opportunities to win with white, so a draw in game one puts pressure on Caruana to not only draw game two with black but also to win one of his five remaining games with white. Also, if the match ends in a 6-6 tie then the tiebreaking games will be played at a much faster time control and Carlsen is demonstrably better at faster time controls than Caruana is.

However, the objective reality does not take into account the psychological dimension. Carlsen used to enjoy a large rating advantage over every other player in the world but now Caruana has all but caught up to Carlsen in that department. Carlsen used to be known for relentlessly pursuing the smallest edge until he obtained victory but in recent years his technique has not been so reliable, and Carlsen has publicly stated that he does not think he is as strong a player as he was a few years ago. Carlsen is a more experienced match player than Caruana is. For all of these reasons, Caruana's ability to draw a lost game against Carlsen should provide a psychological boost to Caruana and could have a negative effect on Carlsen.

Of course, at this point it is pure speculation to speak of how one game will affect the thought processes of the two competitors. Carlsen has proven to be a tough-minded person and he could very well reframe game one's events such that he has increased confidence because of how easily he obtained a winning position against the second ranked player in the world. Unless Caruana has better opening preparation for his next game with white, all of the confidence in the world will not matter much--and Carlsen is unlikely to let such a large advantage slip away for a second time.

All that we know for sure from game one is that, all factors considered, these players are evenly matched and it would be surprising if the final margin of victory is not close. Carlsen has flirted with disaster in previous world championship matches and, as noted above, he is close to losing his perch atop the ratings list, so this match with Caruana will either lift Carlsen to new heights or else push him off of the top of the heap.

I think that Carlsen will retain his title and number one ranking this time but if he does not sharpen his game I would not be surprised if his next challenger (which of course could very well be Caruana again) dethrones him.