We've never seen a more contentious time in the evolution of sports imo. Everything these days requires some sort of career-defining debate. Whether it's comparing the Super Teams of the NBA today versus the organic teams of yesteryear, or the popular current-day LeBron legacy compared to Jordan's, etc. Or comparing Woods dominance versus Nicklaus's, or Justin Thomas's third-round, mind-boggling record score of 9-under 63 on a par-72 @ Erin Hills versus Johnny Miller's remarkable final round of 8-under 63 at Oakmont's par-71 layout in the final round of the 1973 US Open.
It's painfully obvious that we simply cannot avoid the sports media's controversial narratives that always pit the current-day standards with that of those that came many decades prior. And although those comparisons make for an interesting debate, it nevertheless misses the mark considerably when one realizes the understanding that there really isn't a legit comparison given the obvious notable differences in playing eras, and that both athletes and the sports they played have evolved considerably.
But nevertheless, the sports media's goal these days seems to question legitimacy... to somehow try to either elevate or denigrate the accomplishments of a team or an individual athlete, based on some past standard.
If we, the fans, get consumed with that debate - we become distracted and many of us begin to question the value of modern-day success, which imo makes us absolute fools, as though we ourselves can't somehow appreciate those differences, and are subsequently incapable of defining what is or isn't considered "greatness" by our own standards.
Kevin Durant had a remarkable NBA finals, yet we either heard or read the sports media talking about how his performance was skewed because of the team he played on. Brooks Koepka played a phenomenal final round of golf on Sunday in a major, doing everything he was supposed to do to be considered worthy of a major champion. Yet we're reading this morning about how the standards were incredibly inferior to the standards of US Open Championships in the past.... Sure, arguments can be made in both of those examples. Yet it doesn't change the reality of what we witnessed, in either case.
We fans would do well to appreciate the greatness of today, without somehow trying to compare it and legitimize it to the greatness of yesteryear. Otherwise we risk overlooking the many things that distinguish the best from the average. To me, that is a far greater sin than trying to compare the past with the present, trying desperately to find some sort of compromising explanation for why greatness should somehow be both quantified and qualified. Sports have evolved. Athletes have evolved. There's no denying that, period. But to continue denying that reveals both a lack of perspective and appreciation.
I can enjoy Durant's success, no different from LeBron's incredible effort in the NBA finals last week, regardless of the circumstances. I can enjoy Justin Thomas's incredible 9-under round of 63 on Saturday at Erin Hills, without trying to somehow compare it to Johnny Miller's 8-under 63 at Oakmont that Sunday back in '73. And I can appreciate the phenomenal performance of a player to birdie 3 of his last 5 holes to win a US Open championship, which Koepka did on Sunday to win his first major championship.
And I can do so, in both of those instances, without looking back at yesteryear standards.
Sports have evolved. And although it might have evolved to inexplicable standards that some of us older fans aren't familiar with, sports and athletes in general have nevertheless evolved. We either embrace the here and now and respect and appreciate those differences, or we remain in this futile purgatory of living in the past.
I have finally come around to embracing the here and now. Otherwise, it would be pointless to continue following sports today. Tennis is different today from yesteryear, as is basketball, as is football, as is baseball, as is hockey.
Enjoy this evolution, or become just another grumpy old fan who refuses to understand the differences between the past and the present.