Sports - Is it better to burn out or to fade away?

Avatar · 05-26-2005, 01:42 PM

Just something I thought about after Jerry Rice signing with the Broncos ... is it better for stars to go out on the top of their game (John Elway comes to mind) or play until they're a shell of their former selves? Sporting News' Paul Attner says Rice's retirement is two years overdue, and I have to agree with him. Yes, everyone should be allowed to determine when they don't want to play anymore, but for us as fans, it's not fun watching your heroes play when it's obvious they're a shell of their former selves.

To quote Attner: "It's never pretty to see the beauty of a star deteriorate like this in front of us all. You remember Johnny Unitas and Joe Namath and, just last year, Emmitt Smith, wearing the wrong uniforms, playing for the wrong reasons, claiming seriously they still could perform in a special way when even they knew the fabrication they were spinning." I agree with that. Rice is the greatest wideout and quite possibly the greatest player of all time. He's got nothing left to prove - the only thing that can happen is that he busts his knees and ruins the rest of his life.

So what do you think?

**NikNak** · 05-26-2005, 07:06 PM

Good topic, Dan.

While I agree that Jerry Rice has nothing left to prove, because he is the greatest NFL receiver of all time, I think that he is playing despite that. He loves to play football. Bottom line. I honestly don't think he signed with the Broncos because he thinks he is going to bring a championship to that team. On the other hand, I don't think he signed with them as a waste of time, either. He wants to play football, in a capacity that he can. Obviously, Oakland wasn't giving him that.

Sure, every player would love to go out "on top" but it doesn't always work out that way. I might be in the minority, but I still enjoy to see my favorite athletes play, even if they are "past their prime", as other people might say. I am not watching them to get another ring, get another championship, although that would be an added bonus. I am watching them because they love to play and I love to watch them play. Personally, I don't think it takes away from what that athlete accomplished when they were "in their prime". People won't forget it. I know, I never will.

Case in point: I would watch Michael Jordan play basketball when he's 60 if he wanted to come back and play. He could play with one leg and score 2 points, but that will never take away the fact that he won six championships and will always be the best basketball player ever.

I might be a little biased, though.

***~*Rach*~*** · 05-26-2005, 07:20 PM

Well, football (soccer) is my sport, so I'll give my opinion based on that, since I don't know the players you're talking about

I think that in some cases I'd rather see players retire than drop down the leagues just to carry on playing. Or even be happy to stay at a top club in the reserves and getting one or two first team games a season. There are some exceptions, though; Niall Quinn came to Sunderland when he was getting older and he'd been injured a while - everyone said his career was over, and he went on to play what a lot of critics, and Quinn himself, say was the best football of his career. If he'd retired when it looked like he was going to be a shell of his former self, just think what Sunderland - and Ireland! - would have missed out on. (Plus, if he hadn't come to Sunderland, our fans would never have had a top #40 single with 'Niall Quinn's Disco Pants', but that's largely irrelevant!

)

So in conclusion ... I don't have one. *g* I think basically it depends on the player. There are some players that probably shouldn't go on forever, but will anyway, and you never know, they might just pull something special out of the bag that you never would have imagined, which would make it all the more special!

Chi159 · 05-27-2005, 11:09 AM

Great topic, Dan!

From a fan’s perspective, it’s obviously better for a star to walk away on top. We like to remember these players at their very best, as they epitomize the greatness that can be associated with sports. It’s this type of legacy that most sports fans highly value and revere, because it represents a time when a certain individual rose above the rest and created wonderful memories. Excellence in its truest sense. It’s something that everyone can identify with and seeks to attain.

Personally, I think Jerry Rice should have retired five years ago, but that’s just my selfish opinion as an NFL fan. I would have rather seen him go out on top instead of continuing to grasp for life in a game that once came so easy to him. Granted, he will ALWAYS be considered the greatest wide receiver of all-time, but I honestly feel as though he has tarnished his legacy a little bit. It’s sad to watch a guy whose skills have considerably declined be unable to let go and who now finds himself battling for the No. 4 WR spot on the Denver Broncos. How weird is that?

I also think MJ should have never donned a Washington Wizards uniform. His career would have ended on the most perfect note had he left following the ‘98 NBA Finals. How can you possibly top going out on a game-winning jump shot to win your 6th championship? That’s the stuff of legend. Again, as a huge Chicago Bulls and MJ fan my perspective is obviously selfish.

Now, from the athlete’s perspective, they have to do whatever is best for them. I completely understand why Jerry Rice has decided to give football one last shot and why MJ was unable to hang up his sneakers after his tenure with the Bulls. These guys have such great pride, intensity and competitiveness in their blood that it’s difficult to let go. All they have known their entire lives is being the best at what they do. Sports happens to be that outlet. Time is their enemy, as they begin to lose the very skills that made them so exceptional. The aging process has slowly taken their livelihood away from them. It’s inevitable and scary at the same time. Who’s to say there will be something out there after sports that fill that competitive edge? For most stars, it doesn’t exist. This leads to a huge void that is difficult to overcome a few years following retirement. I think MJ has come to find this out.

So, if “burning out” is what makes these stars happy and provides fulfillment, then that’s what they have to do. As a sports fan, you never want to see your favorite player leave the game a shell of his/her former self, but that’s how it goes sometimes. Not every player is going to be like Jim Brown, who retired at the age of 30 as arguably the greatest NFL running back of all-time.

The Daywalker · 05-28-2005, 08:40 AM

The NBA and NFL lack what the MLB has, the Deteriorating Hero, i mean the Designated Hitter. I'm sure once Barry Lamar Bonds gets back to 70% or whatever, he'll drift over to the money bag yankmes and get his HR record as a DH and all the Yankme hopefuls will call him there own and think they have another record. He will never be a Yankme to me, Emmitt will never be a Cardinal, Michael was never a Wizard (uniformically speaking) and Rice was never a Raidah and is not a Bronco now. Art Shell is a Raidah. John Elway is a Bronco. Mike is a Bull. Jerry is a Niner. Barry is an assh0l3.

In to days hired gun sports arena, there are a few stars that simply are a sport, position, or team and I think these athletes taint themselves by carrying on when it should've been over.

Chi159 · 05-28-2005, 05:36 PM

To add to your list of players who should have faded away instead of wearing a different uniform:

Patrick Ewing - He was and always will be a Knick. His years with Seattle and Orlando were just brutal.

Wayne Gretzky - It's hard to question the "Great One's" career, but his career ended on a down note.

Hakeem Olajuwon - The Raptors?!!!! "Dream," what were you thinking? He should have retired a Houston Rocket.

Eddie Murray - As great of a hitter as he was, the primary reason that he's in the HOF is because he stuck around the game far too long. The DH is responsible for allowing him to reach major milestones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Daywalker

The NBA and NFL lack what the MLB has, the Deteriorating Hero, i mean the Designated Hitter. I'm sure once Barry Lamar Bonds gets back to 70% or whatever, he'll drift over to the money bag yankmes and get his HR record as a DH and all the Yankme hopefuls will call him there own and think they have another record.

I could see it happening!

***Jerry D*** · 06-04-2005, 10:38 AM

Great topic Dan. I’ve especially seen this in boxing where great champions like Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali stayed fighting way too long past their prime, and they ended up not only tarnishing their legacies, but causing themselves permanent brain damage which adversely affected the rest of their lives. In Joe Louis’ case, it was the lack of money that made him continue fighting because he was heavily in debt to the IRS, and with Ali, it was probably pride more than anything else that kept him going, but it was sad to see these once great fighters end up like they did because they stayed in the game too long. On the other hand, someone like Rocky Marciano retired undefeated in the prime of his short but brilliant career, and many people still consider him to be the greatest heavyweight champion of all time, (although I disagree) but we never had to see his skills decline in the ring like we did so many other great champions.

Therefore, I feel it’s best for sports stars to retire before their skills deteriorate, but like Kathie said, ultimately, they have to do what’s best for them, and I’m sure it’s difficult to step away from something you love, especially if you’ve excelled at it and if it’s something (or the only thing) that you’ve been doing all of your life.

Avatar · 06-04-2005, 11:23 AM

I agree ... it really is a sad sight to see clips of Ali's last fights, when it's obvious that he should have retired ages ago. And all it lead to was getting one blow too many to the head. Though, if you want to talk about boxing and people who should have retired before their skills degenerated, surely Mike Tyson deserves a mention. When he was in his prime, he really was unbeatable, but would the next generation remember him as the undisputed heavyweight champion, or the spectacle he is now?

**NikNak** · 06-04-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

I agree ... it really is a sad sight to see clips of Ali's last fights, when it's obvious that he should have retired ages ago. And all it lead to was getting one blow too many to the head. Though, if you want to talk about boxing and people who should have retired before their skills degenerated, surely Mike Tyson deserves a mention. When he was in his prime, he really was unbeatable, but would the next generation remember him as the undisputed heavyweight champion, or the spectacle he is now?

Yeah, unfortunately, I doubt when Tyson's name is mentioned, people will remember his earlier boxing matches. They might immediately think of somebody's ear, and other things.