2001 stings a bit because the otherwise iconic middle games of the Series slip a notch in baseball lore given the final outcome. As a kid, the 1960 World Series seemed grossly unfair to me, given that the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27.

Going into the bottom of the ninth of Game Seven, the Yankees were about to win a World Series in which they'd been outscored 35-14.

But then, Randy Johnson got his third win of the Series on zero days' rest, becoming the first 3-win pitcher since LBJ was President, and was given a friggin' CO-MVP for it.

I watched the Tyson/Douglas fight live on HBO, IIRC. Tyson was utterly lost at that point, and anybody on the inside had to at least sort of see it coming. It was however, IIRC again, "off the boards" in Vegas.

I was shocked as hell, at the time, but now I believe Tyson was largely a hype-created bully, who quickly panicked when in a real fight.

Kinda like Andy in this thread? Whoops!

I watched the Tyson/Douglas fight live on HBO, IIRC. Tyson was utterly lost at that point, and anybody on the inside had to at least sort of see it coming. It was however, IIRC again, "off the boards" in Vegas.

The bagel shop owner around the corner from my book shop was telling everyone within earshot in the days preceding the fight that Douglas was a mortal lock. I have no idea what the basis was for his confidence, but in terms of predictions he was the Muhammad Ali of bagel shop owners.

I was shocked as hell, at the time, but now I believe Tyson was largely a hype-created bully, who quickly panicked when in a real fight.

Kinda like Andy in this thread? Whoops!

Sort of like Teddy Ballgame in the 10 most important games of his life. (/ducks)

Sort of like Teddy Ballgame in the 10 most important games of his life. (/ducks)

Nah, those weren't important games - everyone who was paying attention knew they were going to lose and why mourn over teams that didn't deserve to win the world series - his most disappointing failures were some o-fers in early season in 1941 and 1942 and some times he hit foul balls instead of homers in batting practice on army camps during the war and one time a fish he caught wasn't as big as he would have hoped....

Naturally, Sports Illustrated in 1999 called it the greatest sports moment of the 20th century -- which it plainly was.

Yes, it did. But that's a pretty crappy list: #2 is Jordan shooting a basket to win game 6 in 1986, not even a decisive game. SI has another list of "Great Moments in Sports," which seems much more thoughtful. The 1980 hockey team comes in 33rd there, which seems reasonable. Ruth's called shot is #1, Owens is #2, DiMaggio-56 #4, Thompson #5, Mays' catch #7. It's pretty baseball-heavy (and of course U.S.-centric), but a pretty reasonable list.

There is no objectively correct answer to this question of course. But it is objectively wrong to put the 1980 Hockey team #1.

SI has another list of "Great Moments in Sports," which seems much more thoughtful. The 1980 hockey team comes in 33rd there, which seems reasonable. Ruth's called shot is #1, Owens is #2, DiMaggio-56 #4, Thompson #5, Mays' catch #7. It's pretty baseball-heavy (and of course U.S.-centric), but a pretty reasonable list.

It's also a list in chronological order (*), which gives a rather hefty advantage to things that happened in 1933 as opposed to 1980 ...

(*) Thus the dates of 1933, 1936, 1941, 1951, and 1954 for numbers 1-5.

It's also a list in chronological order

Fair point, I just assumed they had ranked them. In any case, a quick perusal of their 76 moments reveals many that are more significant/memorable than the 1980 hockey team. If you want to define "great" as "surprising upset," then maybe there's a case to be made. But for me "upset" would only be one factor, and not the most important, in defining "great" sporting events.

Anyone else read this as merely "Hey everyone! I'm going to say something outrageous! Pay attention to me, damnit!!" I wouldn't want the attention that comes with a remark like that, but I'm not Pedro Martinez, who may miss the publicity, good and bad, that comes with being a pro athlete superstar.

Ted was badly hurting in the elbow in the '46 Series. So we're down to 3 games.

The most important batting stat is "not making an out": OBP. Who has the highest OBP of all time? That's right. Therefore, Ted Williams is the greatest hitter who ever lived.

Just like he set out to be as a boy back in SD. ; )

*wipes tear from eye

Fair point, I just assumed they had ranked them. In any case, a quick perusal of their 76 moments reveals many that are more significant/memorable than the 1980 hockey team. If you want to define "great" as "surprising upset," then maybe there's a case to be made. But for me "upset" would only be one factor, and not the most important, in defining "great" sporting events.

I get what I think you're saying about tiresome US jingoism. I don't really root for US athletes in the Olympics just because they're US athletes anymore, and affirmatively root for the US to lose in the soccer World Cup.

That said, we shouldn't confuse today with 1980, or the rote flag-waving over the USA pros of recent Olympic vintage with rooting for a bunch of college kids to beat a team that was rather dour and joyless, and that had stacked the deck by merely pretending to be amateurs. Part of the appeal of the event is its relative innocence and the understanding that sports has become so regimented and corporate that you'll never see a matchup with even the potential for such a big upset ever again. We've "fixed" the "problem" of matching up amateurs and pros, much like we've "fixed" a lot of "problems" with sports (see, e.g., instant replay) that were never really problems in the first place. The 1980 Olympic hockey tournament elegantly captures what's been lost as the "importance" of sports has grown so distended.

I'm remembering it as the 9 year old kid I was but that US/USSR game was HUGE. It wasn't just the shock of an underdog US team beating a heavily favored Soviet team but the surrounding politics of the moment. The US as plucky underdogs is, like many of the Red Sox narratives over the years, vastly overplayed. There were several good to very good future NHL players on that US team (Broten, Christian, Morrow, Ramsey). Still, in terms of US sport at the very least it's a top 5 moment.

Buster Douglas over Tyson still blows me away. The shocker for me is that right from the outset Tyson looked lost. If memory serves he had just split with his longtime trainer Kevin Rooney (who had worked with Cus D'amato) and Tyson's bob and weave style of defense wasn't there that night. He just came straight ahead and Douglas beat the hell out of him with his jab.

affirmatively root for the US to lose in the soccer World Cup.

Given that you hate everything this isn't a surprise but I'm curious as to why. This is one of the few sports where the US is a legitimate underdog and for the most part the US has a lot of pretty likeable players on the national team (unlike the hoop team which is a bunch of guys who need a good slap).

I might be wrong, but I think the USA!/USSR game was first broadcast on TV here in the states hours after had happened--on tape delay? Something like that.* Anybody? I kind of recall something like that, as a bunch of us watched it on a crappy black and white portable in an NYU dorm.


*or am I thinking of the Final vs Finland? Most people don't recall that the USSR game wasn't for the gold.

Given that you hate everything this isn't a surprise but I'm curious as to why. This is one of the few sports where the US is a legitimate underdog and for the most part the US has a lot of pretty likeable players on the national team (unlike the hoop team which is a bunch of guys who need a good slap).

I have little to no preference for US athletes over athletes of other nations and, more importantly, have no interest in seeing world soccer being Americanized in any way, shape, or form.

How is the US an underdog?

*or am I thinking of the Final vs Finland? Most people don't recall that the USSR game wasn't for the gold.

I believe the game wasn't broadcast live. It was a Friday (a HS basketball Friday for me, so I didn't see it live. Our coach tried to fire us up by telling us the US won, so anything's possible, yadda yadda. What wasn't possible, apparently, was our team winning that night.)

Finland was the next Sunday. Pretty sure that was live and I was glued to the set. Though the semi was the Game of the Century, the final was far from a gimme.

tfbg - I'm pretty sure the USSR game was shown on tape delay. I think you're right about that.

SBB - The US is an underdog by virtue of not being as good as other teams.

Anyone else read this as merely "Hey everyone! I'm going to say something outrageous! Pay attention to me, damnit!!"

Yeah, Pedro really Schillinged the hell out of this one.

Sort of like Teddy Ballgame in the 10 most important games of his life. (/ducks)

Nah, those weren't important games - everyone who was paying attention knew they were going to lose and why mourn over teams that didn't deserve to win the world series - his most disappointing failures were some o-fers in early season in 1941 and 1942 and some times he hit foul balls instead of homers in batting practice on army camps during the war and one time a fish he caught wasn't as big as he would have hoped....

Well, you got the first part right, even if inadvertently. Even Red Sox fans can stumble across an acorn once in a while.

Ted was badly hurting in the elbow in the '46 Series. So we're down to 3 games.

The most important batting stat is "not making an out": OBP. Who has the highest OBP of all time? That's right. Therefore, Ted Williams is the greatest hitter who ever lived.

Wow, talk about being "defensive". Glad I didn't bring up that fielding misplay of his that helped blow the 1949 pennant on the final day. (smile)

(EDIT: Make that a grin.)

Anyone else read this as merely "Hey everyone! I'm going to say something outrageous! Pay attention to me, damnit!!"

I saw it as his usual mixture of outrageousness and honesty. And damn, I wish he'd been a Yankee.

And damn, I wish he'd been a Yankee

*throws up in mouth

And damn, I wish he'd been a Yankee

*throws up in mouth

4 out of 5 New York doctors recommend Prilosec OTC for acid reflux. Just sayin'.

And double damn, the thought of Teddy Ballgame in pinstripes.....Of course they'd have to bench him during the World Series and replace him with Gene Woodling, who was a much more proven postseason clutch performer.

Pulling the thread together, Tikhanov pulling Tretiak after the first period in the semis made Grady Little look like Albert Einstein for leaving Pedro in, yet Tikhanov wasn't fired (or worse) and Little was run out of town.

So, crafting our list of tolerance and patience in sports, we find that it runs, in reverse order, as follows:

3. Red Sox fans
2. Theo Epstein
1. Brezhnev's apparatchiks.

The 1980 Olympic hockey thing didn't make much of an impact for me, I guess because I was preoccupied with college & such.

The 1972 Russian theft of the basketball gold medal, though ... ugh.

4 out of 5 New York doctors recommend Prilosec OTC for acid reflux. Just sayin'.

Prevacid FTW, bytch.

So, crafting our list of tolerance and patience in sports, we find that it runs, in reverse order, as follows:

3. Red Sox fans
2. Theo Epstein
1. Brezhnev's apparatchiks.

But even Red Sox fans are a bit more forgiving than fans of Colombian soccer.

The 1972 Russian theft of the basketball gold medal, though ... ugh.

Now here's one that I think is massively overblown. The US team got their asses kicked that day. They were down 9 with 4 minutes to go and needed a furious comeback to be ahead. The sequence at the end of the game was a joke but the US should have won that game easily but they spit the bit (largely by playing a slow it down style that suited the Soviets). The whining from the US players since then is embarrassing.

The refs didn't lose that game for the US. The US put themselves in a position where a fluke could beat them...and did.

Andy, might this be you, between gigs, back in the late '70's?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AuMTeRMqk&list=UUFb0L4MQziTjEsJKTbFgm8Q&index=54

The refs didn't lose that game for the US.

No, the hacks and knaves that made them play the last three seconds three times lost that game for the US.

I just now went back & watched the ending of the game for what I'm pretty sure is the first time since it happened (a few days before I turned 13). Why the hell did the ref wave Tom McMillen away from the baseline when he was trying to defend the in-bounds pass? Was that an international rules thing?

Why the hell did the ref wave Tom McMillen away from the baseline when he was trying to defend the in-bounds pass? Was that an international rules thing?

Wikipedia has a good write up on it.

On the third inbound try, McMillen was again assigned to use his height to challenge Edeshko's inbound pass. However, as official Artenik Arabadjian prepared to put the ball into play, he gestured to McMillen. McMillen responded by backing several feet away from Edeshko, which gave Edeshko a clear view and unobstructed path to throw a long pass down the court. McMillen later said that Arabadjian had instructed him to back away from Edeshko. McMillen said that despite the fact that there was no rule which would require him to do so, he decided to comply, fearing that if he did not, Arabadjian might assess a technical foul against him.[13] For his part, Arabadjian has denied that his gesture was intended to instruct McMillen to back away from Edeshko

Yeah, McMillen says as much at the 8-minute mark of the YouTube segment I linked to. Upon closer examination, it appears that the ref might've just been warning him to make sure he didn't step on or across the line. Who knows?

Interesting how the mind's eye can distort things. For decades, I've carried a pretty clear mental image of the Russian player who made the winning basket blatantly elbowing his two U.S. defenders to the ground as he went for the shot. Instead, looks like their momentum simply carried them down.

Interesting how the mind's eye can distort things. For decades, I've carried a pretty clear mental image of the Russian player who made the winning basket blatantly elbowing his two U.S. defenders to the ground as he went for the shot. Instead, looks like their momentum simply carried them down.

On the other hand, my 8-year-old eyes didn't fully capture the contours of the foul on Collins, which I now see was one of the most crude, thuggish undercuts you'll ever see in serious basketball. What the ####?

now I believe Tyson was largely a hype-created bully, who quickly panicked when in a real fight.

I don't see Douglas as a more fearsome opponent than Trevor Berbick or Tony Tubbs or ... well the heavyweight division was kind of shallow at the time, but Douglas wouldn't have been seen as an unusually strong opponent.

I think it's pretty clear that he'd lost his earlier work ethic and hadn't trained properly (and would never do so again). He expected an easy win. One clean shot and it's over.

now I believe Tyson was largely a hype-created bully, who quickly panicked when in a real fight.

YR is the boxing expert here. He says so, I'll believe it. Otherwise, not so much.

William Jones -- The very definition of the arbitrary and petty functionary, and History's Worst Monster.

William Jones -- The very definition of the arbitrary and petty functionary, and History's Worst Monster.

I don't know about that, but he sure makes a nice representative for the IOC.

It would be interesting to know who decided to fire the horn off as Doug Collins was in the middle of attempting the game-winning free throw. I wonder what would have happened if he had missed it.

Now here's one that I think is massively overblown. The US team got their asses kicked that day. They were down 9 with 4 minutes to go and needed a furious comeback to be ahead. The sequence at the end of the game was a joke but the US should have won that game easily but they spit the bit (largely by playing a slow it down style that suited the Soviets). The whining from the US players since then is embarrassing.

The refs didn't lose that game for the US. The US put themselves in a position where a fluke could beat them...and did.

That's crazy. I don't care what the US team did up to that point. It was balatant thievery to replay the last possession until they got the outcome they wanted.

There is no objectively correct answer to this question of course. But it is objectively wrong to put the 1980 Hockey team #1.

You honestly believe this? I cannot think of one single baseball moment that doesn't involve Jackie Robinson that I would put over the 1980 Miracle on Ice. And I'm a baseball fan and hate amateur sports with a passion(I don't know why anyone other than family members, should care one bit about sports that don't generally have the top talent) That list you pointed seemed awfully New York specific to be taken seriously. Mays catch? seriously? Anyone that puts that on a top 50 list of greatest event in sports, is a certifiable idiot. Dimaggio Hit streak? c'mon, seriously man, it wasn't even the most impressive performance During that streak. Talk about hype machines. Dimaggio most overrated player in baseball history, makes Jeter appear to be a forgotten player in comparison.

YR is the boxing expert here. He says so, I'll believe it. Otherwise, not so much.

Absolutely agree. I know he was hyped, but I find it hard to think he wasn't a heck of a boxer at the same time.

I have little to no preference for US athletes over athletes of other nations and, more importantly, have no interest in seeing world soccer being Americanized in any way, shape, or form.

How is the US an underdog?

"affirmedly root for the US to lose..."? Why would a US entry into the World Cup, almost certainly recognised as the planet's most prestigious and far reaching (in terms of public interest) sporting event and one in which this country's men's team has barely been competitive, appear to be such an "Americanization" threat to the sport that you would hold this opinion? Seems like an overreaction, IMO. Is it because the under-competitive status of the US men's team makes soccer more "pure"?

And until the men's team gets somewhere near to the finals, they are underdogs. Not so for the women.

All of America was rooting for New York to overcome what was an unprecedented attack on the city and its team.

I am a A's fan so there was no way in hell I was rooting for the Yankees at any time even if a Pre-historic monster came out of the sea and made off with the Statue of Liberty.

And until the men's team gets somewhere near to the finals, they are underdogs.

But they aren't structural underdogs. (In fact, they're strucutral overdogs, but that's beside the point.)

The US hockey team in 1980 was a structural underdog.

In even competitions, I'm just not really a sports nationalist anymore. The major sports leagues here and the major sporting leagues in Europe are all multinational and have been for awhile and a guy's nationality doesn't really matter to me. My favorite national soccer team is probably France 1998-02, the team that won the World Cup and Euro 2000.

You honestly believe this?

Sure. I have almost no recall of the 1980 hockey win -- it meant nothing to me at the time. It obviously meant something to plenty of people, but as I said, this is a pretty subjective exercise. Just scanning the SI list (which SBB correctly observed was in order of year, not "greatness"), I would put these ahead of the "Miracle": Bobby Thompson, Jesse Owens in Berlin, Bannister's 4-minute mile, Mays '54 catch, Ali-Liston, Ali-Frazier, Namath/Jets '69, Secretariat triple-crown, King v. Riggs (yes), Aaron 715, Thrilla in Manilla, Game 6 1975 Series, Comaneci 1976 Olympics. OK, that takes me thru the 1970s, so I'll stop there. I would also add Robinson '47 and Louis vs Schmeling. And Jim Thorpe in the 1912 Olympics probably belongs too, but that was a little before my time.....

this puffing up of the US hockey victory in 1980 is ... utter horse hockey. it was a big deal at the time, and a stirring victory yada yada. but that's it. it was a fluke. i don't see how that can be called 'greatest sporting event'.

louis schmeling II was a bigger deal, imho. reading the current accounts it was billed, perceived and later rated as the fight of the century. none of us were around for it, so its hard to say with authority how much that may be so.

but one that most of us CAN remember, ali/foreman, was a much bigger event than the hockey victory.

the run up, the scrutiny, the pearl clutching about how ali was going to get murdered, the shock of his eventual win, and the volumes written about it afterward put that hockey thing in the shade.

There probably wouldn't be this much vigorous opposition if the '69 Mets or Kirk Gibson's legless HR or Bill Mazeroski were in the 1980 hockey team's place, but they're all representing the same thing.

Also, y'know, it's hockey.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Also, y'know, it's hockey.

Well, yeah. You don't hear Rulon Gardner's name popping up much in these discussions, either.

It is amazing to think about how much boxing has declined. If you're of a certain age, several fights will definitely make your top 20, maybe even your top 10. But if you're under 30, I imagine it seems pretty weird to think of boxing matches as world-historical events.

Also interesting to see Lance's 7th Tour and McGwire 1998 appear on some "greatest event" lists. I'm suprised the PED police haven't airbrushed those out yet. I'm sure these events will be absent from future lists.

"Greatest sporting event in history"? That totally depends on where you're coming from. I'd go with Opening Day, Ebbets Field, 1947, but then again there are a few billion people on Earth who don't care about baseball, not to mention all the "history began on my 8th birthday" types who think it couldn't have happened if it didn't happen within their lifetimes. But all things considered, as a compromise I'd go with game 4 of the 1996 World Series.

Just kidding, tfbg! Just kidding!

"Greatest upset" in a sport's biggest event (other than college football), though, I'd have to go with these:

Baseball: 1906 World Series, "Hitless Wonders" White Sox over the 116-36 Cubs. This is a slam dunk.

College Football: Either 1921 Centre-Harvard or 2007 Stanford-USC

Pro Football: 1969 Super Bowl. Not that it really was that much of an upset in retrospect, but it was certainly seen that way at the time.

College Basketball: 1983 N.C. State winning the whole thing. 1966 Texas Western was a shocker only to those who still thought that brand names should always win. Kentucky was lucky even to be in the final that year.

NBA: Golden State sweeping the Bullets in 1975, one of the very few true upsets in the NBA finals. That was the NBA equivalent of the Dodgers over the A's in 1988.

Boxing: Either Douglas over Tyson or Clay over Liston the first time. Though Ali over Forman wasn't exactly predicted by many people outside the Ali camp.

Horse racing: Donerail's 1913 win in the Kentucky Derby, which paid off at a mere 91 to 1.

The odds of an upset is a World Series are never really that long. If anybody offers you 4-1 on a baseball playoff series, you oughta jump on it.
So, 1906 is mot really that shocking.

An individual baseball game nowadays really only gets to perhaps 4-1...maybe 5-1 somewhere. I don't recall seeing that however.

Villanova beating Georgetown in the 1983 NCAA title game was far more statistically unlikely than any WS "shocking upset". Its just how baseball is.

flip