View From the Couch - Rivaling
a Rivalry
The perception of being a sports writer
is far from the reality. While most sports fans think
it is the ultimate gig to have, few can appreciate what
it takes to be one of the greats at that particular game.
That’s ‘cause to rank as one of those, they
have to be capable of writing about a mid-November Florida
Panthers, Columbus Blue Jackets match-up or a meaningless
April tilt between the Charlotte Bobcats and the Atlanta
Hawks and make both interesting reads.
And they have to do all that to a deadline – with
no beer to consume to make it all seem interesting even
to them.
That is why sports writers love a good rivalry because
there is no hunting or pecking for a story line. There
is one already built right in and all the writer has to
do, almost quite literally, is fill in the blanks. Have
you noticed how many rivalries there are these days? Take
baseball. Besides the classic Red Sox - Yankees, the oldest
and best in North American sports, numerous others have
been put forth by scribes looking to make their jobs just
a wee bit easier. Like the I-55 Series between the St.
Louis Cardinals and the Chicago Cubs. There's even something
someone made up called the Juice-Beer rivalry between
the St. Louis Cardinals and the Houston Astros.
A stretch? Sure, but at 11:00pm on a hot August night
following the Cards on the road for the 10th straight
day, and with that deadline looming, to a beat writer
that’s pure Pulitzer material baby.
Rivalry stories write themselves in all sports, so much
so that they have become formulaic. Next time a classic
match-up comes around, test the writer to see if they
are mailing it in.
If they start with the line, “The latest chapter
in the storied rivalry between ______ & _______...”
you know that guy or girl is on auto-typing-pilot. Another
sure sign is if it ends with the ubiquitous, “…and
the rivalry continues.”
Hey, I’m not trying to be being critical. Rivalries
work, real or manufactured. They add spice to those sometimes
dry as toast mid-season games. After all, no team is always
in the midst of a great season. But even if they are in
last place, it’s nice to be able to write about
a team getting “up” for the latest re-match
with their chief rival.
Yes, sports writers love a good rivalry, and by extension,
that is why you love a good rivalry. If you read about
something enough, it simply has to be true.
The real truth however is, most of these so called rivalries
- for the athletes anyway - simply don’t exist.
Unlike fans, today’s athletes are not lifers for
a team. They are free-agents or trade-bait, and usually
have moved once or twice in their careers at least. Even
if they catch on with a team straight from being drafted,
it’s rare for them to remain with a team throughout
their career.
For these transient professionals, asking them about
how they feel going into a game between their “arch-rival”
from down the road, when it’s the first time they’ve
met them in their current uniform, will probably be met
with a, “arch-what?”
Fans know all about the rivalry. Athletes… not
so much. They’re simply too young, and haven’t
been around long enough to either know or to care.
That’s in team sports. In individual sports however
it’s another matter entirely. Rivalries truly do
exist. Individual competitors do go head-to-head and do
develop honest to goodness hate-ons for one another.
Lately, the ultimate individual of all sports, golf,
rivalries such as these have been almost totally lacking.
In the women’s game, it’s been all Annika
Sörenstam-all-the-time. The most dominant player
of her time – or perhaps anytime – has been
a one woman show since last century. If she lost, it was
literally a surprise.
Now she may have actual competition in the young forms
of Michelle Wie and Natalie Gulbis and you will have noticed
instantly by one clear indicator. The ink-stained wretches
are waxing on about how women’s golf has become
a “classic rivalry between youth and experience.”
In the men’s game for the past decade, it’s
been all-Tiger-all-the-time. There have been only pretenders
to his throne, with the only legitimate chance for them
to be considered best in the game was when Woods was re-working
his swing.
Now – it is an open question.
At the Masters over this past weekend, only two players
were truly battling for the Green Jacket. One, Tiger,
has already won four of them; the other was the last player
to win a major. While the rest of the field appeared to
be just trying to hang in there on the leader board, Phil
Mickelson and Woods were actively going for the win.
It’s easy to say that had Tiger not been 41st in
putting out of 47 players, he would have had his fifth
Masters title. But that’s the nature of the game.
Had Phil done what he almost invariably used to do, blow
up when he could least afford it, he wouldn’t have
won his second.
But he didn’t, and he did.
Now there are two on top, both in world rankings and
in expectations.
At the U.S. Open at Winged Foot Golf Club in June, it’s
great to be able to finally write:
“…and the rivalry continues.”
Cheers - Gavin
McDougald - AKA Couch
