C*ngratulati*ns Barry B*nds for H*me Run Number 715



I've never seen this much buzz around someone getting into 2nd place in the record books. It is a HUGE accomplishment, don't get me wrong, and it deserves all this attention and more, but I feel like there are two main reasons why it's been all over talk radio, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and the like: 1) America's love for Babe Ruth, and 2) America's hate for Barry Bonds. It's got very little to do with the actual accomplishment and very much to do with comparing two legends of two very different eras.

I'd bet that if one were to take a poll of average Americans and ask who they think holds the career home run record, more people would say Babe Ruth than Hank Aaron. Babe Ruth has now fallen to 3rd on the all-time home run list, but he keeps that aura as being bigger than the sport itself. Very rarely will you hear Aaron talked about in that respect, with a sense of awe and mystery always surrounding the stories about him. And maybe there is a logical reason for it. I mean, Ruth single-handedly changed the face of baseball, by introducing the home run as a reliable tool in the repertoire instead of a once-in-a-blue type of thing. He was the first home run hitter, as we think of them today. And for that, he should never be forgotten.

But the first to ever do it shouldn't by default be considered the best to ever do it. And all the asterisks in the world aren't going to take away the fact that Barry Bonds, juiced or not, hit SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN friggin home runs, and surpassed the man that people equate to Jesus in cleats. A lot of dudes are juicing in the Majors today, and it seems pretty obvious that Bonds is one of them, given the fact that his head about doubled in size over the past decade, but nobody in the steroid-ridden MLB has come anywhere near accomplishing what he has.

There is much more beneath the surface of this whole controversy, and as much as I'd like to see steroids wiped out from all sports, I contend that adding asterisks to the record books do much more harm than good, and add in needless complications and tarnish baseball, which as I alluded to in an earlier column, is the most statistic-obsessed sport on the planet.

There have been numerous reasons mentioned as to why this 715 has been "artificially inflated" and why it should be thrown out, ***'d, or put in a separate book along with other accomplishments of this era and set aside from the rest of baseball history.

That doesn't work, for a number of reasons.

First of all, we have no idea who is and is not on steroids, aside from Jose Can$eco's noble crusade, some court testimony, and a lot of speculation. How do we go about gutting the record books without solid evidence on every player? If steroids have been this prevalent for the past 15 or 20 years, who's to say which players stayed clean their whole careers, which players dabbled in it, which players tried it for a little while and went clean afterwards, and which players consumed it like it was a 4th meal? You can't determine these things with any sort of accuracy, and that makes it impractical to even bring this up. Also, steroids don't only necessarily affect hitting. Who knows if a juiced up pitcher can add a few MPH to his fastball, or add a little extra snap to his breaker.

Second, what constitutes an illegal substance? Andro's illegal, but becuase it was a legal substance during McGuire's run, it's retroactively okay too? So do we pencil in some asterisks, and put others in solid ink? Maybe a color-coded asterisk system?

Third, it could be argued that Babe's numbers are "artificially inflated" as well, because the world's best pitchers could very well have been playing in the Negro Leagues, and maybe Babe was playing against a watered-down talent pool. Should we then look at Babe's numbers in a different light? Should we have separate books for the eras before and after the Negro Leagues, like they have for the NFL when it combined with the AFL?

Fourth, the idea of an athlete has changed significantly since the early days. Workout regimens, nutritional knowledge, personal training, etc have turned natural athletes into modern-day super-athletes, even without the idea of steroids. Not to mention the fact that pitching rules and the ball itself have undergone changes which help the modern-day hitter, and the season has been extended. We should view each era's records within the context it was set, but should we go so far as to explain each and every nuance of these eras in the record books, and discredit each successive era's players?

Finally, who's to say Babe wouldn't have taken steroids if it meant staying competitive in the league and being able to continue earning a salary? Are we punishing these athletes because it is illegal, or because it is an advantage that earlier-era players did not have access to? I can guarantee that once someone's livelihood is based on athletics, especially in an arena like this where you're only as good as your last season, players have no qualms about keeping up with their competition, by all means. Steroids happened to not be accessible in Babe's day. Had they been, maybe he would have crushed another 200 home runs and the record would still be there today.

The point of all this is, we can't erase history, as much as we might like to. The numbers are what they are, and no amount of rearranging, rewording, or re-editing is going to change what these athletes have accomplished. We should keep in mind the factors that have gone into the numbers, and we should be able to keep an open forum about who is a better player and why, and in that conversation, by all means should we address the steroid issue, as well as every other issue that comes up when comparing the past with the future. The point is, the playing field will never be completely level between eras, and as sacred as people may hold records, and subsequently the players that set these records, we cannot go so far as to keep future athletes from breaking them with bureaucracy.

What is a sport? The definitive answer.

I'm sure you've had this discussion before. Someone puts on the (baseball game/golf match/NASCAR race/etc) and someone else brings up the obligatory, "That's not even really a sport", at which point an argument ensues as to which what is and what is not a sport, complete with personal insults and hurt feelings.

This article should end all talk from here on out. I'm about to outline the definitive criteria and draw those lines nice and thick. What's in is in, and what's out is out. No arguments necessary.

Rule #1: There must be some form of competition between two or more people.

Without another human to play against, it is only a hobby or an activity to pass the time. In order for said activity to be considered a sport, there must be a minimum of two people involved. Basically, this rule states that training for a sport is not a sport itself. Until there is another human(s) to potentially lose to, it is only exercise.

Ruled out as a sport: Parkour, Bungee Jumping, casual Skateboarding/Biking, Aerobics

Still in: Competitive golf, Skateboard/Bike racing

Rule #2: There must be some physical aspect to the sport, and it must be primarily carried out by the human body.

I attempted to word this one carefully, and I will give my interpretation of it. First of all, it's not a sport without an athletic component to it, as I'm sure everyone would agree. The human body has to expend some form of energy in some capacity, otherwise you're just playing a game. Further, the human body's energy has to be the primary form of energy, meaning it can't be eclipsed by that of an animal, or a machine. Unfortunately, this rule may piss off a lot of southern and midwestern sports fans, as it rules out the number one spectator "sport" in America, NASCAR. But rules are rules, and the automobile expends the primary form of energy, and not the driver. This is to take nothing away from auto racing or its fans. It is an incredibly difficult skill to master, and I guess I can see why some people would be into watching it, but it's not a sport in this sense. Also the "Sport of Kings" (Horse Racing) needs to be renamed the "Activity of Kings", as the horse steals the thunder from the jockeys, and it loses credibility as a sport for that reason.

Ruled out as a sport: Auto Racing, Horse Racing, Poker, Chess, Madden Football

Still in: Polo (the energy is shared seems about 50/50 with the horse)

Rule #3: There must be some way to definitively win the competition, without the exclusive reliance on a judge. (AKA the "substance over style" rule)

Note that I did not say that every competition with a judge is ruled out. The key here is that the contest could conceivably be played out without such a judgment. Because cheerleading and figure skating rely exclusively on a judge to score the competition, they fail to meet this criterion. On the other hand, in the case of boxing and mixed martial arts, a judge is implemented, but the fighters can win a match at any time by knocking out or submitting their opponent. There must be some objective measure to take that power out of the judges' hands and definitively win the contest, whether it's a timeclock, a scoreboard, or something along those lines.

Ruled out as a sport: Cheerleading, Figure Skating, Floor Show, most Gymnastics, Halfpipe, Dancing, Bullfighting

Still in: Skating/Snowboarding for time, Speed Skating, Boxing/MMA

Rule #4: The amount of physical energy exerted must be enough so that some minimum form of physical training would be necessary to remain at a premier level (the "barstool sport" rule).

This is the rule that knocks out the bar games and the "old man" games, much to the displeasure of old folks, heavy drinkers, and old heavy drinkers. Because of the demographic this rule pisses off, this is likely the most heavily contested one. There must be some general incentive to keep one's body in shape for the sport. If that incentive is gone, the activity fails to be a sport.

Ruled out as a sport: Darts, Pool, Horseshoes, Bocce Ball, Shuffleboard, Foosball

Still in: Golf, Table Tennis

So that's it. With these four golden rules, we have drawn a solid line between sports and mere activities or hobbies. Feel free to argue and complain, but I've given this a lot of thought and I don't know of any other definition that has gone this throughly into the matter. So next time the argument comes up regarding an activity a friend chooses to attack or defend, keep in mind these four simple criteria and you can calmly and confidently shut them the hell up.

Intro #2, or Why Casual is Good, or My Last Disclaimer Before the Blog Actually Starts

Although my first column was more of an introduction of sorts, it seems like the first few columns I'm going to write on this blog are going to come with a standard disclaimer. I feel the need to tell you a few things about myself before you can get a little context to really understand the perspective I'm taking on things, and understand why my writing is the way it is.

First of all, as I mentioned in the initial "opinions and assholes" post, I have a tendency to let projects slip by and fade away for good. The main reason for that is because I tend to hold anything I do to this unattainable standard, and when I don't reach the standard I set for myself, I scrap it and move onto something else, at which point the cycle continues. So for this reason I have about 50 things that I've started and stopped after various amounts of progress had been made on them. So, for the sake of keeping this going, I've decided to begrudgingly lower my standards for the time being and simply write from off the top of my head. For this reason, some statements may be inaccurate, some of my history may be incorrect, and some of my opinions might be the opposite of what I feel later in the day after I've thought about it for a little while. I'll have no problem accepting my flaws, because I'm not trying to capture the ideal super-intelligent blogger image that everyone likes to portray themselves as in the blogosphere. Please feel free to correct me, argue with me, and attempt to change my opinions on things. I'm sure I'll do all of the above myself at some point or another as long as I hold to this philosophy.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that I am what some would call a casual sports fan. Yes, it does seem ridiculous that a self-proclaimed casual sports fan would start a sports-only weblog and expect people to read it, but let me explain why I feel I can pull this one off.

My definition of "casual" is relative. I'm sure when compared to people whose only exposure to NFL football is the Super Bowl, or to people in NYC who root for the Yankees only after they've won 4 or 5 World Series rings in a decade, or to people who claim that "baseball is boring", but then watch a night-long marathon of reality television on Bravo-- I'm sure to these people, I'm a sports fanatic. But when compared to people who subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket, MLB Extra Innings, and NBA League Pass, or to people who join fantasy baseball, basketball and football leagues for excesses of $200 a piece each year, or to people who can say off the top of their head who the number 6 hitter was for the Boston Red Sox in 1976--I'm sure to these people, I ought to be ashamed of myself for even having an opinion, let alone devoting a website to tell it to other people.

I fall somewhere in the middle. I watch SportsCenter in the mornings before work, I occasionally check CBS Sportsline and ESPN.com during the day, I peruse sports-based messageboards and occasionally post up my thoughts, I usually watch PTI in the early evenings when I'm eating dinner, and usually turn to some sporting event above all else when I'm watching TV, save The Sopranos or an occasional episode of The Simpsons. I tend to watch different sports for different reasons, and my interest in the sport in question can ebb and flow with how I'm feeling on a day-to-day basis. For example, I'm fascinated by baseball statistics. It's a game of averages, a game of playing the odds, and strategizing accordingly. But I usually watch a baseball game as background noise or a secondary thing. I'll sit and remain interested for all 9 innings, but I don't watch a baseball game with the same edge-of-my-seat mentality that I watch a football game with. When I'm watching the NY Giants, I have to sprint off the couch to go cook up some food or hit the bathroom and sprint right back to catch each play. NBA Basketball used to be my favorite sport to watch and play as a kid, and I'm LOVING this year's playoffs, but recently, I've only been intrigued by the 2nd half, and sometimes only the 4th quarter, of regular-season games (although I'm sure this has something to do with the NY Knicks backslide of recent years).

And these are just the big three. There's still NCAA basketball and football, boxing and mixed martial arts, regional and World Cup soccer, the Olympic games, and so on. Each sport hits me in a different way.

One benefit of my quasi-casual approach to sports is that I tend to approach things from a bottom-up perspective, and I don't assume that everyone gives a shit about every little detail about every sport. I don't let the headlines in the sports world dictate what I'm interested in or what I want to write about, just as I'm sure everyone has their own niche as far as what they watch and what they read about. Approaching it this way, I'm able to see the forest for the trees, and I'd like this periodical column to reflect that.

Basically, I'd like my perspective to lean more toward an HBO Real Sports-type of feel, and less of a WFAN-type. Meaning, I'm obviously going to give my biased opinion, but I'd like to try to present it in a way that lends credence to other sides instead of discrediting everything but my own way of thinking.

Okay, so I'm two columns deep, and I've spoken more about myself than I have about a single thing in sports. I swear, the next column will actually deal with something of substance. I just feel like without a proper introduction, there's nothing that breaks this blog from the rest of them. I guess only time will tell how closely I stick to what I've said here.

They say opinions are like assholes.

Everyone's got one, and they all stink.

I tend to agree with this sentiment, but I'll take it a step further. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one, they all stink, and people will guard their own with all the strength they can muster.

With that said, I'm just an asshole with an opinion and internet access, and I feel like the safest topic to cover would be sports, where being an opinionated body part can be done in a way that doesn't tend to offend people as much as if discussing other topics.

I love that sports is a quasi-oasis from life. Obviously it's not completely separated from the realities of life in 2006, but it's one arena where you can have a staunch, unwavering opinion on something, and talk to someone with a completely opposite opinion, and get to the point where you're yelling at each other, and not get too far into personal judgment of each other's character. At least for the most part.

I mean, the point is, in discussing something like politics, there are going to be very fundamental differences in the types of people that take opposing sides of an issue. Current hot-button issues like President Bush, the war in Iraq, immigration, etc., tend to lead to people making personal attacks on one another and questioning their education, or their values, or their morals. In contrast, sports is relatively tame.

That's not to say I don't get fired up over certain things, or that I won't stoop so low as to personally question and/or attack certain people over certain topics related to sports. I'm sure I will do that at times. All I'm saying is that me talking shit about Eagles fans, or giving my half-baked opinion about the MLB steroid controversy is a lot less controversial than someone talking shit about immigrant workers or giving their half-baked opinions about the War on Terror. These things have a time and place to be discussed, and I definitely have my own strong opinions on the goings-on around me. Make no mistake, I don't watch sports to keep my head in the ground away from the world, I watch it because it's entertaining, and it's nice to take a break from the rest of the world every once in a while.

Blogs in general seem to be read mostly by a) other bloggers, and b) people who are bored at work and are looking to keep themselves entertained. That's why political blogs are by and large so damn boring, because they're often just a predictable self-perpetuated cycle of people who pretend they're smarter than they really are and are trying to show off how smart they are only to be contradicted by other people who pretend they're smarter than they really are and want to expose these first people as not as smart as they claim to be. So, in all that bullshit, the essence of the issues at hand are lost, and all we're left with are talking points and a whole lot of rambling.

So with that, I introduce you to 44 Sports, a periodical column of a 24 year old New Jersey sports fan's thoughts and opinions about the world of sports. I've become pretty used to starting projects and then ditching them for something else after a couple weeks or months, but I'm going to try to break that habit with this column, and hopefully it keeps my interest.

Any feedback, feel free to send to fortyfoursports@yahoo.com, or just leave comments under my various posts and I'll get back to you. I'm always up for a back-and-forth on any topic, and I'll do my best to pay attention to this column enough to respond to any comment or criticism that I receive.