Black and/or White

South Africa, recently and to much ado, declared that its Chinese citizens were black. As can be imagined this policy decision was met with no small amount of ridicule by punditry here, and presumably abroad. I, however, applaud the decision believing that skin color plays only a small role in the actual politics of race; genetics is neither a starting point nor an end point when it comes to the crushing reality of racism (Let the shit storm rain, right?). But I don’t really want to get into a debate about civil rights or racism in the United States as such, and in fact I don’t know if the above stated opinion really applies to that, what I am interested in, in the current forum, is how skin color is used to define athletes.

Especially when it comes to basketball, race is the fulcrum upon which most discussion is leveraged. Players are usually categorized first and foremost by their race- Kevin Love as Mike Miller; Beasley as Derrick Coleman; Adam Morrison as Larry Bird- no matter how absurd or on point the comparison really is. Moreover when you read comments sections on many blogs about certain athletes there is no insignificant amount of verbiage used to defend White athleticism by culling a starting lineup of Europeans as a defense of the race.

The simple reality is that just as the Black and White of the civil rights movement must be understood as uniquely American constructs quite specific to our history of slavery and colonization, the Black and White of sports is an equally contextualized discussion that must be evaluated in very different terms than the ones that we use to discuss presidential candidates and police brutality.

As the first principle it is worthwhile to note that athleticism, and differences in ‘innate’ athletic ability cannot, should not, and aren’t the defining characteristics of race in sports: although I’m sure you could use statistics to point towards certain trends, I feel rather strongly that there are many players on either side of the race lines that do not fit any standard classification. Compare the athletic ability, for instance, of CDR, Paul Pierce, Joe Alexander, Manu Ginobili, Larry Bird, Brent Barry, Chris Paul, Yi and Yao, or to expand, Don Beebe, Donovan McNabb, Christiano Ronaldo and Thierry Henri. If you can come up with any type of ranking that takes into account ability AND race, you get a cookie.

If, then, we can eliminate genetic ability according to the first principle, and genetic race as a reality contextualized by politics (see CHINESE PEOPLE ARE BLACK out of S.A.) then what exactly are we talking about when we talk about race as a defining factor in sports. In the United States certainly we can point to underlying bias that is the direct result of American history, which then allows (forces?) people to create artificial distinctions that classify people based on skin color (question: if Karl Malone and Jason Williams got in a fight, who would Rush Limbaugh support?) rather than culture. In Europe we can point to nationalisms that out-class American conventions of race by many fold, which utterly crushes any type of genetic reality: think Moors in Spain, Sicily as a NYC of the dark ages conquered by Romans, Arabs and Normans in a couple of centuries, the Balkans as, well, the Balkans, or Russians who have Chinese hair and Scandinavian eyes while they hate on anyone south of the Alps.

The point you ask? As an artifact of American culture it is hard, if not impossible, to discuss sports without looking through the lens of race. Yet as a human, an individual that is, the task is far less imposing, and in fact it can be impressively liberating to replace the standard bearer of athletic difference, race, with far more interesting differences such as class, culture, nationalism and personal histories, which certainly can, but don’t necessarily have to, include race.

Brandon Jennings: Possibly the Greatest Blessing to Team Sports

In my preparation for the Germany-Turkey match (which consisted of placing a bet and reading sports news) I read a story on Brandon Jennings possibly bypassing one-year in college to play in Europe. 

Well, I already like the guy because his flattop is fly enough, that had he been around Philadelphia in 1989, he could have made a cameo in Bel Biv Devoe's 'Poison' video. Bottom line, the flattop shows a confidence that is rare, and could be the greatest blessing for the future of college basketball.

I must start by saying that I am in favor of paying college athletes when they participate in sports that make the university and sponsors unknown quantities of money. The value of these players clearly surpasses the value of a four-year education. In my opinion, the whole system is a sham and a pathetic pr stunt. Seeing as how the system will never be changed, I must not rant more about this.

But. I will rant about a few things. 

If phenoms went to Europe instead of one-year in college:

1)  it would strengthen teams by allowing for better development of all the players, as well as decrease the distractions that the rest of the team would have to endure 

3) coaches would have to actually coach (e.g. frank martin, tim floyd, thadd motta,  jim calhoon, etc.), and not just rely on their one and done [paid] talent

2) there would be less ncaa rules infractions

3) these phenoms would be humbled, and would thus likely mature better. this means that we can let the europeans take care of our kwame browns and william avery's

Just think how good Brandon Jennings would be if he knew the metric system, had the taste for fine wines and cheeses, and had lived in a culture that didn't glorify him as much as they do a foootball/tennis/rugby player...

I read the other day that wikipedia will be the basis of all education in the future. Mr. Jennings will clearly have the money to buy a computer. Go to Europe Brandon, and take all the arrogant, immature, and untested 'phenoms' with you so we don't have to read and write about them in our second sport.

Okay, the match has started, i must go.

How good will Brandon Jennings be once he has experienced fine wine, cheese, and siestas...

 

Evaluating Evaluating

First thing I want to say is all this draft prediction and should this should that is an exercise in futility. Second thing is I read it nonetheless. Third thing is only in about five years can vindication be had or blame be shouldered.

Rose or Beasley. So many say the former and that you MUST have a PG as superstar in this day and age. But really, if, say, a violent revolution took place here in the US and all the ownership were put away and the proletariat decided to redo the NBA and re-draft the teams in the name of Unity and Brotherhood and YOU were given first swipe at the player of your choice: Who would it be?

Maybe CP3, maybe Dwight Howard, but in all likelihood it would be LeBron or Kobe. And if you are disagreeing right now you are lying to yourself to preserve your own ego. What’s more is that none, NONE, of the recent NBA champs had an elite prototype PG, Rondo is good sure, and necessary to the Celts’ success, but can be had yearly in the lower half of the first round, Tony Parker is great as well, but an elite PG?, no way, more like a small 2. Chauncey? He’s certainly your best counter argument but once again, he’s as much a combo guard who plays a step above Rip than he is a pure PG. The Lakers had, uh, who? And before that the Spurs again, then the Bulls, the Rockets, the Bulls again? Well I guess if you go back two decades you had Ike and Magic (who today would NOT be considered a PG but more akin to Lebron, in today’s under enlightened NBA bureaucracies).

So what if you could have a pure scorer who just might be able to play point forward and has all the athletic ability needed to play NBA D, would you call him Lebron, or Kobe, or Paul Pierce, or Michael Beasley. I love how mother****ers psych themselves out trying to play trends and what not and hold onto the silt for want of gold.

Get a guy like Chalmers at pick 27 and I’ll play Rose and his boys any day (wait, did this already happen).

In other news I think Hollinger does some fantastic stuff with his numbers games in predicting greatness, at least a more materialist approach than could be had by other outlets, and has Mario, DA, and DJ all highly rated for success with Rush doing reasonably well (and these numbers don’t really account for D, as Hollinger mentioned himself in regards to Rush).

So at the end of the day what yield is there for my nihilism? Take it to the bank: teams that pick at the top of the draft do so because they are poor evaluators of talent, and as such mistakes are more likely than success and when success does come it’s usually by chance.

Reading Between the Lines

Erick’s post brings up some interesting issues that are not at all specific to European Football, but rather are universal complaints of sports fans. Ultimately we search for the fulfillment of a platonic ideal in our everyday viewing of sports; the events that captivate us and imprint permanently in our synaptic memory are those events that in fact approach this ideal. How many of us have replayed in our minds Chalmers drilling that three pointer or David Tyree grasping the football with sheer will power. On the other hand how many hundreds if not thousands of sporting memories have all but vanished from our minds mere moments after they passed. We can only rarely be satisfied with sports because we invest so much in their potential.

But. This is in fact the nature of the game, and raison d’etre of 2nd sport-dom, by adding context to every game, and subtext to every player, the dialogue created between the viewer and the event should surpass the otherwise subscendent reality of a lot of sporting events. And European Football offers this type of context in spades.

Turkey vs Germany screams for such a context, and the beauty of the game, or the utter lack, can be seen, less as a failure to achieve an ideal of the game itself, as a particular cultural iteration of a largely rule bound exercise. And in this unique manner of viewing the game we can watch with rapt fascination as a team trying to pry into the very core nature of Occidentalism via a base Oriental nature clashes with a cultural identity that is almost the definition of the former. While the Turks struggle to handle the game and chain their wild desires to a codified method, the Germans are masters of the set piece, turning subtle cracks into gaping holes. Watching them eviscerate the Portugese one set piece at a time was not ugly but a very different beauty than Ronaldo’s preening vanity.

Spain-Russia is almost the exact opposite, much as they inhabit opposite corners of the Continent, they are opposites that happen to converge on a very similar essence. This is anarchy via Liberation contra anarchy via Ultimatum. This is eating dinner at 1230am against drinking vodka at 830am. And these two teams gun at the goal like they burn their own capital in spite or live in the hills out of a crazy desire to live as they wish. I think anyone who loves attacking Football will love the way these two teams abandon convention for a unique vision of perfection.

When Euro 2008 commenced I was eager to contribute blogs on 'the beautiful game', in which I thought I would be singing the praises of the French, Dutch, Portuguese, and Croatians. Unfortunately this eagerness continued to wane after the first match between the Swiss and Czech Republic, and finally culminated in the Russian defeat of the Dutch. On Sunday night the Italians will attempt to make the semifinal matches full of teams that play anything but 'the beautiful game'. What does this indicate? Well, I guess it could conjure up some of the sentiments felt for the Cobra-Kai Spurs. Although, this time I am not supportive of stubborn, ugly play. This is supposed to be 'the beautiful game' after all.

If Euro 2008 has taught me anything, it has taught me that beautiful doesn't translate into success, not even in 'the beautiful game'. Leave it to the Abromovich funded Russians to spark my awakening. While Arshavin does play with the grace that will soon land him in one of Europe's biggest clubs, the Russian drubbing of Holland killed any change of recuperating 'the beautiful game'. Advice to those who have not watched many of the matches: Do not watch the rest of the tournament because you will be turned off of the sport forever.

And, what do we have to look forward to after this atrocious tournament? Most of our sensory organs will be bombarded and subsequently tortured by the news regarding Christiano Ronaldo's departure from Man U. It is all enough to make me start watching cricket!

Lets root for Turkey and the death of all things beautiful!

The future has begun

This report comes live from KCMO, Penn Valley CC. I attended the game last night and will offer my own preview of the recruits.

First off I think this class will ensure the genius of Self’s recruiting prowess. We always knew that he was a great recruiter, he proved (like Doc maybe?) that he was also a more than capable in game coach, to say the least. But in the past, his skill at recruiting could be seen largely as the ability to recruit top flight recruits who were labeled as such (think Brandon Rush, Darrel Arthur or Mario Chalmers). However, this year I think we will remember him for the skill that brought Illinois and Oral Roberts to the national scene (think Deron Williams). And now for my take:

Tyshaun Taylor
To my eye Tyshaun was the most impressive performer on Day One, he showed an excellent ability to lead the fast break and finish hard at the rim. Over the course of the evening he put down two ally oops and handed out a few others. It was hard to evaluate his Defense because of the nature of the game, but he showed excellent quickness and quick hands. My guess is that Ty will be the first off the bench to run the point behind Sherron. For the game he plays Tyshuan has excellent size, he’ll need to improve his strength, but scoring at least all of his field goals on dunks and at the line shows that he knows how to play a physical game, and 6 of his 11 off dunks is a showcase of his athleticism. He needs to work on his outside shooting but has a silky smooth free throw. Comparisons: Russell Westbrook, Rajon Rondo.


Travis Releford
Releford is a very interesting player, he has great size and plays hard inside on the defensive glass. The combination of these two abilities will make him an instantaneous asset to KU and he will certainly give many teams severe matchup problems. He does not seem to have the superior athleticism that would make him an elite prospect, but don’t be surprised if he overcomes that negative through size and skill. The best comparison that comes to mind is a small Tayshuan Prince, and Travis will be a great defensive presence. He needs to work on his shooting both at the line (he looked terrible here) and from the field, although this could have been the result of an off night.


Mario Little
This guy has superstar potential but will struggle to fit into a structured offense with teammates of similar caliber to himself. He has elite athleticism and on one play, Tyshuan tossed up an ally-oop on the fast break and Mario and Ronnie Brewer (!!!) went up and both grabbed the ball to finish. If this guy can get up with Ronnie Brewer he has some special calves. He also showed great range and was comfortable behind the three point line. There will be some concerns about his Defense and selfishness on the ball. But in the end this could be exactly what we need next year as a young team. I watched him and thought of him as a Bill Walker type player, a guy with who plays bigger than his size and has great strength.

I’ll have more complete previews as the summer league continues…

The Truth is Green

First, see J-Gill's post on the champion inherent.

J stated Pierce being the Most underrated scorer in the game? - I think this is a byproduct of Pierce just laboring in relatively low fanfare, considering what an outstanding player he is, as the Celtics toiled in mediocrity over his career (until this season). The team change in mindset, attitude, and the overall increase in talent level profoundly affected double-P. By the time the Celts reached the Finals, the shift was complete, Inglewood-reborn in Boston. As part of the quest for a championship, it seems each of the Big Three embraced a different role, they deferred to a subset of their responsibilities from being The Man on teams' past. Pierce, however, recognized there were moments that he was the only Celtic capable of dominance. Dominance was needed in this series and the Truth was issued. Does the underrated label stem from the aesthetics of his game? While clearly efficient, he's a mix of grace and awkwardness. Seems to sneakily creep up his point total. Regardless, he is deserving of being The Truth.

Kobe's failure to lead his Lakers to a championship has inevitably led to the Jordan comparisons as being without merit. I'm a Kobe apologist of sorts, but will state I think he could have done more this series, although I think Phil Jackson and his teammates had much more to do with the loss than Kobe. Don't forget it took Jordan four years to just lead the Bulls to a winning record, and six years to get his first championship. Kobe will be back, his teammates may or may not be better, but to definitively state Kobe is lacking whatever that makeup is that made Jordan a champion is to not fully examine this Lakers team, or Jordan's past before the championships started rolling in. Lamar Odom is certainly no Scottie Pippen, Vujacavic no Paxson. Jordan failed to get past the Pistons multiple times in the playoffs, finally passing his way out of double and triple teams in '91 en route to his first championship. I'm willing to give Kobe the benefit of the doubt, he led an inexperienced group to the brink...Did he teeter at the summit and falter, yes, but just making it this far will only propel him to greater moments.

Tiger - I'll say it again, he's straight mental. But, at a price, more surgery means See ya in 2009, Tiger...