This Is Not an Anti-Boston Post
This is an anti-dumbass radio personality post. Earlier today (before game 5 of the NBA Finals, obviously), I'm flipping radio channels. I decide to head over to the local ESPN affiliate. What is the very first thing I hear from the talking head of the hour?
You know why this series is 3-1 Boston instead of being tied 2-2? Because the Boston Celtics never stopped believing in themselves.
Yeah, that must be it. Or maybe, just maybe, it's any one of a hundred more substantive reasons. Down the stretch execution. Matchups. Defensive adjustments. Rebounding. But sure, the degree to which the Celtics "believe[d] in themselves" in game four might have been the key factor too. You never know. Hey, nameless Sunday mid-afternoonish ESPN Radio guy, whose actual identity is not revealed by their scheduling webpage: go fuck yourself. You stink.
16 comments:
That sounded like an anti-Boston post to me. If it is not a completely positive comment about Boston, then it is completely negative. You are anti-Boston.
I want to see how many posts in a row I can be the only one to comment.
Keep it going. (No, this does not ruin your streak.)
Since no one else is going to comment, you know what else I think is funny? Whenever something great and wonderful happens to someone that they put a lot of effort into, reasons such as, "he never stopped believing in himself" crop up as the reasoning.
Whenever someone does something horrible that they really believe in and have worked for like, which I in no one way condone, such as kill 15 people over a five year span, no one says it was because he/she just believed in himself.
I realize that is an extreme example but in both cases that person had a goal and did not give up. Granted one person was pure evil while the other was a noble goal, but the fact still remains this person in both cases believed in himself.
This is what I write when no one is reading.
When I write a comment that actually makes sense, I just someone to write, "it was because he never stopped believing in himself."
I am now baiting others to comment just to ruin my "only one to comment goal."
Only Boston teams never stop believing in themselves. Even the Celtics last season. The fans never left either. And Boston is unique because that's the center of world history. Larry Bird is better than Michael Jordan at everything, including dunking. No wait, Larry Bird is a better TEAM basketball player while Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time. Do i sound like Simmons yet?
btw, sorry Bengoodfella.
It's ok...I never really believed in myself enough to do it.
Whenever someone does something horrible that they really believe in and have worked for like, which I in no one way condone, such as kill 15 people over a five year span, no one says it was because he/she just believed in himself.
Ray Lewis definitely never stopped believing in himself.
I can honestly say I believe Ray Lewis kept the faith in himself and his "innocence."
I know for a fact Rae Carruth to this day still believes in himself. I hope everyone gets that one.
I can't help but wonder how much Boston would believe in themselves and be up 3-2 if Andrew Bynum had not torn his knee up. Of course I don't like the Lakers at all so this made me happy but still.
On a different note, this umpire in my favorite team's baseball game has pissed me off already and it has only been one half inning. He needs to believe in himself more and learn how to call balls and strikes and possibly position himself to where he can actually see a tag at home plate.
"No wait, Larry Bird is a better TEAM basketball player while Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time. Do i sound like Simmons yet?"
You mean a single Larry Bird is a better TEAM then a team full of Michael Jordans.
Simmons' Fact: 5 Michael Jordans could not beat one single Larry Bird ...in the Garden.
Best Fans + Best Venue + Best City + Best Celebrity Fans + Best Underground Highway/Subway tunnel system... suckas
So, are we all pulling for LA tomorrow night? I know Kobe's a douche, but still. I don't think any of us can handle two championship teams hailing from Boston. Think about what that would be like.
Yay! The number of people who write here changed again!
larry, please, PLEASE tell me one of you guys is a tennis fan and is planning to take out his latest. simmons's latest mag column is so amazingly wrong i can't even think about it without getting a headache. i honestly believe somebody told him to write the worst tennis column possible going into wimbledon, just for shits and giggles.
"But I don't have a single friend who'd watch four hours of tennis on a Sunday morning and, I'm guessing, neither do you." - bill's favorite move, assuming that because he and jack-o do something a certain way, everybody else is the exact same.
"Once a successful mainstream sport, tennis now matters twice a year—during Wimbledon and the U.S. Open—and even then it's not like America shakes with Racket Fever or anything." - he compares tennis unfavorably with golf - how often does golf get huge play outside of the majors, either (aside from when ESPN is covering a tourney, at which point IT BECOMES THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS)
"Beyond that, a transcendent golfer may stick around for 40 years, and we're aware of this, so it's only natural for us to get more attached to him. We've known Tiger since he was crushing kids as a little guy, we knew him when his father passed away, and we'll know him when he's wearing a bad hairpiece and obliterating the Champions Tour in 2033. By contrast, a great tennis career always unfolds the same way: Guy kills himself for a few years getting to the top and staying there; guy gets bored; guy starts sleeping with actresses/models; guy drops in the rankings; guy makes a brief resurgence; guy loses hair and retires; guy disappears forever. This has to have happened 47 times since I was 10. I'd argue that we haven't attached ourselves to Federer because we know another Federer will eventually come off the assembly line. Because one always does." - there is so much wrong here it's laughable. first, he claims that we get too used to the same type "tennis star" showing up... juxtaposing it with the fact that tiger will be around for 40 years?! furthermore, his description of the usual 'tennis star' doesn't come even remotely close to either sampras or federer, and agassi meanwhile was one of the most popular and beloved american athletes in the latter parts of his career despite being closer to his description than either of the 'uberstars.'
"Remember an aging Jimmy Connors willing himself into the 1991 U.S. Open semis at age 39? Those days are long gone." - YES THIS IS NOTHING AT ALL LIKE WHEN AGASSI MADE IT TO THE U.S. OPEN FINALS IN 2005 AT 36. TENNIS SURE HAS CHANGED.
"When John McEnroe and Björn Borg had their "Battle of 18-16" at Wimbledon, it wasn't serve-and-volley, serve-and-volley, serve-and-volley; some of the points lasted for 45 or 50 seconds, and they always seemed to end with McEnroe just missing a winner, then sagging in disbelief. Now, I'm not saying tennis should return to wood rackets. You can't go backward. The game has evolved to a faster version of itself, and that's that. But we'll never see anything like Borg-McEnroe again. The equipment prevents it." - honestly, it's like he's never watched a single tennis match in his life that doesn't include andy roddick. the level of groundstroke play today is so much higher than in the past precisely BECASE of the equipment (it's much more difficult to attack the net indiscriminately). he bitches about too much serve-and-volley... which is a dead style. peter mcenroe was the last true serve-and-volley player. bill simmons is an idiot.
"But these days, succeeding at tennis lends itself to being an exceedingly boring person. You need to be calm, focused and diligent, 24 hours a day." - i guess after roddick's matches he never listens to the commentary. the guy's extraordinarily polarizing among tennis fans, as well as being a great interview.
"Seriously, have you been to a tournament? Tennis and golf are the only sporting events at which you're expected to drink liquor and not make noise. How does that make sense? I don't like being anyplace where I might be shushed. It's just one of my rules in life." - this is because you are an asshole. shut up and appreciate the tradition of the game. i fail to see how letting people act like assholes will make watching the sport on TV more popular - and it doesn't really hurt for fans at the major matches themselves anyway.
"You can't have four "majors" when absolutely nobody cares about one of them." - fuck you, the aussie's a great event. just because you don't like it doesn't matter. more of the same nonsense he pulls like with his dad or buddies - 'just because i/my dad/my friends do/think/like it, everybody else must too.'
"Change the set format—make women play best of five, men best of seven—but tighten them (to first to four games) and extend tiebreakers (from first to seven points to first to nine)." more proof he doesn't understand tennis. first to 4 games would FAR too heavily penalize players for getting broken on serve, and simply increase the likelihood of the players bill claims to dislike watching advancing further into tournaments (as opposed to players with weak serves, but the ability to scrap for points, play deep into sets, and tire the opponent).
... wow, i can't believe i just did all that. this article really pisses me off, like... a LOT.
... patrick mcenroe. not peter.
The best part ofof Simmons' mag column is where he writes that Tennis has changed too much via the equipment and this change makes it unappealing and too fast. Then he ends the column, in his cutesy, 'I wrote this is 10th grade English class' way with: "See, tennis didn't change. We changed."
What. the. fuck. is. he. talking. about? Way to sacrifice a central point of the column in order to end the column poetically. Well done shit head.
Anonymous- First of all, why request a column when you're going to do it yourself in the comments. Second of all, despite my basement dwelling and sun fearing ways, this is not a lie: I played tennis in high school. (I'm a nerd AND a sissy sport-playing pussy.) So yes, the column did infuriate me. Therefore, third of all, yes I will do it. Although maybe not until later in the week, because Jemele Hill just came out with a doozy.
What I was referencing before was two of Bill's big things. He called Bird the "greatest team basketball player of his generation" in his "sports hero" column a few years back about Larry Bird. But he has been on record numerous times calling MJ the greatest basketball player ever.
SO.... I get where Bill's going with those points, but, um, he's wrong, unless MJ selfish-ed himself to all those assists, rebounds, great defensive performances, points, and wins.
I found the tennis column to be so egregious that it did not deserve to even be commented on. I played tennis in high school and watch a lot of tennis on weekends in my attic.
It's all a part of Bill Simmons' thought process that if he does not play the sport then it is not popular and needs fixing. Fuck him.
Post a Comment