I got up at 6 a.m. today, so I could take in Federer-Nadal from the French Open, but it wasn't much of a match. It was still good tennis here and there, but Nadal is just way, way, way, way better than anyone else on clay. It's kind of ridiculous. Nadal seems much closer to winning Wimbledon than Federer is to winning the French. As long as Nadal stays healthy and focused, I really don't see Federer ever winning the French, which will probably hurt his resume as the greatest tennis player ever.
However, I don't necessarily think that it should. Grass and hard courts are so much different than playing on clay that maybe Federer should not be penalized to such a degree. The other factor is that he just happened to be playing at the same time as Nadal, who likely will go down as the greatest clay court player to ever live.
Since clay is such a small percentage of the tennis season, it seems that Federer's inability to beat Nadal should not immediately disqualify him from GOAT status. It reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg bit about how as soon as he got good at standup comedy, people were always asking him if he could act in a sitcom. "That's like asking a cook: can you farm?" Clay and grass/hard courts are a little bit closer than that, but nonetheless it seems that Federer is being asked to be the greatest tennis player ever on every surface - which he is, except for clay, where he is among many that rank behind the emerging greatest ever on that surface. Today, Federer, who looks like the Michael Jordan of basketball on grass, looked like the Michael Jordan of baseball on clay.
Kat thought it was pretty sad to see Federer getting destroyed like that, and I agreed it was. But I found it inspiring that he wouldn't give up and vowed to work even harder for next year. Lots of people - even many professional athletes - would rather quit than be humbled like that by someone who was five years younger. Their egos couldn't take it, but I liked how Federer hung in there until the end and didn't shy away from talking about the beating. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but most important things aren't. He'll just have to get back to work and bring his A game for Wimbledon because it looks like a lock that Nadal will bring his.
I enjoyed Federer's humility and his attitude. I did not enjoy the humility and attitude of one Rick Dutrow, trainer of Big Brown. Considering I don't pay attention to horse racing and had never heard of Dutrow before the other day, it is an achievement for him to get mentioned in the Boom. Here is his quote on May 29 about Big Brown winning the Triple Crown in the Belmont:
"I feel like it's actually a foregone conclusion. To me, I just see the horses he's in with and I see our horse so I expect him to win this race. ... I know that when that day actually does come, and if our horse is in good shape, it will be the most exciting, thrilling moment of my life. So I just ... I know that that's coming, but right now I'm just staying involved with our horse and what we think is best to get him there the right way and it keeps us plenty busy."
Belmont final results on June 7: Big Brown finishes last.It was not a foregone conclusion, Rick, for many reasons. A big one is that you're talking about a freaking horse that may or may not actually know it is even in a race. And yet you are absolutely certain of what this animal is going to do on a certain day. Another is that if something hasn't happened in 30 years, it probably isn't that bright to call its occurrence a foregone conclusion.
A little more humility and a little less hubris in the future would be advisable, Rick.
2 comments:
Not to mention that the race was the first time Dutrow decided NOT to dose Big Brown with steriods, so it's not wonder to me that jockey Kent D. "had no horse" coming out of the far turn. Duh. First race without the juice, what do you expect? (and yes, it is acceptable to give horses some steriods, unlike real athletes).
BTW, you can come do laundry at our house if you want. We are playing poker here on Friday night if you are interested...
To KMG originally and now you
I don't know if the Scalia comment was yours or Jeffrey's, but your excuse is that you are a doctor and don't know s*** about the rule of law--his is he's only a wannabe lawyer--so don't mess with Antonin or Clarence in public--those who really know the Constitution are way beyond you both. HAVE A NICE DAY PROTECTED BY A STRICT CONSTRUCTION.
Terry G,
Post a Comment