Kobe and the Wilt
Performance in Perspective
By
Richard J. Garfunkel
January 26, 2006
I go back to Wilt's time as a basketball fan. My father took me to the old Garden for the Holiday Festival of 1955 and I watched Bill Russell, Willie Naulls, KC Jones, Tommy Heinsohn and Sihugo Green make the final four with San Francisco, UCLA, Holy Cross and Duquesne. I played basketball as a kid in Mt. Vernon and followed the sport quite closely. I remember Wilt's incredible effort and I like all my friends was terribly thrilled and excited about it. I think what many of you current writers forget is that professional sport is entertainment first and competitiveness second. It is, and was, always a business. Unlike high school or college athletics, or the Olympics where there exists local, regional, and national rivalries, individuals are maturing along with their skills. Professional athletics, like the skaters in the Ice Capades are there to display greatness. We want to see great performances. I loved Dick Button, Carol Heiss, Pat McCormick the Olympic Diver, Al Oerter and numerous others. It is the individual that really counts, and it is the team that is his/her forum. The team victory for a town, city or high school is a chauvinistic victory, but the individual performance is what counts. George Steinbrenner always talks about the “team.” What “team,” a bunch of hirelings that he assembles for “top dollar?” Their pride is invented. The team on the professional level is an artificial assembly built first for putting “people in the seats” (making a buck), then winning, and then sustaining that “cash flow.”
When I was a kid I went to the Garden to see Cousy, the Big “O,” Wilt, Bob Petit and Elgin Baylor. Yes, it was also great to see team ball with the Celtics. I was a fan of Red Auerbach’s wonderful squads all the way through my days in high school watching Sharman and Cousy, to, and at Boston University in the early 1960's and until and through the career of Larry Bird. In other words, as great as the Celtics were as a team, we still loved their great players. The Knicks were a great team but without Clyde, Reed and DeBussherre they would have been also rans. The system was much different then. College sports changed for the worse with the freshman eligible rule. Along with the signing of high school ballplayers, the continuity of the college game deteriorated. Before that happened, most fans were able to watch players mature during and after four years of both a college education and three years of varsity ball. They came into the NBA as a “product” that could be coached. These players had accepted the discipline of coaching and were most often mature men at age 22 and 23, not kids who were not yet “dry behind the ears.”
Today these so-called players with their dreadlocks, tattoos, and baggy shorts (both white and black) look like characters out of a “gangsta” rap music video, not basketball players.
But economics and the courts changed the college basketball game forever. My sense is that there is much too much emphasis placed by sport's radio and columnists on the primacy of winning and not competing. The oft-quoted remark by Vince Lombardi about winning has been blown way out of proportion and its interpretation has colored opinion in this country for decades. Coming in second, after a great pennant drive, is not a disaster or a failure. The fans saw a great run and usually had a wonderful season filled with exciting moments, and the old saying “wait 'til next year” is reflective of hope, not despair. The Dodger's were bride's maids quite often, but had loving and loyal fans. Their teams, even without the World Series victory of 1955, would be regarded as great teams. In the same way, the Cleveland Indian teams of the 50's, the Lakers and 76er teams of the late 50's and 60's were, none the less, talented and interesting, even though the Yankees and Celtics were the ultimate champions. There cannot be a champion without competition and someone has to be the runner-up. That is why the season is played out.
On goes to professional sports to see stars. There is only one winner in the end. Without the stars and star performances the whole season long effort would be a meaningless bore. If winning were the only essential, why don't they play exhibitions until there is a giant playoff and the champion is declared? They play the season and keep statistics because the fans want to be entertained, it is a business and the business is supported by the fan interest in performance. Performance is measured in many ways, which include, game, season and career statistics. I was at a lack-luster Chicago Bull game against the Nets a number of years ago and Michael Jordan led a uninterested Bull team to victory over a listless Net squad with 30 points. Most points were scored on the foul line late in the game and, on top of that, Scotty Pippin didn't take a shot, mind you, until mid-way into the 4th quarter. Where were the performances? Did anyone come to see a “real” contest? No, they came to see great players make an effort. We were not rewarded. One thing about Bill Russell and Larry Bird, they gave you 48 minutes and a sincere effort. Joe DiMaggio was the same way. He said that when he retired, and turned down a record salary for that time period, (and I paraphrase) that he did not want to cheat the fans with pedestrian performances. His pride stood out. He wanted the fans to always see him at his best, if possible. People want to see the individual give his best, and make a sincere effort. A good coach puts those efforts together to build a winning attitude and therefore a winning team.
Therefore the team effort is great and important. But without the “horses” team efforts are a charade, a lost cause and a joke. So why see a pro team? Larry Brown is a great “team” oriented coach, but without talent they are and will continue to be “losers.” Will people come to see a sincere effort? Yes to a degree. You root for your high school team because it is yours. You root for your kid's high school and college teams as you rooted for your own alma mater, that's human nature. There are millions of subway alumni that supported Notre Dame but have never stepped a foot in South Bend. So, all in all, let's celebrate “performance” and stop wailing about selfishness. The whole wide world is selfish, unfortunately. Ford Motors is selfish; they want to stay in business.
Let's celebrate Bryant's remarkable night. Let's celebrate Gayle Sayers' and Red Grange's great days. Let's celebrate Jesse Owens at the Big Ten Championships and at the Olympic Games. Let's celebrates Reggie's three homers in the World Series or Don Larsen's perfect game. That is what I remember. I remember the great performances like Bird stealing the ball from Isaiah Thomas to win a playoff game, Pat Summeral's game winning field goal against the Browns, Elvin Hayes beating UCLA in the Astrodome with his great performance, OJ Simpson's 2000+ yard season, Jimmy Brown crushing linebackers except Sam Huff. Nobody remembers a well- played pedestrian team effort. They come to see the “G-ds” of sport perform. That is why people are still talking about Wilt's 100 points, Babe Ruth's 60 home runs and his supposed “calling of a homer run” against the 1932 Cubs, Jackie Robinson's steal of home and countess other “high lites.”
Get off the “ring” bandwagon. There is too much “ring” worship that Chris Russo promulgates. He's wrong constantly, just look at his record. He worships at the “alter” of championships and downgrades everything else. I say long-live individual greatness that is what we all love to see. The teams are man-made; the players are born.