Grandmaster Arthur Bisguier passed away on Wednesday at the age of 87. Bisguier was a two-time U.S. Chess Junior Champion (1948, 1949), the 1954 U.S. Chess Champion, a three-time winner of the U.S. Chess Open (1950, 1956, 1959) and a three-time U.S. Chess Senior Champion (1989, 1997, 1998).
He earned the Grandmaster title during an era when only the elite players achieved that distinction, as there were only a few dozen Grandmasters in the world in the late 1950s. The young Bisguier was a swashbuckling exemplar of attacking chess; in his later years he adopted a more conservative style and he was still a dangerous tournament player well into his 80s.
I first met Bisguier in the 1990s at the Kings Island Open near Cincinnati, Ohio. He showed up at that tournament every year for many years--not to play, but to hold court in his own skittles room, where he analyzed players' games for free. For me, having my games analyzed by a legend was one of the most enjoyable aspects of playing in this event (and I had a fair amount of success there, one year beating three 2300s when I was not even rated 2100 and other years winning various class prizes).
Bisguier never put on airs and he never talked down to anyone. He would patiently analyze a game played by a 1200 with the same seriousness and attention to detail that he would apply to a game played by a 2100 and he would subtly adjust his explanations so that they would be intelligible to each player without making that player feel self-conscious.
The only thing that would exasperate Bisguier was if a player had an inaccurate scoresheet. Bisguier would say something to the effect of, "If you don't know what happened then I can't help you."
You could tell that he loved the game and that he enjoyed helping us to improve. Some players preferred to show their wins to Bisguier but I tended to show him my losses first (and then my wins, if there was enough time to do so), because I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to gain as much knowledge as possible about my weaknesses.
Bisguier would state with self-deprecation that our tactics were better than his at that point but that he could show us the correct plan for a given situation; in reality, his tactics were still quite sharp, particularly in an analysis session with no clock running.
Some of Bisguier's comments will always stick with me, especially "I want my pieces to do something!" and "Where is your sense of danger?" The former remark--which he said to many players--was an exhortation to not only develop our pieces but to develop them actively. I have often said something similar to my students, reminding them of the supreme importance of active and coordinated piece play. The latter remark, directed specifically to me on more than one occasion, reflected his astonishment at the recklessness of my play as I paid the price after disregarding some rather serious threats being made by my opponents. The ironic thing is that Bisguier, as a young man, was a very brash and bold player, though of course his play was far more accurate than mine. My sense of danger still fails me at times but I have avoided the wrong path on many occasions by remembering Bisguier's warning and thus playing a necessary prophylactic move instead of just ignoring my opponent's threats.
Sometimes, at the end of a long day of providing analysis and when everyone had shown all of the games that they wanted to show, Bisguier would regale us with one of his games from the 1950s--or the 1990s! He had an incredible memory and he was an engaging raconteur as he entertained us with slashing victories from his youth or his somewhat more subdued wins as he captured one of his three U.S. Senior titles.
One of my favorite Bisguier stories about his career (which I both read about and then heard about from him as well) is how he came to win the inaugural Church's Grand Prix; as I recall, he was between jobs in 1979, so he decided that he might as well travel the country and try to make some money playing chess. Bisguier said this so casually, as if anyone in his early 50s could just suddenly ramp up his chess tournament schedule to play almost every weekend in a different city while enjoying sustained success against younger players, many of whom were full-time chess professionals. According to an article in the March 1980 issue of Chess Life, Bisguier finished with 80.62 Grand Prix points to narrowly beat International Master Vitaly Zaltsman. In addition to the various tournament prizes that Bisguier won along the way, he received $3000 plus automatic entry into the next U.S. Chess Championship (Zaltsman won $1500 and the next 10 players on the list received between $100 and $1000 each). In that article, Bisguier noted with pride that during the year he had increased his rating to a new career-high.
I was always puzzled that players above a certain rating felt that it was beneath them to show their games to Bisguier and I thought that it was crass and foolish that some players mentioned his name while debating who was the "weakest" active Grandmaster, as if mere mortal chess players have any business trying to make such a distinction; Bisguier's rating slowly but surely dropped from 2500+ to his 2200 floor but his wisdom and understanding of the game remained undimmed--and he had forgotten more about chess than most of those who mocked him would ever know, regardless of whether or not their current ratings were 50 or 100 points higher than his. A player who peaks at 2300 has not accomplished a fraction of what Bisguier did and should speak of Bisguier with nothing but humility and respect. To paraphrase what Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, "When 80 years old you reach, play chess as well you will not."
It has been a few years since I last had the opportunity to play at Kings Island and more than a few years since Bisguier stopped coming to the event; I miss seeing him every year as fall turned to winter in Ohio but I cherish the memories of my many interactions with him and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to spend so much time with one of the legends of 20th century American chess.
Rest in peace, Grandmaster Bisguier, and may your family be comforted at this time.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Belichick, Brady and the New England Patriots Embody the Difference Between Winners and Champions
By now, you have seen it, heard about it and/or been subjected to endless "takes" about it: the New England Patriots came back from a 25 point third quarter deficit to beat the Atlanta Falcons 34-28 in overtime in Super Bowl LI. Bill Belichick now stands alone above NFL coaches with five Super Bowl wins and Tom Brady stands alone above NFL quarterbacks with five Super Bowl wins (Charles Haley won five Super Bowls as a linebacker for the 49ers and Cowboys).
I try to avoid engaging in hyperbole but considering the quality of the teams, the magnitude of the historical legacies at stake, the many great individual plays and the dramatic overtime conclusion, Super Bowl LI is the greatest Super Bowl ever.
Here are some of my thoughts and observations to place Super Bowl LI in a larger context:
1) Has any major sports figure more thoroughly forced the media to completely reevaluate his legacy than Bill Belichick? Cleveland media members mocked Belichick during his tenure with the Browns (fun fact: Belichick presided over the Browns' most recent playoff win, after the 1994 season) and after Belichick resigned following just one day as the New York Jets' coach the national media ganged up on him as well (Belichick believed that the Jets lacked the organizational stability necessary to build a championship team and history has certainly vindicated him about that).
When New England owner Robert Kraft was considering hiring Belichick, Art Modell--who backstabbed Cleveland's fans by moving the Browns to Baltimore in 1995, a decision that also sabotaged Belichick's final year with the team--told Kraft that hiring Belichick would be the biggest mistake he ever made. Modell thought like a media member (he was a Madison Avenue ad man before buying the Browns) and, like most members of the media, he would not have known a bubble screen from bubble wrap, but instead of accepting responsibility for his actions in Cleveland he preferred to make Belichick the scapegoat.
Kraft wisely ignored Modell and the media know-it-alls. Kraft not only hired Belichick but he had enough sense to stay out of his way (something that Modell never figured out how to do as an owner) and enable Belchick to rebuild the Patriots from the ground up. Go back and look at the headlines from early in Belichick's tenure in New England; the stupidity of the media is breathtaking. It is also pathetic that Modell, who had pledged that Belichick would be the last coach that he hired only to betray him, was not satisfied with firing Belichick but that he also tried to ruin his reputation among other NFL owners.
2) The Patriots proved the power of positive thinking. Shaquille O'Neal often says that if the general panics then the troops will panic but if the general is calm then the troops will be calm. The Patriots did not play well in the first half but you did not see Belichick or Brady losing their cool. They exuded a quiet confidence that there was a lot of time left in the game and that they could still win. Many media members love to talk about "halftime adjustments" or "in game adjustments" but the reality is that game-planning is done before the game, not during it.
If you have to come up with a new game plan at halftime then you are dead. If you listen to Belichick or Gregg Popovich or any other great coach you will notice that they almost sneer when a media member asks them about halftime adjustments. Belichick had a game plan that took into account the Falcons' tendencies and, as Belichick noted after the game, by the middle of the first quarter it was obvious that the Falcons were going to almost exclusively stick with man to man defense. The only "adjustment" the Patriots had to make was to stay focused, not panic after making some mistakes and execute the game plan that had been drawn up to counter man to man defense. There were no great halftime speeches and no "adjustments" drawn on a chalkboard.
The Patriots stayed calm, they stayed focused and they followed Belichick's mantra: "Do your job." This approach is a marked contrast to what we often see in the sports world. When challenges arrive, it is very easy to think negatively or blame your teammates or to abandon the game plan as opposed to focusing on executing it. When the Cleveland Cavaliers hit a rough patch recently, LeBron James blamed everyone but himself and he is reportedly actively involved in trying to arrange for the Cavaliers to trade Kevin Love to New York for Carmelo Anthony. Belichick and Brady did not whine that they needed "another playmaker" after Rob Gronkowski suffered a season-ending injury; instead, they won a Super Bowl with a bunch of wide receivers who no one would have ever heard of if those receivers had not had the good fortune to be coached by Belichick and thrown to by Brady. The 39 year old Brady did not complain about having to throw the ball over 60 times because the Patriots' running game could not get going. World Chess Champion Vasily Smyslov once said that in chess you must do things as they have to be done and then see what happens (Larry Brown might call this "playing the right way") and that is what Brady did: the Patriots had to throw the ball a lot to win, so he threw the ball a lot and did not complain or whine or make excuses.
It is also worth noting that when all was said and done, neither Belichick nor Brady announced that they were the best of all-time; they deflect praise and they speak about the contributions of the other members of the team. I can't help but think back to when James quit versus Boston in the 2010 playoffs and then announced at his press conference that he had "spoiled" the fans by being so great for so long--or to when James declared that he never lacked confidence because he is "the best player in the world." Muhammad Ali could get away with saying such things because he went in the ring by himself and proved in one on one combat that he was the greatest but it is a little different in a team sport--and when a team sport athlete makes such a statement it then becomes quite legitimate to ask why he has a losing record in the Finals: if you keep tooting your own horn then you can't complain when the critics point out your discordant notes. Brady and Belichick don't have to say anything because their resumes speak loud and clear: the Patriots are contenders every year and they have posted an unprecedented 5-2 Super Bowl record in a league that is designed to promote parity.
3) "Do your job." Julian Edelman's job is to catch footballs. Before Super Bowl LI, he warmed up by catching passes one-handed, first with his right hand and then with his left hand. A few hours later with the championship on the line, Edelman outfought three Falcons for the ball and cradled it in his hands just inches above the turf. How does one little 5-9 receiver beat out three players to make such a play? Edelman did his job. Losing teams get in trouble because some players try to do too much or because other players become so discouraged that they stop trying at all. The Patriots do their job until the clock strikes triple zeroes. As Belichick said after the game, it takes 60 minutes of effort and sometimes even a few minutes more than that (because of overtime).
4) The difference between winners and champions. In the first half, Brady did not look like the greatest quarterback of all-time. He made uncharacteristic mistakes and he even seemed rattled mentally and/or physically by the Falcons' pass rush. However, Brady kept battling and his confidence permeated throughout the team. There are two recurring themes in the Patriots' post-game quotes: (1) Coach Belichick prepared us for anything that could happen and (2) We never doubted that we could come back because we had Tom Brady running the offense. That kind of leadership cannot be quantified; indeed, other than height, Brady lacks just about any measurable you would look for in a franchise quarterback but you cannot measure mental toughness and work ethic and leadership.
In an interview aired on Fox before the Super Bowl, Kraft told Erin Andrews that the toughest part of any task is completing the last 5% of the job. I would add that the final 5% is what separates champions from everyone else: it is the difference between winners and champions.
The Atlanta Falcons are winners. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise; they had a great season and they played brilliantly in the NFC playoffs to advance to the Super Bowl. What the Falcons are not is champions: they were not able to complete the last 5% of the job. Perhaps they will find a way individually and collectively to develop that championship mentality; there have been other teams that fell just short only to eventually take the last step--but there have also been plenty of teams that fell just short and then collapsed, because the way that they fell short revealed something essential about their competitive spirit that just could not be fixed.
I love the unscripted drama of sports. No statistical model could have predicted what transpired down the stretch in the Super Bowl. I read a stat somewhere that at one point the Falcons were 99.8% favorites to win the game. Such statistical modeling fails to take into account the human spirit. I think back to the famous "Battle of 1816," when John McEnroe defeated Bjorn Borg by that score in the fourth set tiebreaker of the 1980 Wimbledon Finals. Borg had won four straight Wimbledons but it seemed like McEnroe was about to dethrone him. It would have been understandable for Borg to quit against his younger rival but, instead, Borg played an almost flawless fifth set to win a then-unprecedented fifth straight Wimbledon crown. That tiebreaker is often replayed but one time when Borg was asked about it he almost whispered with a knowing smile that it was the fifth set that mattered.
I have never had the opportunity to compete at the highest level of any sport but in my local and regional competitions I have attempted to apply what I have learned from a lifetime of studying the greatest champions. It took me nearly a decade to win my first Dayton Chess Club Championship. Perhaps my most frustrating failure came after I raced to a 3-0 lead by beating my main rivals, only to fall short by losing to two lower rated competitors. Such a setback is a cause for serious introspection; I had already won many tournaments and attained an Expert level rating but I had never won a chess championship, falling short both in the city high school championship and in the DCC Championship.
The next time that I played in the Dayton Chess Club championship after blowing that 3-0 lead, I was not deterred when adversity arose in certain games and I was not distracted by what anyone else in the tournament did, because I had finally figured out that what mattered was not accumulating rating points or being satisfied by beating the players who were the biggest threats on paper: what mattered was completing that last 5% of the job, winning that fifth set, beating out three players to catch a pass.
Being a champion is like being addicted to a drug; it took Michael Jordan several years to win his first NBA title and then he won six in the next eight years. After I won my first DCC title, I won three in a four year stretch en route to capturing a record 10 overall in a 20 year period despite rarely if ever being the highest rated participant. No "metric" would have projected that I would win 10 DCC titles--and that is what is great about competition.
Please forgive the personal interlude but trying to understand champions has been a lifelong fascination of mine and I have attempted to apply what I have learned both in my writings about champions and also in my modest endeavors to be a champion on a local/regional level. I also should make it clear that I consider my rivals for the DCC title over the past two decades--including but not limited to Earle Wikle, John Dowling, Chris Atkins, Ross Sprague, Les Whorton and Will Sedlar--to be champions as well and any time I describe my journey to become a champion I certainly mean no disrespect to the journeys that each of them took to become champions: when two champions square off someone has to lose but a true champion shows his mettle by bouncing back. McEnroe beat Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon Final to secure his legacy as a great champion; Belichick and Brady have responded to their two Super Bowl losses by adding two more Super Bowl wins to their resumes. It will be interesting to see what these Atlanta Falcons are made of and if they can complete the final 5% of the job or if they have already peaked. After the Super Bowl, Jimmy Johnson said that the Falcons will be back but as an NCAA and NFL champion he should know better: championships are not promised to anyone, no matter how talented or young or hungry.
I try to avoid engaging in hyperbole but considering the quality of the teams, the magnitude of the historical legacies at stake, the many great individual plays and the dramatic overtime conclusion, Super Bowl LI is the greatest Super Bowl ever.
Here are some of my thoughts and observations to place Super Bowl LI in a larger context:
1) Has any major sports figure more thoroughly forced the media to completely reevaluate his legacy than Bill Belichick? Cleveland media members mocked Belichick during his tenure with the Browns (fun fact: Belichick presided over the Browns' most recent playoff win, after the 1994 season) and after Belichick resigned following just one day as the New York Jets' coach the national media ganged up on him as well (Belichick believed that the Jets lacked the organizational stability necessary to build a championship team and history has certainly vindicated him about that).
When New England owner Robert Kraft was considering hiring Belichick, Art Modell--who backstabbed Cleveland's fans by moving the Browns to Baltimore in 1995, a decision that also sabotaged Belichick's final year with the team--told Kraft that hiring Belichick would be the biggest mistake he ever made. Modell thought like a media member (he was a Madison Avenue ad man before buying the Browns) and, like most members of the media, he would not have known a bubble screen from bubble wrap, but instead of accepting responsibility for his actions in Cleveland he preferred to make Belichick the scapegoat.
Kraft wisely ignored Modell and the media know-it-alls. Kraft not only hired Belichick but he had enough sense to stay out of his way (something that Modell never figured out how to do as an owner) and enable Belchick to rebuild the Patriots from the ground up. Go back and look at the headlines from early in Belichick's tenure in New England; the stupidity of the media is breathtaking. It is also pathetic that Modell, who had pledged that Belichick would be the last coach that he hired only to betray him, was not satisfied with firing Belichick but that he also tried to ruin his reputation among other NFL owners.
2) The Patriots proved the power of positive thinking. Shaquille O'Neal often says that if the general panics then the troops will panic but if the general is calm then the troops will be calm. The Patriots did not play well in the first half but you did not see Belichick or Brady losing their cool. They exuded a quiet confidence that there was a lot of time left in the game and that they could still win. Many media members love to talk about "halftime adjustments" or "in game adjustments" but the reality is that game-planning is done before the game, not during it.
If you have to come up with a new game plan at halftime then you are dead. If you listen to Belichick or Gregg Popovich or any other great coach you will notice that they almost sneer when a media member asks them about halftime adjustments. Belichick had a game plan that took into account the Falcons' tendencies and, as Belichick noted after the game, by the middle of the first quarter it was obvious that the Falcons were going to almost exclusively stick with man to man defense. The only "adjustment" the Patriots had to make was to stay focused, not panic after making some mistakes and execute the game plan that had been drawn up to counter man to man defense. There were no great halftime speeches and no "adjustments" drawn on a chalkboard.
The Patriots stayed calm, they stayed focused and they followed Belichick's mantra: "Do your job." This approach is a marked contrast to what we often see in the sports world. When challenges arrive, it is very easy to think negatively or blame your teammates or to abandon the game plan as opposed to focusing on executing it. When the Cleveland Cavaliers hit a rough patch recently, LeBron James blamed everyone but himself and he is reportedly actively involved in trying to arrange for the Cavaliers to trade Kevin Love to New York for Carmelo Anthony. Belichick and Brady did not whine that they needed "another playmaker" after Rob Gronkowski suffered a season-ending injury; instead, they won a Super Bowl with a bunch of wide receivers who no one would have ever heard of if those receivers had not had the good fortune to be coached by Belichick and thrown to by Brady. The 39 year old Brady did not complain about having to throw the ball over 60 times because the Patriots' running game could not get going. World Chess Champion Vasily Smyslov once said that in chess you must do things as they have to be done and then see what happens (Larry Brown might call this "playing the right way") and that is what Brady did: the Patriots had to throw the ball a lot to win, so he threw the ball a lot and did not complain or whine or make excuses.
It is also worth noting that when all was said and done, neither Belichick nor Brady announced that they were the best of all-time; they deflect praise and they speak about the contributions of the other members of the team. I can't help but think back to when James quit versus Boston in the 2010 playoffs and then announced at his press conference that he had "spoiled" the fans by being so great for so long--or to when James declared that he never lacked confidence because he is "the best player in the world." Muhammad Ali could get away with saying such things because he went in the ring by himself and proved in one on one combat that he was the greatest but it is a little different in a team sport--and when a team sport athlete makes such a statement it then becomes quite legitimate to ask why he has a losing record in the Finals: if you keep tooting your own horn then you can't complain when the critics point out your discordant notes. Brady and Belichick don't have to say anything because their resumes speak loud and clear: the Patriots are contenders every year and they have posted an unprecedented 5-2 Super Bowl record in a league that is designed to promote parity.
3) "Do your job." Julian Edelman's job is to catch footballs. Before Super Bowl LI, he warmed up by catching passes one-handed, first with his right hand and then with his left hand. A few hours later with the championship on the line, Edelman outfought three Falcons for the ball and cradled it in his hands just inches above the turf. How does one little 5-9 receiver beat out three players to make such a play? Edelman did his job. Losing teams get in trouble because some players try to do too much or because other players become so discouraged that they stop trying at all. The Patriots do their job until the clock strikes triple zeroes. As Belichick said after the game, it takes 60 minutes of effort and sometimes even a few minutes more than that (because of overtime).
4) The difference between winners and champions. In the first half, Brady did not look like the greatest quarterback of all-time. He made uncharacteristic mistakes and he even seemed rattled mentally and/or physically by the Falcons' pass rush. However, Brady kept battling and his confidence permeated throughout the team. There are two recurring themes in the Patriots' post-game quotes: (1) Coach Belichick prepared us for anything that could happen and (2) We never doubted that we could come back because we had Tom Brady running the offense. That kind of leadership cannot be quantified; indeed, other than height, Brady lacks just about any measurable you would look for in a franchise quarterback but you cannot measure mental toughness and work ethic and leadership.
In an interview aired on Fox before the Super Bowl, Kraft told Erin Andrews that the toughest part of any task is completing the last 5% of the job. I would add that the final 5% is what separates champions from everyone else: it is the difference between winners and champions.
The Atlanta Falcons are winners. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise; they had a great season and they played brilliantly in the NFC playoffs to advance to the Super Bowl. What the Falcons are not is champions: they were not able to complete the last 5% of the job. Perhaps they will find a way individually and collectively to develop that championship mentality; there have been other teams that fell just short only to eventually take the last step--but there have also been plenty of teams that fell just short and then collapsed, because the way that they fell short revealed something essential about their competitive spirit that just could not be fixed.
I love the unscripted drama of sports. No statistical model could have predicted what transpired down the stretch in the Super Bowl. I read a stat somewhere that at one point the Falcons were 99.8% favorites to win the game. Such statistical modeling fails to take into account the human spirit. I think back to the famous "Battle of 1816," when John McEnroe defeated Bjorn Borg by that score in the fourth set tiebreaker of the 1980 Wimbledon Finals. Borg had won four straight Wimbledons but it seemed like McEnroe was about to dethrone him. It would have been understandable for Borg to quit against his younger rival but, instead, Borg played an almost flawless fifth set to win a then-unprecedented fifth straight Wimbledon crown. That tiebreaker is often replayed but one time when Borg was asked about it he almost whispered with a knowing smile that it was the fifth set that mattered.
I have never had the opportunity to compete at the highest level of any sport but in my local and regional competitions I have attempted to apply what I have learned from a lifetime of studying the greatest champions. It took me nearly a decade to win my first Dayton Chess Club Championship. Perhaps my most frustrating failure came after I raced to a 3-0 lead by beating my main rivals, only to fall short by losing to two lower rated competitors. Such a setback is a cause for serious introspection; I had already won many tournaments and attained an Expert level rating but I had never won a chess championship, falling short both in the city high school championship and in the DCC Championship.
The next time that I played in the Dayton Chess Club championship after blowing that 3-0 lead, I was not deterred when adversity arose in certain games and I was not distracted by what anyone else in the tournament did, because I had finally figured out that what mattered was not accumulating rating points or being satisfied by beating the players who were the biggest threats on paper: what mattered was completing that last 5% of the job, winning that fifth set, beating out three players to catch a pass.
Being a champion is like being addicted to a drug; it took Michael Jordan several years to win his first NBA title and then he won six in the next eight years. After I won my first DCC title, I won three in a four year stretch en route to capturing a record 10 overall in a 20 year period despite rarely if ever being the highest rated participant. No "metric" would have projected that I would win 10 DCC titles--and that is what is great about competition.
Please forgive the personal interlude but trying to understand champions has been a lifelong fascination of mine and I have attempted to apply what I have learned both in my writings about champions and also in my modest endeavors to be a champion on a local/regional level. I also should make it clear that I consider my rivals for the DCC title over the past two decades--including but not limited to Earle Wikle, John Dowling, Chris Atkins, Ross Sprague, Les Whorton and Will Sedlar--to be champions as well and any time I describe my journey to become a champion I certainly mean no disrespect to the journeys that each of them took to become champions: when two champions square off someone has to lose but a true champion shows his mettle by bouncing back. McEnroe beat Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon Final to secure his legacy as a great champion; Belichick and Brady have responded to their two Super Bowl losses by adding two more Super Bowl wins to their resumes. It will be interesting to see what these Atlanta Falcons are made of and if they can complete the final 5% of the job or if they have already peaked. After the Super Bowl, Jimmy Johnson said that the Falcons will be back but as an NCAA and NFL champion he should know better: championships are not promised to anyone, no matter how talented or young or hungry.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Federer Outlasts Nadal to Claim First Grand Slam Title Since 2012
If you live in the eastern portion of the United States, you had to get up at 3 a.m. in order to watch Roger Federer face Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open Final. The lost sleep was worth it to see two of the greatest tennis players of all-time throw haymakers at each other for five sets. Federer, trailing 2-1 and down a break in the fifth set, rallied to win 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3. Federer extended his record to 18 career Grand Slam singles titles, while Nadal remains tied with Pete Sampras in second place on that list with 14.
Federer and Nadal did not play perfect tennis but they played at a breathtakingly high level for sustained periods. The fifth set was captivating theater. Initially, the match looked like a rerun of most of the earlier matches in the head to head rivalry (which Nadal still leads, 23-12, including 9-3 in Grand Slams and 6-3 in Grand Slam Finals). Federer led two sets to one but Nadal stormed back to take the fourth set and after he seized an early break in the fifth set it looked like Nadal, as usual, would wear Federer down mentally and physically. Nadal is the only player who not only beats Federer but seems to break Federer down, resulting in mental mistakes and physical fatigue--but this time Federer found another gear: although Nadal may have slowed a bit down the stretch, it did not look like Nadal lost so much as Federer just beat him with splendid shotmaking.
The Federer fans--and they are legion, including many media members--will say that this victory clinched greatest player of all-time status for Federer; they have been singing that refrain for a decade and, as Federer aged, they became increasingly strident, pointing to every Federer accomplishment as proof of his greatness while saying that every Federer loss did not mean much because he was already past his prime.
The reality is that this match was marvelous to watch but it did not change much about the facts, even if some people will change their perceptions. As mentioned above, Nadal still owns a decisive lead in the head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer early (taking 12 of the first 18 matches that they played against each other, culminating in an epic 2008 triumph in the Wimbledon Final on what could be called Federer's "home court") and he has beaten Federer late (winning six of their nine matches since 2011).
Nadal still owns a better Grand Slam winning percentage (14/47, 29.8%; Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is 18/69, 26.1%) and he has taken Federer's measure at Federer's best Grand Slam (Wimbledon) while Federer has not reciprocated at Roland Garros, where Nadal has won a record nine French Open titles (Federer's lone French Open win came without facing Nadal). Nadal owns the head to head advantage over Federer at the French Open (5-0) and the Australian Open (3-2), while Federer leads 2-1 at Wimbledon. They have never met at the U.S. Open. Nadal leads in ATP Masters/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches (12-4), best of five matches (11-4), clay court matches (13-2) and hard court matches (9-8).
Why would one match, as great as this one was, between a 35 year old Federer and a 30 year old Nadal weigh heavily enough to overcome that mountain of evidence pointing to Nadal's superiority? That just makes no sense. If anything, this match was an anomalous result between two players who are both past their primes, neither of whom had won a Grand Slam in years (2012 for Federer, 2014 for Nadal); the norm is for Nadal to beat Federer and to beat him in heartbreaking fashion by overpowering him. In the fifth set while trailing, Federer called the trainer over several times but if anything Nadal looked like the player who was a step slower than he had been earlier in the match. Federer may very well have aged better than Nadal and Nadal may not even be playing at 35, let alone winning Grand Slams--but when comparing two great players peak value matters more than durability, particularly when considering the fact that both players have had long careers by tennis standards.
Also, although Nadal's hard-charging style does not seem to be made for longevity--and he has always been less durable than Federer--who can dare say that Nadal cannot possibly win four Grand Slams in the next five years to tie Federer's record by the time that Nadal is the age that Federer is now? That seems unlikely--but no more unlikely than Federer emerging from a five year Grand Slam drought to outlast his greatest rival in five sets. Why have Federer's fans spent the past decade trying to close the greatest player of all-time discussion when Federer's greatest rival is still active? Reread that sentence carefully and the answer is not too hard to figure out.
Congratulations to Roger Federer for winning the Australian Open in dramatic fashion and kudos to both players for providing fantastic, high level tennis; hopefully, this is a rekindling of the rivalry and not the last, great spark.
Federer and Nadal did not play perfect tennis but they played at a breathtakingly high level for sustained periods. The fifth set was captivating theater. Initially, the match looked like a rerun of most of the earlier matches in the head to head rivalry (which Nadal still leads, 23-12, including 9-3 in Grand Slams and 6-3 in Grand Slam Finals). Federer led two sets to one but Nadal stormed back to take the fourth set and after he seized an early break in the fifth set it looked like Nadal, as usual, would wear Federer down mentally and physically. Nadal is the only player who not only beats Federer but seems to break Federer down, resulting in mental mistakes and physical fatigue--but this time Federer found another gear: although Nadal may have slowed a bit down the stretch, it did not look like Nadal lost so much as Federer just beat him with splendid shotmaking.
The Federer fans--and they are legion, including many media members--will say that this victory clinched greatest player of all-time status for Federer; they have been singing that refrain for a decade and, as Federer aged, they became increasingly strident, pointing to every Federer accomplishment as proof of his greatness while saying that every Federer loss did not mean much because he was already past his prime.
The reality is that this match was marvelous to watch but it did not change much about the facts, even if some people will change their perceptions. As mentioned above, Nadal still owns a decisive lead in the head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer early (taking 12 of the first 18 matches that they played against each other, culminating in an epic 2008 triumph in the Wimbledon Final on what could be called Federer's "home court") and he has beaten Federer late (winning six of their nine matches since 2011).
Nadal still owns a better Grand Slam winning percentage (14/47, 29.8%; Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is 18/69, 26.1%) and he has taken Federer's measure at Federer's best Grand Slam (Wimbledon) while Federer has not reciprocated at Roland Garros, where Nadal has won a record nine French Open titles (Federer's lone French Open win came without facing Nadal). Nadal owns the head to head advantage over Federer at the French Open (5-0) and the Australian Open (3-2), while Federer leads 2-1 at Wimbledon. They have never met at the U.S. Open. Nadal leads in ATP Masters/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches (12-4), best of five matches (11-4), clay court matches (13-2) and hard court matches (9-8).
Why would one match, as great as this one was, between a 35 year old Federer and a 30 year old Nadal weigh heavily enough to overcome that mountain of evidence pointing to Nadal's superiority? That just makes no sense. If anything, this match was an anomalous result between two players who are both past their primes, neither of whom had won a Grand Slam in years (2012 for Federer, 2014 for Nadal); the norm is for Nadal to beat Federer and to beat him in heartbreaking fashion by overpowering him. In the fifth set while trailing, Federer called the trainer over several times but if anything Nadal looked like the player who was a step slower than he had been earlier in the match. Federer may very well have aged better than Nadal and Nadal may not even be playing at 35, let alone winning Grand Slams--but when comparing two great players peak value matters more than durability, particularly when considering the fact that both players have had long careers by tennis standards.
Also, although Nadal's hard-charging style does not seem to be made for longevity--and he has always been less durable than Federer--who can dare say that Nadal cannot possibly win four Grand Slams in the next five years to tie Federer's record by the time that Nadal is the age that Federer is now? That seems unlikely--but no more unlikely than Federer emerging from a five year Grand Slam drought to outlast his greatest rival in five sets. Why have Federer's fans spent the past decade trying to close the greatest player of all-time discussion when Federer's greatest rival is still active? Reread that sentence carefully and the answer is not too hard to figure out.
Congratulations to Roger Federer for winning the Australian Open in dramatic fashion and kudos to both players for providing fantastic, high level tennis; hopefully, this is a rekindling of the rivalry and not the last, great spark.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Federer Versus Nadal: Once More, for the Ages
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, two of the greatest tennis players of all-time, are just hours away from facing each other once again--perhaps for the last time--in a Grand Slam Final. Many commentators are touting this as the most important head to head match of their rivalry.
I disagree with the notion that this one match--out of nearly three dozen head to head matches and hundreds of other matches in their respective careers--is the most important match for either player. Both Federer and Nadal are well past their primes and the Australian Open is indisputably the least significant of the four Grand Slams (the top non-Australian players routinely skipped this event in the 1970s and 1980s).
I am not convinced that any one match can or should be singled out as the most important but if we are going to pick one Federer-Nadal showdown to elevate above all of the others then the choice has to be Nadal's five set victory over Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon Final. That Nadal triumph ended Federer's Open Era record 65 match winning streak on grass courts, it obliterated once and for all the notion that Nadal was only a clay court specialist and it paved the way for Nadal to supplant Federer as the number one ranked player in the world. That match is also arguably the greatest match in tennis history. There is no way that a match in Australia between two past their prime greats can come even close to matching the historical significance of the Wimbledon match that they contested when they were both at the peak of their powers.
Federer is such a media darling that it is easy to forget how thoroughly Nadal has dominated their head to head rivalry. Nadal leads Federer 23-11, including 9-2 in Grand Slams and 6-2 in Grand Slam Finals. Nadal beat Federer early in the rivalry (taking 11 of 17 matches prior to their 2008 Wimbledon showdown) and he has also dominated as both players moved past their primes (winning six of their eight matches since 2011). If Nadal beats Federer in the 2017 Australian Open Final then Nadal will join Roy Emerson and Rod Laver as the only players to win each Grand Slam at least twice (Federer claimed his sole French Open title by not having to face Nadal).
Federer holds the male record with 17 Grand Slam singles titles, but it is important to keep in mind that tennis professionals were not permitted to play in the Grand Slams until the Open Era began in 1968; otherwise, Rod Laver could very well have won 17 or more Grand Slams. Also, Federer has won 25% of his Grand Slam appearances (17/68), a lower percentage than Nadal's 30.4% (14/46); Federer is tennis' Emmitt Smith, a great player who set records based more on durability than dominance.
It must be mentioned in this context that Bjorn Borg, the Sandy Koufax of tennis, holds the record for percentage of Grand Slams won (11/27, 40.7%) and his simultaneous dominance of the French Open's slow clay plus Wimbledon's fast grass is unparalleled; Borg won both tournaments from 1978-80 and when he stopped playing Grand Slams at just 26 he held the modern record for most titles at both events, six and five respectively. Put Borg, Federer and Nadal in the same era with the same equipment and Borg would likely emerge as the best player based on conditioning, mental toughness and ability to dominate multiple surfaces.
Mary Carillo recently offered great insight about the Federer-Nadal rivalry:
Any Federer fan who hypes up this match as Federer's great opportunity to prove that he is a greater player than Nadal should be prepared to make the opposite declaration if Nadal wins; it makes no sense to act like this match matters if Federer wins but to give Federer a pass if he loses. Such thinking reminds me of a writer who years ago claimed that a Lakers-Rockets game seven would be the biggest game of Kobe Bryant's career (the writer hoped/expected that a loss would somehow define Bryant's legacy)--but after Bryant's Lakers won, this writer did not make any comment about this victory defining Bryant's legacy in a positive way.
Federer and Nadal have both defined their legacies already. This match will be one more chapter--and perhaps a poignant/nostalgic one if it turns out to be their last Grand Slam Final battle--but no one should make bold declarations about all-time rankings based on the outcome.
My prediction? Nadal wins in four sets. Either during the match or shortly thereafter, Federer will indicate that he was not at full strength physically. Nadal will be humble in victory and declare that Federer is still the greatest player; Federer's media fans will agree with Nadal and will state that Nadal's victory over an aging Federer is not really that significant (but if Federer somehow wins this match, brace yourself for a barrage of articles declaring that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time).
I disagree with the notion that this one match--out of nearly three dozen head to head matches and hundreds of other matches in their respective careers--is the most important match for either player. Both Federer and Nadal are well past their primes and the Australian Open is indisputably the least significant of the four Grand Slams (the top non-Australian players routinely skipped this event in the 1970s and 1980s).
I am not convinced that any one match can or should be singled out as the most important but if we are going to pick one Federer-Nadal showdown to elevate above all of the others then the choice has to be Nadal's five set victory over Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon Final. That Nadal triumph ended Federer's Open Era record 65 match winning streak on grass courts, it obliterated once and for all the notion that Nadal was only a clay court specialist and it paved the way for Nadal to supplant Federer as the number one ranked player in the world. That match is also arguably the greatest match in tennis history. There is no way that a match in Australia between two past their prime greats can come even close to matching the historical significance of the Wimbledon match that they contested when they were both at the peak of their powers.
Federer is such a media darling that it is easy to forget how thoroughly Nadal has dominated their head to head rivalry. Nadal leads Federer 23-11, including 9-2 in Grand Slams and 6-2 in Grand Slam Finals. Nadal beat Federer early in the rivalry (taking 11 of 17 matches prior to their 2008 Wimbledon showdown) and he has also dominated as both players moved past their primes (winning six of their eight matches since 2011). If Nadal beats Federer in the 2017 Australian Open Final then Nadal will join Roy Emerson and Rod Laver as the only players to win each Grand Slam at least twice (Federer claimed his sole French Open title by not having to face Nadal).
Federer holds the male record with 17 Grand Slam singles titles, but it is important to keep in mind that tennis professionals were not permitted to play in the Grand Slams until the Open Era began in 1968; otherwise, Rod Laver could very well have won 17 or more Grand Slams. Also, Federer has won 25% of his Grand Slam appearances (17/68), a lower percentage than Nadal's 30.4% (14/46); Federer is tennis' Emmitt Smith, a great player who set records based more on durability than dominance.
It must be mentioned in this context that Bjorn Borg, the Sandy Koufax of tennis, holds the record for percentage of Grand Slams won (11/27, 40.7%) and his simultaneous dominance of the French Open's slow clay plus Wimbledon's fast grass is unparalleled; Borg won both tournaments from 1978-80 and when he stopped playing Grand Slams at just 26 he held the modern record for most titles at both events, six and five respectively. Put Borg, Federer and Nadal in the same era with the same equipment and Borg would likely emerge as the best player based on conditioning, mental toughness and ability to dominate multiple surfaces.
Mary Carillo recently offered great insight about 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.Nadal has proven to be more dominant on more surfaces than Federer. Nadal owns a decisive advantage in their head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer in Federer's prime on Federer's best surface. I cannot imagine how this Australian Open Final would materially alter my opinion about Nadal and Federer; if Nadal wins, this is just a continuation of a well-established pattern of Nadal's superiority, while if Federer wins that would not change the fact that Nadal still owns a huge head to head advantage that he obtained when both players were at or near their primes.
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.
Any Federer fan who hypes up this match as Federer's great opportunity to prove that he is a greater player than Nadal should be prepared to make the opposite declaration if Nadal wins; it makes no sense to act like this match matters if Federer wins but to give Federer a pass if he loses. Such thinking reminds me of a writer who years ago claimed that a Lakers-Rockets game seven would be the biggest game of Kobe Bryant's career (the writer hoped/expected that a loss would somehow define Bryant's legacy)--but after Bryant's Lakers won, this writer did not make any comment about this victory defining Bryant's legacy in a positive way.
Federer and Nadal have both defined their legacies already. This match will be one more chapter--and perhaps a poignant/nostalgic one if it turns out to be their last Grand Slam Final battle--but no one should make bold declarations about all-time rankings based on the outcome.
My prediction? Nadal wins in four sets. Either during the match or shortly thereafter, Federer will indicate that he was not at full strength physically. Nadal will be humble in victory and declare that Federer is still the greatest player; Federer's media fans will agree with Nadal and will state that Nadal's victory over an aging Federer is not really that significant (but if Federer somehow wins this match, brace yourself for a barrage of articles declaring that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time).
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Cleveland Browns: "We're Not the Worst NFL Team Ever"
Fans like to declare "We're Number One" but in the aftermath of the Cleveland Browns' 20-17 victory over the San Diego Chargers all that Browns fans can honestly say is "We're Not the Worst NFL Team Ever." The Browns started this season 0-14--and had lost a franchise-record 17 straight games prior to beating the Chargers--but the dubious distinction of worst NFL team ever probably still belongs to the 1976-77 Tampa Bay Buccaneers team that went 0-14 in the franchise's first year and then lost the first 12 games in the franchise's second year; those 26 straight losses are an NFL record that ranks among the sports records least likely to be broken (just think about how awful this Browns team is and then realize that they would have had to lose more than another half season's worth of games to match the Buccaneers' epic futility). Or, perhaps the 2008 Detroit Lions merit consideration, as they remain the only NFL team to lose every game in a season since the league expanded the schedule to 16 games in 1978. In any case, the 2016 Browns have elevated themselves out of that conversation, because one win is infinitely more than zero wins.
Browns versus Chargers was one of the most exciting Browns games I have ever watched, but the excitement was perverse, not joyous--kind of like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion. Until the clock hit triple zeroes, I had no idea what would happen. Even as Josh Lambo's game-tying field goal attempt sailed wide right as time expired, I still was not convinced that the Browns had won; I first had to make sure that no Brown had thrown a helmet in celebration or jumped offsides or called timeout to ice the kicker or committed some other folly that I cannot even imagine or conceive.
It felt strange to become so emotionally invested in the possibility that an awful team might hang on to beat a pretty bad team but being a sports fan sometimes involves suspension of disbelief or logic. Let's be honest: the Browns did not win because they had a great game plan or because they played so well; the Browns won mainly because they were playing a sorry team featuring lame duck Coach Mike McCoy. San Diego's Philip Rivers is a talented quarterback but this season he is the most intercepted passer in the league and after he executed a crisp touchdown drive on the first series of the game he did not do much of note the rest of the way. His Cleveland counterpart, Robert Griffin III, is a marvelously talented athlete who cannot stay healthy or consistently throw the football accurately, two attributes that are rather important for long term success as an NFL quarterback. This was a typical Griffin performance: he ran well, played with heart/determination--and did not finish the game due to injury (he has now been entered into the NFL's concussion protocol and I hope that he is OK not just in a football sense but also as a human being).
Trailing by three points with less than two minutes remaining in the game, the Chargers raced downfield into field goal range with no timeouts because the Browns refused to double cover tight end Antonio Gates, San Diego's most dangerous offensive weapon. The Browns are the anti-New England Patriots; Patriot Coach Bill Belichick identifies the opposing team's best weapon and comes up with a plan to neutralize that weapon but Gates had eight catches for 94 yards and a touchdown against the Browns. After the game, the CBS studio crew (most notably Bill Cowher) gave credit to Browns Coach Hue Jackson because he is an upbeat person who supposedly inspired the Browns to play hard. Look, most of the Browns players are paid more money for one game than the average U.S. citizen earns in an entire calendar year; playing hard is the least that these players can do--not to mention the old cliche "the eye in the sky don't lie": everything a player does is filmed and the habits and techniques that a player demonstrates on film will go a long way toward determining whether or not that player has an NFL job next season.
A well coached team is disciplined and the players are always in the right position, even if the players lack the size, strength and/or speed to complete the play; the 2016 Browns are not just a bad team but they are a team that demonstrably lacks discipline and does not execute properly. CBS color commentator Solomon Wilcots repeatedly pointed out that the Browns should be double-teaming Gates. The coach is responsible for the product on the field; if Jackson is giving the right instructions but the players are not executing then he needs to put different players on the field: the bottom line is that whatever happens on the field has either been taught by the coach or is being permitted to happen by the coach. Remember Mike Singletary's rant about how he would rather play 10 on 11 than put a player on the field who does not buy into the game plan? A lot of people made fun of the way that Singletary delivered that message but his underlying thought process was right on the money.
Speaking of cultivating the right mentality, it should be noted that the problem with the Browns starts at the top and predates Jackson joining the team. Case in point: I did not catch this during the telecast, but apparently the Browns played Kool & the Gang's "Celebration" after the game. I am a lifelong Browns fan. I am happy when my team wins and I am disappointed when my team loses. I hate to quote Mike Tomlin, the coach of the hated Pittsburgh Steelers, but I love the attitude behind his oft-repeated statement, "The standard is the standard." Tomlin's Steelers expect to win any time, any place, regardless of injuries or circumstances. The Steelers are not going to play "Celebration" after one win against a bad team during a season that will not end in a playoff berth, let alone a Super Bowl title (that is the standard that the Steelers set for every season).
I would say that after a regular season victory the Browns should act like they have done this before but the problem is, the 2016 Browns had not done this before. The ownership group, front office and coaching staff have plunged a once-proud franchise to the lowest point in its long history--but they won one game and avoided being considered the worst team ever. "Celebration," indeed.
The Browns face the Steelers next week. As Wilcots noted, the Browns have no realistic chance to win that game. This is just not right. Browns-Steelers is supposed to be a rivalry game, not a stepping-stone for the Steelers to possibly improve their playoff position.
I am happy that the Browns won; it sure is better than the alternative--but Browns fans will really celebrate when they believe that they have the right owner, front office, coaching staff and quarterback to be successful in the long run and when Browns-Steelers is a competitive contest, not a foregone conclusion to punctuate the most forgettable and lamentable season in Browns' history.
Browns versus Chargers was one of the most exciting Browns games I have ever watched, but the excitement was perverse, not joyous--kind of like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion. Until the clock hit triple zeroes, I had no idea what would happen. Even as Josh Lambo's game-tying field goal attempt sailed wide right as time expired, I still was not convinced that the Browns had won; I first had to make sure that no Brown had thrown a helmet in celebration or jumped offsides or called timeout to ice the kicker or committed some other folly that I cannot even imagine or conceive.
It felt strange to become so emotionally invested in the possibility that an awful team might hang on to beat a pretty bad team but being a sports fan sometimes involves suspension of disbelief or logic. Let's be honest: the Browns did not win because they had a great game plan or because they played so well; the Browns won mainly because they were playing a sorry team featuring lame duck Coach Mike McCoy. San Diego's Philip Rivers is a talented quarterback but this season he is the most intercepted passer in the league and after he executed a crisp touchdown drive on the first series of the game he did not do much of note the rest of the way. His Cleveland counterpart, Robert Griffin III, is a marvelously talented athlete who cannot stay healthy or consistently throw the football accurately, two attributes that are rather important for long term success as an NFL quarterback. This was a typical Griffin performance: he ran well, played with heart/determination--and did not finish the game due to injury (he has now been entered into the NFL's concussion protocol and I hope that he is OK not just in a football sense but also as a human being).
Trailing by three points with less than two minutes remaining in the game, the Chargers raced downfield into field goal range with no timeouts because the Browns refused to double cover tight end Antonio Gates, San Diego's most dangerous offensive weapon. The Browns are the anti-New England Patriots; Patriot Coach Bill Belichick identifies the opposing team's best weapon and comes up with a plan to neutralize that weapon but Gates had eight catches for 94 yards and a touchdown against the Browns. After the game, the CBS studio crew (most notably Bill Cowher) gave credit to Browns Coach Hue Jackson because he is an upbeat person who supposedly inspired the Browns to play hard. Look, most of the Browns players are paid more money for one game than the average U.S. citizen earns in an entire calendar year; playing hard is the least that these players can do--not to mention the old cliche "the eye in the sky don't lie": everything a player does is filmed and the habits and techniques that a player demonstrates on film will go a long way toward determining whether or not that player has an NFL job next season.
A well coached team is disciplined and the players are always in the right position, even if the players lack the size, strength and/or speed to complete the play; the 2016 Browns are not just a bad team but they are a team that demonstrably lacks discipline and does not execute properly. CBS color commentator Solomon Wilcots repeatedly pointed out that the Browns should be double-teaming Gates. The coach is responsible for the product on the field; if Jackson is giving the right instructions but the players are not executing then he needs to put different players on the field: the bottom line is that whatever happens on the field has either been taught by the coach or is being permitted to happen by the coach. Remember Mike Singletary's rant about how he would rather play 10 on 11 than put a player on the field who does not buy into the game plan? A lot of people made fun of the way that Singletary delivered that message but his underlying thought process was right on the money.
Speaking of cultivating the right mentality, it should be noted that the problem with the Browns starts at the top and predates Jackson joining the team. Case in point: I did not catch this during the telecast, but apparently the Browns played Kool & the Gang's "Celebration" after the game. I am a lifelong Browns fan. I am happy when my team wins and I am disappointed when my team loses. I hate to quote Mike Tomlin, the coach of the hated Pittsburgh Steelers, but I love the attitude behind his oft-repeated statement, "The standard is the standard." Tomlin's Steelers expect to win any time, any place, regardless of injuries or circumstances. The Steelers are not going to play "Celebration" after one win against a bad team during a season that will not end in a playoff berth, let alone a Super Bowl title (that is the standard that the Steelers set for every season).
I would say that after a regular season victory the Browns should act like they have done this before but the problem is, the 2016 Browns had not done this before. The ownership group, front office and coaching staff have plunged a once-proud franchise to the lowest point in its long history--but they won one game and avoided being considered the worst team ever. "Celebration," indeed.
The Browns face the Steelers next week. As Wilcots noted, the Browns have no realistic chance to win that game. This is just not right. Browns-Steelers is supposed to be a rivalry game, not a stepping-stone for the Steelers to possibly improve their playoff position.
I am happy that the Browns won; it sure is better than the alternative--but Browns fans will really celebrate when they believe that they have the right owner, front office, coaching staff and quarterback to be successful in the long run and when Browns-Steelers is a competitive contest, not a foregone conclusion to punctuate the most forgettable and lamentable season in Browns' history.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Carlsen Retains World Chess Championship in Spectacular Style
Magnus Carlsen, the 16th linear World Chess Champion, retained his title by defeating challenger Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in a Rapid tiebreak match after the two competitors tied 6-6 in 12 games contested at a Classical time control. While Karjakin did not quite crack the Carlsen code, he pushed the Champion to the brink; Carlsen did not enjoy a lead in the title bout until he won the third game of the tiebreak match after the first two games were drawn. In game two of the tiebreak match, Karjakin displayed remarkable composure and grit as he held off the highest rated player of all-time to draw an endgame that was objectively lost.
The tiebreak match had extremely high entertainment value, culminating in the decisive move of the fourth game that compelled Karjakin's instant resignation: Carlsen's 50. Qh6+!, a beautiful Queen sacrifice that forces checkmate in all variations. While the climactic combination was not necessarily difficult for a player of Carlsen's caliber, it was still an impressive finish considering the stakes and the small amount of time that each player had remaining to complete the game.
However, from a chess purist's standpoint this was a terrible way to decide the World Chess Championship. As Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan pointed out, there are separate World Chess Championship titles for Classical, Rapid and Blitz time controls, so it make no sense to decide the Classical title with a tiebreak match using Rapid time controls. As he asked rhetorically, will the Rapid Championship now use a Classical time control if a tiebreak match is necessary?
Granted, even if the match conditions were decided purely on aesthetic and sporting considerations--which will never happen in the real world, when economics and logistics inevitably play a role in determining such things--there is no perfect format. An automatic rematch clause if the Champions loses--a perk enjoyed by Mikhail Botvinnik from 1948-63--is a huge advantage. Enabling the Champion to retain his title in the event of a tied match is also a significant advantage. In 1984-85, we saw the perils of a format that forces one player to win six games with draws not counting: Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov battled for 48 games before the match was suspended with Karpov leading 5-3.
All of that being understood, the 2016 format--a 12 game Classical match followed by (if necessary) a four game Rapid match, a two game Blitz match and a one game winner take all "Armageddon" battle with White having five minutes and Black having four minutes plus draw odds--leaves much to be desired. I agree with Grandmaster Seirawan's suggestion that an 18 game Classical match would lead to better play because one victory would not necessarily be decisive; in a 12 game match players tend to be cautious and steer toward the tiebreaks as opposed to fighting it out and possibly losing the one game that could spell overall defeat. The boring and quick draw in game 12 of the Carlsen-Karjakin match made a poor impression, no matter how understandable it was strategically given the circumstances.
In the 2016 World Chess Championship, Carlsen proved that he is a great Champion and Karjakin demonstrated that he is a worthy challenger who may very well wear the crown one day. I commend both players for their performances under great pressure. I just hope that in the future the World Chess Championship match will last longer than 12 games and will be contested entirely at a Classical time control.
The tiebreak match had extremely high entertainment value, culminating in the decisive move of the fourth game that compelled Karjakin's instant resignation: Carlsen's 50. Qh6+!, a beautiful Queen sacrifice that forces checkmate in all variations. While the climactic combination was not necessarily difficult for a player of Carlsen's caliber, it was still an impressive finish considering the stakes and the small amount of time that each player had remaining to complete the game.
However, from a chess purist's standpoint this was a terrible way to decide the World Chess Championship. As Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan pointed out, there are separate World Chess Championship titles for Classical, Rapid and Blitz time controls, so it make no sense to decide the Classical title with a tiebreak match using Rapid time controls. As he asked rhetorically, will the Rapid Championship now use a Classical time control if a tiebreak match is necessary?
Granted, even if the match conditions were decided purely on aesthetic and sporting considerations--which will never happen in the real world, when economics and logistics inevitably play a role in determining such things--there is no perfect format. An automatic rematch clause if the Champions loses--a perk enjoyed by Mikhail Botvinnik from 1948-63--is a huge advantage. Enabling the Champion to retain his title in the event of a tied match is also a significant advantage. In 1984-85, we saw the perils of a format that forces one player to win six games with draws not counting: Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov battled for 48 games before the match was suspended with Karpov leading 5-3.
All of that being understood, the 2016 format--a 12 game Classical match followed by (if necessary) a four game Rapid match, a two game Blitz match and a one game winner take all "Armageddon" battle with White having five minutes and Black having four minutes plus draw odds--leaves much to be desired. I agree with Grandmaster Seirawan's suggestion that an 18 game Classical match would lead to better play because one victory would not necessarily be decisive; in a 12 game match players tend to be cautious and steer toward the tiebreaks as opposed to fighting it out and possibly losing the one game that could spell overall defeat. The boring and quick draw in game 12 of the Carlsen-Karjakin match made a poor impression, no matter how understandable it was strategically given the circumstances.
In the 2016 World Chess Championship, Carlsen proved that he is a great Champion and Karjakin demonstrated that he is a worthy challenger who may very well wear the crown one day. I commend both players for their performances under great pressure. I just hope that in the future the World Chess Championship match will last longer than 12 games and will be contested entirely at a Classical time control.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Has Karjakin Cracked the Carlsen Code?
World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen is perceived/described as an
imperturbable performer but perhaps that is not the case--or perhaps
challenger Sergey Karjakin has thrown Carlsen off of his game. Karjakin successfully defended worse positions several
times as the two players drew the first seven games of their 12 game
title match. Did this trend favor Carlsen--who kept getting advantageous
positions that he failed to convert--or was Karjakin's tenacity wearing
Carlsen down?
We received at least a
preliminary answer in game eight as Karjakin not only refuted Carlsen's
overly aggressive attempts to win but completely turned the tables to
post the first decisive result of the match. Karjakin now "only" needs
four draws to dethrone Carlsen.
Chess is a unique combination of science, art and sport. Becoming a chess champion involves mastery of many different skills and traits, not the least of which is managing nerves at critical moments. Carlsen has been justifiably compared with all-time tennis great Bjorn Borg; both players have nerves of steel and made their names by outlasting their opponents as opposed to overpowering them.
It has been striking to see Carlsen's nerves falter not only at the board--several Grandmasters have described Carlsen's game eight play as uncharacteristic, if not completely unrecognizable--but afterward as well, when he blew off the mandatory post-game press conference. That petulant act might cost Carlsen 10% of his share of the prize fund ($40,000 if he loses the match, $60,000 if he comes back to win the match).
An important part of being a champion is to--in the immortal words of Rudyard Kipling, prominently displayed at Wimbledon--"meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same." I will never forget when Scottie Pippen of the three-time defending NBA champion Chicago Bulls made a point of congratulating Patrick Ewing and the New York Knicks on the court after the Knicks dethroned the Bulls by winning a hard fought seven game series in 1994. That was a devastating loss for Pippen but he displayed his class at that moment; he did not run and hide like a little child who did not get what he wants.
The image of Carlsen bolting from the press conference after game eight is equally indelible. At that moment he looked like anything but a great champion, even though he has not yet been dethroned. It is important to remember that previous title holders have bounced back from even more dire circumstances to retain the crown (perhaps most notably, Garry Kasparov won a must-win final game with black against Anatoly Karpov in 1987). If Carlsen wins this match, perhaps game eight and its aftermath will just be a footnote in chess history, but if Karjakin prevails while Carlsen crumbles on and off of the board then we may have to reassess Carlsen's place in the chess Pantheon. Is Carlsen--the highest rated player of all-time--really worthy of being mentioned with Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov or is Carlsen's high rating the product of rating inflation? If Carlsen's reign as World Champion lasts for just three years--with only victories against an aging Viswanathan Anand to his credit--then it may be reasonable to question how Carlsen would have fared against the all-time greats in a hypothetical match played under equal conditions.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Initial Impressions of the First Truly Post-Kasparov Era World Chess Championship Match
Although Garry Kasparov has not been World Chess Champion since 2000 and has not played in a top level rated tournament since 2005, the World Chess Championship match currently being contested in New York is the first such match to feature two players who both reached their primes after Kasparov retired. The 25 year old World Champion Magnus Carlsen, who won the World Chess Championship in 2013 and retained the crown by defeating former World Champion Viswanathan Anand in 2014, is facing 26 year old challenger Sergey Karjakin, who still holds the record for being the youngest player to attain the Grandmaster title (12 years, seven months). This is the "youngest" World Chess Championship ever in terms of the combined ages of the two combatants.
World Chess Championship matches traditionally have been held in a best out of 24 games format (with a win counting as one point and a draw counting as a half point) but economic and promotional considerations have led to the shortening of such matches to best out of 12. Obviously, the shorter the match the more likely an upset, so in that sense the change is unfortunate for those of us who would prefer that randomness be removed from the championship equation as much as possible. The shorter format also tends to lead to more conservative and less imaginative play, because one mistake could result in not just the loss of a game but very possibly the loss of the match.
After four games, the Carlsen-Karjakin match is knotted at 2-2, with neither player scoring a victory yet. Carlsen has pushed Karjakin to the brink of defeat in the last two games but Karjakin has defended tenaciously to salvage positions that most chess players could not hold against a regular Master, much less the highest rated player in the game's history. If an action movie were made about Karjakin, the tagline (delivered in classic movie announcer promo voice) would be "Sergey Karjakin is hard to kill."
Chess games and chess matches are as much about nerves and resolve as they are about brain power. Before the match, I expected a 6.5-4.5 result in Carlsen's favor (which is roughly what one would predict based on the rating differential between the players) but it will be interesting to see how these first four games are "spun" based on the final outcome. If Carlsen wins, the story will be that he put relentless pressure on Karjakin, who finally cracked after being worn down from repeatedly defending difficult positions--but if Karjakin pulls off the upset, then the story will be that Karjakin gained confidence (and Carlsen lost confidence) after he proved that he could withstand Carlsen's best shot, something that few other Grandmasters have been able to do in recent years.
Carlsen generally seems imperturbable but the reality is that under the pressure of World Championship match play he has blundered before; Anand missed a golden opportunity after Carlsen made a ghastly mistake in game six of their 2014 match and had Anand been more alert he could have made the score 3.5-2.5 in his favor at that critical juncture--but Anand, who never could overcome Kasparov when they were both in their primes, perhaps at some level did not truly believe that he could beat a powerful opponent who was barely half his age. In chess, if you believe that your opponent is better than you then you often do not "trust" that he can blunder. I suspect that Karjakin will not be so forgiving if Carlsen makes a mistake against him and that psychological dynamic should make the rest of this match very dramatic and intriguing.
Vladimir Kramnik was the only player of Kasparov's era to beat Kasparov in a World Chess Championship match in no small part because Kramnik was the only player from that era who truly believed that Kasparov could be beaten. I don't think that Karjakin fears Carlsen the way that other players of their generation do and that is perhaps the most compelling aspect of this battle of the young titans.
World Chess Championship matches traditionally have been held in a best out of 24 games format (with a win counting as one point and a draw counting as a half point) but economic and promotional considerations have led to the shortening of such matches to best out of 12. Obviously, the shorter the match the more likely an upset, so in that sense the change is unfortunate for those of us who would prefer that randomness be removed from the championship equation as much as possible. The shorter format also tends to lead to more conservative and less imaginative play, because one mistake could result in not just the loss of a game but very possibly the loss of the match.
After four games, the Carlsen-Karjakin match is knotted at 2-2, with neither player scoring a victory yet. Carlsen has pushed Karjakin to the brink of defeat in the last two games but Karjakin has defended tenaciously to salvage positions that most chess players could not hold against a regular Master, much less the highest rated player in the game's history. If an action movie were made about Karjakin, the tagline (delivered in classic movie announcer promo voice) would be "Sergey Karjakin is hard to kill."
Chess games and chess matches are as much about nerves and resolve as they are about brain power. Before the match, I expected a 6.5-4.5 result in Carlsen's favor (which is roughly what one would predict based on the rating differential between the players) but it will be interesting to see how these first four games are "spun" based on the final outcome. If Carlsen wins, the story will be that he put relentless pressure on Karjakin, who finally cracked after being worn down from repeatedly defending difficult positions--but if Karjakin pulls off the upset, then the story will be that Karjakin gained confidence (and Carlsen lost confidence) after he proved that he could withstand Carlsen's best shot, something that few other Grandmasters have been able to do in recent years.
Carlsen generally seems imperturbable but the reality is that under the pressure of World Championship match play he has blundered before; Anand missed a golden opportunity after Carlsen made a ghastly mistake in game six of their 2014 match and had Anand been more alert he could have made the score 3.5-2.5 in his favor at that critical juncture--but Anand, who never could overcome Kasparov when they were both in their primes, perhaps at some level did not truly believe that he could beat a powerful opponent who was barely half his age. In chess, if you believe that your opponent is better than you then you often do not "trust" that he can blunder. I suspect that Karjakin will not be so forgiving if Carlsen makes a mistake against him and that psychological dynamic should make the rest of this match very dramatic and intriguing.
Vladimir Kramnik was the only player of Kasparov's era to beat Kasparov in a World Chess Championship match in no small part because Kramnik was the only player from that era who truly believed that Kasparov could be beaten. I don't think that Karjakin fears Carlsen the way that other players of their generation do and that is perhaps the most compelling aspect of this battle of the young titans.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Zennis: A Zen Approach to Tennis--and Life
Peter Spang played on the ATP Tour in the early 1980s--peaking at #302 in the world in singles--before embarking on a career as a tennis coach, writer and management consultant. In his 1998 book Zennis, Spang writes, "I am not trying to bring Zen into tennis. To me, Zen is in tennis already. There is no need to bring it. To experience silent and blissful moments while playing tennis is Zen, and to carry the flavor of these moments into ordinary life is an easy and natural consequence."
Spang explains how he incorporated a different kind of thinking into his tennis teaching (p.27):
In chapter four, Spang lists "seven unusual exercises for Zennis." These exercises are designed to enable a tennis player to transition toward the Zen state known as "No Mind," when a person is not distracted or plagued by continuous, conscious mental activity and is instead at one with his present activity (which could be not only tennis but any other activity as well).
One such exercise involves practicing tennis by hitting the ball while holding the racquet with one's non-dominant hand. Spang believes that this enables a player to relax and engage both sides of the brain in the process of playing tennis. Though it may seem paradoxical, Spang insists that players who spend time practicing with their non-dominant hand improve their ability to accurately hit the ball with their dominant hand more so than players who only practice hitting the ball with their dominant hand.
Another exercise is to have a practice partner throw or hit 10 tennis balls at you, one at a time. Instead of trying to hit the ball back, you intentionally just miss the ball with your racket. Spang believes that sometimes we can become so focused on outcomes that we lose track of process and of just having fun. He calls this "a Zen paradox: If you let go of results, you end up with the results you want" (p. 74). By realizing that it is not the end of the world to miss the ball, you can achieve a more relaxed state of mind on the tennis court.
The ability to effectively control/manage emotions is critically important not just in a tennis match but in life itself. Spang devotes two entire chapters to this subject. He notes that some players--particularly Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Boris Becker--are able to channel their anger to create energy that heightens their performance level. Of course, anger can easily have the opposite effect, whether you are processing your own anger or dealing with an opponent like Connors, McEnroe or Becker who is clearly using anger as fuel. Spang concludes that "emotional power...can drive or destroy your game" (p. 84).
Spang believes that if you do not recognize and deal with emotion on the tennis court then "the unexpressed energy is going to turn against you and eat you alive, sucking your vitality, making you collapse" (p. 87). He adds that this issue extends well beyond the tennis court: "Most people have had this kind of experience at some point in their lives, becoming so affected emotionally that they don't know what to say anymore. They become tongue-tied, as if all intelligence has left their brains, as if they no longer have a will of their own. They feel as if all energy has suddenly drained out of their bodies" (p. 87).
There is some value in going through such experiences, processing them and learning how to better manage them in the future--but an athlete does not have the luxury of taking such a long term view of personal development. As Spang puts it, "as a sporting warrior, looking back is rather like attending your own autopsy. As far as combat is concerned, your head has already been cut off" (p. 87). This is reminiscent of a line from Frank Herbert's Dune when Gurney Halleck is training young Paul Atreides in the art of combat. Atreides complained that he was not in the mood to spar that day and Halleck barked, "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." Similarly, when you are battling on the tennis court--or in life--you have to be ready to manage your emotions at all times, not just when you are in the mood to do so.
Spang laments "there is very little guidance or training available to help players deal creatively with this important aspect of their game" (p. 88). Perhaps the most common method employed is the "mental toughness approach," which is based on the acceptance that "you cannot control your opponent, you cannot control the score, but you can control your own attitude, behavior and emotions" (pp. 88-89). An important, ongoing aspect of my life journey is understanding and accepting the limits of what I can control.
Spang finds value in mental toughness but he also believes that at times mental toughness--or the supposed lack thereof--is used to explain results that can be better explained by faulty tennis technique. For instance, Spang suggests that Goran Ivanisevic's inability to ascend to the absolute highest level of tennis is not because of deficiencies in mental toughness but rather because of flaws in some of Ivanisevic's tennis fundamentals. Any player who lacks correct technique will be more apt to become frustrated and lose focus during a match. If you have a solid, broad base of fundamentals to rely upon then you are less likely to be swayed by the emotional ups and downs of a match; you will just see the ball and hit the ball.
Spang believes that emotions should not be ignored but instead they should be acknowledged and contained. All tennis professionals must deal with the reality that in a 128 player draw there will be one winner and 127 losers. This reality creates a lot of pressure to perform and that pressure is heightened as one's ranking increases, because it is a failure for a top ranked player to not at least advance several rounds. Spang proposes that to achieve maximum success/fulfillment, a tennis player must learn how to switch his focus from "the outer reality" (the score of the match, the possibility of losing) to "your inner reality" where you can simultaneously acknowledge emotions and yet be detached from those emotions. That was the point of the exercise during which you intentionally miss 10 tennis balls; the possibility of failure generates negative emotions but the reality is that even if you miss a ball (or lose a match) the world has not ended. This could also be described as "flow" or "being in the zone."
Spang suggests that through the practice of meditation we can learn how to recognize our emotions, acknowledge them and channel them into positive energy. In chapter six ("Transforming Emotional Energy") he describes a series of exercises and meditation techniques designed to bring out one's inner child. Children feel free to express their emotions as they feel them, while as adults we learn--or are forced--to suppress and deny our emotions. Spang states that when you identify with a particular emotion--such as anger--this emotion can consume you and rule you; this is why the societal convention is for adults to suppress such powerful feelings, but Spang proposes that a better approach is to feel the anger but let the emotion pass through you without letting it sweep you away. Again, a Dune quote comes to mind, specifically the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear: "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." What is true of fear is also true of anger, jealousy and other negative emotions that can be energy-draining if not properly channeled.
Chapter seven describes four mental pitfalls that must be avoided: Perfectionism, self-criticism, boredom and expectation. My favorite quote about perfectionism comes from five-time NFL champion Coach Vince Lombardi: "Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can ever attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence."
Regarding tennis perfectionism, Spang notes that the strategy for a five set match can be much different than the strategy for a three set match. Spang cites a 1996 French Open match pitting Pete Sampras against two-time French Open champion Sergei Bruguera. Spang believes that after Sampras took the lead in the fifth set he adopted a tactic of conserving energy during Burguera's service games in order to focus on closing out the match by holding his own serve. This was not tennis perfection but it was the right tactic when both players were tired and Sampras knew that his biggest advantage at that moment was his serve.
Spang adds that such a tactic would not be optimal in a three set match but that one must tailor one's tactics to fit the situation because the goal is to win the match, not to play some hypothetically perfect brand of tennis. What is most important is "your ability to respond intelligently to the challenge of the moment" (p. 123).
Self-criticism goes hand in hand with perfectionism. Spang's comments about self-criticism are balanced, if not contradictory. On the one hand, the ability to objectively evaluate one's performance is an essential tool for reaching one's goals. Successful people tend to be self-critical to some extent. On the other hand, too much self-criticism can be harmful and can rob one of the ability to feel any sense of joy/accomplishment. I would argue that a distinction should be made between objective self-criticism--which is necessary and good--and self-flagellation, which is bad. If you know that you did not perform up to your capabilities in a given situation then it is important to recognize this and have a plan to improve--but if you did as well as could be reasonably be expected under the circumstances then it is counterproductive and unhealthy to focus on the negative.
Spang says that boredom can be a sign of intelligence, because people are not machines who just mindlessly do the same things over and over. The key to conquering boredom is acknowledging its existence and then focusing on "the here and now, where boredom cannot exist" because you are so engaged in and energized by the task at hand.
Expectation is tricky. If you have no expectation and no goal then you are unlikely to achieve very much but if you become too focused on the expectation/goal instead of the process then you lose track of what you have to do in the moment.
The recurring theme of Zennis is that success is fostered by living in the moment and not being distracted by what has happened or what might happen. Of course, this is much easier said than done.
Chapter eight discusses fear. Spang cites specific examples when he believes fear negatively affected the play of Jana Novotna and Michael Stich. Fear is related to expectation, to letting others down (your fans, your country, your teammates if this is a team event like Davis Cup) and to the consequences of losing. Of course, expectations, the feelings of others and the consequences of losing are not productive things to think about in the heat of competition! The difficult task, as alluded to above, is to focus on the task at hand. Again, this is where technical mastery is important, because if your technique is good and you know it is good then you can become so absorbed in technique that you have no mental or emotional space left over for worries or fears.
In chapter nine, Spang offers "four jewels" that can help a player reach his full potential. One "jewel" in particular caught my attention: staying in the middle. Spang cites Pete Sampras as a great example of a player who does not get too high after wins or too low after defeats. In other sports, Tim Duncan and Bill Belichick are examples of this trait. Sampras, Duncan and Belichick never became media darlings, because they never supplied juicy quotes that make for great headlines--but Sampras, Duncan and Belichick won championships and sustained excellence for long periods of time because they did not overreact to wins or losses. They did not care if the media or fans considered them to be "boring."
Zennis was published nearly 20 years ago, so the specific examples that Spang cites are dated--but that does not matter, because the core content of the book is timeless and provides insight about how a person can gain mastery through introspection. I recommend this book to those who are seeking the ultimate understanding: understanding oneself.
Spang explains how he incorporated a different kind of thinking into his tennis teaching (p.27):
More and more, I was able to see the limitations of the conventional teacher-student relationship with its accompanying belief system that there's only one right way to play tennis. The truth is there are many right ways--just like life.Spang's journey to a Zen mindset began with his realization that meditation is not a separate activity from day to day living (pp. 29-30):
I encouraged my students to understand that when the coach is silent, it doesn't mean he's not doing his job or that he's losing interest. Rather, the opposite is true: He's intentionally creating a space in which the student can explore, experiment, and play freely.
A lot of people have the idea that meditation is separate from ordinary daily activity, something that you do by sitting down in a quiet room, crossing your legs in the lotus position, closing your eyes, and going inside...Spang notes that in order to play tennis most effectively it is important to have the correct physical form, which he terms "being grounded." This form provides the maximum opportunity for an athlete to be agile and flexible. This concept is similar to what Julius "Dr. J" Erving called a "position of readiness" in his 1987 video "Dr. J's Basketball Stuff" and could also be described as a triple threat position for a basketball player: as Spang describes the form, it involves bending your knees slightly, relaxing your belly, having your shoulders/arms hanging loosely, placing the soles of your feet firmly on the ground and breathing through your chest into your belly. This correct physical form--which Spang calls "The Zennis Form"--is the basis for a number of tennis-specific exercises that Spang describes in chapter three.
The beauty of the Zen approach to meditation is that it is all-inclusive. It takes ordinary activities and turns them into opportunities for meditation, like drinking tea, washing rice, arranging flowers, sweeping the floor...or playing tennis. With any activity, you can be as silent and and as conscious as if you were sitting alone in a cave in the Himalayas.
In chapter four, Spang lists "seven unusual exercises for Zennis." These exercises are designed to enable a tennis player to transition toward the Zen state known as "No Mind," when a person is not distracted or plagued by continuous, conscious mental activity and is instead at one with his present activity (which could be not only tennis but any other activity as well).
One such exercise involves practicing tennis by hitting the ball while holding the racquet with one's non-dominant hand. Spang believes that this enables a player to relax and engage both sides of the brain in the process of playing tennis. Though it may seem paradoxical, Spang insists that players who spend time practicing with their non-dominant hand improve their ability to accurately hit the ball with their dominant hand more so than players who only practice hitting the ball with their dominant hand.
Another exercise is to have a practice partner throw or hit 10 tennis balls at you, one at a time. Instead of trying to hit the ball back, you intentionally just miss the ball with your racket. Spang believes that sometimes we can become so focused on outcomes that we lose track of process and of just having fun. He calls this "a Zen paradox: If you let go of results, you end up with the results you want" (p. 74). By realizing that it is not the end of the world to miss the ball, you can achieve a more relaxed state of mind on the tennis court.
The ability to effectively control/manage emotions is critically important not just in a tennis match but in life itself. Spang devotes two entire chapters to this subject. He notes that some players--particularly Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Boris Becker--are able to channel their anger to create energy that heightens their performance level. Of course, anger can easily have the opposite effect, whether you are processing your own anger or dealing with an opponent like Connors, McEnroe or Becker who is clearly using anger as fuel. Spang concludes that "emotional power...can drive or destroy your game" (p. 84).
Spang believes that if you do not recognize and deal with emotion on the tennis court then "the unexpressed energy is going to turn against you and eat you alive, sucking your vitality, making you collapse" (p. 87). He adds that this issue extends well beyond the tennis court: "Most people have had this kind of experience at some point in their lives, becoming so affected emotionally that they don't know what to say anymore. They become tongue-tied, as if all intelligence has left their brains, as if they no longer have a will of their own. They feel as if all energy has suddenly drained out of their bodies" (p. 87).
There is some value in going through such experiences, processing them and learning how to better manage them in the future--but an athlete does not have the luxury of taking such a long term view of personal development. As Spang puts it, "as a sporting warrior, looking back is rather like attending your own autopsy. As far as combat is concerned, your head has already been cut off" (p. 87). This is reminiscent of a line from Frank Herbert's Dune when Gurney Halleck is training young Paul Atreides in the art of combat. Atreides complained that he was not in the mood to spar that day and Halleck barked, "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." Similarly, when you are battling on the tennis court--or in life--you have to be ready to manage your emotions at all times, not just when you are in the mood to do so.
Spang laments "there is very little guidance or training available to help players deal creatively with this important aspect of their game" (p. 88). Perhaps the most common method employed is the "mental toughness approach," which is based on the acceptance that "you cannot control your opponent, you cannot control the score, but you can control your own attitude, behavior and emotions" (pp. 88-89). An important, ongoing aspect of my life journey is understanding and accepting the limits of what I can control.
Spang finds value in mental toughness but he also believes that at times mental toughness--or the supposed lack thereof--is used to explain results that can be better explained by faulty tennis technique. For instance, Spang suggests that Goran Ivanisevic's inability to ascend to the absolute highest level of tennis is not because of deficiencies in mental toughness but rather because of flaws in some of Ivanisevic's tennis fundamentals. Any player who lacks correct technique will be more apt to become frustrated and lose focus during a match. If you have a solid, broad base of fundamentals to rely upon then you are less likely to be swayed by the emotional ups and downs of a match; you will just see the ball and hit the ball.
Spang believes that emotions should not be ignored but instead they should be acknowledged and contained. All tennis professionals must deal with the reality that in a 128 player draw there will be one winner and 127 losers. This reality creates a lot of pressure to perform and that pressure is heightened as one's ranking increases, because it is a failure for a top ranked player to not at least advance several rounds. Spang proposes that to achieve maximum success/fulfillment, a tennis player must learn how to switch his focus from "the outer reality" (the score of the match, the possibility of losing) to "your inner reality" where you can simultaneously acknowledge emotions and yet be detached from those emotions. That was the point of the exercise during which you intentionally miss 10 tennis balls; the possibility of failure generates negative emotions but the reality is that even if you miss a ball (or lose a match) the world has not ended. This could also be described as "flow" or "being in the zone."
Spang suggests that through the practice of meditation we can learn how to recognize our emotions, acknowledge them and channel them into positive energy. In chapter six ("Transforming Emotional Energy") he describes a series of exercises and meditation techniques designed to bring out one's inner child. Children feel free to express their emotions as they feel them, while as adults we learn--or are forced--to suppress and deny our emotions. Spang states that when you identify with a particular emotion--such as anger--this emotion can consume you and rule you; this is why the societal convention is for adults to suppress such powerful feelings, but Spang proposes that a better approach is to feel the anger but let the emotion pass through you without letting it sweep you away. Again, a Dune quote comes to mind, specifically the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear: "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." What is true of fear is also true of anger, jealousy and other negative emotions that can be energy-draining if not properly channeled.
Chapter seven describes four mental pitfalls that must be avoided: Perfectionism, self-criticism, boredom and expectation. My favorite quote about perfectionism comes from five-time NFL champion Coach Vince Lombardi: "Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can ever attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence."
Regarding tennis perfectionism, Spang notes that the strategy for a five set match can be much different than the strategy for a three set match. Spang cites a 1996 French Open match pitting Pete Sampras against two-time French Open champion Sergei Bruguera. Spang believes that after Sampras took the lead in the fifth set he adopted a tactic of conserving energy during Burguera's service games in order to focus on closing out the match by holding his own serve. This was not tennis perfection but it was the right tactic when both players were tired and Sampras knew that his biggest advantage at that moment was his serve.
Spang adds that such a tactic would not be optimal in a three set match but that one must tailor one's tactics to fit the situation because the goal is to win the match, not to play some hypothetically perfect brand of tennis. What is most important is "your ability to respond intelligently to the challenge of the moment" (p. 123).
Self-criticism goes hand in hand with perfectionism. Spang's comments about self-criticism are balanced, if not contradictory. On the one hand, the ability to objectively evaluate one's performance is an essential tool for reaching one's goals. Successful people tend to be self-critical to some extent. On the other hand, too much self-criticism can be harmful and can rob one of the ability to feel any sense of joy/accomplishment. I would argue that a distinction should be made between objective self-criticism--which is necessary and good--and self-flagellation, which is bad. If you know that you did not perform up to your capabilities in a given situation then it is important to recognize this and have a plan to improve--but if you did as well as could be reasonably be expected under the circumstances then it is counterproductive and unhealthy to focus on the negative.
Spang says that boredom can be a sign of intelligence, because people are not machines who just mindlessly do the same things over and over. The key to conquering boredom is acknowledging its existence and then focusing on "the here and now, where boredom cannot exist" because you are so engaged in and energized by the task at hand.
Expectation is tricky. If you have no expectation and no goal then you are unlikely to achieve very much but if you become too focused on the expectation/goal instead of the process then you lose track of what you have to do in the moment.
The recurring theme of Zennis is that success is fostered by living in the moment and not being distracted by what has happened or what might happen. Of course, this is much easier said than done.
Chapter eight discusses fear. Spang cites specific examples when he believes fear negatively affected the play of Jana Novotna and Michael Stich. Fear is related to expectation, to letting others down (your fans, your country, your teammates if this is a team event like Davis Cup) and to the consequences of losing. Of course, expectations, the feelings of others and the consequences of losing are not productive things to think about in the heat of competition! The difficult task, as alluded to above, is to focus on the task at hand. Again, this is where technical mastery is important, because if your technique is good and you know it is good then you can become so absorbed in technique that you have no mental or emotional space left over for worries or fears.
In chapter nine, Spang offers "four jewels" that can help a player reach his full potential. One "jewel" in particular caught my attention: staying in the middle. Spang cites Pete Sampras as a great example of a player who does not get too high after wins or too low after defeats. In other sports, Tim Duncan and Bill Belichick are examples of this trait. Sampras, Duncan and Belichick never became media darlings, because they never supplied juicy quotes that make for great headlines--but Sampras, Duncan and Belichick won championships and sustained excellence for long periods of time because they did not overreact to wins or losses. They did not care if the media or fans considered them to be "boring."
Zennis was published nearly 20 years ago, so the specific examples that Spang cites are dated--but that does not matter, because the core content of the book is timeless and provides insight about how a person can gain mastery through introspection. I recommend this book to those who are seeking the ultimate understanding: understanding oneself.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Lilly King's Public Stance Against PED Cheaters is Commendable
U.S. swimmer Lilly King not only won the 2016 Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter breaststroke but she made a powerful statement against athletes who tarnish sports by using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). King literally and figuratively wagged her finger at Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova--who was permitted to return to the sport after serving a 16 month suspension for using PEDs--and King declared, "I think it's unfortunate that we have to deal with these things in this sport. A level playing field would be preferred."
King publicly stated that cheaters like Efimova should be banned for life and King did not back down when asked what she thought of American Olympic athletes who had been caught cheating in the past (including sprinter Justin Gatlin): "Do I think people who have been caught should be on the team? They shouldn't. It's unfortunate we have to see that."
Olympic legend Michael Phelps publicly supported King's position: "I think people should be speaking out more. I think (she) is right. I think something needs to be done."
One reason that Major League Baseball's PED problem became so pervasive is that too many of the players who were not cheating turned a blind eye to what was happening instead of publicly speaking out about it the way that King is doing. It is important for the clean athletes to speak out and to let their voices be heard about how the cheaters are damaging their sports.
When the baseball players failed to speak out, some media members, "stat gurus" and sports economists attempted to fill the void, despite knowing little to nothing about sports or medicine. These commentators tried to justify PED use by arguing (1) PEDs are not proven to work so the issue does not matter or (2) athletes should be permitted to use whatever means they are willing to try/risk in order to maximize their performance. The first point is, frankly, idiotic: the drugs are called "performance-enhancing" precisely because they enhance performance and that is why athletes risk their careers (and their health) to take these drugs. King's suggestion that PED cheaters should be banned for life is well-taken not only from a legal/moral standpoint but also from a scientific standpoint, because research suggests that there are long-lasting performance-enhancing effects from PED use that persist even after such use has been stopped. The second point is reflective of an anarchistic way of thinking: anything should go and let the strongest survive. Such is not the foundation for a stable society; there have to be rules in place to preserve health and to preserve fair competition. PEDs have serious side effects and athletes who use them gain an unfair advantage.
I have been lamenting the PED crisis for many years and I have previously advocated lifetime bans for MLB cheaters such as Ryan Braun and Alex Rodriguez but King's clarion call will hopefully resonate far and wide because her life and career have been directly impacted by PED cheaters. King did not turn this into an American versus Russian political issue but rather made it clear that all cheaters--even her own teammates--should be banned for life. That is quite a statement from a 19 year old Olympian and it would have been nice to witness similar courage from the teammates of Rodriguez, Braun and the many other MLB cheaters of the past two or three decades.
King publicly stated that cheaters like Efimova should be banned for life and King did not back down when asked what she thought of American Olympic athletes who had been caught cheating in the past (including sprinter Justin Gatlin): "Do I think people who have been caught should be on the team? They shouldn't. It's unfortunate we have to see that."
Olympic legend Michael Phelps publicly supported King's position: "I think people should be speaking out more. I think (she) is right. I think something needs to be done."
One reason that Major League Baseball's PED problem became so pervasive is that too many of the players who were not cheating turned a blind eye to what was happening instead of publicly speaking out about it the way that King is doing. It is important for the clean athletes to speak out and to let their voices be heard about how the cheaters are damaging their sports.
When the baseball players failed to speak out, some media members, "stat gurus" and sports economists attempted to fill the void, despite knowing little to nothing about sports or medicine. These commentators tried to justify PED use by arguing (1) PEDs are not proven to work so the issue does not matter or (2) athletes should be permitted to use whatever means they are willing to try/risk in order to maximize their performance. The first point is, frankly, idiotic: the drugs are called "performance-enhancing" precisely because they enhance performance and that is why athletes risk their careers (and their health) to take these drugs. King's suggestion that PED cheaters should be banned for life is well-taken not only from a legal/moral standpoint but also from a scientific standpoint, because research suggests that there are long-lasting performance-enhancing effects from PED use that persist even after such use has been stopped. The second point is reflective of an anarchistic way of thinking: anything should go and let the strongest survive. Such is not the foundation for a stable society; there have to be rules in place to preserve health and to preserve fair competition. PEDs have serious side effects and athletes who use them gain an unfair advantage.
I have been lamenting the PED crisis for many years and I have previously advocated lifetime bans for MLB cheaters such as Ryan Braun and Alex Rodriguez but King's clarion call will hopefully resonate far and wide because her life and career have been directly impacted by PED cheaters. King did not turn this into an American versus Russian political issue but rather made it clear that all cheaters--even her own teammates--should be banned for life. That is quite a statement from a 19 year old Olympian and it would have been nice to witness similar courage from the teammates of Rodriguez, Braun and the many other MLB cheaters of the past two or three decades.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Rest in Peace, Viktor Korchnoi
It once seemed like the indomitable Viktor Korchnoi would play chess forever. After thrice battling Anatoly Karpov for the World Chess Championship (once in the 1974 Candidates Finals that turned into a de facto title bout after the reigning World Champion Bobby Fischer forfeited his title in 1975 and then in official championship matches in 1978 and 1981), Korchnoi continued to play high level chess for several more decades. Korchnoi reached the Candidates round in 1985, 1988 and 1991 before winning the World Senior Championship in 2006.
Korchnoi retained a child-like enthusiasm for chess throughout his life. He played with great energy and tenacity.
He is on the short list of candidates for the title of "Greatest Player to Never Win the World Chess Championship," a subject that I explored in a 2009 article titled Uncrowned Champion: Viktor Korchnoi.
Korchnoi battled against six generations of chess players, as early in his career he faced opponents born in the late 19th century while more recently he battled against players born post-2000. He survived both World War II and the efforts of the Soviet establishment to crush his individuality and break his spirit by holding his wife and son hostage after he defected.
I have yet to see any public comment by Karpov about Korchnoi's passing. Karpov and Korchnoi were bitter rivals but one would hope that Karpov would have enough class, dignity and respect to say something positive about Korchnoi's significant role in chess history.
Korchnoi retained a child-like enthusiasm for chess throughout his life. He played with great energy and tenacity.
He is on the short list of candidates for the title of "Greatest Player to Never Win the World Chess Championship," a subject that I explored in a 2009 article titled Uncrowned Champion: Viktor Korchnoi.
Korchnoi battled against six generations of chess players, as early in his career he faced opponents born in the late 19th century while more recently he battled against players born post-2000. He survived both World War II and the efforts of the Soviet establishment to crush his individuality and break his spirit by holding his wife and son hostage after he defected.
I have yet to see any public comment by Karpov about Korchnoi's passing. Karpov and Korchnoi were bitter rivals but one would hope that Karpov would have enough class, dignity and respect to say something positive about Korchnoi's significant role in chess history.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Muhammad Ali's Wit and Wisdom
It is difficult to say something about Muhammad Ali that has not already been said. His death is a loss felt by the entire world, yet the memory of his words and deeds will live forever. I am too young to remember Ali's prime but I am old enough to remember when he was still heavyweight champion of the world. One of my earliest Ali memories is reading a chapter about him in a sports book for kids when I was seven or eight years old. What stuck with me is that Ali talked about training for his rematch with Leon Spinks by saying that when his trainers told him to run, he ran, and when they told him to spar, he sparred, because he wanted to do everything possible to make sure that he regained the title; if he lost, it would not be because he failed to put in the work. That message has stayed with me my entire life.
Ali the boxer was remarkable in three distinct phases of his career: (1) The young champion who was so swift and nimble that opposing fighters could literally barely touch him, (2) The slightly past his prime Ali who came back after being banned from boxing for draft evasion (an unjust decision overturned by a Supreme Court verdict) who proved that he could win not just with superior physical tools but also with guile and guts and (3) The clearly past his prime Ali who became the first heavyweight champion to regain the title for the third time.
A fourth phase that we never saw will forever be a source of speculation: What would Ali have accomplished in the late 1960s if he had not been banned from the sport?
As for the fifth and final phase, the less said about the Holmes and Berbick bouts, the better. Those two fights that should have never happened certainly contributed to, if not caused, many of the ailments that plagued Ali for the final decades of his life.
I am not a boxing expert but from what I know of the sport I do believe that Ali was the greatest boxer of all-time or at the very least the greatest heavyweight. His best assets were his mind and his toughness. He analyzed his opponents and himself and he figured out what he had to do to win. Young Ali relied on speed and physical gifts but if those things were all that he had then he never would have beaten Joe Frazier twice or toppled George Foreman when Foreman was considered invincible.
Ali's toughness ultimately proved to be his undoing, because the ability to take punishment may be an asset in the ring but there is a heavy price to be paid later in life. Frazier, who resented Ali's taunts, often cruelly bragged that anyone who wants to know who really won their fights need only look at how rapidly Ali deteriorated physically.
Boxing is a cruel sport but one that rewards cunning, guile and bravery, three qualities that Ali possessed in abundance.
Ali will be remembered as much for his words as his actions. Here are some of my favorite Ali quotes:
1) "I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'"
2) "Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."
3) "Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right."
4) "I wish people would love everybody else the way they love me."
5) "The fight is won or lost far away from the witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
One more for the road: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see. Rumble young man, rumble."
Rest in Peace, Muhammad Ali.
Ali the boxer was remarkable in three distinct phases of his career: (1) The young champion who was so swift and nimble that opposing fighters could literally barely touch him, (2) The slightly past his prime Ali who came back after being banned from boxing for draft evasion (an unjust decision overturned by a Supreme Court verdict) who proved that he could win not just with superior physical tools but also with guile and guts and (3) The clearly past his prime Ali who became the first heavyweight champion to regain the title for the third time.
A fourth phase that we never saw will forever be a source of speculation: What would Ali have accomplished in the late 1960s if he had not been banned from the sport?
As for the fifth and final phase, the less said about the Holmes and Berbick bouts, the better. Those two fights that should have never happened certainly contributed to, if not caused, many of the ailments that plagued Ali for the final decades of his life.
I am not a boxing expert but from what I know of the sport I do believe that Ali was the greatest boxer of all-time or at the very least the greatest heavyweight. His best assets were his mind and his toughness. He analyzed his opponents and himself and he figured out what he had to do to win. Young Ali relied on speed and physical gifts but if those things were all that he had then he never would have beaten Joe Frazier twice or toppled George Foreman when Foreman was considered invincible.
Ali's toughness ultimately proved to be his undoing, because the ability to take punishment may be an asset in the ring but there is a heavy price to be paid later in life. Frazier, who resented Ali's taunts, often cruelly bragged that anyone who wants to know who really won their fights need only look at how rapidly Ali deteriorated physically.
Boxing is a cruel sport but one that rewards cunning, guile and bravery, three qualities that Ali possessed in abundance.
Ali will be remembered as much for his words as his actions. Here are some of my favorite Ali quotes:
1) "I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'"
2) "Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."
3) "Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right."
4) "I wish people would love everybody else the way they love me."
5) "The fight is won or lost far away from the witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
One more for the road: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see. Rumble young man, rumble."
Rest in Peace, Muhammad Ali.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Quick Takes on Brady, Manning, Sharapova
The wheels of justice turn exceedingly slowly and sometimes they roll off the road completely. Just ask Tom Brady. The NFL has presented no evidence showing that Tom Brady either deflated footballs or had knowledge that footballs were being deflated. The NFL has presented no evidence that any advantage can be gained by deflating footballs. The NFL has not even presented any evidence that footballs actually were deflated (the "science" in the Wells Report is not credible, to say the least).
Despite all of the evidence that the NFL has not presented, Brady's name has been dragged through the mud, his team has been penalized $1 million plus multiple draft picks and it is possible that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will ultimately reinstate Brady's four game suspension that was sensibly thrown out by a U.S. District Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals seems to be much more interested in Brady's destruction of an old cell phone--which is not the "crime" for which Brady was punished--than in whether or not NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had the authority to discipline Brady in the manner and to the extent that he did.
Anyone who cheats in the NFL (or anywhere else) should be punished (see the final section of this article)--but the NFL cannot prove that Brady cheated and cannot demonstrate that he gained any advantage even if he did what he was alleged to have done. At most, the NFL should have resolved this matter by fining the Patriots a token amount and by tightening up the procedures governing how the footballs are maintained prior to and during the games, because that is the larger issue: if the officials had done their job properly, the alleged deflation could not have taken place.
The whole fake controversy takes attention away from the concussion issue, though. Do you think that is a coincidence? What would the NFL rather talk about, footballs being deflated or NFL players suffering brain damage from routine plays?
*********************
Depending on how you look at it, Peyton Manning either retired on a high note or he left town just before the posse arrived. Manning's body failed him during the final several games of his career and he captured his second Super Bowl title as a Trent Dilfer-like caretaker for a moribund offense that was carried to victory by one of the greatest defenses of all-time (no offense meant to Dilfer, who was a solid quarterback but will not be remembered in quite the same way as Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks like Bradshaw, Montana and Brady). Leaving as a champion is obviously the best way to go and few great athletes have the opportunity to do so--and even fewer take advantage of that opportunity, for the lure of one more ring (or piles of more cash) can be hard to resist. Michael Jordan had the perfect ending, nailing the game/championship-clinching jumper versus Utah in 1998, but then he came back to limp around as a Washington Wizard and provide glimpses of what he used to be. Jordan's comeback was a testament to his mental and physical fortitude but it was hardly a storybook ending.
Manning leaves the NFL as a role player on a championship team but as memories fade beneath the magnitude of his career numbers the perception will be that he left on top, even if the reality is that if he stuck around for another season there is likely not one team that would employ his as a starting quarterback.
Manning retired before giving NFL teams a chance to say, "Thanks for the memories and don't let the door hit you on the way to the broadcast booth/front office."
There is also the matter of the dark clouds swirling around Manning, clouds that could have become more publicized if he kept playing but now will likely be ignored.
The first dark cloud is the accusation that Manning used the performance-enhancing drug (PED) human growth hormone (HGH), receiving the banned substance in his wife Ashley's name in an attempt to avoid detection. While the media provided wall to wall, 24-7 coverage of the alleged deflated football scandal as soon as word about it became public--and the media continues to breathlessly report about this story from every conceivable angle--Manning's friends in the media made sure that scarcely anything was mentioned about HGH during Denver's Super Bowl run. Did Manning use HGH? No one, least of all "protector of the NFL shield" Roger Goodell, seems particularly interested to find out. No one is paying Ted Wells millions of dollars to get to the bottom of this issue, that's for sure.
The second dark cloud dates back two decades to when he was a star quarterback for the University of Tennessee. At that time, Manning either (1) sexually harassed the female team trainer, (2) acted in a juvenile manner by mooning a teammate or (3) did something somewhere in between (1) and (2). We likely will never know what really happened, because while Manning's denials and snide verbal attacks against his accuser are not quite convincing his accuser comes across in some accounts as perhaps not the best person to be carrying the torch for Title IX enforcement.
All we know for sure is that an injustice has occurred that will never be quite made right: either Manning has gotten away largely unscathed with sexually harassing someone who had no power to effectively confront the team's star player or Manning's name is being tarnished by someone over an immature act that was stupid but not unforgivable.
The media and the public have largely sided with Manning all along. Manning ran some early morning laps as punishment by the school and he later paid an undisclosed settlement to his accuser but he has hardly been significantly damaged by the situation. Manning admits to at least acting immaturely at the time, so the gracious thing for him to do at this point when the subject is raised would be to say something like this (in his own words and with his trademark Southern drawl): "I regret the way I acted on that day. It was foolish and childish and not the way that I was raised. I learned from that incident and have not acted that way again. I am sorry about the pain and embarrassment my actions caused to all parties concerned." Manning would not be in legal or public relations jeopardy after making such a statement.
If Manning had truly done nothing and was a victim of a completely false accusation, then I could understand him being angry and defiant and refusing to apologize--but he has admitted that he did something that was at least inappropriate and the gracious thing to do would be to apologize to that extent as opposed to making unfunny jokes about the situation or quips at his accuser's expense.
In other words, rise above the fray and be the bigger person in the situation. During my law school studies, one thing that I have learned about negotiated settlements of litigation is that many times a matter can resolved by a simple apology; one party feels as if his or her feelings/personhood have been attacked/demeaned and that party simply wants the offending party to acknowledge this.
*********************
How many PED cheaters or "recreational" drug abusers just admit to their wrongdoing after being caught red-handed? I don't have any hard and fast numbers on the subject but my subjective impression/recollection is that it is very rare for an athlete to just say something like, "Yeah, you caught me. I did it and I was wrong. I need help for my problem, I am going to get that help and I am going to return after my suspension as a better person and athlete." Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones come to mind as athletes who literally issued bold faced lies when they were first accused of being cheaters.
The most recent elite level athlete to be caught using a banned substance is five-time Grand Slam tennis champion Maria Sharapova. Sharapova tested positive for a banned substance that, frankly, I had never heard of before (meldonium); apparently, meldonium can enhance performance by increasing stamina and endurance, two qualities that would be rather useful for a professional tennis player.
Watching sports is fun because you see competitors on a level playing field pushing themselves mentally, physically and emotionally to be the best within a framework of fair rules. I firmly disagree with the notion that because cheating can be hard to detect there should be no rules; that is like saying that many murders are unsolved so let's legalize murder. Without laws, society would descend into barbarism and without rules sports would have no meaning. Cheating is hard to detect and it is a sad reality that some cheaters will prosper but having rules in place backed by effective enforcement means that many cheaters will be caught and many potential cheaters will be dissuaded by the possibility of being caught.
I also think that the records/statistics of convicted cheaters should be marked in some way by a literal or symbolic asterisk. We don't know when Sharapova started cheating or if this is the only kind of cheating she has done, so to my mind all of her records and statistics are suspect. I think that honors that are awarded by vote should be stripped away from cheaters and given to the non-cheater who received the most votes. For instance, if a baseball player is suspended for PED use at any time in his career then if he won an MVP that MVP should be given to the next player in the voting. Maybe that sounds draconian but I think that it would be a more powerful deterrent to cheating than just about anything else.
In an individual sport like tennis or some track and field events, trophies/medals should be stripped from cheaters.
Team sports are more complicated. While individual honors can and should be taken away as stipulated above, if one player on the 45 man roster of a Super Bowl champion is caught using PEDs, it does not seem fair to punish the whole team; that player should receive a lengthy suspension and a stiff financial penalty. However, if a certain percentage of players from a championship team were found guilty of cheating, I think that it might be reasonable to strip that team of a championship.
The NCAA has "vacated" wins and championships achieved by schools that cheated, which in essence means imposing collective punishment on the innocent and guilty alike.
Harsh penalties are the best way to encourage internal policing within an organization. If an NFL player sees his teammate cheating but knows that the cheating might help the team win and will not have a negative impact on his career then he may look the other way--but if that player knows that widespread cheating could lead to collective punishment then he will be more likely to speak up.
Despite all of the evidence that the NFL has not presented, Brady's name has been dragged through the mud, his team has been penalized $1 million plus multiple draft picks and it is possible that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will ultimately reinstate Brady's four game suspension that was sensibly thrown out by a U.S. District Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals seems to be much more interested in Brady's destruction of an old cell phone--which is not the "crime" for which Brady was punished--than in whether or not NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had the authority to discipline Brady in the manner and to the extent that he did.
Anyone who cheats in the NFL (or anywhere else) should be punished (see the final section of this article)--but the NFL cannot prove that Brady cheated and cannot demonstrate that he gained any advantage even if he did what he was alleged to have done. At most, the NFL should have resolved this matter by fining the Patriots a token amount and by tightening up the procedures governing how the footballs are maintained prior to and during the games, because that is the larger issue: if the officials had done their job properly, the alleged deflation could not have taken place.
The whole fake controversy takes attention away from the concussion issue, though. Do you think that is a coincidence? What would the NFL rather talk about, footballs being deflated or NFL players suffering brain damage from routine plays?
*********************
Depending on how you look at it, Peyton Manning either retired on a high note or he left town just before the posse arrived. Manning's body failed him during the final several games of his career and he captured his second Super Bowl title as a Trent Dilfer-like caretaker for a moribund offense that was carried to victory by one of the greatest defenses of all-time (no offense meant to Dilfer, who was a solid quarterback but will not be remembered in quite the same way as Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks like Bradshaw, Montana and Brady). Leaving as a champion is obviously the best way to go and few great athletes have the opportunity to do so--and even fewer take advantage of that opportunity, for the lure of one more ring (or piles of more cash) can be hard to resist. Michael Jordan had the perfect ending, nailing the game/championship-clinching jumper versus Utah in 1998, but then he came back to limp around as a Washington Wizard and provide glimpses of what he used to be. Jordan's comeback was a testament to his mental and physical fortitude but it was hardly a storybook ending.
Manning leaves the NFL as a role player on a championship team but as memories fade beneath the magnitude of his career numbers the perception will be that he left on top, even if the reality is that if he stuck around for another season there is likely not one team that would employ his as a starting quarterback.
Manning retired before giving NFL teams a chance to say, "Thanks for the memories and don't let the door hit you on the way to the broadcast booth/front office."
There is also the matter of the dark clouds swirling around Manning, clouds that could have become more publicized if he kept playing but now will likely be ignored.
The first dark cloud is the accusation that Manning used the performance-enhancing drug (PED) human growth hormone (HGH), receiving the banned substance in his wife Ashley's name in an attempt to avoid detection. While the media provided wall to wall, 24-7 coverage of the alleged deflated football scandal as soon as word about it became public--and the media continues to breathlessly report about this story from every conceivable angle--Manning's friends in the media made sure that scarcely anything was mentioned about HGH during Denver's Super Bowl run. Did Manning use HGH? No one, least of all "protector of the NFL shield" Roger Goodell, seems particularly interested to find out. No one is paying Ted Wells millions of dollars to get to the bottom of this issue, that's for sure.
The second dark cloud dates back two decades to when he was a star quarterback for the University of Tennessee. At that time, Manning either (1) sexually harassed the female team trainer, (2) acted in a juvenile manner by mooning a teammate or (3) did something somewhere in between (1) and (2). We likely will never know what really happened, because while Manning's denials and snide verbal attacks against his accuser are not quite convincing his accuser comes across in some accounts as perhaps not the best person to be carrying the torch for Title IX enforcement.
All we know for sure is that an injustice has occurred that will never be quite made right: either Manning has gotten away largely unscathed with sexually harassing someone who had no power to effectively confront the team's star player or Manning's name is being tarnished by someone over an immature act that was stupid but not unforgivable.
The media and the public have largely sided with Manning all along. Manning ran some early morning laps as punishment by the school and he later paid an undisclosed settlement to his accuser but he has hardly been significantly damaged by the situation. Manning admits to at least acting immaturely at the time, so the gracious thing for him to do at this point when the subject is raised would be to say something like this (in his own words and with his trademark Southern drawl): "I regret the way I acted on that day. It was foolish and childish and not the way that I was raised. I learned from that incident and have not acted that way again. I am sorry about the pain and embarrassment my actions caused to all parties concerned." Manning would not be in legal or public relations jeopardy after making such a statement.
If Manning had truly done nothing and was a victim of a completely false accusation, then I could understand him being angry and defiant and refusing to apologize--but he has admitted that he did something that was at least inappropriate and the gracious thing to do would be to apologize to that extent as opposed to making unfunny jokes about the situation or quips at his accuser's expense.
In other words, rise above the fray and be the bigger person in the situation. During my law school studies, one thing that I have learned about negotiated settlements of litigation is that many times a matter can resolved by a simple apology; one party feels as if his or her feelings/personhood have been attacked/demeaned and that party simply wants the offending party to acknowledge this.
*********************
How many PED cheaters or "recreational" drug abusers just admit to their wrongdoing after being caught red-handed? I don't have any hard and fast numbers on the subject but my subjective impression/recollection is that it is very rare for an athlete to just say something like, "Yeah, you caught me. I did it and I was wrong. I need help for my problem, I am going to get that help and I am going to return after my suspension as a better person and athlete." Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones come to mind as athletes who literally issued bold faced lies when they were first accused of being cheaters.
The most recent elite level athlete to be caught using a banned substance is five-time Grand Slam tennis champion Maria Sharapova. Sharapova tested positive for a banned substance that, frankly, I had never heard of before (meldonium); apparently, meldonium can enhance performance by increasing stamina and endurance, two qualities that would be rather useful for a professional tennis player.
Watching sports is fun because you see competitors on a level playing field pushing themselves mentally, physically and emotionally to be the best within a framework of fair rules. I firmly disagree with the notion that because cheating can be hard to detect there should be no rules; that is like saying that many murders are unsolved so let's legalize murder. Without laws, society would descend into barbarism and without rules sports would have no meaning. Cheating is hard to detect and it is a sad reality that some cheaters will prosper but having rules in place backed by effective enforcement means that many cheaters will be caught and many potential cheaters will be dissuaded by the possibility of being caught.
I also think that the records/statistics of convicted cheaters should be marked in some way by a literal or symbolic asterisk. We don't know when Sharapova started cheating or if this is the only kind of cheating she has done, so to my mind all of her records and statistics are suspect. I think that honors that are awarded by vote should be stripped away from cheaters and given to the non-cheater who received the most votes. For instance, if a baseball player is suspended for PED use at any time in his career then if he won an MVP that MVP should be given to the next player in the voting. Maybe that sounds draconian but I think that it would be a more powerful deterrent to cheating than just about anything else.
In an individual sport like tennis or some track and field events, trophies/medals should be stripped from cheaters.
Team sports are more complicated. While individual honors can and should be taken away as stipulated above, if one player on the 45 man roster of a Super Bowl champion is caught using PEDs, it does not seem fair to punish the whole team; that player should receive a lengthy suspension and a stiff financial penalty. However, if a certain percentage of players from a championship team were found guilty of cheating, I think that it might be reasonable to strip that team of a championship.
The NCAA has "vacated" wins and championships achieved by schools that cheated, which in essence means imposing collective punishment on the innocent and guilty alike.
Harsh penalties are the best way to encourage internal policing within an organization. If an NFL player sees his teammate cheating but knows that the cheating might help the team win and will not have a negative impact on his career then he may look the other way--but if that player knows that widespread cheating could lead to collective punishment then he will be more likely to speak up.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Pete Rose Does not Belong Back in Baseball but He Belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame
Pete Rose broke Major League Baseball's fundamental rule about gambling on the sport and he lied about breaking that rule. He deserved to receive a harsh punishment and he has received a harsh punishment: Rose accepted a lifetime ban in 1989. That ban came with a proviso enabling Rose to apply to the MLB Commissioner for reinstatement after one year but now that Rob Manfred has become the third consecutive MLB Commissioner to reject Rose's application for reinstatement it appears that Rose's lifetime ban will most likely never be lifted.
It is understandable why MLB refuses to let Rose have an active role in the sport as an executive, field manager or instructor. Rose continues to bet on sports--including baseball--and even though Rose now apparently does his gambling legally he has failed to "reconfigure his life," which was the standard imposed upon him in order to be reinstated. If Rose were not a compulsive gambler and/or a very stubborn/defiant person then he would have stopped gambling completely and stopped associating himself with casinos. Rose's complaint that this is the only way he can support himself after being banned from baseball does not hold water; Rose remains an immensely popular figure who does not need to be involved with gambling in order to support himself.
If Rose were permitted to work in baseball this would not only reduce the deterrence value of the lifetime ban but it would also potentially create huge problems; Rose clearly cannot stop gambling and if he has access to insider knowledge about baseball players and teams then the possibilities for fixing games (or simply having an unfair advantage as a wagerer) are huge. That is not to say that Rose ever fixed a game or that he would fix a game now but it is understandable that MLB does not want to take such a risk with a compulsive gambler who is also a serial liar.
Rose would have a lot to offer to the sport if he had not chosen this life path but he has to suffer the natural consequences of his mistakes. Rose's exile from the sport he loves is tragic but it is a self-imposed tragedy and it is a tragedy that he could have mitigated over the past few decades if he had made some sincere efforts to "reconfigure his life." Rose reminds me of an alcoholic who says "I can stop drinking whenever I want" but refuses to stop drinking even if the alcohol consumption could harm the alcoholic and/or others. Rose needs intensive therapy/treatment to control his gambling addiction and he has never sought out that help; that is his prerogative and if all of his gambling activities now are legal then no one has the legal authority to stop him but MLB provided Rose with a standard for reinstatement--life reconfiguration--and Rose has failed to meet that standard.
However, Rose's eligibility for Hall of Fame induction should be restored. When Rose agreed to accept the lifetime ban with the possibility of applying for reinstatement, he did not forfeit his eligibility for Baseball Hall of Fame induction. Rose became ineligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame on February 4, 1991, when the Baseball Hall of Fame passed a rule prohibiting anyone who is on MLB's permanently ineligible list from being inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Rose is the only living person on the permanently ineligible list, which means that the rule was passed purely to exclude him (it may theoretically exclude other people in the future but he is the only living person affected by the rule now). Without this new rule, Rose would have appeared on the Baseball Writers Association of America Hall of Fame ballot from 1992-2006. The writers could have studied the evidence at their leisure and made their own determination about whether or not Rose belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Clearly, based on the merits of his skills and accomplishments, Rose would be a first ballot Hall of Famer. A case could be made that based on character he should be excluded--but the writers should at least have been given the opportunity to pass judgment and to consider that judgment over a 15 year period (assuming that Rose did not make it in immediately).
The Veterans Committee examines the Hall of Fame candidacies of any eligible candidate for the Baseball Hall of Fame who is not selected after being on the BBWAA ballot but in 2008 the Veterans Committee passed a rule barring anyone from the permanently ineligible list from being considered for Hall of Fame induction. Again, this is a rule that primarily if not exclusively affects Rose.
I understand the argument that Rose's character flaws should keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I have made it clear that MLB's PED cheaters should not be inducted in the Hall of Fame because they have defiled MLB's record book. What Rose did is terrible and the way that he denied his conduct for years before begrudgingly making some admissions says a lot about Rose's character but the difference between Rose and the PED cheaters is that there is no evidence that Rose's gambling impacted the quality of his play or defiled the sport's record book. Rose should be placed on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and if he is voted in then his plaque should not only list his pertinent accomplishments but also state that in 1989 he was placed on the permanently ineligible list because he bet on baseball. Unless or until there is evidence that Rose's playing career/statistics are tainted by his gambling Rose deserves at least the opportunity to be selected as a Baseball Hall of Famer. The lifetime ban from the sport shields MLB from any damage that Rose's compulsive gambling could cause now and punishes him in a way that will hopefully deter others from making the mistakes that he did.
It is understandable why MLB refuses to let Rose have an active role in the sport as an executive, field manager or instructor. Rose continues to bet on sports--including baseball--and even though Rose now apparently does his gambling legally he has failed to "reconfigure his life," which was the standard imposed upon him in order to be reinstated. If Rose were not a compulsive gambler and/or a very stubborn/defiant person then he would have stopped gambling completely and stopped associating himself with casinos. Rose's complaint that this is the only way he can support himself after being banned from baseball does not hold water; Rose remains an immensely popular figure who does not need to be involved with gambling in order to support himself.
If Rose were permitted to work in baseball this would not only reduce the deterrence value of the lifetime ban but it would also potentially create huge problems; Rose clearly cannot stop gambling and if he has access to insider knowledge about baseball players and teams then the possibilities for fixing games (or simply having an unfair advantage as a wagerer) are huge. That is not to say that Rose ever fixed a game or that he would fix a game now but it is understandable that MLB does not want to take such a risk with a compulsive gambler who is also a serial liar.
Rose would have a lot to offer to the sport if he had not chosen this life path but he has to suffer the natural consequences of his mistakes. Rose's exile from the sport he loves is tragic but it is a self-imposed tragedy and it is a tragedy that he could have mitigated over the past few decades if he had made some sincere efforts to "reconfigure his life." Rose reminds me of an alcoholic who says "I can stop drinking whenever I want" but refuses to stop drinking even if the alcohol consumption could harm the alcoholic and/or others. Rose needs intensive therapy/treatment to control his gambling addiction and he has never sought out that help; that is his prerogative and if all of his gambling activities now are legal then no one has the legal authority to stop him but MLB provided Rose with a standard for reinstatement--life reconfiguration--and Rose has failed to meet that standard.
However, Rose's eligibility for Hall of Fame induction should be restored. When Rose agreed to accept the lifetime ban with the possibility of applying for reinstatement, he did not forfeit his eligibility for Baseball Hall of Fame induction. Rose became ineligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame on February 4, 1991, when the Baseball Hall of Fame passed a rule prohibiting anyone who is on MLB's permanently ineligible list from being inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Rose is the only living person on the permanently ineligible list, which means that the rule was passed purely to exclude him (it may theoretically exclude other people in the future but he is the only living person affected by the rule now). Without this new rule, Rose would have appeared on the Baseball Writers Association of America Hall of Fame ballot from 1992-2006. The writers could have studied the evidence at their leisure and made their own determination about whether or not Rose belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Clearly, based on the merits of his skills and accomplishments, Rose would be a first ballot Hall of Famer. A case could be made that based on character he should be excluded--but the writers should at least have been given the opportunity to pass judgment and to consider that judgment over a 15 year period (assuming that Rose did not make it in immediately).
The Veterans Committee examines the Hall of Fame candidacies of any eligible candidate for the Baseball Hall of Fame who is not selected after being on the BBWAA ballot but in 2008 the Veterans Committee passed a rule barring anyone from the permanently ineligible list from being considered for Hall of Fame induction. Again, this is a rule that primarily if not exclusively affects Rose.
I understand the argument that Rose's character flaws should keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I have made it clear that MLB's PED cheaters should not be inducted in the Hall of Fame because they have defiled MLB's record book. What Rose did is terrible and the way that he denied his conduct for years before begrudgingly making some admissions says a lot about Rose's character but the difference between Rose and the PED cheaters is that there is no evidence that Rose's gambling impacted the quality of his play or defiled the sport's record book. Rose should be placed on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and if he is voted in then his plaque should not only list his pertinent accomplishments but also state that in 1989 he was placed on the permanently ineligible list because he bet on baseball. Unless or until there is evidence that Rose's playing career/statistics are tainted by his gambling Rose deserves at least the opportunity to be selected as a Baseball Hall of Famer. The lifetime ban from the sport shields MLB from any damage that Rose's compulsive gambling could cause now and punishes him in a way that will hopefully deter others from making the mistakes that he did.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Professional Tennis is Plagued by Match Fixing
In The Secret World of Tennis Match Gambling, Tomas Rios details rampant match fixing in the professional ranks. Rios explains why corruption is so pervasive in professional tennis:
Tennis is perfectly suited--in every way--for match fixing.
Tennis is the third-most bet upon sport in the world and, between the ATP and the Women's Tennis Association, there are 126 tournaments making up this year's tour. The sheer volume of betting and matches makes spotting suspicious activity virtually impossible in all but the most obvious and reckless cases.
Then there's the sport's inherent vulnerability to "spot fixing." European sportsbooks allow bettors to wager on not just matches, but sets, games, and even individual points. A corrupt player could easily throw a handful of points over the course of a match and not even the keenest observer would be able to spot it.
Of course, a player needs motivation to go corrupt. Tennis does a fine job of making sure players have the best motivation of all.
The "motivation" is that it costs well over $100,000 to play on the ATP or WTA tours when one includes travel costs and the cost of a full-time coach. While the top-10 players make more than $1,000,000 per year and thus have much less incentive to cheat, most tennis professionals can make more money--and guaranteed money at that--by fixing matches than they can make by trying to win prizes honestly.
A 2014 study by Ryan Rodenberg and Elihu Feustel titled "Forensic Sports Analytics: Detecting and Predicting Match-Fixing in Tennis" used betting market analysis and predictive tennis models to determine that it was likely that at least one percent of first round tennis matches over a span of more than two years were fixed. That works out to an average of 23 matches per year--and that does not include the sets, games and points that may have been thrown in "spot fixing" scams.
Rios cites a specific match from 2007 pitting the fourth ranked player in the world versus a player who barely cracked the top 100. The wagering on that match reached a fever pitch--10 times the average--and the match ended with the fourth ranked player conceding the match after claiming that he was injured. The ATP investigated the situation for over a year but could not prove any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, within the tennis community it is widely believed that the match was fixed--and that type of corruption casts a pall on the entire sport.
Tennis is perfectly suited--in every way--for match fixing.
Tennis is the third-most bet upon sport in the world and, between the ATP and the Women's Tennis Association, there are 126 tournaments making up this year's tour. The sheer volume of betting and matches makes spotting suspicious activity virtually impossible in all but the most obvious and reckless cases.
Then there's the sport's inherent vulnerability to "spot fixing." European sportsbooks allow bettors to wager on not just matches, but sets, games, and even individual points. A corrupt player could easily throw a handful of points over the course of a match and not even the keenest observer would be able to spot it.
Of course, a player needs motivation to go corrupt. Tennis does a fine job of making sure players have the best motivation of all.
The "motivation" is that it costs well over $100,000 to play on the ATP or WTA tours when one includes travel costs and the cost of a full-time coach. While the top-10 players make more than $1,000,000 per year and thus have much less incentive to cheat, most tennis professionals can make more money--and guaranteed money at that--by fixing matches than they can make by trying to win prizes honestly.
A 2014 study by Ryan Rodenberg and Elihu Feustel titled "Forensic Sports Analytics: Detecting and Predicting Match-Fixing in Tennis" used betting market analysis and predictive tennis models to determine that it was likely that at least one percent of first round tennis matches over a span of more than two years were fixed. That works out to an average of 23 matches per year--and that does not include the sets, games and points that may have been thrown in "spot fixing" scams.
Rios cites a specific match from 2007 pitting the fourth ranked player in the world versus a player who barely cracked the top 100. The wagering on that match reached a fever pitch--10 times the average--and the match ended with the fourth ranked player conceding the match after claiming that he was injured. The ATP investigated the situation for over a year but could not prove any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, within the tennis community it is widely believed that the match was fixed--and that type of corruption casts a pall on the entire sport.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Emory Tate Will Long Be Remembered For Slashing Attacks and Spirited Conversation
I was shocked and saddened to find out this morning that International Master Emory Tate passed away yesterday while participating in a California chess tournament. Tate was originally from Indiana and he was a fixture on the Midwest chess scene for many years, winning six Indiana state championships in addition to claiming five Armed Forces championships and a host of other tournament wins. Tate did not receive the International Master title until he was almost 50, a testament to his hard work and persistence.
Of course, for years before Tate became an IM he was a threat to anyone he faced, even a former World Championship Candidate like Grandmaster Leonid Yudasin, who was the eighth ranked player in the world in January 1991. No article about Tate is complete without including this brilliant and beautiful game from the 1997 U.S. Masters:
FM Emory Tate vs. GM Leonid Yudasin
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 Nbd7 8. Qe2 Nc5 9. g4 b5 10. g5 Nfd7 11. Bd5 Bb7 12. Bxb7 Nxb7 13. a4 bxa4 14. Rxa4 Nbc5 15. Ra3 Qb6 16. O-O Be7 17. Kh1 O-O 18. b4 Na4 19. Nf5 exf5 20. Nd5 Qd8 21. exf5 Re8 22. Qh5 Nab6 23. Rh3 Nf8 24. f6 Nxd5 25. fxg7 Kxg7 26. Bb2+ Kg8 27. g6 Bf6 28. gxf7+ Kh8 29. Rg1 Re1 30. Rxe1 Bxb2 31. Re8 Nf6 32. Rxd8 Rxd8 33. Qh6 Ne4 34. Qh4 Nf6 35. Rg3 N8d7 36. Qh6 1-0
Tate justifiably loved to show that game to anyone who was interested. I personally watched Tate rattle off those moves from memory on several occasions. His descriptions of the lines he analyzed during the game were mesmerizing and entertaining. It is important to note that when Tate showed the game it did not feel like he was showing off; Tate loved chess, loved to talk about chess, loved to analyze chess and that passion shined through when he discussed this game, so what an observer experienced was Tate's joy and the wonders of chess, as opposed to someone bragging about beating a top GM.
I faced Tate six times in over the board play from 1997-2008, scoring two draws and four losses. In the first round of the Oberlin (Ohio) Open on 4/29/2000, I missed a chance to defeat Tate (who candidly admitted after the game that he had stood worse) and he finished the game in his typical style:
David Friedman (2096) vs. Emory Tate (2443)
1. Nf3 Nc6 2. g3 e5 3. d3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg4 5. Nbd2 f5 6. c4 d4!? (6... e4) 7. Qa4 Qd7 8. Qb5 Bd6? (8... e4 is a better try, but White has a clear advantage after 9. Ne5) 9. a3!? (9. c5 Bf8 10. Qxb7 is winning for White.) 9... Nf6!? (9... Rb8 is more prudent but definitely not in keeping with Tate's style.) 10. Qxb7!? (I could not resist the bait. White is better after 10. c5 Be7 11. Qxb7. The point is that e5 is not adequately defended. White is winning after ... Rb8? [11... O-O is Black's best try, leading to a White advantage after 12. Qb3+ Kh8 13. Ng5+=] 12. Nxe5 Rxb7 13. Bxc6 Qxc6 14. Nxc6+-) 10... Rb8 Black has a lot of play for the sacrificed pawn. 11. Qa6 O-O? (11... e4 is more in keeping with Tate's style.) 12. c5!? (12. Ng5) 12... Be7 13. Ng5 Nd5 14. Qc4 Rbd8 15. Qxd5+ Qxd5 16. Bxd5+ Rxd5 17. Ne6!? (17. Nc4) 17... Rc8=+ 18. h3 Bh5 19. g4 fxg4 20. hxg4? (20. Ne4 is a better try.) 20... Bf7-+ The Ne6 is trapped. Black is winning. (20... Bxg4? 21. Nxg7 Kxg7 22.Rg1 h5 23. f3=) 21. Nxc7 (21. Nxg7 is a better try.) 21... Rxc7 22. b4 a5 23. b5 Nd8 24. a4 Rdxc5 25. Ba3 Rc3 26. Bxe7?? A blunder in a lost position. Rc1+ 0-1
Shortly after I played this game, my friend NM Mark Kalafatas told me, "There are NO better tactical players in the country than Emory Tate. He has a genuine and very rare gift in that regard and has beaten most of the best players in the country at one time or another. I think he is the Earnie Shavers of chess...He (Shavers) gave Ali a good fight and was a terribly powerful puncher that could knock out anyone with a single blow."
Tate loved to talk about a variety of subjects and he was willing and eager to analyze chess games with anyone at any time, regardless of a person's rating or status. I enjoyed the time that I spent with him at various tournaments over the years and regret that I will never again have the opportunity to watch him analyze his win against Yudasin.
IM Emory Tate will be long remembered and dearly missed by anyone who was fortunate enough to cross his path.
Of course, for years before Tate became an IM he was a threat to anyone he faced, even a former World Championship Candidate like Grandmaster Leonid Yudasin, who was the eighth ranked player in the world in January 1991. No article about Tate is complete without including this brilliant and beautiful game from the 1997 U.S. Masters:
FM Emory Tate vs. GM Leonid Yudasin
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 Nbd7 8. Qe2 Nc5 9. g4 b5 10. g5 Nfd7 11. Bd5 Bb7 12. Bxb7 Nxb7 13. a4 bxa4 14. Rxa4 Nbc5 15. Ra3 Qb6 16. O-O Be7 17. Kh1 O-O 18. b4 Na4 19. Nf5 exf5 20. Nd5 Qd8 21. exf5 Re8 22. Qh5 Nab6 23. Rh3 Nf8 24. f6 Nxd5 25. fxg7 Kxg7 26. Bb2+ Kg8 27. g6 Bf6 28. gxf7+ Kh8 29. Rg1 Re1 30. Rxe1 Bxb2 31. Re8 Nf6 32. Rxd8 Rxd8 33. Qh6 Ne4 34. Qh4 Nf6 35. Rg3 N8d7 36. Qh6 1-0
Tate justifiably loved to show that game to anyone who was interested. I personally watched Tate rattle off those moves from memory on several occasions. His descriptions of the lines he analyzed during the game were mesmerizing and entertaining. It is important to note that when Tate showed the game it did not feel like he was showing off; Tate loved chess, loved to talk about chess, loved to analyze chess and that passion shined through when he discussed this game, so what an observer experienced was Tate's joy and the wonders of chess, as opposed to someone bragging about beating a top GM.
I faced Tate six times in over the board play from 1997-2008, scoring two draws and four losses. In the first round of the Oberlin (Ohio) Open on 4/29/2000, I missed a chance to defeat Tate (who candidly admitted after the game that he had stood worse) and he finished the game in his typical style:
David Friedman (2096) vs. Emory Tate (2443)
1. Nf3 Nc6 2. g3 e5 3. d3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg4 5. Nbd2 f5 6. c4 d4!? (6... e4) 7. Qa4 Qd7 8. Qb5 Bd6? (8... e4 is a better try, but White has a clear advantage after 9. Ne5) 9. a3!? (9. c5 Bf8 10. Qxb7 is winning for White.) 9... Nf6!? (9... Rb8 is more prudent but definitely not in keeping with Tate's style.) 10. Qxb7!? (I could not resist the bait. White is better after 10. c5 Be7 11. Qxb7. The point is that e5 is not adequately defended. White is winning after ... Rb8? [11... O-O is Black's best try, leading to a White advantage after 12. Qb3+ Kh8 13. Ng5+=] 12. Nxe5 Rxb7 13. Bxc6 Qxc6 14. Nxc6+-) 10... Rb8 Black has a lot of play for the sacrificed pawn. 11. Qa6 O-O? (11... e4 is more in keeping with Tate's style.) 12. c5!? (12. Ng5) 12... Be7 13. Ng5 Nd5 14. Qc4 Rbd8 15. Qxd5+ Qxd5 16. Bxd5+ Rxd5 17. Ne6!? (17. Nc4) 17... Rc8=+ 18. h3 Bh5 19. g4 fxg4 20. hxg4? (20. Ne4 is a better try.) 20... Bf7-+ The Ne6 is trapped. Black is winning. (20... Bxg4? 21. Nxg7 Kxg7 22.Rg1 h5 23. f3=) 21. Nxc7 (21. Nxg7 is a better try.) 21... Rxc7 22. b4 a5 23. b5 Nd8 24. a4 Rdxc5 25. Ba3 Rc3 26. Bxe7?? A blunder in a lost position. Rc1+ 0-1
Shortly after I played this game, my friend NM Mark Kalafatas told me, "There are NO better tactical players in the country than Emory Tate. He has a genuine and very rare gift in that regard and has beaten most of the best players in the country at one time or another. I think he is the Earnie Shavers of chess...He (Shavers) gave Ali a good fight and was a terribly powerful puncher that could knock out anyone with a single blow."
Tate loved to talk about a variety of subjects and he was willing and eager to analyze chess games with anyone at any time, regardless of a person's rating or status. I enjoyed the time that I spent with him at various tournaments over the years and regret that I will never again have the opportunity to watch him analyze his win against Yudasin.
IM Emory Tate will be long remembered and dearly missed by anyone who was fortunate enough to cross his path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
