Here’s a look at how four great writers describe an amazing athlete. Note how all three spotlight a single play to explain a larger idea. By zeroing in on a specific moment, they are able to explain to readers what general, big picture platitudes can’t.
Bill Simmons on Allen Iverson
Don’t Question The Answer by EPSN’s Bill Simmons describes a quintessential Allen Iverson encounter.
Once I was sitting midcourt at the Fleet Center when Iverson was whistled for a technical, yelped in disbelief, then followed the referee toward the scorer’s table and screamed, “[Bleep] you!” at the top of his lungs. The official whirled around and pulled his whistle toward his mouth for a second technical.
And I swear on my daughter’s life, the following moment happened: As the official started to blow the whistle, Iverson’s eyes widened and he moved angrily toward the official, almost like someone getting written up for a parking ticket who decides it would just be easier to punch out the meter maid. For a split-second, there was real violence in the air. Of course, the rattled official lowered his whistle and never called the second T. By sheer force of personality, Iverson kept himself in the game.
Look, I’m not condoning what happened. It was a frightening moment. At the same time, I haven’t seen a player bully a referee like that before or since. And that goes back to the “seeing him in person” thing. Iverson plays with a compelling, hostile, bloodthirsty energy that the other players just don’t have. He’s relentless in every sense of the word. He’s a warrior. He’s an alpha dog. He’s a tornado. He’s so fast and coordinated that it genuinely defies description. He’s just crazy enough that officials actually cower in his presence. And none of this makes total sense unless you’ve seen him.
David Foster Wallace on Roger Federer
Federer as Religious Experience by David Foster Wallace, author and tennis player, describes a Roger Federer moment.
It’s the finals of the 2005 U.S. Open, Federer serving to Andre Agassi early in the fourth set. There’s a medium-long exchange of groundstrokes, one with the distinctive butterfly shape of today’s power-baseline game, Federer and Agassi yanking each other from side to side, each trying to set up the baseline winner … until suddenly Agassi hits a hard heavy cross-court backhand that pulls Federer way out wide to his ad (=left) side, and Federer gets to it but slices the stretch backhand short, a couple feet past the service line, which of course is the sort of thing Agassi dines out on, and as Federer’s scrambling to reverse and get back to center, Agassi’s moving in to take the short ball on the rise, and he smacks it hard right back into the same ad corner, trying to wrong-foot Federer, which in fact he does — Federer’s still near the corner but running toward the centerline, and the ball’s heading to a point behind him now, where he just was, and there’s no time to turn his body around, and Agassi’s following the shot in to the net at an angle from the backhand side … and what Federer now does is somehow instantly reverse thrust and sort of skip backward three or four steps, impossibly fast, to hit a forehand out of his backhand corner, all his weight moving backward, and the forehand is a topspin screamer down the line past Agassi at net, who lunges for it but the ball’s past him, and it flies straight down the sideline and lands exactly in the deuce corner of Agassi’s side, a winner — Federer’s still dancing backward as it lands. And there’s that familiar little second of shocked silence from the New York crowd before it erupts, and John McEnroe with his color man’s headset on TV says (mostly to himself, it sounds like), ’’How do you hit a winner from that position?’’ And he’s right: given Agassi’s position and world-class quickness, Federer had to send that ball down a two-inch pipe of space in order to pass him, which he did, moving backwards, with no setup time and none of his weight behind the shot. It was impossible. It was like something out of The Matrix. I don’t know what-all sounds were involved, but my spouse says she hurried in and there was popcorn all over the couch and I was down on one knee and my eyeballs looked like novelty-shop eyeballs.
According to YouTube commenters, the exchange described above begins at 8:10 into this video. [via JK]
George Plimpton on Sidd Finch
The Curious Case of Sidd Finch by George Plimpton was a Sports Illustrated April Fool’s joke describing a mystery phenom pitcher.
The phenomenon the three young batters faced, and about whom only Reynolds, Stottlemyre, and a few members of the Mets’ front office know, is a 28-year-old, somewhat eccentric mystic named Hayden (Sidd) Finch. He may well change the course of baseball history, On St. Patrick’s Day, to make sure they were not all victims of crazy hallucinations, the Mets brought in a radar gun to measure the speed of Finch’s fastball. The model used was a JUGS Supergun II. It looks like a black space gun with a big snout, weighs about five pounds, and is usually pointed at the pitcher from behind the catcher. A glass plate in the back of the gun shows the pitch’s velocity–accurate, so the manufacturer claims, to within plus or minus 1 mph. The figure at the top of the gauge is 200 mph. The fastest projectile ever measured by the JUGS (which is named after the old-timer’s descriptive–the “jug-handled” curveball was a Roscoe Tanner serve that registered 153 mph. The highest number that the JUGS had ever turned for a baseball was 103 mph, which it did curiously, twice on one day, July 11, at the 1978 All-Star game when both Goose Gossage and Nolan Ryan threw the ball at that speed. On March 17th, the gun was handled by Stottelmyer. He heard the pop of the ball in Reynolds mitt and the little squeak of pain from the catcher. The astonishing figure 168 appeared on the glass plate. Stottelmyer remembers whistling in amazement, and then he heard Reynolds say, “Don’t tell me, Mel. I don’t want to know….”
Michael Lewis on Michael Oher
The Ballad of Big Mike by Michael Lewis looks at high school football prodigy Michael Oher.
She turned around in time to see 19 football players running down one side of the field after the Briarcrest running back with the ball. On the other side of the field Briarcrest’s No. 74, Big Mike, was racing at full speed in the opposite direction, with a defensive end in his arms.
From his place on the sideline, Sean watched in amazement. Freeze had called a running play, around the right end, away from Michael’s side. Michael’s job was simply to take the defender who had been jabbering at him and wall him off. Just keep him away from the ball carrier. Instead, he had fired off the line of scrimmage and gotten fit — which is to say, gotten his hands inside the defender’s shoulder pads — and then lifted the Munford player off the ground. It was a perfectly legal block, with unusual consequences. He drove the Munford player straight down the middle of the field for 15 yards, then took a hard left, toward the Munford sidelines. “The Munford kid’s feet were hitting the ground every four steps, like a cartoon character,” Sean says. As the kid strained to get his feet back on the ground, Michael ran him the next 25 or so yards to the Munford bench. When he got there, he didn’t stop but piled right through it, knocking over the bench, several more Munford players and scattering the team. He didn’t skip a beat. Encircling the football field was a cinder track. He blocked the kid across the track and then across the grass on the other side of the cinder track. And kept going — right to the chain link fence on the far side of the grass.
Flags flew, grown men cursed and Sean called Michael over to the sidelines.
“Michael,” said Sean, “where were you taking him anyway?”
“I was gonna put him on the bus,” Michael said.
Parked on the other side of the chain-link fence was, in fact, the Munford team bus.
“The bus?” Sean asked.
“I got tired of him talking,” Michael said. “It was time for him to go home.”
Sean thought he must be joking. He wasn’t. Michael had thought it all through in advance; he had been waiting nearly half a football game to do just exactly what he had very nearly done. To pick up this trash-talking defensive end and take him not to the chain-link fence but through the chain-link fence. To the bus. And then put him on the bus. And Sean began to laugh.
Chas Grundy
on 19 Jan 07This reminds me of the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. When you define a person (or product, or company) by a single “defining moment,” you risk losing any sight of the real bigger picture.
But I find that it’s those defining moments that make me reconsider my first impressions – and are often what I remember long after the whole picture fades.
Alexandre Simard
on 19 Jan 07Nah, that can’t be it. Agassi would be at the net. The Wallace piece is great, though. Convinced me to see Federer in person.
Daniel Higginbotham
on 19 Jan 07Man, that is great writing! I don’t ever watch sports, but each of those pieces had me grinning and a bit tense, wondering what would happen next.
James
on 19 Jan 07I think that is the Federer right clip, the article’s at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?ex=1313726400&en=716968175e36505e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all and it has a correction at the bottom:
Correction: Aug. 27, 2006
An article in PLAY magazine last Sunday about the tennis player Roger Federer referred incompletely to a point between Federer and Andre Agassi in the 2005 United States Open final and incorrectly described Agassi’s position on the final shot of the point. There was an exchange of groundstrokes in the middle of the point that was not described. And Agassi remained at the baseline on Federer’s winning shot; he did not go to the net.
Alexandre Simard
on 19 Jan 07Thanks for the pointer, James. So Wallace is more or less making things up. That’s not great writing. Or maybe it is?
Mark Gallagher
on 19 Jan 07The article by Wallace about Federer is one of the best articles about tennis I have every read.
Here is an amazing video of Federer in super-slow motion. The concentration on the ball and balanced movement are incredible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNPaZj4yn00
Excellent post. Thanks. Mark
Dave M
on 19 Jan 07If violent thuggery is “quintessential Allen Iverson,” that’s pathetic and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Karl N
on 19 Jan 07I watched that clip about five times wondering why it didn’t match the story, and then I realized the writer had just gotten half the details wrong. Shame, cause it was such a good description.
Killian
on 19 Jan 07Malcolm Gladwell recently wondered if we weren’t living in a ‘golden age of sportswriters’ while referring to Bill Simmons and Michael Lewis.
Shawn Callahan
on 19 Jan 07The thing with each of these examples is they all hinge on a story. People love to hear what happened and detailed stories told at the right time are powerful. I think one of the reasons we love stories is our innate desire to deduce the cause of things. We move quickly from the event to a heuristic, like your examples show. The key ingredients are plausibility and trust. The story and the conclusion must sound right to us and we will accept the deduction if we trust the source. I’ve written a little piece on this idea here: http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2007/01/hierarchy_of_ex.html
pwb
on 20 Jan 07Wow, if that is the correct rally, the description is way off.
Claus
on 20 Jan 07The David Foster Wallace bit completely fails the “honesty in writing” test. He is capturing his own enthusiasm, not the game as it is available to the rest of us to watch – as the youtube clip clearly shows. A lot of writers can’t even capture their own enthusiasm, so it’s no small feat, but instead of typifying great writing it comes of as typifying “truthiness” – just get the emotion right and hang the details and reality of it all. I’m not sure truthiness is quite as admirable as pure, honest writing.
Dean
on 20 Jan 07Nobody writes about the 9 other times where Federer missed the shot. Don’t judge quality by one postive.
Jan Korbel
on 20 Jan 07Nuances of the Federer x Agassi match aside, your point about the detail and the whole is great and I will surely remember it for future mind reference.
Ryan Inselmann
on 20 Jan 07I hate to beat a dead horse, but even the correction fails to mention that Agassi was not “moving in to take the short ball on the rise” and did not “smack it hard right.” He actually poked/sliced the well placed shot while it was falling. I honestly hope this is the wrong clip, because otherwise the only thing the writer had correct was the fact the Federer won the point. Not to mention the fact that the shot was good, but not great by any means and definitely not “like something out of the Matrix,” though if the point had actually happened as described, it would illustrate the point Matt was trying to make. Unfortunately, the writer was describing an amazing athlete, but not Roger Federer. At least not on that play.
Moshe Katzmann
on 22 Jan 07I guess the writer on the Federer stuff was on crack that’s why the details are all wrong.
Paul Levy
on 23 Jan 07Although I agree with the writer that having a “Federer moment” when he’s hit an amazing shot is great, the really great thing is that Federer is a pleasure to watch even when he misses the shot. He’s the first player since Bjorn Borg that appears to be totally immersed in the ball, the racket, and the court as if he’s one with them. His focus on his opponent has the illusion of being almost peripheral.
He appears to live the philosophy from the 70’s Tennis yoga guru book “Inner Tennis: Playing the Game” by W. Timothy Gallwey.
I had the good fortune to watch Federer playing a match in person at the U.S. Open in September of 1992 just before he hit the big time. It was on one of the side courts in an early round, and at one point, I was the only spectator watching. I didn’t know who he was, but his style was one of “relaxed intensity” which very few tennis players have. At times he appeared to float to the ball and effortlessly hit it.
Its almost inconceivable to imagine what he’ll be able to do in a few years if he can maintain his physical condition and grow mentally even bigger than he is now.
I enjoyed the positive comments posted here of those who are also in awe of Federer’s talent, and it further pushes my belief that people who are absorbed in a healthy & deep way into their work are the one’s who really appreciate other’s who do the same, especially on the level of Roger Federer.
Johan Bengtsson
on 24 Jan 07If you haven’t already read it, the full book on Michael Oher called the Blind side by Michael Lewis is extraordinary. Laughter, crying and amazement guaranteed. And I’m a Swede so I do not even understand American Football very good.
This discussion is closed.