One of the most significant intellectual, cultural and sporting figures of the 20th century passed away over the weekend but unless you regularly peruse chess websites you likely did not hear or read anything about the death of Vasily Smyslov (1921-2010), the seventh official World Chess Champion (1957-58). During his long professional career, Smyslov won several very strong events, including the famous Zurich 1953 Candidates Tournament. That triumph earned him the right to face World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik in a 24 game match. Smyslov battled Botvinnik to a 12-12 tie, but by rule Botvinnik retained the title. Smyslov then won the Amsterdam 1956 Candidates Tournament and this time he defeated Botvinnik 12.5-9.5. Smyslov had to outduel the world's top players in grueling competition prior to facing Botvinnik but the rules of the time allowed Botvinnik the right to ask for an automatic rematch within a year of losing the crown. Botvinnik exercised that option and beat Smyslov 12.5-10.5. Thus, in three head to head matches Smyslov outscored Botvinnik 35-34 but because of the rematch clause Botvinnik reigned for a total of 13 years between 1948 and 1963 while Smyslov only enjoyed one year as the World Champion (in the next championship cycle after his third match versus Smyslov, Botvinnik lost to Mikhail Tal only to immediately regain the title in a rematch but Botvinnik retired from World Championship play after he lost to Tigran Petrosian in 1963 when the rematch clause was no longer in effect).
Smyslov never again contested a World Championship match but he qualified for the Candidates round three more times. In 1982, Smyslov became the oldest player to ever advance that far but his championship drive was halted by young phenom Garry Kasparov, who went on to become the youngest World Chess Champion ever.
Smyslov earned a record total of 17 medals (including team and individual honors) in Chess Olympiad play, winning 69 games, drawing 42 and losing only twice. Smyslov was a stalwart member of the Soviet team in the European Team Championships, winning individual and team gold medals in each of his five appearances in that prestigious event, tallying 19 wins, 15 draws and just one loss. In 1991, Smyslov won the first ever World Senior Chess Championship (open to players who are at least 60 years old). He retired from tournament play 10 years later due to failing eyesight.
Smyslov made extensive contributions to chess theory; his innovations are seen in the English, Grunfeld, Ruy Lopez and Sicilian openings and his book Rook Endings (co-authored with Grigory Levenfish) is considered by many to be the definitive work on that subject. Smyslov was an endgame maestro and his virtuosity in that highly technical aspect of the game reflects his overall chess philosophy, admiringly described by Vladimir Kramnik, the World Chess Champion from 2000-07:
He is truth in chess! Smyslov plays correctly, truthfully and has a natural style. By the way, why do you think he lacks that aura of mystique like Tal or Capablanca? Because Smyslov is not an actor in chess, his play is neither artistic nor fascinating. But I am fond of his style. I would recommend a study of Smyslov’s games to children who want to know how to play chess because he plays the game how it should be played: his style is the closest to some sort of ‘virtual truth’ in chess. He always tried to make the strongest move in each position. He has surpassed many other of the World Champions in the number of strongest moves made. As a professional, this skill impresses me. I know that spectators are more interested in flaws...ups and downs. But from the professional standpoint, Smyslov has been underestimated.
I disagree with Kramnik's contention that Smyslov's play was not "artistic"--it would be more precise to say that Smyslov's play was not as "flamboyant" or "risky" as Tal's--but Jeff Sonas' rating calculations confirm Kramnik's impression that Smyslov "has been underestimated." According to Sonas, despite the fact that Smyslov only enjoyed a brief official reign at the top Smyslov was actually the strongest player in the world for the vast majority of the period extending from November 1953 through September 1958 and Smyslov achieved the sixth best 20 year peak rating ever. Boris Spassky, the ninth World Chess Champion, called Smyslov "one of the great chess geniuses of the 20th century."
Smyslov was also an accomplished baritone singer who once wrote (in Smyslov's 125 Selected Games), "My study of chess was accompanied by a strong attraction to music, and it was probably thanks to this that from childhood I became accustomed to thinking of chess as an art, and have never regarded it as anything else, for all the science and sport involved in it. And, moreover, an art which in some ways is closer to music than it is customary to think. Perhaps chess and music are drawn together by laws of harmony and beauty which are difficult to formulate and difficult to grasp, or perhaps by something else." In that same book, Smyslov declared:
In music I am an admirer of the classics, especially vocal. I love classical opera and classical romance. In such music I see and feel the striving of the composer to express his idea in a single, unique form. Strict beauty and harmony, spontaneity and elegance, the faultless intuition of the artist, the absolute mastery of technique and therefore complete independence from it--this is my ideal. In chess I am also a staunch supporter of classical clarity of thought. The content of a game should be a search for truth and a victory should be a demonstration of its rightness. No fantasy, however rich, no technique, however masterly, no penetration into the psychology of the opponent, however deep, can make a chess game a work of art, if these qualities do not lead to the main goal--the search for truth. Taken on their own, they merely point to the striking talent of their possessor, and nothing more.
Despite Smyslov's immense talents and his quite significant contributions to art and sport, his passing has largely been ignored by the mainstream media; an internet search of his name reveals that most of the coverage of his death has been limited to websites specifically devoted to chess (the New York Times and The Guardian also published nice tributes).
You can read more about Smyslov here, while this page provides an audio clip that is purportedly a recording of a 60 year old Smyslov singing an old Russian folk song. Here is some archival footage of Smyslov playing the piano, singing and competing against Botvinnik:
World Chess Champion Smyslov 1957
Monday, March 29, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Woods Speaks, World Sits in Judgment
At 11 a.m. on Friday morning, Tiger Woods emerged from his self-imposed seclusion and delivered a prepared statement lasting a little more than 13 minutes. Woods admitted that he cheated on his wife by having several extramarital affairs and he apologized for letting down his family, friends, fans and business partners. Then he hugged his mother, greeted several friends/business associates and went back into seclusion without answering any questions from media members. The widely varying responses to what Woods said and how he said it constitute a veritable Rohrshach test of one's attitudes about a host of issues, including celebrity, morality, the role of the media in modern society and race; depending on your life experiences and your perspectives about those matters, you may think that Woods was contrite and humbled or you may think that he was robotic and fake--but the reality is that no one other than Woods truly knows what is going on in his head and even he may not know to what extent he can/will modify his behavior.
Several things struck me about Woods' remarks. First and foremost, he completely eschewed any form of the typical garbage apology that follows the template "If I offended anyone then I am sorry"; instead, Woods boldly declared:
Good morning, and thank you for joining me. Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me or you've worked with me or you've supported me.
Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each of you, simply and directly, I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.
After apologizing directly to his wife, his friends and his fans, Woods said:
The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.
I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them.
I was wrong. I was foolish.
Regardless of your opinion of Woods, try to objectively consider what he did with those words: he accepted complete responsibility for his actions, stating unequivocally that he was wrong and that no one else is to blame. It is hard to think of another celebrity who has spoken with such clarity in a similar situation; contrast Woods' words with Mark McGwire's whiny excuses ("I wish I had never played during the steroid era") and the similarly disingenuous remarks made by Alex Rodriguez and the rest of MLB's PED cheaters. I am not a connoisseur of celebrity apologies but the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that was as brutally frank as Woods' was Kobe Bryant's statement that he was "furious at myself, disgusted at myself for making a mistake of adultery."
Woods has been criticized for reading a prepared statement instead of speaking from the heart but that is not fair; Woods knew that whatever he said would be seen and heard around the world and literally might be replayed for decades, so it is understandable that he did not want to speak off the cuff. It is obvious that Woods put a lot of thought into what he said and how he said it, so in that sense his words came from an even deeper place in his soul than they might have if he had simply decided to wing it.
There is every indication that Woods wrote the remarks that he delivered and he was quite frank even if he did not satisfy the salacious appetites of those people who lust to know exactly which rumors about Woods are true and which ones are false. When Woods said, "I thought that I could get away with whatever I wanted to" he delivered a very honest explanation of his actions without excusing his conduct.
The second thing that struck me is that Woods neither looks nor sounds like someone who will be playing world class golf any time soon. I had assumed that when Woods reappeared it would be to announce his return to competition and I seriously doubted that he would miss even one of golf's major events--but during his statement golf seemed to be an afterthought at best.
Along the same lines, the third thing that struck me is that we may be witnessing a watershed moment in golf and/or sports history; so far, the Woods story has created a tabloid feeding frenzy that lacked lasting significance--but if Woods misses one or more majors then this story becomes a permanent part of the history of the sport and could loom very large if Woods fails to break Jack Nicklaus' career record of 18 Grand Slam wins.
The fourth thing that struck me is how so many people are trying to make names for themselves at Woods' expense, the most recent example being the so-called body language expert interviewed by ESPN. I will not give her more publicity by mentioning her name but she took the all-time prize for shameless self promotion after an ESPN host asked her what she thought of Woods' statement: she delivered so many plugs for herself and her book that I had almost forgotten the question by the time she got around to trying to answer it. If this had been the Gong Show then someone would have yanked her off the stage.
It is irrelevant whether or not Woods furrowed his brow, cried, tapped his heart or spoke extemporaneously. The bottom line is that he humbled himself literally in front of the whole world by admitting that he violated his marriage vows--and he apologized repeatedly and without any hesitation or excuses. Woods has committed no crime and he certainly does not owe the public a play by play account of his extramarital affairs; just because other people have bared their soul to Oprah Winfrey does not mean that Woods is required to do so. He is quite correct that moving forward this is a private matter between he and his wife. Business partners, fans and others are free to respect his refusal to supply more details or to choose to not deal with him/not root for him--but they are not "owed" more than an apology and a sincere effort by Woods to conduct himself better in the future. It is possible to live a long, healthy and productive life without knowing exactly who Woods slept with and when he slept with them.
Woods spoke the truth early in his statement when he acknowledged that ultimately he will not be judged by his words but rather by "my behavior over time." In this reality TV age, everyone wants to instantly decide if Woods' statement was a "par," a "birdie" or a "bogey" but that kind of thinking is facile, juvenile and ignorant. All that can be honestly said is that Woods made a good step by issuing an unequivocal apology combined with a pledge to be a better man and that only time will tell if his future actions live up to his lofty words.
Several things struck me about Woods' remarks. First and foremost, he completely eschewed any form of the typical garbage apology that follows the template "If I offended anyone then I am sorry"; instead, Woods boldly declared:
Good morning, and thank you for joining me. Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me or you've worked with me or you've supported me.
Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each of you, simply and directly, I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.
After apologizing directly to his wife, his friends and his fans, Woods said:
The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.
I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them.
I was wrong. I was foolish.
Regardless of your opinion of Woods, try to objectively consider what he did with those words: he accepted complete responsibility for his actions, stating unequivocally that he was wrong and that no one else is to blame. It is hard to think of another celebrity who has spoken with such clarity in a similar situation; contrast Woods' words with Mark McGwire's whiny excuses ("I wish I had never played during the steroid era") and the similarly disingenuous remarks made by Alex Rodriguez and the rest of MLB's PED cheaters. I am not a connoisseur of celebrity apologies but the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that was as brutally frank as Woods' was Kobe Bryant's statement that he was "furious at myself, disgusted at myself for making a mistake of adultery."
Woods has been criticized for reading a prepared statement instead of speaking from the heart but that is not fair; Woods knew that whatever he said would be seen and heard around the world and literally might be replayed for decades, so it is understandable that he did not want to speak off the cuff. It is obvious that Woods put a lot of thought into what he said and how he said it, so in that sense his words came from an even deeper place in his soul than they might have if he had simply decided to wing it.
There is every indication that Woods wrote the remarks that he delivered and he was quite frank even if he did not satisfy the salacious appetites of those people who lust to know exactly which rumors about Woods are true and which ones are false. When Woods said, "I thought that I could get away with whatever I wanted to" he delivered a very honest explanation of his actions without excusing his conduct.
The second thing that struck me is that Woods neither looks nor sounds like someone who will be playing world class golf any time soon. I had assumed that when Woods reappeared it would be to announce his return to competition and I seriously doubted that he would miss even one of golf's major events--but during his statement golf seemed to be an afterthought at best.
Along the same lines, the third thing that struck me is that we may be witnessing a watershed moment in golf and/or sports history; so far, the Woods story has created a tabloid feeding frenzy that lacked lasting significance--but if Woods misses one or more majors then this story becomes a permanent part of the history of the sport and could loom very large if Woods fails to break Jack Nicklaus' career record of 18 Grand Slam wins.
The fourth thing that struck me is how so many people are trying to make names for themselves at Woods' expense, the most recent example being the so-called body language expert interviewed by ESPN. I will not give her more publicity by mentioning her name but she took the all-time prize for shameless self promotion after an ESPN host asked her what she thought of Woods' statement: she delivered so many plugs for herself and her book that I had almost forgotten the question by the time she got around to trying to answer it. If this had been the Gong Show then someone would have yanked her off the stage.
It is irrelevant whether or not Woods furrowed his brow, cried, tapped his heart or spoke extemporaneously. The bottom line is that he humbled himself literally in front of the whole world by admitting that he violated his marriage vows--and he apologized repeatedly and without any hesitation or excuses. Woods has committed no crime and he certainly does not owe the public a play by play account of his extramarital affairs; just because other people have bared their soul to Oprah Winfrey does not mean that Woods is required to do so. He is quite correct that moving forward this is a private matter between he and his wife. Business partners, fans and others are free to respect his refusal to supply more details or to choose to not deal with him/not root for him--but they are not "owed" more than an apology and a sincere effort by Woods to conduct himself better in the future. It is possible to live a long, healthy and productive life without knowing exactly who Woods slept with and when he slept with them.
Woods spoke the truth early in his statement when he acknowledged that ultimately he will not be judged by his words but rather by "my behavior over time." In this reality TV age, everyone wants to instantly decide if Woods' statement was a "par," a "birdie" or a "bogey" but that kind of thinking is facile, juvenile and ignorant. All that can be honestly said is that Woods made a good step by issuing an unequivocal apology combined with a pledge to be a better man and that only time will tell if his future actions live up to his lofty words.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Manning's Late Interception Clinches Saints' First Super Bowl Win
Indianapolis Colts' quarterback Peyton Manning just won his record fourth regular season AP MVP award but in the most important game of the year he took a back seat to New Orleans' Saints quarterback Drew Brees, who tied a Super Bowl record with 32 completions en route to leading the Saints to a 31-17 victory. Brees posted an astounding 82.1 completion percentage, compiling 288 yards and two touchdowns with no interceptions on 39 attempts, which adds up to a 114.5 passer rating; in contrast, although Manning had more yards than Brees (333 yards on 31 completions in 45 attempts for an 88.5 passer rating) he only had one touchdown pass and he threw the "pick six" that will be remembered as the game's defining moment: the Saints were clinging to a 24-17 lead when Tracy Porter nabbed Manning's pass to Reggie Wayne and raced 74 yards to put the Saints up by two touchdowns with 3:12 remaining. Porter also picked off Minnesota's Brett Favre near the end of regulation in the NFC Championship Game, enabling the Saints to eventually triumph in overtime.
The final score does not accurately convey the reality that this was one of the most competitive and closely contested Super Bowls ever; if not for Manning's costly error, the game likely would have been decided in the final seconds or perhaps even required the first overtime in Super Bowl history. Super Bowl MVP Brees and his Saints deserve credit for their poise, efficiency and courage. Coach Sean Payton made several bold play calls, most notably eschewing a short field goal attempt to try to score a touchdown on fourth and goal late in the first half (the Saints did not score but they stopped the Colts and managed to kick a field goal just before halftime) and then successfully employing an onside kick on the opening kickoff of the second half, the first such "surprise" onside kick (i.e., one done prior to the fourth quarter) in Super Bowl history. New England Coach Bill Belichick was widely criticized about his failed fourth down gamble versus the Colts in a regular season game but in retrospect it seems that Belichick was simply ahead of the curve (as usual): great coaches like Belichick and Payton understand that against Manning's Colts it is important to (1) score touchdowns and (2) keep the ball out of Manning's hands as much as possible, even if this involves "risky" ploys such as going for it on fourth down and/or utilizing an onside kick.
Manning's record-setting regular season career statistics and his MVP performance in Indianapolis' 29-17 victory over the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI establish him as one of the top 10 quarterbacks in NFL history--but, much as I don't understand the rush to crown Roger Federer as the greatest tennis player ever (a subject that I am still debating with several people in the comments section of this 2009 BEST post), I don't understand the apparent rush to crown Manning as the greatest NFL quarterback ever; even if the Colts had won this Super Bowl I don't think that Manning would have merited that title and the Colts' loss--with Manning's interception playing a pivotal role in the final outcome--simply highlights the fact that despite all of Manning's regular season glory he has not been an exceptional postseason quarterback: Manning owns a mediocre 9-9 career playoff record with 28 touchdowns and 19 interceptions. Manning is 2-1 in the AFC Championship Game (five touchdowns, five interceptions) and 1-1 in the Super Bowl (two touchdowns, two interceptions). On six different occasions, Manning's Colts have lost their first playoff game, including years in which the Colts were 13-3 (1999), 14-2 (2005), 13-3 (2007) and 12-4 (2008).
In 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Manning made only token appearances in the final regular season game because the Colts were locked into their playoff seed. I have always found it offensive that the Colts used those final regular season games to set regular season milestones for certain players and preserve Manning's consecutive games played streak before essentially throwing those games (yes, I know that the Colts went 2-3 in those games but their attitude was that the result didn't matter at all, which is philosophically equivalent to throwing the games) even though the outcomes could potentially affect playoff seeding for other teams; their actions made a mockery of the league's competitive balance and the full prices charged for tickets to such games. If the most important thing is to win the Super Bowl then why risk having Manning play even one down or why force feed the ball to certain receivers so that they can attain personal single season goals? Manning and/or his receivers could certainly be injured during such plays.
The Colts started this season 14-0 before clinching home field advantage throughout the AFC Playoffs and deciding to curtail the playing time of several starters in the final two regular season games. I find it very interesting that their own fans lustily booed in response to this and that one fan displayed a sign that said "16-0 Matters to Us," a response to the Colts' statement that a perfect regular season record is meaningless; like that fan, I think that it is disgraceful to treat the regular season with such disdain and I much prefer the way that the 2007 New England Patriots marched to an unprecedented 16-0 record and the way that the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls raced to an NBA record 72 wins in 82 games (yes, the rigors of the NFL season differ from those of an NBA season but the principle is the same: greatness is something meaningful and worth pursuing).
Furthermore, it is bizarre that the Colts act as if throwing these games is part of some supposedly tried and true method to improve their chances to achieve their ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl, because the reality is that Manning's only Super Bowl victory came after a season in which the Colts had to play every regular season game full tilt due to their position in the standings. The Colts not only have never won a Super Bowl after resting Manning in the final regular season game but three of the five times that they did this they lost their very first playoff game! I can't prove that resting Manning caused the Colts to lose those playoff games or that it had anything to do with their Super Bowl loss this year but it is certainly fair to say that resting Manning has not helped the Colts because they have yet to win a single Super Bowl after doing so.
One of the most interesting spectacles about this postseason was watching various media members who seemingly could not decide whether they should anoint Favre or Manning as the greatest quarterback ever. Both quarterbacks would likely be on the consensus list of the top 10 quarterbacks ever but if I had to select one of those 10 quarterbacks to win a playoff game or a Super Bowl with my life on the line I would not choose Favre or Manning. Favre went 1-1 in the Super Bowl (five touchdowns, one interception) and 13-11 in postseason play overall (44 touchdowns, 30 interceptions). He is just 4-8 in his last 12 playoff games and the last two times he reached the NFC Championship Game he threw an interception on his team's final offensive possession. If the executioner's sword is dangling over my head then I don't want my life depending on the result of Favre rolling out, chucking the ball as hard as he can and hoping for the best; that may be exciting to watch, it may result in setting a lot of regular season records but it does not produce many championships.
In contrast, Joe Montana went 4-0 in the Super Bowl (11 touchdowns, 0 interceptions) and 16-7 in postseason play overall (45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions); Tom Brady is 3-1 in the Super Bowl (seven touchdowns, one interception) and 14-4 in postseason play overall (28 touchdowns, 15 interceptions). Objectively speaking, it is not possible to realistically compare the statistics of pre-1979 quarterbacks with those of post-1979 quarterbacks due to the drastic rules changes that transformed the NFL into a pass-oriented league but any discussion about the greatest quarterback ever must include Johnny Unitas and Otto Graham. Unitas led the Baltimore Colts to two NFL championships in the 1950s followed by a third NFL title in 1968 (the Colts then famously lost to the AFL Champion New York Jets in Super Bowl III); he also threw the Colts' only touchdown in their Super Bowl IV win over Dallas. Graham led the Browns to the league championship game in each of his 10 pro seasons, winning four AAFC titles and three NFL championships.
Whatever reasonable standard one uses, I simply don't see how anyone can state with confidence that Favre or Manning is a greater quarterback than Graham, Unitas, Montana or Brady. For that matter, Roger Staubach led the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl wins and had the highest regular season career passer rating in NFL history before 1979, while strong-armed Terry Bradshaw may not have been the most efficient regular season passer but he went 4-0 in the Super Bowl while posting a 112.8 passer rating (the third best career Super Bowl passer rating behind Montana's eye-popping 127.8 and Jim Plunkett's 122.8, which Plunkett earned while leading the Raiders to a pair of Super Bowl wins). Furthermore, if you want to talk about "pure" passing ability then Sonny Jurgenson and Dan Marino have to be included in the discussion even though Jurgenson never won an NFL title as a starter and Marino lost to Montana in his only Super Bowl appearance.
Instead of even attempting to communicate some of the information listed above as historical context for a discussion about who might be the greatest quarterback ever we are subjected to pregame shows that insist that one more Super Bowl win would cement Favre or Manning's place as the greatest quarterback ever followed by postgame shows that try to absolve Favre or Manning of responsibility for their team's respective losses even though both players literally threw away their team's chances to win. Favre is still lauded for being a courageous gunslinger--but when a 40 year old quarterback is that talented and that durable but has only won one championship despite having several golden opportunities it is worth wondering if it is noble or foolish that he has gone from being a dark haired gunslinger to being a gray haired gunslinger without ever changing his ways. Similarly, Manning is rightfully praised for his intelligence and his ability to outsmart opposing defenses yet he has been much less successful demonstrating those traits in the postseason than he has in the regular season.
Apparently, Favre and Manning are so well-liked that many people cannot be objective about how to rank them historically in the quarterback pantheon. This is very similar to the glaring flaws that I have observed about how NBA players and teams are compared. Two of my greatest passions about sports are analyzing how/why games are won and lost and critiquing the poor research techniques, idiotic questions, ludicrous biases and substandard writing skills displayed by far too many members of the media. For instance, ESPN's NFL Countdown show is entertaining and often informative but the panel's biases can be jarringly distracting: why does NFL Countdown treat Marvin Harrison--who quite possibly shot a man to death in broad daylight--and Ray Lewis--who was charged with obstruction of justice in an unsolved double murder for which he was initially the prime suspect--as model citizens with impeccable character while simultaneously demonizing Terrell Owens, whose only "crime" is flamboyance, a trait that is considered harmless or even entertaining when displayed by other players? Why is Favre portrayed as some kind of folk hero even though he repeatedly feuds with coaches/management, makes reckless plays in crucial moments and flouts the importance of practice? Allen Iverson is forever dogged by one out of context quote pertaining to practice--Iverson was not questioning the importance of practice but rather asking why a whole press conference was being devoted to the subject--but Favre gets a free pass for annually acting as if he should be above having to attend training camp.
One thing that we can all be grateful about is that no matter how much the media spins things the media is powerless to change the actual results: despite all of the overblown hype, Manning is still a .500 postseason quarterback with one Super Bowl win and Favre apparently has ended two separate retirements with interceptions in the NFC Championship Game. Manning and Favre are two of the greatest quarterbacks ever and they both deserve praise for their remarkable combination of durability and productivity--but that does not mean that the media should portray them as flawless demigods.
The final score does not accurately convey the reality that this was one of the most competitive and closely contested Super Bowls ever; if not for Manning's costly error, the game likely would have been decided in the final seconds or perhaps even required the first overtime in Super Bowl history. Super Bowl MVP Brees and his Saints deserve credit for their poise, efficiency and courage. Coach Sean Payton made several bold play calls, most notably eschewing a short field goal attempt to try to score a touchdown on fourth and goal late in the first half (the Saints did not score but they stopped the Colts and managed to kick a field goal just before halftime) and then successfully employing an onside kick on the opening kickoff of the second half, the first such "surprise" onside kick (i.e., one done prior to the fourth quarter) in Super Bowl history. New England Coach Bill Belichick was widely criticized about his failed fourth down gamble versus the Colts in a regular season game but in retrospect it seems that Belichick was simply ahead of the curve (as usual): great coaches like Belichick and Payton understand that against Manning's Colts it is important to (1) score touchdowns and (2) keep the ball out of Manning's hands as much as possible, even if this involves "risky" ploys such as going for it on fourth down and/or utilizing an onside kick.
Manning's record-setting regular season career statistics and his MVP performance in Indianapolis' 29-17 victory over the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI establish him as one of the top 10 quarterbacks in NFL history--but, much as I don't understand the rush to crown Roger Federer as the greatest tennis player ever (a subject that I am still debating with several people in the comments section of this 2009 BEST post), I don't understand the apparent rush to crown Manning as the greatest NFL quarterback ever; even if the Colts had won this Super Bowl I don't think that Manning would have merited that title and the Colts' loss--with Manning's interception playing a pivotal role in the final outcome--simply highlights the fact that despite all of Manning's regular season glory he has not been an exceptional postseason quarterback: Manning owns a mediocre 9-9 career playoff record with 28 touchdowns and 19 interceptions. Manning is 2-1 in the AFC Championship Game (five touchdowns, five interceptions) and 1-1 in the Super Bowl (two touchdowns, two interceptions). On six different occasions, Manning's Colts have lost their first playoff game, including years in which the Colts were 13-3 (1999), 14-2 (2005), 13-3 (2007) and 12-4 (2008).
In 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Manning made only token appearances in the final regular season game because the Colts were locked into their playoff seed. I have always found it offensive that the Colts used those final regular season games to set regular season milestones for certain players and preserve Manning's consecutive games played streak before essentially throwing those games (yes, I know that the Colts went 2-3 in those games but their attitude was that the result didn't matter at all, which is philosophically equivalent to throwing the games) even though the outcomes could potentially affect playoff seeding for other teams; their actions made a mockery of the league's competitive balance and the full prices charged for tickets to such games. If the most important thing is to win the Super Bowl then why risk having Manning play even one down or why force feed the ball to certain receivers so that they can attain personal single season goals? Manning and/or his receivers could certainly be injured during such plays.
The Colts started this season 14-0 before clinching home field advantage throughout the AFC Playoffs and deciding to curtail the playing time of several starters in the final two regular season games. I find it very interesting that their own fans lustily booed in response to this and that one fan displayed a sign that said "16-0 Matters to Us," a response to the Colts' statement that a perfect regular season record is meaningless; like that fan, I think that it is disgraceful to treat the regular season with such disdain and I much prefer the way that the 2007 New England Patriots marched to an unprecedented 16-0 record and the way that the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls raced to an NBA record 72 wins in 82 games (yes, the rigors of the NFL season differ from those of an NBA season but the principle is the same: greatness is something meaningful and worth pursuing).
Furthermore, it is bizarre that the Colts act as if throwing these games is part of some supposedly tried and true method to improve their chances to achieve their ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl, because the reality is that Manning's only Super Bowl victory came after a season in which the Colts had to play every regular season game full tilt due to their position in the standings. The Colts not only have never won a Super Bowl after resting Manning in the final regular season game but three of the five times that they did this they lost their very first playoff game! I can't prove that resting Manning caused the Colts to lose those playoff games or that it had anything to do with their Super Bowl loss this year but it is certainly fair to say that resting Manning has not helped the Colts because they have yet to win a single Super Bowl after doing so.
One of the most interesting spectacles about this postseason was watching various media members who seemingly could not decide whether they should anoint Favre or Manning as the greatest quarterback ever. Both quarterbacks would likely be on the consensus list of the top 10 quarterbacks ever but if I had to select one of those 10 quarterbacks to win a playoff game or a Super Bowl with my life on the line I would not choose Favre or Manning. Favre went 1-1 in the Super Bowl (five touchdowns, one interception) and 13-11 in postseason play overall (44 touchdowns, 30 interceptions). He is just 4-8 in his last 12 playoff games and the last two times he reached the NFC Championship Game he threw an interception on his team's final offensive possession. If the executioner's sword is dangling over my head then I don't want my life depending on the result of Favre rolling out, chucking the ball as hard as he can and hoping for the best; that may be exciting to watch, it may result in setting a lot of regular season records but it does not produce many championships.
In contrast, Joe Montana went 4-0 in the Super Bowl (11 touchdowns, 0 interceptions) and 16-7 in postseason play overall (45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions); Tom Brady is 3-1 in the Super Bowl (seven touchdowns, one interception) and 14-4 in postseason play overall (28 touchdowns, 15 interceptions). Objectively speaking, it is not possible to realistically compare the statistics of pre-1979 quarterbacks with those of post-1979 quarterbacks due to the drastic rules changes that transformed the NFL into a pass-oriented league but any discussion about the greatest quarterback ever must include Johnny Unitas and Otto Graham. Unitas led the Baltimore Colts to two NFL championships in the 1950s followed by a third NFL title in 1968 (the Colts then famously lost to the AFL Champion New York Jets in Super Bowl III); he also threw the Colts' only touchdown in their Super Bowl IV win over Dallas. Graham led the Browns to the league championship game in each of his 10 pro seasons, winning four AAFC titles and three NFL championships.
Whatever reasonable standard one uses, I simply don't see how anyone can state with confidence that Favre or Manning is a greater quarterback than Graham, Unitas, Montana or Brady. For that matter, Roger Staubach led the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl wins and had the highest regular season career passer rating in NFL history before 1979, while strong-armed Terry Bradshaw may not have been the most efficient regular season passer but he went 4-0 in the Super Bowl while posting a 112.8 passer rating (the third best career Super Bowl passer rating behind Montana's eye-popping 127.8 and Jim Plunkett's 122.8, which Plunkett earned while leading the Raiders to a pair of Super Bowl wins). Furthermore, if you want to talk about "pure" passing ability then Sonny Jurgenson and Dan Marino have to be included in the discussion even though Jurgenson never won an NFL title as a starter and Marino lost to Montana in his only Super Bowl appearance.
Instead of even attempting to communicate some of the information listed above as historical context for a discussion about who might be the greatest quarterback ever we are subjected to pregame shows that insist that one more Super Bowl win would cement Favre or Manning's place as the greatest quarterback ever followed by postgame shows that try to absolve Favre or Manning of responsibility for their team's respective losses even though both players literally threw away their team's chances to win. Favre is still lauded for being a courageous gunslinger--but when a 40 year old quarterback is that talented and that durable but has only won one championship despite having several golden opportunities it is worth wondering if it is noble or foolish that he has gone from being a dark haired gunslinger to being a gray haired gunslinger without ever changing his ways. Similarly, Manning is rightfully praised for his intelligence and his ability to outsmart opposing defenses yet he has been much less successful demonstrating those traits in the postseason than he has in the regular season.
Apparently, Favre and Manning are so well-liked that many people cannot be objective about how to rank them historically in the quarterback pantheon. This is very similar to the glaring flaws that I have observed about how NBA players and teams are compared. Two of my greatest passions about sports are analyzing how/why games are won and lost and critiquing the poor research techniques, idiotic questions, ludicrous biases and substandard writing skills displayed by far too many members of the media. For instance, ESPN's NFL Countdown show is entertaining and often informative but the panel's biases can be jarringly distracting: why does NFL Countdown treat Marvin Harrison--who quite possibly shot a man to death in broad daylight--and Ray Lewis--who was charged with obstruction of justice in an unsolved double murder for which he was initially the prime suspect--as model citizens with impeccable character while simultaneously demonizing Terrell Owens, whose only "crime" is flamboyance, a trait that is considered harmless or even entertaining when displayed by other players? Why is Favre portrayed as some kind of folk hero even though he repeatedly feuds with coaches/management, makes reckless plays in crucial moments and flouts the importance of practice? Allen Iverson is forever dogged by one out of context quote pertaining to practice--Iverson was not questioning the importance of practice but rather asking why a whole press conference was being devoted to the subject--but Favre gets a free pass for annually acting as if he should be above having to attend training camp.
One thing that we can all be grateful about is that no matter how much the media spins things the media is powerless to change the actual results: despite all of the overblown hype, Manning is still a .500 postseason quarterback with one Super Bowl win and Favre apparently has ended two separate retirements with interceptions in the NFC Championship Game. Manning and Favre are two of the greatest quarterbacks ever and they both deserve praise for their remarkable combination of durability and productivity--but that does not mean that the media should portray them as flawless demigods.
Monday, January 11, 2010
McGwire's Admission Reaffirms How Fraudulent MLB's Record Book is
Mark McGwire has now admitted what just about everyone else already figured out several years ago: he used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Initial reactions to McGwire's statement have run the gamut: PTI's Tony Kornheiser absurdly suggested that MLB should grant "amnesty" to PED users who issue apologies; ESPN.com's Rob Neyer attempted to justify McGwire's actions by saying that if he (Neyer) would have needed to take illegal drugs to save his writing career then he would have done it; Vincent Thomas--previously best known for asking what another media room denizen called a "crackhead question" during last year's NBA playoffs--repeatedly declared on Rome is Burning that McGwire should have saved his revelation for a book in order to "get paid." In other words, while McGwire used drugs to enhance his physical performance a lot of writers and commentators act like they have taken drugs that are impairing their mental performance. One voice of reason is Sports Illustrated's Lee Jenkins, who correctly concludes that McGwire "was not a victim of the steroid era, as his statement implies. He was the most obvious creation of it."
I have extensively covered the PED issue (check out the Steroids/Performance-Enhancing Drugs section in the right hand sidebar of BEST's main page for a complete archive of my articles about this subject), debunking the ludicrous assertion that steroids don't work and repeatedly stating that PED users should be banned and should have their records vacated. A few months ago in a post titled Revelations About Sosa Show That MLB Must Fumigate the Record Book I wrote:
All of the players who have been caught by the drug testers, outed in the Mitchell Report or otherwise reliably linked to illegal PED use should either be removed from the record book completely--much like the NCAA "vacates" results by programs that cheated--or, at the very least, listed separately under a heading that indicates that their numbers are fraudulent to some degree. If the Players Association or individual players complain, then MLB should invite the aggrieved parties to file a lawsuit and then testify under oath that they are clean; that way, those players will open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. Somehow I doubt that Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and crew will be interested in placing themselves in that kind of jeopardy.
There are two reasons why MLB must act so forcefully:
1) It is important to be fair to the players--past and present--who did not cheat.
2) The two main reasons that the cheaters cheated were to get paid and to establish a place for themselves in history (Sosa just smugly spoke about being elected to the Hall of Fame because of his great numbers); the best message that MLB can send to young baseball players is that cheaters do not prosper and that when they are caught all of their numbers are nullified.
Six of the top 15 players on MLB's career home run list have been linked to PEDs, including leader Barry Bonds and the sixth ranked Sammy Sosa, plus Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez, who are currently tied for eighth-ninth. Those cheaters--plus the 11th ranked Rafael Palmeiro--pushed clean, Hall of Fame sluggers Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt out of the top 10 in the sport's most glamorous statistical category, while cheater Manny Ramirez currently sits just two home runs behind Schmidt and only trails Jackson by 17 home runs. During Monday night's SportsCenter, John Kruk--a three-time All-Star who candidly conceded that he was not an "elite" player--said that the more that comes out about the "Steroid Era" the angrier he becomes. Kruk noted that he and other clean players were essentially playing "naked" while apparently a substantial number of "elite" players benefited from using illegal drugs. Kruk added that he cannot help but wonder what kind of numbers he and other clean players might have put up had the playing field been level. It is worth noting that PED usage not only warped statistics but also had a huge economic impact, because the cheaters reaped tremendous financial gains and the trickle down effect of their profits is that the clean stars earned less than they otherwise would have, the clean above average players who potentially could have been stars lost those opportunities and, clearly, some clean fringe players who might have been just good enough to play in the majors had their dreams completely shattered.
It cannot be emphasized enough that MLB's record book has been completely fraudulent for quite some time. The Olympics and the track and field authorities have responded to their steroid/PED scandals by wiping out the records/honors won by cheaters like Marion Jones and at some point MLB Commissioner Bud Selig--or his successor--must take a similar action.
McGwire's statement is carefully crafted but it is as fraudulent as MLB's record book. McGwire likely composed his remarks with the cooperation and help of MLB authorities in order to cast himself and the sport's decision makers in the best possible light (such as McGwire's assertion, "Baseball is really different now--it's been cleaned up. The commissioner and the players' association implemented testing and they cracked down, and I'm glad they did"). McGwire declares, "I did this for health purposes. There's no way I did this for any type of strength use" and adds "I wish I had never played during the steroid era." The first statement is a lie and the second statement is a cop out. Steroids and HGH--the substances that McGwire has belatedly admitted that he ingested for the better part of a decade during the height of his career, including the 1998 season when he shattered Roger Maris' single-season home run record--help to build strength and thus enhance performance; that is why they are called performance-enhancing drugs--and to assert anything else is about as scientifically valid as saying that the Earth is flat. We all know that superior hand-eye coordination is required to hit major league pitching and that PEDs do not improve those skills--but the point is that if you already possess those skills and then augment that natural talent with unnatural strength your performance (and thus your statistics, particularly in the power categories) will be greatly enhanced.
It is transparently clear why McGwire made his admission now:
1) Next season he will be a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals and if he had not said something prior to the season then he would surely have been bombarded by questions about steroids/PEDs every day. McGwire issued his statement during the height of the NFL playoffs, hoping to minimize the amount of coverage that it gets and hoping that by the time Spring Training rolls around he can declare that this is old news and, reprising his infamous line, that he "does not want to talk about the past." McGwire says that now he is willing to answer questions about his PED use--but let's see just how long this willingness lasts and how forthcoming he really is; look for McGwire to do a handful of teary-eyed interviews with carefully selected media sycophants before he quickly clams up, says that he has nothing to add to his prepared statement and gruffly requests that all he wants to talk about is his future as a hitting coach.
2) Forgiveness is deeply entrenched in American culture, so McGwire has reason to believe that his chances of being elected to the Hall of Fame are better now that he has belatedly admitted the truth; clearly, his vote totals during his first several years of eligibility suggest that without such an admission he had little chance of being inducted, so in this regard he has everything to gain and nothing to lose, as can be seen by the early reactions of Kornheiser and Neyer referenced above.
It appears that Commissioner Selig is eager to welcome McGwire back into an active role in MLB but Selig's warm embrace of the man who cheated his fans and his employers out of tens of millions of dollars, who cheated Maris out of the single season home run record that Maris worked so hard to obtain and whose successful cheating clearly inspired the subsequent cheating by Bonds and others raises several important questions: for starters, when is Selig going to accept Pete Rose's similarly belated apology for betting on baseball? There is no evidence or indication that Rose's gambling had anything to do with his playing career, a stark contrast to how McGwire built his legacy squarely on PED use (while some can argue that Bonds was a Hall of Fame caliber player prior to his PED use, McGwire--by his own admission--used PEDs throughout his career). Furthermore, the only reason that Rose is not in the Hall of Fame now is that the HoF--under great pressure from MLB--made a grossly unfair postfacto decision after MLB suspended Rose that players on the suspended list may not be put on the HoF ballot. How can Selig possibly justify praising McGwire while leaving Rose in limbo? Another question that must be asked is why is MLB in such a rush to canonize McGwire but is making no such apparent efforts regarding Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro and the other black and Latino PED users? Again, let me emphasize that in my opinion every single PED user--white, black, Latino or any other color/ethnicity--should be banned and should have his statistics "vacated." However, if MLB is going to absolve McGwire while ignoring all of the black/Latino PED-using record breakers then MLB certainly seems to be applying a racist double standard (not that this would be the first time MLB would be guilty of doing that).
Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid cheater whose tell-all books revealed just how rampant PED use has been in MLB, despite vigorous denials by Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro and others--is one of the few honest men in Major League Baseball concerning the justly named "Steroid Era." That tells you all you need to know about the state of the sport and about the disastrous reign of Bud Selig, the man who has presided over the destruction of MLB's most cherished legacy, its record book.
I have extensively covered the PED issue (check out the Steroids/Performance-Enhancing Drugs section in the right hand sidebar of BEST's main page for a complete archive of my articles about this subject), debunking the ludicrous assertion that steroids don't work and repeatedly stating that PED users should be banned and should have their records vacated. A few months ago in a post titled Revelations About Sosa Show That MLB Must Fumigate the Record Book I wrote:
All of the players who have been caught by the drug testers, outed in the Mitchell Report or otherwise reliably linked to illegal PED use should either be removed from the record book completely--much like the NCAA "vacates" results by programs that cheated--or, at the very least, listed separately under a heading that indicates that their numbers are fraudulent to some degree. If the Players Association or individual players complain, then MLB should invite the aggrieved parties to file a lawsuit and then testify under oath that they are clean; that way, those players will open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. Somehow I doubt that Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and crew will be interested in placing themselves in that kind of jeopardy.
There are two reasons why MLB must act so forcefully:
1) It is important to be fair to the players--past and present--who did not cheat.
2) The two main reasons that the cheaters cheated were to get paid and to establish a place for themselves in history (Sosa just smugly spoke about being elected to the Hall of Fame because of his great numbers); the best message that MLB can send to young baseball players is that cheaters do not prosper and that when they are caught all of their numbers are nullified.
Six of the top 15 players on MLB's career home run list have been linked to PEDs, including leader Barry Bonds and the sixth ranked Sammy Sosa, plus Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez, who are currently tied for eighth-ninth. Those cheaters--plus the 11th ranked Rafael Palmeiro--pushed clean, Hall of Fame sluggers Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt out of the top 10 in the sport's most glamorous statistical category, while cheater Manny Ramirez currently sits just two home runs behind Schmidt and only trails Jackson by 17 home runs. During Monday night's SportsCenter, John Kruk--a three-time All-Star who candidly conceded that he was not an "elite" player--said that the more that comes out about the "Steroid Era" the angrier he becomes. Kruk noted that he and other clean players were essentially playing "naked" while apparently a substantial number of "elite" players benefited from using illegal drugs. Kruk added that he cannot help but wonder what kind of numbers he and other clean players might have put up had the playing field been level. It is worth noting that PED usage not only warped statistics but also had a huge economic impact, because the cheaters reaped tremendous financial gains and the trickle down effect of their profits is that the clean stars earned less than they otherwise would have, the clean above average players who potentially could have been stars lost those opportunities and, clearly, some clean fringe players who might have been just good enough to play in the majors had their dreams completely shattered.
It cannot be emphasized enough that MLB's record book has been completely fraudulent for quite some time. The Olympics and the track and field authorities have responded to their steroid/PED scandals by wiping out the records/honors won by cheaters like Marion Jones and at some point MLB Commissioner Bud Selig--or his successor--must take a similar action.
McGwire's statement is carefully crafted but it is as fraudulent as MLB's record book. McGwire likely composed his remarks with the cooperation and help of MLB authorities in order to cast himself and the sport's decision makers in the best possible light (such as McGwire's assertion, "Baseball is really different now--it's been cleaned up. The commissioner and the players' association implemented testing and they cracked down, and I'm glad they did"). McGwire declares, "I did this for health purposes. There's no way I did this for any type of strength use" and adds "I wish I had never played during the steroid era." The first statement is a lie and the second statement is a cop out. Steroids and HGH--the substances that McGwire has belatedly admitted that he ingested for the better part of a decade during the height of his career, including the 1998 season when he shattered Roger Maris' single-season home run record--help to build strength and thus enhance performance; that is why they are called performance-enhancing drugs--and to assert anything else is about as scientifically valid as saying that the Earth is flat. We all know that superior hand-eye coordination is required to hit major league pitching and that PEDs do not improve those skills--but the point is that if you already possess those skills and then augment that natural talent with unnatural strength your performance (and thus your statistics, particularly in the power categories) will be greatly enhanced.
It is transparently clear why McGwire made his admission now:
1) Next season he will be a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals and if he had not said something prior to the season then he would surely have been bombarded by questions about steroids/PEDs every day. McGwire issued his statement during the height of the NFL playoffs, hoping to minimize the amount of coverage that it gets and hoping that by the time Spring Training rolls around he can declare that this is old news and, reprising his infamous line, that he "does not want to talk about the past." McGwire says that now he is willing to answer questions about his PED use--but let's see just how long this willingness lasts and how forthcoming he really is; look for McGwire to do a handful of teary-eyed interviews with carefully selected media sycophants before he quickly clams up, says that he has nothing to add to his prepared statement and gruffly requests that all he wants to talk about is his future as a hitting coach.
2) Forgiveness is deeply entrenched in American culture, so McGwire has reason to believe that his chances of being elected to the Hall of Fame are better now that he has belatedly admitted the truth; clearly, his vote totals during his first several years of eligibility suggest that without such an admission he had little chance of being inducted, so in this regard he has everything to gain and nothing to lose, as can be seen by the early reactions of Kornheiser and Neyer referenced above.
It appears that Commissioner Selig is eager to welcome McGwire back into an active role in MLB but Selig's warm embrace of the man who cheated his fans and his employers out of tens of millions of dollars, who cheated Maris out of the single season home run record that Maris worked so hard to obtain and whose successful cheating clearly inspired the subsequent cheating by Bonds and others raises several important questions: for starters, when is Selig going to accept Pete Rose's similarly belated apology for betting on baseball? There is no evidence or indication that Rose's gambling had anything to do with his playing career, a stark contrast to how McGwire built his legacy squarely on PED use (while some can argue that Bonds was a Hall of Fame caliber player prior to his PED use, McGwire--by his own admission--used PEDs throughout his career). Furthermore, the only reason that Rose is not in the Hall of Fame now is that the HoF--under great pressure from MLB--made a grossly unfair postfacto decision after MLB suspended Rose that players on the suspended list may not be put on the HoF ballot. How can Selig possibly justify praising McGwire while leaving Rose in limbo? Another question that must be asked is why is MLB in such a rush to canonize McGwire but is making no such apparent efforts regarding Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro and the other black and Latino PED users? Again, let me emphasize that in my opinion every single PED user--white, black, Latino or any other color/ethnicity--should be banned and should have his statistics "vacated." However, if MLB is going to absolve McGwire while ignoring all of the black/Latino PED-using record breakers then MLB certainly seems to be applying a racist double standard (not that this would be the first time MLB would be guilty of doing that).
Jose Canseco--an admitted steroid cheater whose tell-all books revealed just how rampant PED use has been in MLB, despite vigorous denials by Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro and others--is one of the few honest men in Major League Baseball concerning the justly named "Steroid Era." That tells you all you need to know about the state of the sport and about the disastrous reign of Bud Selig, the man who has presided over the destruction of MLB's most cherished legacy, its record book.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Hawk Finally Swoops Into Cooperstown
Andre Dawson was the ultimate five-tool player and his combination of power, speed, hitting ability, fielding prowess and a strong arm earned him the nickname "The Hawk." Dawson is the only player who received enough votes to be inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame this year but just a glance at his resume shows that he should have glided into Cooperstown a long time ago: 1977 NL Rookie of the Year, eight time All-Star, eight time Gold Glove winner, NL MVP runner-up in 1982 when he led the Montreal Expos to their first and only playoff appearance, 1987 NL MVP in his first season with the Chicago Cubs (the first player from a last place team to win that award), 438 career home runs (36th all-time, ahead of old school Hall of Famers Billy Williams, Duke Snider and Al Kaline) and 1591 career RBI (34th all-time, just four RBI behind Hall of Famers Mike Schmidt and George Brett and seven RBI ahead of Hall of Famers Rogers Hornsby and Harmon Killebrew). Dawson's knees absorbed a terrible pounding during his early years patrolling the AstroTurf outfield for the Expos but despite injuries that robbed him of some of his mobility and caused him great pain he still totaled 314 career stolen bases, joining Willie Mays and Barry Bonds as the only players in MLB history with at least 400 career home runs plus at least 300 career stolen bases.
It is fitting to mention Bonds' name in connection with Dawson's, because it is partially Bonds' fault that Dawson had to wait so long to join the Hall of Fame; when Bonds and the other performance-enhancing drug (PED) using cheaters made a travesty of MLB's record book in the 1990s and 2000s it became easy to overlook the accomplishments of stars from the 1970s and 1980s like Dawson and Dale Murphy (a two-time NL MVP, seven time All-Star and five time Gold Glove winner who still has not been inducted in the Hall of Fame). How could players who "only" totaled 350-450 home runs be elected to the Hall of Fame when players began routinely cranking out 50-plus home run seasons en route to astronomical career totals exceeding 500 home runs? I am not interested in parsing out how many home runs Bonds, Alex Rodriguez or any other cheaters hit when they were clean--all of those guys cheated the game, cheated themselves, cheated the fans and cheated the legitimate Hall of Famers who came before them and I hope that the Hall of Fame voters reject all of them the way that Mark "I'm not here to talk about the past" McGwire has been rejected so far. The Hall should spend the next decade or so inducting every omitted player from the 1970s and 1980s and the few spotless guys from the 1990s like Ken Griffey and Frank Thomas but I hope that I never see Bonds, Rodriguez or Roger Clemens in Cooperstown. How can the Hall exclude Pete Rose as a player for conduct that he did as a manager and then induct players whose actions tainted the sport's history and records?
The sad postscript to Dawson's election to the Hall of Fame is that the honor came three years after his mother passed away--but at least Dawson can be somewhat comforted by the fact that Mattie Brown, like any good mother, never doubted her son's talent or his place in history, telling him "Baby, it's gonna happen. Don't worry about it. Just be patient. You did what you did for a long time. The Hall of Fame, they can prolong your entry but they won't take it away from you."
It is fitting to mention Bonds' name in connection with Dawson's, because it is partially Bonds' fault that Dawson had to wait so long to join the Hall of Fame; when Bonds and the other performance-enhancing drug (PED) using cheaters made a travesty of MLB's record book in the 1990s and 2000s it became easy to overlook the accomplishments of stars from the 1970s and 1980s like Dawson and Dale Murphy (a two-time NL MVP, seven time All-Star and five time Gold Glove winner who still has not been inducted in the Hall of Fame). How could players who "only" totaled 350-450 home runs be elected to the Hall of Fame when players began routinely cranking out 50-plus home run seasons en route to astronomical career totals exceeding 500 home runs? I am not interested in parsing out how many home runs Bonds, Alex Rodriguez or any other cheaters hit when they were clean--all of those guys cheated the game, cheated themselves, cheated the fans and cheated the legitimate Hall of Famers who came before them and I hope that the Hall of Fame voters reject all of them the way that Mark "I'm not here to talk about the past" McGwire has been rejected so far. The Hall should spend the next decade or so inducting every omitted player from the 1970s and 1980s and the few spotless guys from the 1990s like Ken Griffey and Frank Thomas but I hope that I never see Bonds, Rodriguez or Roger Clemens in Cooperstown. How can the Hall exclude Pete Rose as a player for conduct that he did as a manager and then induct players whose actions tainted the sport's history and records?
The sad postscript to Dawson's election to the Hall of Fame is that the honor came three years after his mother passed away--but at least Dawson can be somewhat comforted by the fact that Mattie Brown, like any good mother, never doubted her son's talent or his place in history, telling him "Baby, it's gonna happen. Don't worry about it. Just be patient. You did what you did for a long time. The Hall of Fame, they can prolong your entry but they won't take it away from you."
Keeping Eric Mangini is a Smart Move by Mike Holmgren--Even if it Doesn't Work
When Cleveland Browns owner Randy Lerner briefly emerged from seclusion to hire Mike Holmgren to reverse the franchise's decade-long sagging fortunes, no one could have imagined that the initial step in that process would be to retain first year coach Eric Mangini; the Browns started the season 1-11 and could easily have been 0-12 if the Buffalo Bills had not gift-wrapped a win for the Browns by fumbling in field goal range late in Cleveland's 6-3 week five victory (Cleveland's game-winning "drive" traversed 15 yards in seven plays, culminating in a chip shot 18 yard field goal). Lerner clearly brought Holmgren aboard to do yet another "reboot" of the Browns' malfunctioning operating system after previous attempts to create "49ers East" (with Carmen Policy and Dwight Clark), "Miami Hurricanes North" (with Butch Davis) and "New England Patriots West" (first with Romeo Crennel, then with Mangini) all failed dismally, resulting in just two winning seasons and one playoff berth since the Browns returned to the NFL in 1999. Then, Mangini's Browns--who spent the first three fourths of the 2009 season redefining offensive ineptitude--suddenly discovered a winning formula that involved heavy doses of running back Jerome Harrison, kick returner/wide receiver/"wild cat" formation quarterback Joshua Cribbs and an improving defense: the Browns closed the season with four straight wins, the team's first such streak since Bill Belichick coached the franchise's original incarnation back in 1994 (which is also the last season that the Browns won a playoff game). The Browns' strong finish raised the possibility that Holmgren would not clean house but instead give Mangini the opportunity to continue to coach the team.
Although respected Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Terry Pluto asserts that "the easiest move would have been to fire coach Eric Mangini," a more in depth analysis of the situation proves that the opposite is true: while firing Mangini would have been "the easiest move" to make a month ago, Holmgren would have had little to gain and much to lose by firing Mangini right now. If Holmgren canned Mangini and the Browns started out slowly next season then the heat would be on Holmgren for not giving Mangini a fair chance. Mangini has made an improbable transformation from the coach who fans wanted to run out of town to the coach that many fans feel has earned the right the right to keep his job. The only reasons for Holmgren to get rid of Mangini now are (1) if his long range plans are completely incompatible with Mangini's coaching philosophy and/or (2) if Holmgren has a top notch, proven winner lined up to succeed Mangini.
Regarding the first reason, by keeping Mangini around so soon after Mangini had been a dead man walking, Holmgren has all but assured Mangini's loyalty: if Holmgren offers input--say, about how to handle the quarterback position--and Mangini balks then Holmgren can justify getting rid of Mangini by referring back to what Holmgren said in his introductory press conference, namely that a team can only be successful if the owner, executives, coaches and players are all on the same page. So, Mangini has little choice now but to do things Holmgren's way; the four game winning streak saved Mangini's job but it did not give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do. With noted quarterback guru Holmgren running the franchise the Browns will hopefully enjoy some stability at the quarterback position by either firmly establishing one of the two incumbent signal callers as the definite starter or by acquiring a better player to fill that spot.
As for the second reason to dismiss Mangini, there is no way of knowing whether or not whoever Holmgren may have wanted to bring in to coach the team is even available but coaching the Browns is hardly a dream job at this point for any coach who has established himself as a winner and therefore can pick and choose where he lands.
Then consider that even with that final four game push the Browns still finished dead last in the NFL in net yards gained (4163) and 31st (next to last) in net yards allowed (6229); the Browns gained nearly 2300 fewer yards than the top ranked offensive team did (New Orleans Saints, 6461) and they allowed nearly 2000 yards more than the top ranked defensive team did (New York Jets, 4037). In other words, the Browns must not only find a way to maintain their late season performances in the running game, defense and special teams but they must also upgrade themselves in other areas (most notably the passing game) in order to contend for a playoff spot. If Harrison is not cranking out 100 yard rushing games and/or if the Browns do not placate Cribbs' demands to renegotiate his contract then the team could get off to a miserable start next season. In that case, Holmgren can fire Mangini with no negative repercussions from the media or fan base and Holmgren will have a bit of a grace period to find a new coach and turn the team around.
Of course, if the Browns race out of the gates next season and become the latest team to vault from last place to playoff contention then Holmgren will receive a lot of praise for being flexible and patient and resisting the urge to fire Mangini. I don't know what kind of season the Browns will have in 2010 but whatever they do Holmgren has ensured that he will not face serious scrutiny until at least 2011.
Although respected Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Terry Pluto asserts that "the easiest move would have been to fire coach Eric Mangini," a more in depth analysis of the situation proves that the opposite is true: while firing Mangini would have been "the easiest move" to make a month ago, Holmgren would have had little to gain and much to lose by firing Mangini right now. If Holmgren canned Mangini and the Browns started out slowly next season then the heat would be on Holmgren for not giving Mangini a fair chance. Mangini has made an improbable transformation from the coach who fans wanted to run out of town to the coach that many fans feel has earned the right the right to keep his job. The only reasons for Holmgren to get rid of Mangini now are (1) if his long range plans are completely incompatible with Mangini's coaching philosophy and/or (2) if Holmgren has a top notch, proven winner lined up to succeed Mangini.
Regarding the first reason, by keeping Mangini around so soon after Mangini had been a dead man walking, Holmgren has all but assured Mangini's loyalty: if Holmgren offers input--say, about how to handle the quarterback position--and Mangini balks then Holmgren can justify getting rid of Mangini by referring back to what Holmgren said in his introductory press conference, namely that a team can only be successful if the owner, executives, coaches and players are all on the same page. So, Mangini has little choice now but to do things Holmgren's way; the four game winning streak saved Mangini's job but it did not give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do. With noted quarterback guru Holmgren running the franchise the Browns will hopefully enjoy some stability at the quarterback position by either firmly establishing one of the two incumbent signal callers as the definite starter or by acquiring a better player to fill that spot.
As for the second reason to dismiss Mangini, there is no way of knowing whether or not whoever Holmgren may have wanted to bring in to coach the team is even available but coaching the Browns is hardly a dream job at this point for any coach who has established himself as a winner and therefore can pick and choose where he lands.
Then consider that even with that final four game push the Browns still finished dead last in the NFL in net yards gained (4163) and 31st (next to last) in net yards allowed (6229); the Browns gained nearly 2300 fewer yards than the top ranked offensive team did (New Orleans Saints, 6461) and they allowed nearly 2000 yards more than the top ranked defensive team did (New York Jets, 4037). In other words, the Browns must not only find a way to maintain their late season performances in the running game, defense and special teams but they must also upgrade themselves in other areas (most notably the passing game) in order to contend for a playoff spot. If Harrison is not cranking out 100 yard rushing games and/or if the Browns do not placate Cribbs' demands to renegotiate his contract then the team could get off to a miserable start next season. In that case, Holmgren can fire Mangini with no negative repercussions from the media or fan base and Holmgren will have a bit of a grace period to find a new coach and turn the team around.
Of course, if the Browns race out of the gates next season and become the latest team to vault from last place to playoff contention then Holmgren will receive a lot of praise for being flexible and patient and resisting the urge to fire Mangini. I don't know what kind of season the Browns will have in 2010 but whatever they do Holmgren has ensured that he will not face serious scrutiny until at least 2011.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Jimmy "the Greek's" Take on Legalized Sports Gambling
ESPN's 30 for 30 series of one hour documentaries has covered several interesting subjects, including the rise and fall of the USFL, the Ali-Holmes fight and the death of Len Bias. This week's episode looked at Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder, who starred on CBS' NFL Today pregame show from 1976-87. The NFL Today dominated the airwaves during a pre-internet era in which cable TV was just getting started; the show began several years before ESPN was even created. Brent Musburger--who of course now works for ESPN, primarily covering college football--hosted the NFL Today, former Miss America Phyllis George contributed player interviews, ex-NFL defensive back Irv Cross provided a player's perspective and Jimmy "the Greek" made game predictions, explaining his reasoning with a lengthy toteboard that broke down each matchup in several key categories. The NFL was very touchy about any explicit mention of gambling or point spreads, so Jimmy "the Greek" danced around those issues with thinly veiled euphemisms, saying that he liked one team purely because of home field advantage (customarily worth three points) or concluding that a certain team would probably win because of a late field goal.
Seeing the 30 for 30 footage of NFL Today brought back some fond childhood memories. George recalled that during that time people would race home from church to watch the NFL Today. I certainly remember that the first thing I did after coming home from Sunday School was to turn on the NFL Today. At that time I did not really understand that Jimmy "the Greek's" predictions segment had anything to do with gambling but I was fascinated by the way that he systematically analyzed each team and explained the logical reasons that one team should be favored; I have always watched sports analytically--even as a child--and each week I hoped that he would talk about the Browns, my favorite team. My dad used to complain that we should watch the pregame show on NBC because NBC covered the AFC teams at that time while CBS had the NFC teams but I insisted that we watch the NFL Today: it was more informative and more entertaining. It is pretty clear that I was right on both counts--I sure don't hear anyone speaking nostalgically about NBC's pregame show circa 1978 but the NFL Today is rightly recognized as a classic piece of Americana/sports history.
A lot of the narrative of the 30 for 30 show sounded familiar to me but as a student of sports history I quickly figured out why this is the case: the episode was largely if not entirely based on a great Sports Illustrated article that Frank Deford wrote in 1980 (Deford was interviewed on camera throughout the show but ESPN neglected to mention Deford's article). I have that old SI issue somewhere in my archives but thanks to the SI Vault anyone can find it easily. After watching the show, I reread Deford's article. One passage caught my eye and is particularly relevant today in light of the bill recently passed in Ohio that paved the way for the opening of several casinos; Cleveland Cavaliers' owner Dan Gilbert loudly supported the bill and because of his interest in the future Cleveland casino he figures to become substantially wealthier as a result of this vote. Jimmy "the Greek" is widely credited--or blamed--for taking sports gambling "out of the closet" and making it a mainstream, socially acceptable activity but even in 1980 when he was at the height of his fame and influence (and likely could not have imagined just how mainstream sports gambling would become in the next few years) he had serious misgivings about the potential widespread legalization of sports gambling. Deford wrote:
Yet for all that gambling has done for him, The Greek is suspicious of its universal charm, especially of those entrepreneurs and politicians who tout it as a bounteous cure-all. Widespread legalized gambling is a scourge upon the land, he declares. "Gambling should be made difficult for the average man. It should be something he budgets to do once or twice a year. Vegas was best when it was hardest to reach," he says.
"You see, it isn't the two or three percent, the house edge, that beats you. Otherwise, people would only lose two or three percent, and so what? It's the psychology. A guy goes to a casino. He wins $500, he's ecstatic. He goes home, buys his wife a present, springs for a night out. Fine. Now he goes back. This time he loses $500. O.K., altogether he's even. But does he quit $500 down the way he did $500 up? No. He takes another $500 out of the bank. And now he's pressing, so he blows that and borrows $500. Now he's out $1,500, and this is a guy who only makes 20 to 25 grand a year. He goes home, gets into his wife's checking account.
"This is what happens when gambling is too accessible. Everybody gets hurt but the casino. The guy can't buy the new summer suit or the new shoes for his wife. He lets the tune-up go. The stores are hurt, the restaurant, the gas station. This is the kind of stuff you'll start to see soon at Atlantic City.
"And if they legalized sports betting, the little guy would be just as dead. We'd find a way to beat you. Right now, if we—me, anybody—tried to bet more than $50,000 on any game, we'd have a hard time. And when you only got $50 riding, you can't pay enough to fix a game. Put a pencil to it. But with legalized gambling, there'd be so much money bet you could get down a million or more on one game. So now it's worth it to pay for a fix, isn't it? And that's easy. You don't need the quarterback. Just gimme the center. Gimme the referee. All I'd need is one offside at the right time. You don't even need to get a guy to throw it for you. Suppose we just pay a big star $50,000 to stay home with the flu? Nobody ever thought of that before, did they?"
Jimmy "the Greek" made a fortune not only with his knowledge of sports handicapping but also by wagering on the outcome of political races (he bet thousands on Truman in the 1948 Presidential election even though the "experts" were sure that Dewey would win); in other words, he was not only a numbers whiz but he also understood psychology and knew how to read people. Ohio residents--and the residents of other states that have legalized various forms of gambling--better hope that Jimmy "the Greek's" ominous 1980 prediction does not come back to haunt them 10 or 20 years after Gilbert and his cronies build their casinos; guys like Jimmy "the Greek" can "beat the house" because they are smart and because they do their homework but the reality is that most people who place bets are not that smart and they don't do their homework.
Seeing the 30 for 30 footage of NFL Today brought back some fond childhood memories. George recalled that during that time people would race home from church to watch the NFL Today. I certainly remember that the first thing I did after coming home from Sunday School was to turn on the NFL Today. At that time I did not really understand that Jimmy "the Greek's" predictions segment had anything to do with gambling but I was fascinated by the way that he systematically analyzed each team and explained the logical reasons that one team should be favored; I have always watched sports analytically--even as a child--and each week I hoped that he would talk about the Browns, my favorite team. My dad used to complain that we should watch the pregame show on NBC because NBC covered the AFC teams at that time while CBS had the NFC teams but I insisted that we watch the NFL Today: it was more informative and more entertaining. It is pretty clear that I was right on both counts--I sure don't hear anyone speaking nostalgically about NBC's pregame show circa 1978 but the NFL Today is rightly recognized as a classic piece of Americana/sports history.
A lot of the narrative of the 30 for 30 show sounded familiar to me but as a student of sports history I quickly figured out why this is the case: the episode was largely if not entirely based on a great Sports Illustrated article that Frank Deford wrote in 1980 (Deford was interviewed on camera throughout the show but ESPN neglected to mention Deford's article). I have that old SI issue somewhere in my archives but thanks to the SI Vault anyone can find it easily. After watching the show, I reread Deford's article. One passage caught my eye and is particularly relevant today in light of the bill recently passed in Ohio that paved the way for the opening of several casinos; Cleveland Cavaliers' owner Dan Gilbert loudly supported the bill and because of his interest in the future Cleveland casino he figures to become substantially wealthier as a result of this vote. Jimmy "the Greek" is widely credited--or blamed--for taking sports gambling "out of the closet" and making it a mainstream, socially acceptable activity but even in 1980 when he was at the height of his fame and influence (and likely could not have imagined just how mainstream sports gambling would become in the next few years) he had serious misgivings about the potential widespread legalization of sports gambling. Deford wrote:
Yet for all that gambling has done for him, The Greek is suspicious of its universal charm, especially of those entrepreneurs and politicians who tout it as a bounteous cure-all. Widespread legalized gambling is a scourge upon the land, he declares. "Gambling should be made difficult for the average man. It should be something he budgets to do once or twice a year. Vegas was best when it was hardest to reach," he says.
"You see, it isn't the two or three percent, the house edge, that beats you. Otherwise, people would only lose two or three percent, and so what? It's the psychology. A guy goes to a casino. He wins $500, he's ecstatic. He goes home, buys his wife a present, springs for a night out. Fine. Now he goes back. This time he loses $500. O.K., altogether he's even. But does he quit $500 down the way he did $500 up? No. He takes another $500 out of the bank. And now he's pressing, so he blows that and borrows $500. Now he's out $1,500, and this is a guy who only makes 20 to 25 grand a year. He goes home, gets into his wife's checking account.
"This is what happens when gambling is too accessible. Everybody gets hurt but the casino. The guy can't buy the new summer suit or the new shoes for his wife. He lets the tune-up go. The stores are hurt, the restaurant, the gas station. This is the kind of stuff you'll start to see soon at Atlantic City.
"And if they legalized sports betting, the little guy would be just as dead. We'd find a way to beat you. Right now, if we—me, anybody—tried to bet more than $50,000 on any game, we'd have a hard time. And when you only got $50 riding, you can't pay enough to fix a game. Put a pencil to it. But with legalized gambling, there'd be so much money bet you could get down a million or more on one game. So now it's worth it to pay for a fix, isn't it? And that's easy. You don't need the quarterback. Just gimme the center. Gimme the referee. All I'd need is one offside at the right time. You don't even need to get a guy to throw it for you. Suppose we just pay a big star $50,000 to stay home with the flu? Nobody ever thought of that before, did they?"
Jimmy "the Greek" made a fortune not only with his knowledge of sports handicapping but also by wagering on the outcome of political races (he bet thousands on Truman in the 1948 Presidential election even though the "experts" were sure that Dewey would win); in other words, he was not only a numbers whiz but he also understood psychology and knew how to read people. Ohio residents--and the residents of other states that have legalized various forms of gambling--better hope that Jimmy "the Greek's" ominous 1980 prediction does not come back to haunt them 10 or 20 years after Gilbert and his cronies build their casinos; guys like Jimmy "the Greek" can "beat the house" because they are smart and because they do their homework but the reality is that most people who place bets are not that smart and they don't do their homework.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Raymond Berry Invented the Modern Wide Receiver Position
Long before Larry Fitzgerald began catching passes at their "high point" and long before Jerry Rice ran up and down his famous hill, a slow, relatively unathletic perfectionist named Raymond Berry invented the modern wide receiver position, as Mark Bowden explains in an excerpt from his 2008 book "The Best Game Ever." Berry's meticulous devotion to honing his craft brings to mind the modern studies about how achieving greatness is predicated on putting in at least 10,000 hours of "effortful study". Bowden concludes, "Like those of any pioneer, Raymond's obsessions redefined his field. It just happened that his had goalposts at either end."
Berry did his thousands of hours of lonely work without ever knowing how--or even if--it would pay off. Berry's labors of love enabled a player who had been drafted in the 20th round (!) to catch 12 passes for an NFL Championship Game record 178 yards in Baltimore's 23-17 overtime victory versus the New York Giants in 1958. That game put the NFL on the road to becoming the multibillion dollar business that it has become and is one of the highlights of a career in which Berry caught 631 regular season passes, the NFL's career record in that category until rules changes altered the game and ushered many players past that mark.
Berry did his thousands of hours of lonely work without ever knowing how--or even if--it would pay off. Berry's labors of love enabled a player who had been drafted in the 20th round (!) to catch 12 passes for an NFL Championship Game record 178 yards in Baltimore's 23-17 overtime victory versus the New York Giants in 1958. That game put the NFL on the road to becoming the multibillion dollar business that it has become and is one of the highlights of a career in which Berry caught 631 regular season passes, the NFL's career record in that category until rules changes altered the game and ushered many players past that mark.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wall Street Journal Publishes Another Sloppily Rendered Chess Article
I wrote two detailed critiques of a Wall Street Journal article about the Kasparov-Karpov 25th anniversary match; the Wall Street Journal article not only contained several basic factual errors but also demonstrated that its author had no understanding of chess history and how chess strategy/tactics have evolved over the past 150 years. The Wall Street Journal's most recent attempt to cover chess is equally unsatisfactory: Barbara Jepson's piece titled Abolish Women's Chess Titles inspired a passionate and detailed refutation by GM Alexandra Kosteniuk, the reigning Women's World Chess Champion.
The issue of whether or not FIDE should award separate titles--with significantly lower standards--to women is interesting but the more pertinent matter in this instance is the fraudulent way that Jepson put together her story. Kosteniuk explains (in a comment posted beneath the blog post cited above):
What's upsetting is that the Wall Street journalist, Barbara Jepson, tricked me by telling me that the article she was writing was about "Women's Chess", which made me very happy, as I supposed she would be writing something to support women's chess (not destroy it), that's why I took great care to answer in a positive and honest way (as I always do).
She asked me several questions including if I thought special women's titles should be eliminated. In my answer to her, I wrote very clearly with my reasoning that "Women's titles and tournaments should exist". And then she changed the title of her piece to "Abolish Women's Chess Titles", and used my name in it (I guess to add some authority to it, as if to boast she consulted with the women's world champion about it), only quoting some insignificant point I made to another question about sponsoring, without stating I was against that idea of abolishing women's titles, so that most people thought I agreed with the idea of abolishing women's titles since I was featured in her article and said nothing about the lead question of abolishing titles.
This apparently caused on purpose misunderstanding led me to get several emails from people asking me why I supported abolishing women's titles. This lie started to be posted all over the web and can still be seen on several web sites. I had to immediately respond on my blog and set things right.
Now you, dear reader, please judge for yourself what kind of article that Wall Street Journal was?
Whether or not one agrees with Jepson's premise, it is irresponsible of Jepson to mislead her readers to believe that GM Kosteniuk supports the abolition of separate FIDE titles for women. Sadly, this type of agenda-based "reporting" is all too typical; journalists form a conclusion and then shape their coverage to reflect their biases, as opposed to objectively researching a subject and reporting what they discover. I provided several examples of such tendentious coverage in a post titled How the Media Works--or Doesn't Work.
Another related problem is the media's obsession with "breaking news"; every outlet wants to cover a story first, often at the expense of covering that story accurately: the Washington Post's Dana Milbank declares that because of such haste The News is Broken. The 24 hour news/sports/entertainment channels are contributing to the death of real journalism, because the "beast" must be fed nonstop content 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even if there is nothing true, significant or meaningful to report. Ratings go down--and revenues thus drop--if the networks do not constantly offer up "new" stories, so these channels constantly "break" stories without providing any depth or context. Then they move on to the next "breaking" story without bothering to fix the stories that they literally broke.
The issue of whether or not FIDE should award separate titles--with significantly lower standards--to women is interesting but the more pertinent matter in this instance is the fraudulent way that Jepson put together her story. Kosteniuk explains (in a comment posted beneath the blog post cited above):
What's upsetting is that the Wall Street journalist, Barbara Jepson, tricked me by telling me that the article she was writing was about "Women's Chess", which made me very happy, as I supposed she would be writing something to support women's chess (not destroy it), that's why I took great care to answer in a positive and honest way (as I always do).
She asked me several questions including if I thought special women's titles should be eliminated. In my answer to her, I wrote very clearly with my reasoning that "Women's titles and tournaments should exist". And then she changed the title of her piece to "Abolish Women's Chess Titles", and used my name in it (I guess to add some authority to it, as if to boast she consulted with the women's world champion about it), only quoting some insignificant point I made to another question about sponsoring, without stating I was against that idea of abolishing women's titles, so that most people thought I agreed with the idea of abolishing women's titles since I was featured in her article and said nothing about the lead question of abolishing titles.
This apparently caused on purpose misunderstanding led me to get several emails from people asking me why I supported abolishing women's titles. This lie started to be posted all over the web and can still be seen on several web sites. I had to immediately respond on my blog and set things right.
Now you, dear reader, please judge for yourself what kind of article that Wall Street Journal was?
Whether or not one agrees with Jepson's premise, it is irresponsible of Jepson to mislead her readers to believe that GM Kosteniuk supports the abolition of separate FIDE titles for women. Sadly, this type of agenda-based "reporting" is all too typical; journalists form a conclusion and then shape their coverage to reflect their biases, as opposed to objectively researching a subject and reporting what they discover. I provided several examples of such tendentious coverage in a post titled How the Media Works--or Doesn't Work.
Another related problem is the media's obsession with "breaking news"; every outlet wants to cover a story first, often at the expense of covering that story accurately: the Washington Post's Dana Milbank declares that because of such haste The News is Broken. The 24 hour news/sports/entertainment channels are contributing to the death of real journalism, because the "beast" must be fed nonstop content 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even if there is nothing true, significant or meaningful to report. Ratings go down--and revenues thus drop--if the networks do not constantly offer up "new" stories, so these channels constantly "break" stories without providing any depth or context. Then they move on to the next "breaking" story without bothering to fix the stories that they literally broke.
Friday, October 16, 2009
"If I Have to Integrate Heaven, I Don't Want to Go"
I have authored several pieces that lament the sorry state of the writing business today (my most recent such offering can be found here). Some readers have requested that--in addition to providing on-point critiques of poor writing/editing--I also give examples of excellent writing/editing. The sad truth is that such examples are becoming increasingly hard to find but I agree that such praiseworthy efforts deserve recognition.
The October 12, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated features a powerful, moving and well researched Alexander Wolff article titled The NFL's Jackie Robinson. Wolff tells the story of Kenny Washington, a college teammate of Jackie Robinson who integrated--or, to be precise, re-integrated--the NFL, a league that employed black athletes initially before a shameful 12 year period (1934-46) during which an unwritten--but strictly followed--rule turned the league lily white. Wolff's companion piece at SI.com--Three pioneers deserve to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame--is also a must-read.
Washington only played briefly in the NFL, arriving on the scene past his prime with battle-scarred knees (he had starred for several seasons in the Pacific Coast Professional Football League). Washington's teammate Bob Waterfield--a Hall of Fame quarterback who led the Rams to two NFL titles--eulogized Washington in 1971 by declaring, "If he had come into the NFL directly from UCLA, he would have been, in my opinion, the best the NFL had ever seen."
Washington's UCLA teammate Woody Strode also joined the Rams in 1946. Wolff's article cites a poignant quote from an unpublished interview that Strode did with Sports Illustrated shortly before Strode's death in 1994: "Integrating the NFL was the low point of my life. There was nothing nice about it. History doesn't know who we are. Kenny was one of the greatest backs in the history of the game and kids today have no idea who he is. If I have to integrate heaven, I don't want to go."
The October 12, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated features a powerful, moving and well researched Alexander Wolff article titled The NFL's Jackie Robinson. Wolff tells the story of Kenny Washington, a college teammate of Jackie Robinson who integrated--or, to be precise, re-integrated--the NFL, a league that employed black athletes initially before a shameful 12 year period (1934-46) during which an unwritten--but strictly followed--rule turned the league lily white. Wolff's companion piece at SI.com--Three pioneers deserve to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame--is also a must-read.
Washington only played briefly in the NFL, arriving on the scene past his prime with battle-scarred knees (he had starred for several seasons in the Pacific Coast Professional Football League). Washington's teammate Bob Waterfield--a Hall of Fame quarterback who led the Rams to two NFL titles--eulogized Washington in 1971 by declaring, "If he had come into the NFL directly from UCLA, he would have been, in my opinion, the best the NFL had ever seen."
Washington's UCLA teammate Woody Strode also joined the Rams in 1946. Wolff's article cites a poignant quote from an unpublished interview that Strode did with Sports Illustrated shortly before Strode's death in 1994: "Integrating the NFL was the low point of my life. There was nothing nice about it. History doesn't know who we are. Kenny was one of the greatest backs in the history of the game and kids today have no idea who he is. If I have to integrate heaven, I don't want to go."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Wall Street Journal Attempts to Correct Faulty Chess Article
In a BEST post titled Why Does Chess Not Receive Intelligent Mainstream Media Coverage? I discussed a flawed Wall Street Journal chess article. On September 30, the Wall Street Journal published the following correction notice regarding that article:
Bobby Fischer played the chess opening Alekhine's Defense a number of times prior to his 1972 match with Boris Spassky, and Mr. Fischer opened his sixth game with Mr. Spassky with the move c4. In addition, Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov played their final world-championship chess match in 1990. An article in the Sept. 26 Weekend Journal about a recent match between Messrs. Kasparov and Karpov incorrectly said their last world-championship match was in 1987. The article also incorrectly said that Mr. Fischer had never played the opening Alekhine's Defense before and that he opened his sixth game with Mr. Spassky with the move d4.
The day before the Wall Street Journal published the above note, I received this email from Peter Saenger, the News Editor for the Weekend Journal (Saenger's reply is placed in italics to separate it from the text of this post but is otherwise reprinted exactly as he sent it, including the misspelling of Botvinnik's first name):
Dear Mr. Friedman,
Thanks for your comments. We always appreciate hearing from readers. We will deal with some of the other issues you bring up in a correction to be published soon, but I wanted to point out one thing: When we published the part about Mr. Botvinnik, we hoped it would be clear from the context that we were not saying he was the first world champion ever:
For 4 1/2 decades after World War II, with only one short interruption, the world champion was a citizen of the Soviet Union. / Miikhail Botvinnik was the first champion, in 1948, and to a large extent he established the nature of the modern game.
Again, thanks for your comments, and please don't hesitate to write us again over any issue. Thanking you, I am,
Sincerely, Peter Saenger / News Editor / Weekend Journal
Arguing that "context" clarifies sloppy writing is a poor excuse. Contrary to what author David Szalay implied, Russia's chess tradition predates Lenin and the Soviet Union and includes such great players as Alexander Petrov, Carl Jaenisch, Mikhail Chigorin (challenger for the World Chess Championship in 1889 and 1892), Emmanuel Schiffers and Alexander Alekhine (World Chess Champion, 1927-1935, 1937-46). The 1914 international tournament held in St. Petersburg, Russia is a landmark event in chess history: the top five scorers were World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, future World Champions Jose Raul Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, Siegbert Tarrasch (challenger for the World Chess Championship in 1908) and U.S. Champion Frank Marshall (challenger for the World Chess Championship in 1907). Many sources state that Czar Nicholas II conferred the title "Grandmaster" on those five players as a result of their success at St. Petersburg, though historian Edward Winter is skeptical of those accounts.
Instead of relying on "context," Szalay could have provided his readers with more information by writing: "Alexander Alekhine, heir to a Russian chess tradition dating to the 19th century, defeated Jose Raul Capablanca to become World Champion in 1927, lost the title to Max Euwe in 1935, defeated Euwe in 1937 and retained the crown until his death in 1946. Alekhine, like his predecessors, enjoyed the right to handpick his challenger but after his death FIDE (the International Chess Federation) took over the World Championship and in 1948 held a tournament to crown Alekhine's successor; Soviet star Mikhail Botvinnik won that event and for the next four and a half decades--with one brief exception--the World Chess Champion was a Soviet citizen."
My version is 64 words longer than Szalay's version but my version is written much more clearly and it is historically accurate. The problem with what Szalay wrote is not just that he erroneously called Botvinnik "the first champion" but that he asserted that Botvinnik "to a large extent established the modern nature of the game." Botvinnik certainly made a significant contribution to the evolution of chess but it is wrong to deny or diminish the contributions made by Paul Morphy, Wilhelm Steinitz, Aron Nimzovitch and other great players/theoreticians. Szalay clearly is not an informed student of chess history, nor did he do the necessary homework prior to writing his article and that is why his text is littered not only with the most basic factual errors but also presents a slanted take on the history of the sport.
Neither Saenger's email nor the Wall Street Journal's published correction address Szalay's confusion about the difference between a "match" and a "game"; Szalay bizarrely stated that Kasparov and Karpov drew a "speed chess match" in 1999, when in reality Kasparov beat Karpov three times while ceding only one draw en route to winning a rapid chess event in Frankfurt that year. Szalay oddly neglected to mention that Karpov defeated Kasparov in a four game rapid chess match in 2002.
I don't understand how writers, editors and fact checkers who have access to proper research materials make so many mistakes; switching gears to basketball, it befuddles me when the "crawl" on ESPN calls the legendary Oscar Robertson "Oscar Robinson" or when Chris Berman declares that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar missed game six of the 1980 NBA Finals due to a migraine (Abdul-Jabbar sprained his ankle during game five and that injury kept him out of game six, opening the door for Magic Johnson to author a legendary performance). Granted, anyone can make a mistake but why do so many people/organizations who are purportedly the leaders in their fields make so many basic mistakes? If you don't know a fact or statistic then before you write it or say it, take five minutes to confirm it. Szalay's mistaken references to Bobby Fischer's opening repertoire are easily refuted by consulting any number of sources, including the book Bobby Fischer's Chess Games (Wade and O'Connell, 1972), which contains all of Fischer's tournament and match games prior to his 1972 World Championship Match with Spassky and indexes each of those games by opening variation. Half of Kasparov's final World Championship match with Karpov took place in New York City in 1990, so it is ironic that the New York City-based Wall Street Journal is apparently unaware of a significant event that took place so close to their headquarters--and it is hard to take Szalay seriously as a chess writer if he does not know such recent history.
Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young, who is now perhaps ESPN's best NFL analyst, refers to quarterbacking as a "craft," insisting that quarterbacks should study the game and practice their techniques with the mindset of perfecting their craftsmanship; Young certainly took that approach during his playing career, evolving from a scrambler to become the highest rated passer in NFL history. Writing and editing are also crafts and the practitioners of those crafts should have enough pride in their work that they put forth the effort to know their subject matter and express their ideas clearly.
The Wall Street Journal properly corrected Szalay's basic factual errors but this does not change the reality that Szalay's piece distorts chess history by belittling Russia's great chess tradition, minimizing the greatness of Botvinnik's predecessors and inexplicably contending that during their recent match Kasparov and Karpov reprised "their younger, fiercer, hungrier selves." Szalay's article fails at all levels because he does not know the basics of chess history, he does not appreciate the subtleties of how the sport has evolved and he obviously has no familiarity with the Kasparov-Karpov rivalry past or present.
Bobby Fischer played the chess opening Alekhine's Defense a number of times prior to his 1972 match with Boris Spassky, and Mr. Fischer opened his sixth game with Mr. Spassky with the move c4. In addition, Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov played their final world-championship chess match in 1990. An article in the Sept. 26 Weekend Journal about a recent match between Messrs. Kasparov and Karpov incorrectly said their last world-championship match was in 1987. The article also incorrectly said that Mr. Fischer had never played the opening Alekhine's Defense before and that he opened his sixth game with Mr. Spassky with the move d4.
The day before the Wall Street Journal published the above note, I received this email from Peter Saenger, the News Editor for the Weekend Journal (Saenger's reply is placed in italics to separate it from the text of this post but is otherwise reprinted exactly as he sent it, including the misspelling of Botvinnik's first name):
Dear Mr. Friedman,
Thanks for your comments. We always appreciate hearing from readers. We will deal with some of the other issues you bring up in a correction to be published soon, but I wanted to point out one thing: When we published the part about Mr. Botvinnik, we hoped it would be clear from the context that we were not saying he was the first world champion ever:
For 4 1/2 decades after World War II, with only one short interruption, the world champion was a citizen of the Soviet Union. / Miikhail Botvinnik was the first champion, in 1948, and to a large extent he established the nature of the modern game.
Again, thanks for your comments, and please don't hesitate to write us again over any issue. Thanking you, I am,
Sincerely, Peter Saenger / News Editor / Weekend Journal
Arguing that "context" clarifies sloppy writing is a poor excuse. Contrary to what author David Szalay implied, Russia's chess tradition predates Lenin and the Soviet Union and includes such great players as Alexander Petrov, Carl Jaenisch, Mikhail Chigorin (challenger for the World Chess Championship in 1889 and 1892), Emmanuel Schiffers and Alexander Alekhine (World Chess Champion, 1927-1935, 1937-46). The 1914 international tournament held in St. Petersburg, Russia is a landmark event in chess history: the top five scorers were World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, future World Champions Jose Raul Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, Siegbert Tarrasch (challenger for the World Chess Championship in 1908) and U.S. Champion Frank Marshall (challenger for the World Chess Championship in 1907). Many sources state that Czar Nicholas II conferred the title "Grandmaster" on those five players as a result of their success at St. Petersburg, though historian Edward Winter is skeptical of those accounts.
Instead of relying on "context," Szalay could have provided his readers with more information by writing: "Alexander Alekhine, heir to a Russian chess tradition dating to the 19th century, defeated Jose Raul Capablanca to become World Champion in 1927, lost the title to Max Euwe in 1935, defeated Euwe in 1937 and retained the crown until his death in 1946. Alekhine, like his predecessors, enjoyed the right to handpick his challenger but after his death FIDE (the International Chess Federation) took over the World Championship and in 1948 held a tournament to crown Alekhine's successor; Soviet star Mikhail Botvinnik won that event and for the next four and a half decades--with one brief exception--the World Chess Champion was a Soviet citizen."
My version is 64 words longer than Szalay's version but my version is written much more clearly and it is historically accurate. The problem with what Szalay wrote is not just that he erroneously called Botvinnik "the first champion" but that he asserted that Botvinnik "to a large extent established the modern nature of the game." Botvinnik certainly made a significant contribution to the evolution of chess but it is wrong to deny or diminish the contributions made by Paul Morphy, Wilhelm Steinitz, Aron Nimzovitch and other great players/theoreticians. Szalay clearly is not an informed student of chess history, nor did he do the necessary homework prior to writing his article and that is why his text is littered not only with the most basic factual errors but also presents a slanted take on the history of the sport.
Neither Saenger's email nor the Wall Street Journal's published correction address Szalay's confusion about the difference between a "match" and a "game"; Szalay bizarrely stated that Kasparov and Karpov drew a "speed chess match" in 1999, when in reality Kasparov beat Karpov three times while ceding only one draw en route to winning a rapid chess event in Frankfurt that year. Szalay oddly neglected to mention that Karpov defeated Kasparov in a four game rapid chess match in 2002.
I don't understand how writers, editors and fact checkers who have access to proper research materials make so many mistakes; switching gears to basketball, it befuddles me when the "crawl" on ESPN calls the legendary Oscar Robertson "Oscar Robinson" or when Chris Berman declares that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar missed game six of the 1980 NBA Finals due to a migraine (Abdul-Jabbar sprained his ankle during game five and that injury kept him out of game six, opening the door for Magic Johnson to author a legendary performance). Granted, anyone can make a mistake but why do so many people/organizations who are purportedly the leaders in their fields make so many basic mistakes? If you don't know a fact or statistic then before you write it or say it, take five minutes to confirm it. Szalay's mistaken references to Bobby Fischer's opening repertoire are easily refuted by consulting any number of sources, including the book Bobby Fischer's Chess Games (Wade and O'Connell, 1972), which contains all of Fischer's tournament and match games prior to his 1972 World Championship Match with Spassky and indexes each of those games by opening variation. Half of Kasparov's final World Championship match with Karpov took place in New York City in 1990, so it is ironic that the New York City-based Wall Street Journal is apparently unaware of a significant event that took place so close to their headquarters--and it is hard to take Szalay seriously as a chess writer if he does not know such recent history.
Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young, who is now perhaps ESPN's best NFL analyst, refers to quarterbacking as a "craft," insisting that quarterbacks should study the game and practice their techniques with the mindset of perfecting their craftsmanship; Young certainly took that approach during his playing career, evolving from a scrambler to become the highest rated passer in NFL history. Writing and editing are also crafts and the practitioners of those crafts should have enough pride in their work that they put forth the effort to know their subject matter and express their ideas clearly.
The Wall Street Journal properly corrected Szalay's basic factual errors but this does not change the reality that Szalay's piece distorts chess history by belittling Russia's great chess tradition, minimizing the greatness of Botvinnik's predecessors and inexplicably contending that during their recent match Kasparov and Karpov reprised "their younger, fiercer, hungrier selves." Szalay's article fails at all levels because he does not know the basics of chess history, he does not appreciate the subtleties of how the sport has evolved and he obviously has no familiarity with the Kasparov-Karpov rivalry past or present.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why Does Chess Not Receive Intelligent Mainstream Media Coverage?
Former World Chess Champions Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov recently played a 12 game match in Valencia, Spain to commemorate the 25th anniversary of their first World Championship Match. The 46 year old Kasparov defeated the 58 year old Karpov 9-3, prevailing 3-1 in "rapid" games (25 minutes per player per game, plus a five second increment added after each move) and 6-2 in "blitz" games (five minutes per player per game, plus a two second increment). Kasparov's lopsided victory is hardly surprising considering the age difference between the players and the recent dramatic decline in Karpov's playing strength (he no longer ranks among the world's top 100 players) but it is worth remembering that their five World Championship matches were each tightly contested and yielded a cumulative score of 73-71 in Kasparov's favor. Their 1984-85 marathon match was suspended without conclusion, ostensibly because the players were exhausted after five months of combat; challenger Kasparov vociferously protested this decision because it certainly seemed designed to keep the title in the hands of Karpov, the defending champion who had been fading fast after taking a lead of five wins to none. Karpov led 5-3 when the match ended--with 40 draws (!) not counting because the match format required the winner to win six games--but Kasparov had just won two games in a row. Not surprisingly, that match format was altered when the players began a new match in 1985 and this time Kasparov triumphed 13-11 (five wins, three losses, 16 draws) to become the youngest official World Chess Champion. Kasparov successfully defended his title three times versus Karpov, beating him 12.5-11.5 in a 1986 match (five wins, four losses, 15 draws), drawing a 1987 match 12-12 (four wins apiece, 16 draws) and winning a 1990 match 12.5-11.5 (four wins, three losses, 17 draws).
Chess aficionados eagerly follow the moves played by the game's greatest champions and the internet has made it possible to do so instantaneously (subject to technical difficulties) as opposed to having to wait for the game scores to be published in newspapers, magazines or books; I remember getting together with a group of chess friends in 1990 to "watch"--via an internet connection--the first game of the Kasparov-Karpov match, a big change from previous World Championship Matches when I had to wait until the next day to find the moves in USA TODAY and could only find quality analysis of the games in magazines/books that were not published until weeks (or months) later.
The general public--at least in America--largely ignores what is happening in the chess world unless someone who is a child prodigy and/or has a charismatic personality captures their imagination: Kasparov, Bobby Fischer and Josh Waitzkin (the subject of the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer") are three examples of chess players who achieved a certain degree of "mainstream" fame, though Waitzkin's story is no doubt much more widely known than his actual name. Kasparov is certainly more famous than Viswanathan Anand--the current World Chess Champion--and for that reason the recent Kasparov-Karpov showdown attracted a lot of attention from media outlets that generally provide little or no chess coverage.
I am ranked at approximately the 95th percentile of U.S. chess players and I consider the mano a mano competition in chess to be a welcome contrast to the subjective way that many other fields of endeavor--including writing--operate, so at one level I am happy to see chess receiving mainstream attention but at the same time I also am frustrated that the sport and its history are not presented more accurately. Chess is an ancient game that enjoys world-wide popularity among an incredibly diverse group of people who defy categorization by age, socioeconomic status, gender or race--so why is it so rare for a mainstream American media publication to offer an intelligent portrayal of this sport/art/science?
The September 27-28 edition of the Wall Street Journal includes a lengthy article by David Szalay titled "Old Kings, New Game." Szalay tries to place the Kasparov-Karpov rivalry in historical context but he paints an inaccurate picture of the development of the sport and he is also ignorant of several basic facts. Here is the text of a letter that I sent (via email) to the editors of the Wall Street Journal:
As a U.S. Chess Federation rated expert, I am happy to see chess receive "mainstream" coverage but overall I am disappointed in the rather superficial--and, in some cases, simply inaccurate--article written by David Szalay.
The WSJ article titled "Old Kings, New Game" asserts that Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov "played their final world championship match in 1987." In fact, their final world championship match took place in 1990, with 12 games being held in New York and 12 games being held in Lyon, France. Kasparov won 12.5-11.5 to retain the world championship title.
Also, Szalay describes Mikhail Botvinnik as "the first champion" but that is not correct. As noted below, several world champions preceded Botvinnik--nor was Botvinnik the first player of Russian descent to hold the title (if that is what Szalay meant to say); Alexander Alekhine was born in Moscow.
Wilhelm Steinitz was the first official world chess champion; his reign officially lasted from 1886-1894, though he is widely credited as being the world champion for the period 1866-1894. Steinitz was succeeded by Emmanuel Lasker, who reigned from 1894-1921. Jose Raul Capablanca defeated Lasker in 1921. Alexander Alekhine beat Capablanca in 1927 and remained the champion until he died in 1946, with the exception of the years 1935-37, when Max Euwe took the title from Alekhine. Botvinnik ascended to the throne by winning a world championship tournament held in 1948, an event that featured several top contenders vying for the title vacated by Alekhine's death.
Furthermore, Szalay shows a lack of understanding of the evolution of chess when he dismisses the strategic understanding of Paul Morphy and presents Botvinnik as the creator of "modern chess." Many of Botvinnik's predecessors--including Steinitz, Aron Nimzovitch and Morphy himself--made significant contributions to the development of the "modern" game and Szalay neglects to mention that in 1960 Botvinnik suffered a championship match defeat at the hands of Mikhail Tal, a player whose style was not scientific but who played very much in the tactical/romantic manner that Morphy did; Tal's moves sometimes were refuted in post-match analysis but Tal put pressure on his opponents to find solutions during the game, with the clock running and the tension mounting.
I disagree with Szalay's conclusion that during the just concluded Kasparov-Karpov match in Spain that the players "slip(ped) back into their younger, fiercer, hungrier selves." While it is true that Kasparov and Karpov were not on cordial terms during their rivalry in the 1980s and early 1990s, they have since become friendly and the reality is that this match had a completely different tone than their earlier showdowns.
In his article, Szalay simply communicated his biases/lack of understanding about chess as opposed to researching the subject in depth or even bothering to follow what actually happened in the match in Valencia, Spain. I sincerely hope that the next time the Wall Street Journal provides such prominent coverage to chess that it uses a writer who is much more well versed about the subject.
--David Friedman
Although I doubt that the editors will either publish my letter or even respond to it, I kept it at a publishable length and thus did not do a complete recitation of all of the errors/distortions in Szalay's article. For instance, Szalay wrongly stated that Fischer began game six of his 1972 World Championship Match versus Boris Spassky with the move d4; Fischer in fact played c4 on the first move of that game, though by transposition the players eventually reached an opening that generally begins with d4. Szalay also referred to a "speed chess match" that Kasparov and Karpov drew in 1999, but they did not draw a "match"* in 1999, nor is what they did play properly called "speed chess": both players participated in a four player rapid chess event called the Siemens Giants held in Frankfurt, Germany; Kasparov and Karpov faced each other four times in this round robin tournament, resulting in three draws and one Kasparov victory. Kasparov took first place in the tournament, while Karpov finished fourth (last). As noted above, in "speed" chess each player generally has five minutes to complete all of his moves, while in "rapid" chess each player generally has 25 minutes to complete of all his moves; writing as if the two forms of chess are the same--or that they can be compared to games contested at slower time controls--is similar to writing as if a three on three tournament or a slam dunk contest are the same thing or that they can be compared to organized five on five basketball games. Furthermore, it is strange that Szalay chose to mention the 1999 event but did not say anything about the four game 2002 Kasparov-Karpov rapid match in which Karpov emerged as a surprise winner by the score of 2.5-1.5, an impressive victory for the older Karpov against Kasparov, who at that time still ranked number one in the world (though Kasparov was no longer the official World Champion).
In the literary world, Szalay's alleged expertise about chess has earned him not only prominent placement in the Wall Street Journal but also contracts to write chess-themed fiction books; over the board in the chess world, such "expertise" about how to play the game would only earn a humiliating defeat--or, in the immortal words of World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, "On the chess board lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."
-----
* Journalists who are not chess players appear to be chronically incapable of correctly using the most basic chess terminology: they are often confused about the difference between a "game" and a "match"; a game is one encounter between two players and can take place either in a tournament (which consists of a series of games played against different opponents) or in a match (which consists of a set number of games contested by two opponents). When I read a story about chess that incorrectly uses those terms interchangeably I feel like I am hearing fingernails scratching a chalkboard, because it is frustrating that some reporters apparently make no effort to do even the most basic research about their subject matter. In the 1999 Frankfurt event, Kasparov and Karpov played four games as part of a round robin tournament; loosely speaking, one could say that they contested a "match," but their battle was just one part of a larger tournament, in contrast to a true match that only pits two competitors against each other.
The chess concept that is most often misrepresented in the media is "stalemate," a word that non-chess players frequently--and incorrectly--use as a synonym for "impasse" or "deadlock," but the actual meaning of the term is quite specific and does not refer to two parties that are equally balanced in a standoff. In chess a stalemate is a particular type of draw, namely a situation in which one side enjoys a material superiority but has carelessly left his opponent with no legal moves without putting him in check (in contrast to checkmate, when the losing player has no way out of check); in chess, all stalemates are draws but not all draws are stalemates, an important distinction that is usually completely ignored in general parlance.
Chess aficionados eagerly follow the moves played by the game's greatest champions and the internet has made it possible to do so instantaneously (subject to technical difficulties) as opposed to having to wait for the game scores to be published in newspapers, magazines or books; I remember getting together with a group of chess friends in 1990 to "watch"--via an internet connection--the first game of the Kasparov-Karpov match, a big change from previous World Championship Matches when I had to wait until the next day to find the moves in USA TODAY and could only find quality analysis of the games in magazines/books that were not published until weeks (or months) later.
The general public--at least in America--largely ignores what is happening in the chess world unless someone who is a child prodigy and/or has a charismatic personality captures their imagination: Kasparov, Bobby Fischer and Josh Waitzkin (the subject of the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer") are three examples of chess players who achieved a certain degree of "mainstream" fame, though Waitzkin's story is no doubt much more widely known than his actual name. Kasparov is certainly more famous than Viswanathan Anand--the current World Chess Champion--and for that reason the recent Kasparov-Karpov showdown attracted a lot of attention from media outlets that generally provide little or no chess coverage.
I am ranked at approximately the 95th percentile of U.S. chess players and I consider the mano a mano competition in chess to be a welcome contrast to the subjective way that many other fields of endeavor--including writing--operate, so at one level I am happy to see chess receiving mainstream attention but at the same time I also am frustrated that the sport and its history are not presented more accurately. Chess is an ancient game that enjoys world-wide popularity among an incredibly diverse group of people who defy categorization by age, socioeconomic status, gender or race--so why is it so rare for a mainstream American media publication to offer an intelligent portrayal of this sport/art/science?
The September 27-28 edition of the Wall Street Journal includes a lengthy article by David Szalay titled "Old Kings, New Game." Szalay tries to place the Kasparov-Karpov rivalry in historical context but he paints an inaccurate picture of the development of the sport and he is also ignorant of several basic facts. Here is the text of a letter that I sent (via email) to the editors of the Wall Street Journal:
As a U.S. Chess Federation rated expert, I am happy to see chess receive "mainstream" coverage but overall I am disappointed in the rather superficial--and, in some cases, simply inaccurate--article written by David Szalay.
The WSJ article titled "Old Kings, New Game" asserts that Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov "played their final world championship match in 1987." In fact, their final world championship match took place in 1990, with 12 games being held in New York and 12 games being held in Lyon, France. Kasparov won 12.5-11.5 to retain the world championship title.
Also, Szalay describes Mikhail Botvinnik as "the first champion" but that is not correct. As noted below, several world champions preceded Botvinnik--nor was Botvinnik the first player of Russian descent to hold the title (if that is what Szalay meant to say); Alexander Alekhine was born in Moscow.
Wilhelm Steinitz was the first official world chess champion; his reign officially lasted from 1886-1894, though he is widely credited as being the world champion for the period 1866-1894. Steinitz was succeeded by Emmanuel Lasker, who reigned from 1894-1921. Jose Raul Capablanca defeated Lasker in 1921. Alexander Alekhine beat Capablanca in 1927 and remained the champion until he died in 1946, with the exception of the years 1935-37, when Max Euwe took the title from Alekhine. Botvinnik ascended to the throne by winning a world championship tournament held in 1948, an event that featured several top contenders vying for the title vacated by Alekhine's death.
Furthermore, Szalay shows a lack of understanding of the evolution of chess when he dismisses the strategic understanding of Paul Morphy and presents Botvinnik as the creator of "modern chess." Many of Botvinnik's predecessors--including Steinitz, Aron Nimzovitch and Morphy himself--made significant contributions to the development of the "modern" game and Szalay neglects to mention that in 1960 Botvinnik suffered a championship match defeat at the hands of Mikhail Tal, a player whose style was not scientific but who played very much in the tactical/romantic manner that Morphy did; Tal's moves sometimes were refuted in post-match analysis but Tal put pressure on his opponents to find solutions during the game, with the clock running and the tension mounting.
I disagree with Szalay's conclusion that during the just concluded Kasparov-Karpov match in Spain that the players "slip(ped) back into their younger, fiercer, hungrier selves." While it is true that Kasparov and Karpov were not on cordial terms during their rivalry in the 1980s and early 1990s, they have since become friendly and the reality is that this match had a completely different tone than their earlier showdowns.
In his article, Szalay simply communicated his biases/lack of understanding about chess as opposed to researching the subject in depth or even bothering to follow what actually happened in the match in Valencia, Spain. I sincerely hope that the next time the Wall Street Journal provides such prominent coverage to chess that it uses a writer who is much more well versed about the subject.
--David Friedman
Although I doubt that the editors will either publish my letter or even respond to it, I kept it at a publishable length and thus did not do a complete recitation of all of the errors/distortions in Szalay's article. For instance, Szalay wrongly stated that Fischer began game six of his 1972 World Championship Match versus Boris Spassky with the move d4; Fischer in fact played c4 on the first move of that game, though by transposition the players eventually reached an opening that generally begins with d4. Szalay also referred to a "speed chess match" that Kasparov and Karpov drew in 1999, but they did not draw a "match"* in 1999, nor is what they did play properly called "speed chess": both players participated in a four player rapid chess event called the Siemens Giants held in Frankfurt, Germany; Kasparov and Karpov faced each other four times in this round robin tournament, resulting in three draws and one Kasparov victory. Kasparov took first place in the tournament, while Karpov finished fourth (last). As noted above, in "speed" chess each player generally has five minutes to complete all of his moves, while in "rapid" chess each player generally has 25 minutes to complete of all his moves; writing as if the two forms of chess are the same--or that they can be compared to games contested at slower time controls--is similar to writing as if a three on three tournament or a slam dunk contest are the same thing or that they can be compared to organized five on five basketball games. Furthermore, it is strange that Szalay chose to mention the 1999 event but did not say anything about the four game 2002 Kasparov-Karpov rapid match in which Karpov emerged as a surprise winner by the score of 2.5-1.5, an impressive victory for the older Karpov against Kasparov, who at that time still ranked number one in the world (though Kasparov was no longer the official World Champion).
In the literary world, Szalay's alleged expertise about chess has earned him not only prominent placement in the Wall Street Journal but also contracts to write chess-themed fiction books; over the board in the chess world, such "expertise" about how to play the game would only earn a humiliating defeat--or, in the immortal words of World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, "On the chess board lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."
-----
* Journalists who are not chess players appear to be chronically incapable of correctly using the most basic chess terminology: they are often confused about the difference between a "game" and a "match"; a game is one encounter between two players and can take place either in a tournament (which consists of a series of games played against different opponents) or in a match (which consists of a set number of games contested by two opponents). When I read a story about chess that incorrectly uses those terms interchangeably I feel like I am hearing fingernails scratching a chalkboard, because it is frustrating that some reporters apparently make no effort to do even the most basic research about their subject matter. In the 1999 Frankfurt event, Kasparov and Karpov played four games as part of a round robin tournament; loosely speaking, one could say that they contested a "match," but their battle was just one part of a larger tournament, in contrast to a true match that only pits two competitors against each other.
The chess concept that is most often misrepresented in the media is "stalemate," a word that non-chess players frequently--and incorrectly--use as a synonym for "impasse" or "deadlock," but the actual meaning of the term is quite specific and does not refer to two parties that are equally balanced in a standoff. In chess a stalemate is a particular type of draw, namely a situation in which one side enjoys a material superiority but has carelessly left his opponent with no legal moves without putting him in check (in contrast to checkmate, when the losing player has no way out of check); in chess, all stalemates are draws but not all draws are stalemates, an important distinction that is usually completely ignored in general parlance.
Monday, August 10, 2009
International Master Justin Sarkar's "Perfect Game"
I first met International Master Justin Sarkar at the November 2006 Kings Island tournament, where Sarkar tied for first place after defeating Grandmaster Zviad Izoria, a very strong player who outrated Sarkar by nearly 300 points at that time; such a difference means that Izoria would be expected to win roughly 75% of his games versus players of Sarkar's rating. After the tournament ended, IM Sarkar enthralled National Master Jerry Hanken and me with a fascinating analysis of his victory, including insights into how a top level player thinks during such an encounter. Hanken subsequently wrote about Sarkar for both Chess Life magazine and Chess Life Online.
Sarkar is a highly talented player but he has traversed a very challenging path to attain the IM title and you can learn about some of the details of his struggle with autism by clicking on the links in the previous paragraph. I spoke with Sarkar several times in the past few days at the 110th U.S. Open Chess Tournament. Sarkar said that originally he had not planned to play in the U.S. Open but then at the last moment he decided to jump into the fray. After taking byes for the first three rounds and reeling off five straight wins Sarkar needed just one more victory to tie for first place and earn a spot in the 2010 U.S. Championship. Sarkar is particularly proud of his eighth round triumph over Robert O'Donnell, a strong Expert from Michigan who for many years held a National Master level rating. Sarkar is soft spoken and modest about his achievements, so when he earnestly told me that he had played a "perfect game" versus O'Donnell and then lamented that most people don't understand how difficult it is to play a perfect game of chess I knew that I had to see the moves for myself:
IM Justin Sarkar - Robert O'Donnell [E32]
U.S. Open 8/8/09 (8)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.e4 Bxc3+!? 5...d5 6.e5 Ne4 is the normal continuation. 6.bxc3 White has a slight edge now; he has obtained a massive pawn center without having to spend a tempo by playing a3. 6...d6 7.e5 dxe5 8.dxe5 Nfd7 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Ba3 In the only other game I could find in this line, Sergey Beavenets defeated Viacheslav Ragozin, a famous Grandmaster who is renowned for his theoretical knowledge and who helped train World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 Nc6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e4 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 8.e5 dxe5 9. dxe5 Nd7 10. Ba3 Ne7 11. Rd1 h6 12. Qe4 Re8 13. Bd3 Nf8 14. O-O Rb8 15. Qg4 Bd7 16. Bc1 Nf5 17. Qh3 Ng6 18. Be4 Qe7 19. g4 Ba4 20. gxf5 exf5 21.Qxf5 Bxd1 22. Rxd1 Qe6 23. Qxe6 Rxe6 24. Rd7 Nxe5 25. Nxe5 Rxe5 26. f3 Rbe8 27.Rxc7 f5 28. Bd5+ Kh8 29. Bf4 Re1+ 30. Kg2 R8e2+ 31. Kh3 g5 32. Bd6 Rg1 33. Re7Rxe7 34. Bxe7 b6 35. c5 bxc5 36. Bxc5 Rd1 37. c4 a6 38. Bb7 Rd3 39. a4 1-0 (1935 Soviet Championship).
10...Ndxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Rd1 Qh4 13.Rd4 Qf6 14.Bxf8 Kxf8 15.Qxh7 Ng6 16.h4 e5 17.Rd2 e4 18.h5 Qxc3 19.hxg6 Qc1+ 20.Ke2 Qxc4+ 21.Kd1 Bg4+ 22.f3 Qa4+ 23.Ke1 e3 24.Rd3 Qb4+ 25.Ke2 Qb2+ 26.Kxe3 Re8+ 27.Kf4 Qe5+ 28.Kxg4 Qe6+ 29.Kg3 Qe5+ 30.f4 1-0
Note how Sarkar eschewed taking the f8 Rook on move 13 and instead gained a tempo by activating his Rook while harassing O'Donnell's Queen. O'Donnell could have offered stronger resistance at certain points but Sarkar is understandably pleased with this game because of how relentlessly and logically he played after O'Donnell's slight inaccuracy on move five; O'Donnell's rating places him above the 97th percentile of U.S. players, so defeating a player of that caliber is not nearly as easy as Sarkar made it seem to be.
Grandmaster Jesse Kraai beat Sarkar in the last round, thereby sharing first place with five others and dropping Sarkar to a tie for 18th place. Kraai's rating had plateaued between 2400 and 2500 for about eight years before recently jumping to nearly 2600. Kraai has described how he attained the Grandmaster title at a relatively late age (the 37 year old achieved that goal two years ago, but most GMs reach that level in their teens or twenties) by virtue of hard work and I have much respect for anyone who plays chess that well because I know how difficult it is to do that. However, I also sympathize with Sarkar's quite understandable feeling that his accomplishments in the face of adversity have not received their just due; in the Hanken article cited above, Sarkar notes that his great performance in the 2003 U.S. Championship did not attract much attention and on Sunday he told me that he had hoped to jump start his quest for the Grandmaster title by finishing the U.S. Open on a strong note. Sarkar's living situation and his state of mind make it difficult for him to study and prepare the way that most top flight players do, so he relies heavily on natural talent, trusting his instincts to help him figure things out over the board (as opposed to making the in depth pre-game preparation that is de rigueur at the IM and GM level). Sarkar has defeated many top GMs and certainly has the ability to attain that coveted title; hopefully he will produce more "perfect games" en route to achieving that goal.
1/9/10 Addendum:
IM Sarkar recently emailed me some further insights about his "perfect game" and I am happy to share his perspective with my readers; he feels that it is very important to understand that he not only played this game very accurately but that he did so very quickly. IM Sarkar writes, "I didn't exactly blitz out the game, though I was comfortably within the 3 minutes a move avg and like I said was even up over an hour on the clock. My 16th move (h4) was important to find and recognize over the board as the best plan in the position. I took one of my longer thinks on move 24 (Rd3) as I had a nearly equally promising continuation. The computer at first seemed liked the other, then with more time to think liked my move even better. Note that it's a bit scary, as it involves 'almost getting mated'. It's good I was able to accurately calculate this with confidence, even though I saw another 'less scary' way that I also felt was most certainly winning. And in general, when he gave me the knight on g6 for an attempted perpetual check or attack on my king, I had to accurately foresee the best way out of the series of checks."
Sarkar is a highly talented player but he has traversed a very challenging path to attain the IM title and you can learn about some of the details of his struggle with autism by clicking on the links in the previous paragraph. I spoke with Sarkar several times in the past few days at the 110th U.S. Open Chess Tournament. Sarkar said that originally he had not planned to play in the U.S. Open but then at the last moment he decided to jump into the fray. After taking byes for the first three rounds and reeling off five straight wins Sarkar needed just one more victory to tie for first place and earn a spot in the 2010 U.S. Championship. Sarkar is particularly proud of his eighth round triumph over Robert O'Donnell, a strong Expert from Michigan who for many years held a National Master level rating. Sarkar is soft spoken and modest about his achievements, so when he earnestly told me that he had played a "perfect game" versus O'Donnell and then lamented that most people don't understand how difficult it is to play a perfect game of chess I knew that I had to see the moves for myself:
IM Justin Sarkar - Robert O'Donnell [E32]
U.S. Open 8/8/09 (8)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.e4 Bxc3+!? 5...d5 6.e5 Ne4 is the normal continuation. 6.bxc3 White has a slight edge now; he has obtained a massive pawn center without having to spend a tempo by playing a3. 6...d6 7.e5 dxe5 8.dxe5 Nfd7 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Ba3 In the only other game I could find in this line, Sergey Beavenets defeated Viacheslav Ragozin, a famous Grandmaster who is renowned for his theoretical knowledge and who helped train World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 Nc6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e4 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 8.e5 dxe5 9. dxe5 Nd7 10. Ba3 Ne7 11. Rd1 h6 12. Qe4 Re8 13. Bd3 Nf8 14. O-O Rb8 15. Qg4 Bd7 16. Bc1 Nf5 17. Qh3 Ng6 18. Be4 Qe7 19. g4 Ba4 20. gxf5 exf5 21.Qxf5 Bxd1 22. Rxd1 Qe6 23. Qxe6 Rxe6 24. Rd7 Nxe5 25. Nxe5 Rxe5 26. f3 Rbe8 27.Rxc7 f5 28. Bd5+ Kh8 29. Bf4 Re1+ 30. Kg2 R8e2+ 31. Kh3 g5 32. Bd6 Rg1 33. Re7Rxe7 34. Bxe7 b6 35. c5 bxc5 36. Bxc5 Rd1 37. c4 a6 38. Bb7 Rd3 39. a4 1-0 (1935 Soviet Championship).
10...Ndxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Rd1 Qh4 13.Rd4 Qf6 14.Bxf8 Kxf8 15.Qxh7 Ng6 16.h4 e5 17.Rd2 e4 18.h5 Qxc3 19.hxg6 Qc1+ 20.Ke2 Qxc4+ 21.Kd1 Bg4+ 22.f3 Qa4+ 23.Ke1 e3 24.Rd3 Qb4+ 25.Ke2 Qb2+ 26.Kxe3 Re8+ 27.Kf4 Qe5+ 28.Kxg4 Qe6+ 29.Kg3 Qe5+ 30.f4 1-0
Note how Sarkar eschewed taking the f8 Rook on move 13 and instead gained a tempo by activating his Rook while harassing O'Donnell's Queen. O'Donnell could have offered stronger resistance at certain points but Sarkar is understandably pleased with this game because of how relentlessly and logically he played after O'Donnell's slight inaccuracy on move five; O'Donnell's rating places him above the 97th percentile of U.S. players, so defeating a player of that caliber is not nearly as easy as Sarkar made it seem to be.
Grandmaster Jesse Kraai beat Sarkar in the last round, thereby sharing first place with five others and dropping Sarkar to a tie for 18th place. Kraai's rating had plateaued between 2400 and 2500 for about eight years before recently jumping to nearly 2600. Kraai has described how he attained the Grandmaster title at a relatively late age (the 37 year old achieved that goal two years ago, but most GMs reach that level in their teens or twenties) by virtue of hard work and I have much respect for anyone who plays chess that well because I know how difficult it is to do that. However, I also sympathize with Sarkar's quite understandable feeling that his accomplishments in the face of adversity have not received their just due; in the Hanken article cited above, Sarkar notes that his great performance in the 2003 U.S. Championship did not attract much attention and on Sunday he told me that he had hoped to jump start his quest for the Grandmaster title by finishing the U.S. Open on a strong note. Sarkar's living situation and his state of mind make it difficult for him to study and prepare the way that most top flight players do, so he relies heavily on natural talent, trusting his instincts to help him figure things out over the board (as opposed to making the in depth pre-game preparation that is de rigueur at the IM and GM level). Sarkar has defeated many top GMs and certainly has the ability to attain that coveted title; hopefully he will produce more "perfect games" en route to achieving that goal.
1/9/10 Addendum:
IM Sarkar recently emailed me some further insights about his "perfect game" and I am happy to share his perspective with my readers; he feels that it is very important to understand that he not only played this game very accurately but that he did so very quickly. IM Sarkar writes, "I didn't exactly blitz out the game, though I was comfortably within the 3 minutes a move avg and like I said was even up over an hour on the clock. My 16th move (h4) was important to find and recognize over the board as the best plan in the position. I took one of my longer thinks on move 24 (Rd3) as I had a nearly equally promising continuation. The computer at first seemed liked the other, then with more time to think liked my move even better. Note that it's a bit scary, as it involves 'almost getting mated'. It's good I was able to accurately calculate this with confidence, even though I saw another 'less scary' way that I also felt was most certainly winning. And in general, when he gave me the knight on g6 for an attempted perpetual check or attack on my king, I had to accurately foresee the best way out of the series of checks."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Debunking Myths About Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Roger Federer
If you are only a casual tennis fan and/or are too young to remember the early 1980s, then you might believe the popular fiction that after Bjorn Borg lost to John McEnroe in the 1981 U.S. Open Final he walked off of the court and never played professional tennis again (save for a brief comeback in the early 1990s and some matches on the senior tour). McEnroe has done nothing to discourage people from accepting that version of events as the truth and journalist Mike Lupica is fond of repeating McEnroe's statement that Borg retired because Borg mistakenly believed that McEnroe would never mess up. Lupica and others--including McEnroe himself--claim that McEnroe never quite reached the heights that he was capable of reaching because in some way McEnroe mourned Borg's premature exit from center stage and thus never pushed himself as hard as he could have. That is a completely illogical contention, because if Borg had kept playing a full schedule well into the 1980s it is highly likely that McEnroe would have won fewer events as opposed to enjoying greater success.
Although many people act like Borg retired in 1981, he won four big money events in 1982 and did not officially announce his retirement from professional tennis until January 1983. So why did Borg not play in any Grand Slams after the 1981 U.S. Open? The International Tennis Federation ruled that any player must participate in a minimum number of sanctioned tournaments in order to avoid having to play in the qualifying rounds at the Grand Slams. Borg--the four-time defending French Open champion who won a record six French Opens overall and also won a record five straight Wimbledons--understandably did not feel like he should have to play in qualifiers under any circumstances. So, in 1982 he skipped the Grand Slams rather than obey this silly rule. Though Borg did not play in the number of events that the lords of the sport thought that he should have played in, he was still training and, if anything, his game was actually getting better in some ways; he became stronger and he was serving harder than he ever had before: if you don't believe that or are still convinced that Borg could no longer handle McEnroe after 1981, consider what happened in November 1982 in the Akai Gold Challenge Round Robin; Borg won the event by defeating the number one ranked McEnroe 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 and trouncing Ivan Lendl--who just months later would become the number one ranked player--6-1, 6-4, 6-2. Check out Borg's speed, power and deft shotmaking versus McEnroe:
In that footage you will notice how Borg repeatedly bludgeoned McEnroe with savage two-handed backhand winners. The interesting thing about Borg's two-handed backhand is that when it was subjected to frame by frame analysis (not specifically from this match but earlier in Borg's career) it turned out that Borg was actually flexing his left arm muscles more than his right arm muscles; in other words, Borg's two-handed backhand was, in effect, a left handed forehand!
A lot of people are entertaining themselves with delusions about how McEnroe would have done versus Borg in Grand Slams in the 1980s or what a hypothetical Borg-Federer matchup would look like. The above 1982 footage clearly refutes any notion that McEnroe had flustered or bewildered Borg. Federer has consistently struggled versus Rafael Nadal--a fit clay court specialist who has adapted his game to other surfaces--and Federer would not have fared any better versus Borg, a fit clay court specialist who not only adapted his game to other surfaces even better than Nadal has but was also savvier and possessed more touch than Nadal.
Borg still holds the record for being the youngest player to win 11 Grand Slams (25)--and he never played in a Grand Slam after the age of 25! This is kind of like Jim Brown retiring from the NFL at the age of 29 while holding the all-time career rushing record. Other players have rushed for more yards than Brown but there are not too many knowledgeable observers who believe that current record holder Emmitt Smith was a greater running back than Brown--and Federer is not the greatest tennis player of all-time just because he has won a record 15 career Grand Slams.
Two important factors are not properly considered when people compare Federer to Borg:
1) Borg's overall Grand Slam record is more impressive than Federer's.
Borg won 11 out of the 27 Grand Slams he entered (a .407 winning percentage that is an Open Era record). Borg won seven of the final 12 Slams that he entered and made the Finals in 11 of his final 12 Slams. His career match record in Slams is 141-16 (.898), the best such winning percentage in the Open Era. Borg's "triple double" (winning the Wimbledon and French titles in the same year three years in a row, 1978-80) is unprecedented in tennis history and will not likely be duplicated. Borg won three different Slam titles without losing a set, something no other player has done more than once.
At one time, Borg held the record for being youngest French Open champion (18 in 1974) and youngest Wimbledon champion (20 in 1976; he also was the youngest Italian Open champion and youngest player to win a Davis Cup match--and he still holds the latter record); in contrast, by the time Federer was 20 years old he had yet to win a Grand Slam title and had amassed five first round losses in Slams.
Borg made the semis in 17 out of 27 Slams, made the quarters in 20 out of 27 and never lost in the first round; Federer has made the semis in 23 out of 41 Slams, has made the quarters in 25 out of 41 and has lost in the first round six times.
It is also important to remember that in the 1970s most of the top non-Australian players skipped the Australian Open; Borg played there just once, at 18 years of age in 1974, Jimmy Connors only played there twice, Arthur Ashe played in four of the 13 Australian Opens held during his career and Ilie Nastase--the first player classified as number one in the world when the ATP began using computer rankings in 1973--played in the Australian Open once (1981) in a Grand Slam career spanning 1966-1985. John McEnroe, whose Grand Slam career lasted from 1977-92, played in just five Australian Opens. Federer's Grand Slam total includes three Australian Open wins. Referring back to the NFL analogy, comparing Federer's 15 Grand Slam wins to Borg's 11 is like comparing Emmitt Smith's rushing total to Jim Brown's without taking into consideration that Smith played for 15 seasons compared to Brown's nine and that during Smith's career the NFL season lasted 16 games instead of the 12 or 14 games that a season lasted during Brown's era; Federer's Grand Slam career has already lasted 11 years compared to Borg's nine, so Federer has had many more opportunities to pad his Grand Slam total--and he has done just that by winning an event that was so insignificant during Borg's era that many of the top players regularly skipped it. It took Federer 14 extra Slam appearances to produce four more Slam wins than Borg--and three of those "extra" wins came at the least important Slam.
2) The importance of the Grand Slam events has changed in the past few decades.
Prior to reading this article, you probably had never heard of the aforementioned Akai Gold Challenge and therefore you surely must wonder how important it could have been. That event may be largely forgotten now, but it was very important to the players at that time: it featured a larger prize fund than the Grand Slams did! Part of the reason that so many players skipped the Australian Open in the 1970s is that the event's prize fund was meager but even the more prestigious Slams were not the highest paying tournaments in the world at the time. For instance, the Pepsi Grand Slam was held annually from 1976-81; the invitation-only tournament featured a field of four players who had most recently won one of tennis' traditional Grand Slam events. As Sports Illustrated's Curry Kirkpatrick noted in a January 31, 1977 article about Borg's Pepsi Grand Slam win over Connors, "Borg's $100,000 first prize was more than the entire amount he earned in winning his 1976 Wimbledon and WCT titles. Connors' winner's paycheck of $30,000 at Forest Hills was less than his runner-up Grand Slam take of $50,000." Borg won the Pepsi Grand Slam four straight years (1977-80), consistently besting the other top players in the world in a high stakes event that paid significantly more than the Grand Slams did.
While it has become very fashionable to talk about Grand Slam win totals, that was not the primary consideration for players in the 1970s--as indicated by the fact that three of the four players ranked number one in the world by the ATP during that decade (Nastase, Connors, Borg) regularly did not play in one fourth of the Grand Slam events (Australian John Newcombe, who was ranked number one for eight weeks in 1974, won a pair of Australian Open titles). Sure, players from that era aspired to win whichever Grand Slam event best suited their playing style but no one could match Borg's consistent, simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open success. Nowadays, it is easier for players to travel around to all four Slams and the tennis bureaucracy--while far from perfect--is much more professional than it was over 30 years ago, when there was constant infighting among various organizations, which resulted in various players being banned from or boycotting certain Slams.
Wilt Chamberlain once said that if he had thought that anyone was going to break his all-time NBA career scoring record then he would have put it "way out of sight." If Borg had been interested in setting the career Grand Slam record, then he would have annually journeyed down to Australia and most likely dominated that event the way that he dominated Wimbledon and the French Open--and he certainly would not have skipped the 1982 French Open when a victory there would have tied Roy Emerson's then record total of 12 Grand Slams (six of which were Australian Open titles won by the amateur Australian player between 1961 and 1967; professional players were banned from playing in any of the Slams until the start of the Open Era in 1968).
After Borg officially announced his retirement, Ashe said, "I think Bjorn could have won the U.S. Open. I think he could have won the Grand Slam (i.e., win all four Slams in one calendar year). But by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game. He was like Elvis or Liz Taylor or somebody."
Although many people act like Borg retired in 1981, he won four big money events in 1982 and did not officially announce his retirement from professional tennis until January 1983. So why did Borg not play in any Grand Slams after the 1981 U.S. Open? The International Tennis Federation ruled that any player must participate in a minimum number of sanctioned tournaments in order to avoid having to play in the qualifying rounds at the Grand Slams. Borg--the four-time defending French Open champion who won a record six French Opens overall and also won a record five straight Wimbledons--understandably did not feel like he should have to play in qualifiers under any circumstances. So, in 1982 he skipped the Grand Slams rather than obey this silly rule. Though Borg did not play in the number of events that the lords of the sport thought that he should have played in, he was still training and, if anything, his game was actually getting better in some ways; he became stronger and he was serving harder than he ever had before: if you don't believe that or are still convinced that Borg could no longer handle McEnroe after 1981, consider what happened in November 1982 in the Akai Gold Challenge Round Robin; Borg won the event by defeating the number one ranked McEnroe 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 and trouncing Ivan Lendl--who just months later would become the number one ranked player--6-1, 6-4, 6-2. Check out Borg's speed, power and deft shotmaking versus McEnroe:
In that footage you will notice how Borg repeatedly bludgeoned McEnroe with savage two-handed backhand winners. The interesting thing about Borg's two-handed backhand is that when it was subjected to frame by frame analysis (not specifically from this match but earlier in Borg's career) it turned out that Borg was actually flexing his left arm muscles more than his right arm muscles; in other words, Borg's two-handed backhand was, in effect, a left handed forehand!
A lot of people are entertaining themselves with delusions about how McEnroe would have done versus Borg in Grand Slams in the 1980s or what a hypothetical Borg-Federer matchup would look like. The above 1982 footage clearly refutes any notion that McEnroe had flustered or bewildered Borg. Federer has consistently struggled versus Rafael Nadal--a fit clay court specialist who has adapted his game to other surfaces--and Federer would not have fared any better versus Borg, a fit clay court specialist who not only adapted his game to other surfaces even better than Nadal has but was also savvier and possessed more touch than Nadal.
Borg still holds the record for being the youngest player to win 11 Grand Slams (25)--and he never played in a Grand Slam after the age of 25! This is kind of like Jim Brown retiring from the NFL at the age of 29 while holding the all-time career rushing record. Other players have rushed for more yards than Brown but there are not too many knowledgeable observers who believe that current record holder Emmitt Smith was a greater running back than Brown--and Federer is not the greatest tennis player of all-time just because he has won a record 15 career Grand Slams.
Two important factors are not properly considered when people compare Federer to Borg:
1) Borg's overall Grand Slam record is more impressive than Federer's.
Borg won 11 out of the 27 Grand Slams he entered (a .407 winning percentage that is an Open Era record). Borg won seven of the final 12 Slams that he entered and made the Finals in 11 of his final 12 Slams. His career match record in Slams is 141-16 (.898), the best such winning percentage in the Open Era. Borg's "triple double" (winning the Wimbledon and French titles in the same year three years in a row, 1978-80) is unprecedented in tennis history and will not likely be duplicated. Borg won three different Slam titles without losing a set, something no other player has done more than once.
At one time, Borg held the record for being youngest French Open champion (18 in 1974) and youngest Wimbledon champion (20 in 1976; he also was the youngest Italian Open champion and youngest player to win a Davis Cup match--and he still holds the latter record); in contrast, by the time Federer was 20 years old he had yet to win a Grand Slam title and had amassed five first round losses in Slams.
Borg made the semis in 17 out of 27 Slams, made the quarters in 20 out of 27 and never lost in the first round; Federer has made the semis in 23 out of 41 Slams, has made the quarters in 25 out of 41 and has lost in the first round six times.
It is also important to remember that in the 1970s most of the top non-Australian players skipped the Australian Open; Borg played there just once, at 18 years of age in 1974, Jimmy Connors only played there twice, Arthur Ashe played in four of the 13 Australian Opens held during his career and Ilie Nastase--the first player classified as number one in the world when the ATP began using computer rankings in 1973--played in the Australian Open once (1981) in a Grand Slam career spanning 1966-1985. John McEnroe, whose Grand Slam career lasted from 1977-92, played in just five Australian Opens. Federer's Grand Slam total includes three Australian Open wins. Referring back to the NFL analogy, comparing Federer's 15 Grand Slam wins to Borg's 11 is like comparing Emmitt Smith's rushing total to Jim Brown's without taking into consideration that Smith played for 15 seasons compared to Brown's nine and that during Smith's career the NFL season lasted 16 games instead of the 12 or 14 games that a season lasted during Brown's era; Federer's Grand Slam career has already lasted 11 years compared to Borg's nine, so Federer has had many more opportunities to pad his Grand Slam total--and he has done just that by winning an event that was so insignificant during Borg's era that many of the top players regularly skipped it. It took Federer 14 extra Slam appearances to produce four more Slam wins than Borg--and three of those "extra" wins came at the least important Slam.
2) The importance of the Grand Slam events has changed in the past few decades.
Prior to reading this article, you probably had never heard of the aforementioned Akai Gold Challenge and therefore you surely must wonder how important it could have been. That event may be largely forgotten now, but it was very important to the players at that time: it featured a larger prize fund than the Grand Slams did! Part of the reason that so many players skipped the Australian Open in the 1970s is that the event's prize fund was meager but even the more prestigious Slams were not the highest paying tournaments in the world at the time. For instance, the Pepsi Grand Slam was held annually from 1976-81; the invitation-only tournament featured a field of four players who had most recently won one of tennis' traditional Grand Slam events. As Sports Illustrated's Curry Kirkpatrick noted in a January 31, 1977 article about Borg's Pepsi Grand Slam win over Connors, "Borg's $100,000 first prize was more than the entire amount he earned in winning his 1976 Wimbledon and WCT titles. Connors' winner's paycheck of $30,000 at Forest Hills was less than his runner-up Grand Slam take of $50,000." Borg won the Pepsi Grand Slam four straight years (1977-80), consistently besting the other top players in the world in a high stakes event that paid significantly more than the Grand Slams did.
While it has become very fashionable to talk about Grand Slam win totals, that was not the primary consideration for players in the 1970s--as indicated by the fact that three of the four players ranked number one in the world by the ATP during that decade (Nastase, Connors, Borg) regularly did not play in one fourth of the Grand Slam events (Australian John Newcombe, who was ranked number one for eight weeks in 1974, won a pair of Australian Open titles). Sure, players from that era aspired to win whichever Grand Slam event best suited their playing style but no one could match Borg's consistent, simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open success. Nowadays, it is easier for players to travel around to all four Slams and the tennis bureaucracy--while far from perfect--is much more professional than it was over 30 years ago, when there was constant infighting among various organizations, which resulted in various players being banned from or boycotting certain Slams.
Wilt Chamberlain once said that if he had thought that anyone was going to break his all-time NBA career scoring record then he would have put it "way out of sight." If Borg had been interested in setting the career Grand Slam record, then he would have annually journeyed down to Australia and most likely dominated that event the way that he dominated Wimbledon and the French Open--and he certainly would not have skipped the 1982 French Open when a victory there would have tied Roy Emerson's then record total of 12 Grand Slams (six of which were Australian Open titles won by the amateur Australian player between 1961 and 1967; professional players were banned from playing in any of the Slams until the start of the Open Era in 1968).
After Borg officially announced his retirement, Ashe said, "I think Bjorn could have won the U.S. Open. I think he could have won the Grand Slam (i.e., win all four Slams in one calendar year). But by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game. He was like Elvis or Liz Taylor or somebody."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
