Dedicated
readers and friends are aware of my Philadelphia roots. It's been
pointed out to me, perhaps by my wife but I think also in the more
public media, that Philadelphians are very loyal, even when they move
away. Ann herself aids me in this sentimental attachment, as she
refuses to allow that after over 40 years of residence that I might
have become a Californian. Nope! So, not to be stateless, in the
eyes of intramarital law I might still be a Philadelphian.
There
are circumstances, however, that blur the line. Two of our teams
here in Oakland, like me, have Philadelphia roots, the A's and the
Warriors. So in fact I have two double home teams, and can be doubly
proud of both for their past or present preeminence. For the A's
it's the past. For the Warriors, however, always my team, and always
the vehicle for glorying not only in Philadelphia but also in the
game of basketball, the time is now.
What a
team! If only Curry were from Philadelphia and not North Carolina!
But I'll give him a pass. As my ticket-partner Lois said at the
Giants game on opening day, his parents can certainly take pride in
the way they brought him up – and she wasn't referring to teaching
him how to shoot. What a great young man, it seems. And what a
great team.
Which
brings us up to date on the controversy, whenever basketball
greatness arises – who is best? My close and lifelong friend Bob
Levin (TheBobLevin.com) has assembled a small but lively and
certainly well-informed email basketball and Philadelphia and
Warriors conversational group, the latest addition to which is one
Eric Bernthal. Eric opined:
As
much as I love the Warriors (and I really do), I think there are
still two immutable points that say that – as of today – the
Bulls are better: first, the Bulls were dominant for a much longer
time; maybe the Dubs will get there, but maybe not. The Warriors have
to prove that they have the endurance, discipline, good health and
good fortune to last a lot longer than they have before anyone can
anoint them credibly as the greatest team ever. Second, there
is still only one Michael Jordan. Maybe, three or four years
from now, Steph will be seen as one of the greatest of all-time, but
you just can’t make the case today. It’s too soon. (I also think
that he’s more likely to go down in history like Iverson than
Jordan – spectacularly accomplished for his size and weight, a
tremendous competitor and dazzlingly talented, but not the greatest
of them all. That’s Jordan. It’s only Jordan.)
In
one respect, though, the Warriors totally dominate the Bulls:
likeability. You have to love Curry, and no one could love Jordan;
you have to love Green, and no one could love Pippen; okay, maybe
Klay Thompson isn’t totally loveable, but he’s sure no Dennis
Rodman.
And I
rejoined:
Generally
right.
But ... Curry
has been simply incredible, just differently from Michael.
Finesse over power. What an array of shots! High, high
off the backboard - he basically invented a way for small to beat
big. Innovative.
Also, Iverson
never really made his teammates so much better, the way Curry does.
Iverson was more like a better Monta Ellis with some extra moves.
Also,
"likability" is more than just likability. It's a far
different experience to have a joyful team cheering each other, with
leadership distributed, rather than a dominated team with a black
heart. I think that joyfulness is part of quality. Curry
not only makes the whole team better, the Warriors make all of us
better.
And
Eric rejoined:
I
don’t disagree with a word of that. I watched them beat San Antonio
the other night, and it is indeed pure joy to watch them, not just as
basketball players, but as great young men relating with enthusiasm
and warmth toward each other. And in terms of character, to the
extent this stuff is really knowable from afar, Curry and Jordan
represent the two absolute extremes.
Later on, Bob added this:
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25377879/bulls-vs-2015-warriors-2k-simulation-new-age-trumps-old-school.
My old Philadelphia friend John Bernard, when a student at Swarthmore, invited a celebrated Philadelphia Daily News sports columnist to speak, a man he had read daily for years. (Could it have been San Hochman?) John asked him privately why a smart guy like him devoted himself to the essentially trivial pursuit of sports. The writer replied that you see all of life in sports. The younger guy coming up to challenge the veteran, for instance. And so much more.
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25377879/bulls-vs-2015-warriors-2k-simulation-new-age-trumps-old-school.
My old Philadelphia friend John Bernard, when a student at Swarthmore, invited a celebrated Philadelphia Daily News sports columnist to speak, a man he had read daily for years. (Could it have been San Hochman?) John asked him privately why a smart guy like him devoted himself to the essentially trivial pursuit of sports. The writer replied that you see all of life in sports. The younger guy coming up to challenge the veteran, for instance. And so much more.
Another
answer could have been, life is sports.
Budd
Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment