Just fantastic

Mac once said "People should really pay attention because we're seeing something special. I think Pete Sampras is the best to ever play the game."

All the superlatives that commentators heap on athletes tend to get diluted by overuse, but McEnroe does it just right. He saves "The Best" for the best.

They always call the winner at the end of the year the "champion."  Sometimes it applies, other times it doesn't.  Notre Dame football players famously touch the sign that says, "Play like a champion today."  To me, it is a term that has more to do with the manner in which one competes than the final score or standings.

The 2006 Cardinals may have won the World Series and thus earned the title of champions for that baseball season, but what I saw today were two champions in the true sense of the term.  It's hard to describe, but I feel like I am somehow a better person for having experienced that match.  That even watching it 5000 miles away, I have associated myself with greatness, and I will be better at the things I do than I was before.

I just watched some of the post-match video online, and it seems to me that McEnroe's response it the proper one -- gratitude to two wonderful champions.

I remember thinking that I'd witnessed something special when Eli Manning somehow escaped 3 monsters and threw a prayer that David Tyree caught off the back of his helmet in the Super Bowl. Every so often you just know you were lucky to see something.

This guy, Jay Mariotti, is the columnist who christened Frank Thomas "The Big Blurt." Never cared for him, but his column in today's Sun Times about covers it.

The only thing more remarkable than Torres by my thinking is Al Oerter. Golds in 56-60-64-68. Freaking dude finished 4th in Olympic qualifying for the discus in 1980, ...at age 43.

Excellent, thank you for starting this thread. I need more, and didn't get my fill. I was at my cottage, and first, shocked that the one station I get up there was carrying the game, but then dismayed when it was too fuzzy to see the ball. (Knew it Saturday morning, watch Venus take Serena, you could see the swing, but you really do need the ball thing. So I kinda watched the first set and a half, then took my frustrations out on the canoe. By the way, re the cottage, I gotta say this: every single person who posts here could have come up with a better version of Scene It than the actual guys did, man is that wretched, such a waste of a good idea.) You're right, on McEnroe, and though we've said it before it doesn't get old to say it again.

First, I gotta love the way Federer has taken care of Roddick. I mean, Roddick seems like a nice guy, and you wonder how this guy can go through his career with such a piddly total of majors, and it's all on Roger Federer.

You mentioned Becker, I think of him when I see Nadal. Their games weren't that similar, but their body types were (to me), and Becker wore down fast. I'd love to see Nadal-Federer do what Venus-Serena did a few years, just treat the majors as their own private competition for a few years.

I think Federer had to lose. It's cliche, but you do need to get knocked down a peg sometimes. And I can't imagine Nadal getting better (not to contradict his uncle!), so I don't think this is a watershed or anything. And Federer at his best is pretty close to tennis perfection. (Well, this is me wanting Roger to knock off Sampras, the king of dour.) Anyway, to me Federer has been just a bit too aloof (taking this King Roger stuff to heart), so happy to see him with a chip on his shoulder.

Also, the Slate guy who wrote the defense-is-king article is a bit of a fool, I should work up a response for him.

And, John think of this. Tiger Woods has finished behind John Daly in at least a dozen tournaments. Why wouldn't that just scuttle all that golf-athlete talk right there?

(also, "yo, swit")

As for Tiger, yes he's "finished behind" any number of golfers, but nobody's faced him twice in a row on a big stage and beaten him. 

It's an interesting discussion, and I don't think it's settled.

Obviously, golf is a different game, and the opportunities don't come up as often, thought I think I saw a graphic that Nadal and Federer have now faced each other in more Grand Slam finals than any other pair in the open era.

What Mariotti refers to is that Federer has Nadal, but Tiger has no rival.

Is it because Tiger has put so much distance between himself and the pack, or that his potential rivals just haven't been up to the job?

It seems like a little bit of both.  Tiger is seems to stand out not just among his peers, but in history.  Perhaps race plays a part here, but he is just different from anyone who cam before him.  Federer seems like the next evolutionary step from Pete Sampras.

But there's nobody in the PGA who could compare to Nadal, either.  Nobody seems to want to challenge Tiger on his turf and beat him like Nadal did.

Okay, you guys win. Tiger is an ahtlete. If he'd chosen basketball he'd be Vince Carter. If he'd chosen hockey he'd be George Laraque (who?). If he'd chosen baseball he'd be Albert Pujols. I only give you that because he's not playing the same game as those other guys out there. The problem is you need a line. And if you let golfers in, then the NASCAR guys want in, and you let them in, and next thing you know it'll be the speed walkers or something. And .. golfers are decent drinkers (Mike .. you forgot to mention that), so they've got that going for them.

Something just hit me. Does anybody remember, I think it was ESPN, but it was quite awhile ago, somebody did all-time boxing matches, like Ali against somebody from the 30's, etc. They actually did play-by-play and figured out winners and did the playoff thing and all time best. Thinking MacEnroe's game and how he'd fare, one thing, they guy was fearless. But interesting too how much you are your compettion.

By the way, not sure who here is the type to check box scores. The final point tally between Nadal and Federer was 209 - 205 Nadal. That means, at 7-7 in the fifth, they would have been (likely) dead even. Exactly dead even. At that point, 4 and a half hours in and 10 minutes from the end, it's a coin toss. It's like bacon's discussion of a book -- how important is the ending? Or, how exaggerated in importance is the ending (sort if thing). And how much we read into it: "well, Nadal was wearing him down ..", etc. (Was he?)

Okay, enough for now. Tiger has my blessing -- he's a jock. (Not so Hefty aka Manbreast Mickelson, though, right?)

Later ...

(By the way, I liked my "Communism should be Democracy's little brother thing", like, why can't we all just get along?????)