Roger vs. Rafa

I suppose I’ll look back and be glad that I witnessed such a great rivalry in men’s tennis. Since I’m a Roger Federer fan, I was disappointed that he fell short in his quest to win six straight Wimbledon titles. Still, it was a magnificent match with some to most amazing shots I’ve ever seen. It was high quality tennis wire to wire.

When I’m in my fifties or sixties, I want to be able to tell my kids about Federer and Nadal. Roger vs. Rafa has already turned into a great rivalry. It’s 12-6 Nadal, but that doesn’t mean that Nadal “owns” Federer, as I’ve heard some uninformed talking heads say. The majority of their matches (10) have been on clay, with Nadal holding a 9-1 advantage. Here are the results of those matches:

• 2005 French Open Semifinals: Nadal 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3
• 2006 Monte Carlo Masters Finals: Nadal 6-2, 6-7 (7-2), 6-3, 7-6 (7-5)
• 2006 Rome Masters Finals: Nadal 6-7 (7-0), 7-6 (7-5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6 (7-5)
• 2006 French Open Finals: Nadal 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 (7-4)
• 2007 Monte Carlo Masters Finals: Nadal 6-4, 6-4
• 2007 Hamburg Masters Finals: Federer 2-6, 6-2, 6-0
• 2007 French Open Finals: Nadal 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
• 2008 Monte Carlo Masters Finals: Nadal 7-5, 7-5
• 2008 Hamburg Masters Finals: Nadal 7-5, 6-7 (7-3), 6-3
• 2008 French Open Finals: Nadal 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

While Nadal has dominated in the sense of victories on clay, only his French Open win this year was truly dominant. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay, and he has had his chances at other times, including a match point in Rome in 2006 as well as a big lead in the first set in Hamburg this year. All right, they have met eight times on other surfaces, so here are those results:

• 2004 Miami Masters Round of 32 (Hardcourt): Nadal 6-3, 6-3
• 2005 Miami Masters Finals (Hardcourt): Federer 2-6, 6-7 (7-4), 7-6 (7-5), 6-3, 6-1
• 2006 Dubai Finals (Hardcourt): Nadal 2-6, 6-4, 6-4
• 2006 Wimbledon Finals (Grass): Federer 6-0, 7-6 (7-5), 6-7 (7-2), 6-3
• 2006 Tennis Masters Cup Semifinals (Hardcourt): Federer 6-4, 7-5
• 2007 Wimbledon Finals (Grass): Federer 7-6 (9-7), 4-6, 7-6 (7-3), 2-6, 6-2
• 2007 Tennis Masters Cup Semifinals (Hardcourt): Federer 6-4, 6-1
• 2008 Wimbledon Finals (Grass): Nadal 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (7-5), 6-7 (10-8), 9-7

Nadal has taken two from Federer on hardcourts, but only one since 2004, and none since 2006. He has not been able to get past Federer in the Masters Cup the past two years, and Federer’s win last year was a dismantling. On grass, they seem to be equals, with Nadal improving each year.

I’ve seen several of their matches, and I still am somewhat mystified at the results Nadal has had against Federer. Maybe his game is just well-suited to frustrate Federer, much like David Nalbandian’s game frustrates Federer. Or perhaps he’s just in Federer’s head. Roger has always said the he doesn’t have to prepare for any opponent other than Nadal, meaning that if he plays his game well, he can defeat anyone other than Nadal without specific preparation. I don’t know. I’m normally not one to give too much credence to the mental game. Now it does play a part. I think it did at Wimbledon this year. My opinion is that the beatdown Federer received at Roland Garros was in his mind. He dropped the first two sets with some poor decisions, then started to serve the way he could – and should against Nadal – and he was able to come back. I thought he had a mental edge going into the final set, but Nadal was able to fend him off.

One thing I noticed about this year’s Wimbledon as opposed to last year is that Federer beat himself this year. Last year Rafa clearly outplayed Roger, but Federer’s serve saved him. This year, Federer had lots of winner, but way too many unforced errors. He’s still getting frustrated by Nadal’s ability to track down shots as well as that lefty forehand to his backhand. On grass, I think Federer should counterpunch Nadal: just give him slice backhands and make Nadal force things, thus producing errors. It’s always when Federer tries to force things that he gets burned by Nadal. It wasn’t until the last three sets that Federer finally started serving the grass-court way: serve out wide and then knock the return into the open court. He also found that Nadal had a terrible time returning Federer’s second serves; the kick serve to his backhand was giving him all sorts of trouble.

Has Federer slipped or has Nadal just improved greatly? Hard to say. I think Federer has lost some of his mental advantage (there I am talking about the mental game again). In 2004-2006 he lost only 15 matches total. He went 74-6, 81-4, and 92-5. Yikes! He had so many guys just psyched out and beaten before they even set foot on the court. Now players have hope. Remember that third round Australian Open match against Janko Tipsarevic? He began to believe and it took a monumental effort from Federer to fend him off. This year, Federer has already lost nine times – as many as all last season. He even lost to Andy Roddick! He’s dropped matches this year to Mary Fish, Andy Murray, and Radek Stepanek. Well, last year he fell to Guillermo Canas twice and to Filippo Volandri, so I wouldn’t say that’s much of change.

Nadal has been #2 for over three years now, and he’s still in that slot. In order to surpass Federer, he’s going to have to perform well on hardcourts, something he hasn’t done in the past. The last two years he has suffered a major drop-off in performance after Wimbledon. Last year in particular was disappointing. He lost in the fourth round to David Ferrer at the U.S. Open, then was demolished in straight sets by David Nalbandian in consecutive tournaments (6-1, 6-2 in Madrid and 6-4, 6-0 in Paris). He lost to Ferrer again at the Tennis Masters Cup round robin stage. His final match of the year was his 6-4, 6-1 loss to Federer. He’s going to have to do better than that if he hopes to become and stay #1.

I think we need to keep the rivalry separate from their places in history. While Nadal is a great player – and maybe the greatest clay-courter ever – his place in history is nowhere near Federer’s. He has 5 Grand Slam titles, while Federer has 12. Federer has 7 Grand Slam titles on hard courts; Nadal has 0. Federer has 4 Tennis Masters Cup titles; Nadal has not even made it to a final in that event. The most telling statistic is this: Federer has made it to 17 straight Grand Slam semifinals, while Nadal’s best streak is 3 (current). Since 2004, Federer has made it to the finals of 15 of 19 Grand Slams, winning 11 of those finals. He once made it to 10 straight Grand Slam Finals. Until Nadal does half of all that, he can’t be mentioned in the same breath as Federer when it comes to all-time greatness.

The Bible Predicts Its Opposition

Pastor Jamie has been a blessing to both me and my wife. He is the lead pastor at NewSong Fellowship Church in Lancaster, PA. We have been attending since November 2007 and have been impressed with his powerful sermons. This past Sunday he preached a sermon about the distortion and dilution of the Christian message. The gospel is clearly stated in the Bible, and altering it or adding to it is forbidden. There is only one true gospel message, but many perversions.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:6-8)

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)

The Bible teaches that its message is the truth, but God also knew what sinful man would do with that truth: twist it, spin it, hype it up, water it down – adapt it to their own beliefs rather than basing their beliefs upon it.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)

People want to follow their own desires, they want to hear what they like, and they want their own teachers to affirm those things. As a result, sinful people develop self-centered characteristics, then formulate their own belief system to accommodate those beliefs. Paul the apostle listed the descent away from truth:

“For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power.” (2 Timothy 3:2-5)

Look at those character traits and those desires: selfish, materialistic, arrogant, disobedient, arrogant, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, brutal, hedonists… Sound familiar? Today’s postmodern society loves those things. We see success and status linked to money and how many things you have. Men rank their power upon how many babes they bag. Pleasure is sought more than anything else, and it comes in the form of things: sex, cars, movies, video games, music, stereos, TVs, cell phones. And it’s all right here, right now in this Information Age. The 2 Timothy passage above uses the word “reckless;” isn’t that so appropriate? People are so reckless. They have sex without considering the ramifications – is it any wonder there are so many kids out there who don’t have stable families? They go out and buy things that they don’t have money for. I’ve met people who aren’t even 25 yet and are already $10,000 or more in debt.
All of these things tie in with the general attitude of the 21st century: me, me, me. It’s not what you want, it’s what I want. Think about how many things are directly linked to the idea of maintaining self-esteem. It’s all that Dr. Phil humbug – P.T. Barnum would be proud of him for upholding his doctrine of “There is a sucker born every minute” – saying that you have to feel good about yourself. What is the result of that? Indulgence, that’s what. If that’s the top priority, then it really doesn’t matter what others think, right? Just do what makes you feel good because that’s what’s most important. Isn’t that essentially what Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs tells us? With that perspective, you end up with legions of illegitimate children because the sex that produced those kids primarily served to give the parent(s) pleasure.

The perversion of the gospel message began with Gnosticism, the idea that only the spiritual realm is good; all flesh is evil. The physical realm is evil – problem with that is that Jesus Christ is then evil since He was a man. From there all sorts of distortions have crept in:

• Sacramentalism – replace the truth with rituals. This is what the Catholic church has done. The true gospel is ancillary to the sacraments. To go to heaven, one must follow the rituals rather than the message of the Bible
• Rationalism (or Intellectualism) – got popular during the Enlightenment, and teaches that if it’s not rational, it’s not true. This is the source of modern humanism, where we treat our minds as gods. Of course, this is also the foundation for evolutionary beliefs, which say that there has to be a scientific explanation for everything. This one removes God from the equation.
• Orthodoxy – reject the Bible for books written by man. Catholics are somewhat guilty of this, but other denominations pursue this even further. The Bible is replaced by ritual catechism and prayer books. Doctrine is based upon these appendices rather than on the foundation of God’s Word.
• Liberation Theology – the purpose of belief in God is to fix society’s problems. Don’t worry about life after death; instead, fix this world’s problems. We see more and more so-called Christian organizations going in this direction. They forsake the Great Commission (and the saving of souls) in order to fight things like pollution, racism, and poverty. Those are noble causes, but they are not to be the #1 priority.
• Ecumenism – all beliefs ultimately come together. In order to beliefs to come together, there needs to be multiple compromises from all angles. Many denominations (think UCC) are already going this route.
• Subjectivism – “self-worth theology.” Believe that makes me feel good. The Oprah Winfrey/Dr. Phil philosophy. Find out what makes you feel good and then believe in that. This is the root of humanism.
• Pragmatism – soft-pedal the truth. Don’t step on anyone’s toes. This may be the most dangerous one of all. It’s what Joel Osteen and Rick Warren are doing. They preach only part of the gospel, making is sound so easy and desirable, all the while neglecting to include the command to obey God’s commandments and to make Christ Lord of your life.
• Syncretism – all religions are the same. This one is really popular today, of course. It’s a cop out, really. Just say that it doesn’t matter what you call God: in the end it’s all the same God.
• Relativism – no one can really know the Bible. Whoa, have we ever seen this in recent years? On www.yappi.com, I have seen so many people invest in this belief. They just take the clear words of the Bible and spin it any way they want. There’s even on guy who has said that he believes in the teachings of Jesus, yet feels the Bible is full of holes and contradictions. Huh?

You see, God knew what was to come. He knew that the truth was hard to handle. Even as Christians, we have to constantly remind ourselves that God is God and we are just humans: His ways are above our ways. He has set the guidelines; we don’t set our own. God is truth, so His decrees are truth. Man doesn’t want to follow God – he wants to rebel. It begins with selfishness: wanting to serve self rather than serve God. From there, man seeks out – or creates – the belief that satisfies his own selfish desires.

Three Questions…

I’ll give “The Truth Project” full credit on this one. It’s a DVD series produced by Focus on the Family, and it’s quite enlightening. The whole series looks at truth as a sort of building, with a foundation, supporting pillars, and a roof. At the church I attend, NewSong Fellowship Church, all small groups are going through this series. Right now we are early in the series and have just covered the three elements of the foundation.

The three departments of the foundation are veritology, anthropology, and theology: the studies of truth, man, and God. There are three questions that define one’s world view:

1. What is truth?
2. Who is man?
3. Who is God?

Although thousands of answers can be formulated, each question only has two possible answers.

• TRUTH: 1) Truth is relative. With this view, truth is relative to every person’s perspectives. One person may think homosexuality is morally wrong, while another person may hold that homosexuality is perverse and wrong. No one’s view can be “right” because truth is relative. Actually, with this perspective there cannot be right and wrong since nothing is absolute. 2) Truth is absolute. Holding this view means that there is a standard for truth that is absolute: one that is true for everyone. The source for absolute truth does not have to be the same for everyone with this view, but it has to come from a source that is higher than man. Why? Man is fallible and makes mistakes. Someone higher – like a god – could be perfect and not make mistakes.
• MAN: 1) Man is a product of natural processes and came to be by evolution. That is, a series of random events led to the existence of all humans. Those who hold to this believe that science explains everything. Evolution explains how inorganic matter morphed into organic matter, which then formed the first cell, which (over billions of years) evolved into man. Man is inherently good with this view. 2) Man is a creation of God (or some other higher power). God made man different from the animals in the areas of intellect and soul. Man chose to be evil, and each one of us is born inherently evil. Man was designed by a higher power – God – rather than come to be by random processes.
• GOD: 1) God is a myth – an invention of man. Those who hold to this belief think that God does not exist. Some may say that they think there is a god but that he is not active in the world or that he “used evolution” to bring his purposes to fruition. The problem with this view is that it limits God; frankly, that view is based upon an individual’s own perception – it’s no different than atheism. Man either invented God to satisfy what he didn’t understand, or he adapted God to his own beliefs. 2) God is real and personal. Those who believe this see God as an all-powerful and all-knowing being. He is the supreme power in the universe and all is under His control. He cares about mankind and takes an active role in people’s lives.

Those three categories are connected to a degree that the links cannot be broken. If you don’t believe God is real and personal, then there’s no reason to believe that there is any absolute truth or that man was created in God’s image. If you do believe God exists and that He controls all, then there is no reason to believe truth is relative or that man came about by evolutionary processes.

There is no middle ground here: it’s evolution or creation. Either God created man and established an absolute standard of truth, or man evolved, developed multiple standards for truth, and created the idea of God to suit his own needs. Which one do you adhere to?

Analysis of 1985-86 Celtics vs. 1995-96 Bulls

The 1995-96 Bulls may have gone 72-10, but they are in no way the best team of all time. We all have to remember that a team’s record depends as much on the quality of their competition as their own level of play.

I always point out to myopic Bulls fans or Jordan-worshipers that the Bulls never had to face a team with a great center once they got to the finals. Here are the list of starting centers they faced: Vlade Divac, Kevin Duckworth, Mark West, Ervin Johnson, and Greg Ostertag. Total MVP awards for that group: ZERO. Yeah, not a stellar list. The 1980’s Celtics faced Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Hakeem Olajuwon in the Finals. Total MVP awards for that bunch: 10. Yeah, let me say that Kevin Duckworth never led a team to a title.

Some try to say that it didn’t matter that the Bulls never faced a bona fide center. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it did matter. In the six seasons in which the Bulls took home titles, they were pushed to seven games in a playoff series only twice: 1992 vs. New York and 1998 vs. Indiana. It’s no surprise that the one thing those two teams had in common was a strong offensive force at center: Patrick Ewing for New York and Rik Smits for Indiana – and Smits was by no means an elite center. The Bulls were a team without a quality center, but they were able to survive through a swarming defense and the great play of Michael Jordan. It also helped that the competition didn’t have much in the area of centers either.

So, how about those Bulls that went 72-10? Here’s their starting lineup and most important backups:

F Scottie Pippen

F Dennis Rodman

C Luc Longley

G Ron Harper

G Michael Jordan

F Toni Kukoc

G Steve Kerr

F-C Bill Wennington

Jordan, of course was amazing and his number speak for themselves. Pippen was a phenomenal defender and a good passer. He had offensive abilities as well – and a mean streak. I feel he was somewhat underrated. He will be in the Hall of Fame soon. Dennis Rodman was an incredible rebounder, but by 1996 his best days as a defender were behind him. Bulls homers try to say that he was still great but it’s just not true. His days as a versatile blanket defender had been left behind in Detroit. Once he found he had a talent for rebounding, that’s all he concentrated on – to the extent of cheating off his man to go for the boards. When Rodman was with the Spurs, he was victimized time and again by Houston’s Robert Horry in the 1995 Western Conference Finals. Teammate Sean Elliott pointed out that Rodman kept trying for the rebound and just cut Horry loose to heave up threes. I feel Rodman will someday get in the Hall of Fame, though, considering his rebounding titles, his selections to the All-Defensive Team, and his five championship rings.

After those three, there was Toni Kukoc, and he was a typical European player: great shooter but a softie on defense. Kukoc was a big man with virtually no big man skills. He did have great shooting ability, though, and created some nasty matchups with smaller players. After him, the team was role players. Steve Kerr was a great shooter and nothing else. That is important, though; I’ve always felt that the Bulls benefited from having guys who could hit the open jumper. Still, Kerr was nothing more than a shooter. As for Luc Longley and Bill Wennington, they were just bodies. Longley was big, so he could bang on an opposing team’s center, but how ofter did they face a relevant center? Wennington’s sole purpose was to give Longley a rest.

OK, now let’s look at the Celtics in 1985-86:

F Larry Bird

F Kevin McHale

C Robert Parish

G Dennis Johnson

G Danny Ainge

C-F Bill Walton

F-G Scott Wedman

G Jerry Sichting

Anyone who knows anything about the NBA should realize immediately that the level of talent for that team was frighteningly higher than that of the 1995-96 Bulls. Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Bill Walton are all in the Hall of Fame, and I’m positive that Dennis Johnson will get in within the next five years. One could even make the case for Danny Ainge, who proved himself to be a smart player with a diverse game; it’s no surprise that he was on the Trail Blazers and the Suns in 1992 and 1993 when they made it to the finals. Scott Wedman was a former All-Star, and Jerry Sichting a former starter. Now I’ll admit that Sichting was much like Kerr, although he was known for some harassing defense. Wedman created mismatches with his 6′8″ height and long-range capability. The most important thing about this team is that it had an unselfish attitude and was always looking for the open man.

Let’s look at how these lineups would match up in a hypothetical game. I’m just going to compare crunch-time matchups: the lineups on the floor during crunch time. For the Celtics, it’s their starting lineup; for the Bulls, Kukoc and Rodman would play together with Longley on the bench. First, let’s look at the Celtics on offense and who would defend them:

Larry Bird vs. Scottie Pippen: As great a defender as Pippen was, Bird was just too good. No one had court vision like Larry Legend, and he could do so many things. If Pippen took away the outside shot, Bird could pose him up and finish with either hand. He could also hit his teammates with a wide array of passes. Most of all, much of Scottie Pippen’s defensive prowess was in the area of roaming. He could cheat off his man and make great steals and blocks. Not the case with Bird; he would have to be plugged into Bird the whole time – give Bird his undivided attention. Advantage: Bird

Kevin McHale vs. Dennis Rodman: Rodman was still a good defender at this time, but no one could handle McHale one-on-one. McHale was in his heyday in the low post, and he hit close to 60% of his shots. If you single-teamed him, he would eat any defender alive. The Bulls would have to double-team, which would leave someone open, and no team found the open man like those Celtics. Advantage: McHale

Robert Parish vs. Toni Kukoc: Right off the bat, anyone can see an issue here. Kukoc couldn’t defend Parish even if he was six inches taller. This one is a huge mismatch that would force the Bulls to take out either Kukoc or Rodman and put in Longley to lean on Parish, and that one is still in the Chief’s favor. Advantage: Parish

Dennis Johnson vs. Ron Harper: Harper was an underrated defender, but Johnson was one of the cagiest players ever. DJ could shoot outside or drive the lane, and he was a master of getting to the free throw line, especially in the playoffs. Harper was big, though, and DJ would not be able to body him. Advantage: Johnson

Danny Ainge vs. Michael Jordan: Jordan was a great one-on-one defender and an excellent team defender. However, Ainge was smart – and very accurate from the outside. Jordan, much like Pippen, thrived on defense by sneaking off his man and making plays on other people. With Ainge, though, he would have been burned doing that. Plus, I’ve watched some games recently and found that Jordan did leave his own man open too much. Still, he was an amazing defender. Advantage: Jordan

That means that on offense, the Celtics would have had a massive advantage. The Bulls did not have the defenders to handle Boston’s big front line, and the Celtic guards were talented enough to make the Bulls work. Next, we’ll look at the Bulls on offense.

Scottie Pippen vs. Kevin McHale: My bet is that McHale would handle Pippen rather than Larry Bird. The Celtics liked to assign Bird to a player who was not an offensive threat (if possible) so that he could roam and play that great team defense. Pippen was a slasher, but not a consistent outside shooter. McHale was an excellent defender, but Pippen was a very good passer. Advantage: Pippen

Dennis Rodman vs. Larry Bird: Rodman was in no way an offensive threat, so this matchup would allow Bird to play the free safety defense he was so well known for. Rodman was a great offensive rebounder, but Bird was just as a good a defensive rebounder. Advantage: Bird

Toni Kukoc vs. Robert Parish: I highly doubt this matchup would actually take place. If it did, Kukoc would have to drive to the basket, and that was not something he was great at. Parish could defend Kukoc on the perimeter (he guarded Bob McAdoo of the Lakers). Kukoc would not be able to get his shot off so easily against the seven-foot Parish. Chances are the Bulls would put Longley in because of the mismatch on the Celtics offensive end (see above), which would leave Parish on Longley. Advantage: Parish

Ron Harper vs. Danny Ainge: Ainge was a hugely underrated defender. I’ve watched a number of Celtics games and seen how many steals he came up with. He was deceptively quick and actually quite fast. He was a great athlete. Harper had offensive talent, but he role was pretty small with Chicago. He was not a jump shooter, though. Ainge was a big guard who could guard Harper quite well. Call this one a wash

Michael Jordan vs. Dennis Johnson: DJ was a great defender who never quit, but Jordan was just too good. I’d would look for DJ to get physical with Jordan and try to wear him out. Would the Celtics double-team? I doubt it, especially considering how good their team defense was. Jordan would score a lot. Advantage: Jordan

When you look at the matchups, things clearly are in the Celtics favor. Three things stuck out the most:

1. All the Celtics were bona fide threats on offense. This is not something the Bulls faced. There were no “defensive specialists” or “rebounding specialists.” Each player – including the bench – could score when called on.
2. The Celtics had dynamos on the front line, and that would force the Bulls’ hand. Chicago liked to go with Rodman and Kukoc down the stretch, but there’s no way they could do that against the Celtics. One of them would have to come out: if they went with Rodman, then they would lose Kukoc’s outside shooting; if they went with Kukoc, they would lose Rodman’s rebounding. If they tried to play the two together, Robert Parish would eat them alive.
3. The defensive skills of Jordan and Pippen would be diminished, while Larry Bird’s would be amplified. Jordan and especially Pippen would be unable to roam as they would have to be plugged into Ainge and Bird. On the other side of the ball, Larry Bird would have easy assignments like Dennis Rodman or Luc Longley, and thus would be able to utilize his great defensive abilities.

I always thought the Celtics were better, but this one is definitely no contest: Celtics all the way!

Let’s Get This Started!

This blog is called “Real Sports – True Faith” because of the subjects it will focus on: sports and my Christian faith.  Not surprisingly, those are also the two subjects I get most worked up about and the two I enjoy discussing the most.

First off, I love debate.  Heck, that’s an understatement.  I like to argue and debate, but it helps to have an audience that knows what is going on.  You can’t debate with an uninformed person.  Again, not surprisingly, sports and Christianity are two subjects where many people think they know a lot, but in reality they are pretty ignorant.

Regarding my faith, I am a born again Christian.  What does that mean?  Well, I guess to some people that term is meaningless.  I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and have faith in Him for my salvation.  I have a biblical world view.  What that means is that I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the ultimate authority in the universe.  My faith holds that the Holy Spirit Himself inspired men to write the books of the Bible, thus creating a coherent and seamless treatise that spans thousands of years.  I hold that the Bible is without error in its original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).  I believe that what the Bible says is true – absolutely true – in all areas.  Yes, I believe in a six-day creation.  (In case you were wondering, I do understand evolution and realize its flaw but also its lure – more on that later.)  I also believe that the Bible’s moral code is unchanging.  For example, homosexuality was a sin in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah and it is still a sin today.  My world view is based upon the Bible, and that means that God created man in His own image, but man rebelled by sinning and exists in a fallen state.  Man is inherently evil and deserves punishment.  It is only by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ that man can be saved.

All right, for the sports portion of this blog.  My focus will be upon three sports: NBA basketball, NFL football, and men’s tennis.  Those are the three sports I follow closely.  All others, not too much.  I don’t watch any baseball or college basketball until playoffs come around.  I watch golf occasionally, but not when Tiger Woods is not playing.  I watch minimal amounts of college football.  No NASCAR, boxing, MMA, or hockey whatsoever; they just don’t interest me.

My guess is that I’ll concentrate on the NBA.  I consider myself a crusader for understanding in the area of the NBA.  My personal crusade is for the greats of the 1980’s – specifically, for Larry Bird.  It is my opinion that Bird is the best NBA player of all time. Yeah, all time.  That means I think he’s better than Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, and yes, even Michael Jordan.  I feel that the era in which Bird played was the NBA’s most glorious one.  The league was not watered down by expansion or poisoned with players with virtually no college experience.  The pace was fast and the shooting was good.  Players knew how to set a pick, catch and shoot, box out, shoot a midrange shot, and make a quick back-to-the-basket decision.  By the time the Jordan’s Chicago Bulls got good, the league was already declining.  True, Michael Jordan helped keep it going, but it would never again reach the level of its glory days in the 1980’s.

I’ll present plenty of cases for Bird and the great teams of the 1980’s.  Let me conclude this post by saying that I have little respect for the Bulls of the 1990’s.  Oh, they were a great team, but by no means on the level of the Celtics or Lakers of the 1980’s.  I’d say the Bulls would have been overmatched.  Line up the 1985-86 Celtics against the 1995-96 Bulls and you will see what I’m talking about.  The Bulls had Luc Longley and Bill Wennington at center; the Celtics had Robert Parish and Bill Walton.  The Bulls had Dennis Rodman; the Celtics had Kevin McHale.  The Bulls had Scottie Pippen; the Celtics had Larry Bird.