Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:55 AM
Danny Boy it would mean the world to me if you read this. If after the first paragraph you are bored and fed up with it's length I do not mind one bit if you stop. Just let me know what you think. I was shocked while watching your Vlog when you began talking about greatness and it was just trippy to me because just like a week or so ago I just randomly started writing about that topic sorta for my own enjoyment. Let me preface this by saying it is literally the first sorta article type thing I have ever written in my life so I know spelling, punctuation and all that stuff will be well below par(I think). I feel it's good content wise... but maybe it is terrible or just plain average... let me know... be my Simon Cowell. Oh and also, for parts of it I tried to write as if I was a real sports writer and then about half way through I just wanted to hammer out any last thoughts without worrying about using the absolute perfect wording or whatever.It's all about compete level... Why are those who are the best the best? Roger Federer got to be the best in the world by doing one thing no one else did as well as him...compete. Majority of the top athletes (among some other professions) possess the ability to be great... but the truly great, are not only the ones who are born with the natural ability to succeed, but the desire. It is interesting then, why the best can sometimes be beaten by others who are simply on a lower level... the answer is simply nothing other than compete level. Take Andy Roddick, he is lifetime something like 2-24 against R Fed, I'll touch more on that later. It is amazing that what it all boils down to in the end, is frame of mind. Once Roger Federer tied and then eventually broke the record for most majors to have ever been won, he then simply slipped almost over night to number 3 in the world. What was left for Roger to prove? Had he done anything and everything that anyone could have ever logically expected of him? Certainly. Could anyone have genuinely ever expected him to reach the heights that he had? Not a chance. So when he woke up the next day after surpassing the great Pete Sampras in Major wins... why continue to compete? He had reached the absolute greenest of pastures, and yet people seemed genuinely perplexed when he went on to lose major match after major match. The point was (or question rather), as long as Roger felt like he had done it all, how then, could he possibly have the same compete level of his peers like Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokivic going forward? These players just quite simply needed these victories a lot more. They too have that desire to someday prove to themselves that they are the best to have ever been, and the only way they could possibly prove that is to win more majors and hold more records than the man in the number 1 spot...which brings us back to Roger Federer. In the end what I am left wondering is, will Roger get back to that place where he was number 1 again... will he ever truly truly feel and I mean FEEL that NEED to get back to the top once again.As I write this I am watching Andy Roddick put up one hell of a fight against R-Fed. It has proven to me, that when a player who is more than capable comes into a situation(a match) and sets their mind to something(deeper than their opponent) that they will indeed find a way. (Andy Roddick went on to win the match) Now with this being said, not everyone in my mind is created equal...a man who was born to grow no taller than 3 feet is never going to beat Michael Jordan in a game of one on one. And that is precisely the point, to show that the professionals... the best of the best, are not always capable of being at their best. And the one who can be at their absolute best most consistantly, are the ones who in the end will be crowned the champion of champions. Sidney Crosby is a guy who is insanely talented, but I would be willing to bet that if they could somehow have a true gauge of pure talent... which would discount completely somebodies WILL to COMPETE and rather count only raw natural given ability, that Sid wouldn't even be in the top 5. His WILL to be the best however, with a combination of natural skill and talent, is what will and in fact does determine his place at the top of the mountain.I think that us mere mortals can never truly appreciate what it takes to literally have the mental stamina to become the best at something. I don't believe that being a great mother is along the same lines either... there are no 2 kids who are truly alike, and therefore you cannot give out letter grades for parents. It is however simple to say that there are people who are sincerely the undisputed best at what it is they do... and I am unsure if I can even begin to imagine what it really takes for someone to actually get to this point.Who is the best guitar player in the world? Depends on what you like. Who painted like no other? What is the Mona Lisa?Who built the greatest boat ever? Noah doesn't count...These are all questions that are completely unanswerable, however with a lot of sports, you can pretty genuinely begin to have these kind of conversations. And I believe that it is that very fact that drives the best to become so. I think that the only way Roger Federer will ever get back to the top, is if he can in the next few years before his body really starts to break down, is start to feel that burn from the likes of Rafa or Novak. If he ever truly can see that they really threaten to catch his place in history. Is Roger the type who is just happy at the end of his days to say... "Hey... you know what? At one point in time, I was the absolute greatest Tennis player to have ever lived. For those few years... I was truly the best the world had to offer." Or is Roger more of the type, that will always feel a little empty inside, if he is ever(in his lifetime) not considered the greatest who EVER lived.Take Phil Ivey, 99 % of all poker players agree that the World Series of Poker(WSOP) are the biggest and most important poker tournaments on planet earth. The Poker Worlds Stanley cup(s)... as there are more than one event. The best players on earth would gladly take a win of the main event of the WSOP for the 9 Million and the bracelet instead of say... 15 million in some random billionaires basement. This is undoubtedly the number one thing that is factored into the debate who is/who are/was the best poker player to have ever lived. Phil Ivey knows that he is already considered to be the best player on planet earth... and potentially to have ever lived... but how can he truly etch his name in that stone? How can he ensure that he is always remembered as such... by winning 200 million dollars in Bobbys room and across the globe? No... He needs the records... and trust me, he knows it. Even Ivey, who is known as much for his unwillingness to open up, as his ability to cypher off your chips, admits that he wants to own the record for most bracelets ever. He knows that no matter what anyone says or does... so long as his name is at number 1 on that list... no one can ever really be above him in that discussion. Again remember... it is to have ever lived... not living. Roger Federer will never beat a 20 yr old professional when he is the age of 90...and he won't care. Just as long as that same 20 yr old isn't holding 20 major trophies and thanking Rog for being such an inspiration.After reading these words consider Tiger Woods chase of Jack Nicholas Majors record...Will Tiger ever be fortunate enough to be looked at in the same light as Roger is now??? My hunch is that he has a few more things to prove. For these kind of guys, it is all that matters.Vegan19If you're tired of starting over... stop giving up.