As you may already know (if you follow such things), the Wisconsin Men’s basketball team avoided going to the National Championship game by 1 point. 1 POINT! In all honesty, I don’t care. We were at BW’s to eat and watch the Minnesota Wild shut out Sid the whiny Kid and his Penguins. Go Wild!
But since it was BW’s, we were able to see the game and it seemed in the first half as if Bucky and crew were going to walk away with this one. But then they didn’t. I didn’t have a clue what was going on but just saw the final score and thought, “one point, that’ll eat at some of these guys for quite a while I imagine.” Luckily, I was in Minnesota and was able to avoid all of the post game talk that was sure to ensue. I’m glad. By the time I got back home on Monday, the Bigg man was worked into a pretty good sized juli rant about the idiotic sportscasters around town. The blame went to officials, various silly factors, and some coaching (I think, I was unpacking at the time.) What they failed to talk about, is that UK was the best…that day. They played the scenario’s over and over of, “if THIS would have been different” or “if THIS guy would have played better” and not any of it means one spring shit. Because UK was the best, that day. They won.
And such is the crux for sports commentators that have never competed at a high level. You can scenario your way into an hour long talk show but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. EVEN give the scenario that Wisconsin gave the game away and UK just took advantage of errors (I have no idea if this happened, I’m just heading off the argument that often times the “best” wins without being the “best”) it doesn’t matter. If a team or opponent takes advantage of another’s mistakes, and walks away with a win, they’re the best…that day.
See the pattern? I am awfully tired of hearing the haters talk about others’ wins with a huge asterisk in front of the conversation. Two of the four most important Strongman competitions are now over and the season has just started. Folks have already talked ad nauseam about the idea that Z isn’t really the best because he didn’t win this event or that event. Good lord, SHUT UP. Since he only won WSM by half a point, he’s no longer in his best form?? Uhhhh, he won. Duh. The trophies don’t state, CHAMPION BY .5 POINTS. It just says, Champion. Two of my close wins come to mind, one down in Texas where I won by half a point and most recently in March when I won by one and a half points. Neither trophy or medal state that though. They just say first. I’ll take it.
A lot goes on in the course of a competition. All of our preparation helps but sometimes lady luck steps in and gives a slight boost. Does that make a win less of a win? If you think it does, try to explain it to me but I’ll tell you you’re wrong. All it means is that on that day, in those conditions, with that field of competitors, a win is a win. I remember last year there was a dust up on the NASGA forum because some douchy douch claimed that according to numbers of a competition, he would have placed higher than many pro’s. Huh? Cuz you weren’t there and have no clue dude. Numbers on a website only tell a small part of a competition. Conditions, a little luck going for (or against) you, everything. No one can say a winner shouldn’t have won due to “X” reasons.
They won. Duh. All they had to do was be the best…that day.
The only thing I’m addicted to is winning. This bootleg cult, arrogantly referred to as Alcoholics Anonymous, reports a 5 percent success rate. My success rate is 100%.