...and the Herald agrees

[Mike Dynon <mdynon@ix.netcom.com>]

Cofman ranks Babe Ruth No. 1 overall, and elevates Russell to his
rightful place as basketball's best.


ESPN's ratings are off
NBA Notes/by Mark Cofman 

Sunday, January 2, 2000

ESPN could screw up a one-car funeral. Or in this case, what should have
been a one-horse race.

The network's selection of Michael Jordan over Babe Ruth as the No. 1
pick in its 50 Greatest Athletes of the Century series is foolish. It's
the latest example of ESPN's inability to do its research and grasp this
country's athletic history.

The folks at the Bristol, Conn., station have always conducted their
business as if sports didn't exist as a true art form until the network
went on the air two decades ago. We thought that M-TV mentality might
change when ESPN took over Classic Sports and opened its archives for
programming a few years ago. We thought wrong.

As much as we acknowledge and admire Jordan's greatness in leading the
Chicago Bulls to six NBA titles during the 1990s, he doesn't come close
to Ruth in a list of the century's best -- using any criteria you might
want to dream up. Ruth dominated and revolutionized his sport when it
was the only game anybody cared about watching or playing in this
country.

Football and basketball were small-time enterprises, played best on
college campuses. Hockey was something Canadian kids did. If you had any
aspirations of playing professional sports in America -- unless you were
a potential prize-fighter -- you played baseball. And Ruth played it far
better than anyone then -- or since.

He became the country's most famous and beloved athlete, broadening his
following to unprecedented international levels in an era void of
made-for-TV stars and mega-marketing campaigns. Ruth's 1934 trip to
Japan with a touring team became a nationwide celebration in that
country. Japan's obsession with baseball continues to this day.
Meanwhile, some 65 years after Ruth played his final game, his name
still readily sells products across the world.

But above all, Ruth's superiority over anyone who has every played his
game is so complete that any debate on the subject is laughable -- for
amusement purposes only. Can the same be said for Jordan? Does he stand
so far above the rest of his peers in NBA history there's no room for
argument?

Get real. There are many basketball fans who for starters would mention
Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson in the same breath as
Jordan. They'd be right to do so, too. During the 1980s --
unquestionably the NBA's gravy-train years in terms of quality of
product -- Jordan watched Larry Bird and Magic Johnson dominate the
league. When Bird and Magic were through making the Celtics and Lakers
the premier teams of the decade, Jordan was in his athletic prime but
once again had to play postseason also-ran as the Detroit Pistons
graduated to the NBA throne.

He didn't win anything until 1991 -- his seventh season in the league.
And, as impressive as those six titles look on the resume now, Jordan
and the Bulls were major beneficiaries of a watered-down league void of
adequate competition throughout this decade. Does anyone seriously doubt
the Celtics, Lakers and Philadelphia 76ers of the early and mid-'80s
would have eaten most of those Chicago title teams for lunch?

A few more things to consider about Ruth; He was on his way to the Hall
of Fame as a pitcher before the switch to the outfield. He hit 50 or
more home runs in a season four times in the 1920s -- when most teams
could reach that mark. His incredible talent and appeal saved the game
from a collapse following the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Instead, baseball
enjoyed its greatest era of popularity in this country.

So, while it might be fruitful for the marketing department at ESPN for
the contemporary candidate to conveniently land in the top spot, Jordan
was a senseless choice. Ruth belonged on top in a landslide, followed by
Muhammad Ali with serious consideration given to Jim Thorpe. Then,
perhaps Jordan.

Then again, perhaps not. My vote would for No. 3 would have gone to
Russell. ESPN, of course, voted the Celtics' Hall of Famer in at No. 18.
How they arrived at that ranking is anyone's guess, but it does beg the
obvious question: What more could Russell have done to deserve an
upgrade?

Let's see now? As a collegian, he led San Francisco to two straight NCAA
national titles. He was a member of the U.S. gold medal-winning
basketball squad at the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne, Australia. Russell
proceeded to lead the Celtics to 11 NBA titles in 13 years, the greatest
run in the history of team sports. In becoming Red Auerbach's
centerpiece during the dynasty, he was the only player from the first
title squad still playing on the last in 1969.

In Russell's career as a collegian, Olympian and professional, he was
involved in 21 ``sudden death'' type games -- that is, games in which
one team or the other faced elimination with a loss. His record was
21-0.

Russell also made a social impact in a city hardly known for blazing any
civil-rights trails. In taking over for Auerbach in 1966-67, he became
the first black coach in the history of team sports. As player/coach,
Russell guided the Celtics to two championships in three years before
walking away from the game.

Some 30 years after his retirement, Russell is still considered by many
to be the greatest basketball player in history. At the very least, he
represents the game's most dominant defensive force, having reinvented
the center position while changing the way the game is played in the
pivot.

We understand lists and rankings such as ESPN's are entirely subjective
forums, with no actual right or wrong choices. The more debate, in fact,
the more they've served their purpose. But Bill Russell, No. 18?

Forget whether it's right or wrong. It's just plain stupid.