RATHER than commencing this column with a quote from someone who most readers won’t have heard of, I’ll begin by debunking one.
During US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was asked his thoughts on the impact of ‘the French Revolution’ – and responded that ‘it’s too soon to tell’ (presumably in Chinese).
That was taken as extreme evidence of the Chinese ability to take a long view of history. The truth is rather different – apparently the ‘revolution’ under discussion was actually the events of 1968.
Yet in comparison to what passes for much modern sporting ‘debate’, Zhou Enlai may as well have been talking about Robespierre and his mob.
Many followers of sport would hardly even discuss something that happened four weeks ago, never mind four years ago. Four days is about the shelf life of any sporting event now.
Such utter lack of historical perspective leads to the sort of pronouncements that boggle my mind.
Just, ahem, four days ago there were those – admittedly on social media – crowning Conor McGregor as ‘the greatest Irish sportsman ever’.
Forget the debate about whether UFC is actually a sport or not (it’s not, there’s no ball involved *Kenny’snumberoneruleofsport (apart from boxing)).
It’s always difficult to compare achievements in different eras – but the point is that UFC hasn’t even been around for that long.
McGregor and the UFC may have made it to the historic setting of MSG (Madison Square Garden) in New York but you can’t even seriously compare his achievements so far to the best of Irish boxing, never mind the entirety of Irish sporting history.
I realise I run the risk of being abused by that element of McGregor’s support that mimics his hyperbole, those who are especially psychotic and aggressive in their love of him. (If you disagree with that description you’ll have to do so in a polite and calm manner or else you’ll simply be proving me right).
Yet it seems to me that there are a lot of young men – but not that young – acting like pre-pubescent girls.
They’re suffering from what I used to term ‘Boyzone syndrome’, which then became ‘Westlife syndrome’, then more recently ‘One Direction syndrome’. I have no idea what it’s called now.
Basically it’s the (mistaken) belief that the current flavour of the month is absolutely the best thing ever bar none OMG I love them so much.
I’m not one of those ‘everything was better in my day’ merchants. It’s still my day anyway. For the, er, record, One Direction have had some good songs, albeit nothing as good as Bieber’s Love Yourself.
However, an understanding of sporting history is needed in order to make such bold proclamations.
Even those who seem to quantify sporting success in financial terms need to put pay-outs into perspective.
Instead, we are treated to ‘blockbuster economics’, in the same sense that some comic book tosh is hailed as breaking box office records with no understanding (or at least acknowledgement) of inflation.
Clearly the number of people who paid to watch, rather than the amount of money they paid, would be a more accurate barometer (that’s an old word for a weather app, young’uns).
There’s no doubt that McGregor (and the UFC in general) has a huge commercial appeal, but it’s far too soon to be placing him high in the pantheon of Irish sporting heroes.
That rush to judgment also applied to Katie Taylor ; many people lost the run of themselves in praising her achievements.
There’s no doubt that she was very good, but she was not up against much for many years, not fighting in a competitive field. She seems very likeable and dedicated, but she’ll certainly be tested more in the professional era.
In contrast, after Gareth McAuley joined George Best and Norman Whiteside in scoring nine goals for Northern Ireland, he looked genuinely embarrassed to be mentioned in the same breath as those legends.
It’s not just Irish sports fans who go a bit crazy about their heroes. Believe it or not, the British do it too (when they’re being ‘British’ in order to bathe in the reflected glory of a Scotsman).
The previous weekend to ‘McGregor-gate’, I listened with disbelief as BBC Radio Five Live presenter Garry Richardson wondered where Andy Murray ranked now in the all-time list of men’s tennis world number ones – mentioning names near the top of that tree.
I could have answered that one – bottom. Not because I don’t rate Murray but because it was the blooming day after the Scot had become number one for the first time.
Tim Henman, to his credit, suggested to the over-excited Richardson that a player’s total of weeks at number one could be a useful gauge to assess a player’s historical standing. As it stood, Murray was still behind Patrick Rafter at that time.
The recent debate about whether or not the current New Zealand All Blacks were ‘the greatest team of all time’ – not just the greatest rugby union team of all time, quietened down somewhat after their record run of 18 Test victories was ended. By Ireland.
Not that we should take that as an insult.
Yet it may take some time, no matter what the Kiwis do in the Aviva this weekend, to properly assess their historical standing.
Besides, at least half of those 18 consecutive victories were achieved without the following players: Richie McCaw, Dan Carter, Ma’a Nonu, Conrad Smith, Tony Woodcock, and Keven Mealamu.
So which ‘team’ are we talking about? The one with all those proven greats in it, or the present one?
And where do you draw the line in terms of the number of different players used? New Zealand used 50 different players in that 18-match run.
Sure, the best XV could have been named by many, pre- and post-World Cup, but there were only two ever-presents, skipper Kieran Read and Ben Smith, with the latter making one of his appearances off the bench.
My wife wonders why I have to constantly check scores during games, suggesting that I simply wait to find out the result. She may have a point.
At least I wait a while even after the result before elevating someone or some team to the height of sport.
To have a proper perspective, you have to step back and look from a distance – and although you don’t have to wait two centuries, that does take a bit of time.
