It did not really come as a suprise. The man they called the 'Hurricane' had become somewhat of light breeze. Painfully imaciated, paying the price of a life lived to the excess, Alex Higgins died on Saturday in his Belfast home.
Snookers wild child Ronnie O'Sullivan today called Higgins 'a legend of snooker' who should be remembered as the 'greatest player of all time'. The tribute is a fitting epitaph as O'Sullivan is essentially the modern day 'Hurricane'. A genius, but a flawed one. Both supremely talented individuals with more skill around the table than their contemporaries, both victims of unrealised potential.
The sad ignominy of the 'Hurricane', makes O'Sullivan's statement somewhat ironic. Throughout the duration of 26 year career Alex Higgins was never officially ranked as the number one snooker player in the world, reaching a career high of #2 which he held for only two years. Yet O'Sullivan wasn't wrong, Higgins was the poster boy for a generation that made snooker 'cool'. Smoking and drinking as he played Higgins made striking a ball with a cue into a soap opera.
In a sport known for its reticence the Hurricane was, pardon the pun, a breath of fresh air. If there was one thing Alex Higgins wasn't it was reticent. Sometimes though this 'exuberance' spilled over into down-right lunacy. The most serious occasion being when he head butted a tournament referee in the 1986 UK champions and was subsequently banned from the next 5 tournaments and fined 12,000 pounds.
Higgins twice won snooker's World Championship (in 72& 82) and reached the final a further twice (76&80). To put this into perspective Steve Davis won the same tournament six times, reaching the final a further twice. Yet O'Sullivan chose Higgins. The fact is snooker is about more than striking the ball. It is possible to debate Higgins did not make the most of his talent and that two World Championships are not sufficient to justify the tag of 'greatest ever', but Higgins was so much more than a snooker player.
Alex Higgins was a maverick, a magician whose off-table exploits dramatically divided public consensus. He made snooker about more than balls and felt. It became bigger than 147's. Bigger even than winning tournaments. Alex Higgins brought snooker into the mainstream. He was the cross-over, the first player who was more than just a sportsmen. The Hurricane was an entertainer, and the public loved him.
In a tragic twist of fate it was the sport to which he brought so much that would eventually lead to his downfall. The continued affiliation between snooker and the tobacco industry in the 70's and 80's helped Higgins develop a heavy smoking habit that he was never able to kick.
In June 1998 Alex Higgins was diagnosed with a form of throat cancer, attributed in no small part to his, on occasions, 80 a day habit. Although surgery later removed the cancer from his body, the intensive radiotherapy sessions lead to the loss of all his teeth. It was the beginning of the end.
Alex Higgins became a recluse. Intermittently emerging back into the spotlight, but never to the fanfare it once was. It was his weight that became the main issue, unable to consume solid foods after the radiotheraphy robbed him of his teeth the Hurricane was, it was rumoured, forced to live of liquids.
In April this year Higgins' friends announced plans to raise £20,000 he needed for teeth implants. For Higgins though it was to late, reduced to a gaunt six stone the Hurricane had blown itself out.
So here we are. Snookers great anti-hero is no longer with us and it moves to the next generation to pick up the mantle. His body may have been broken, but the genius of the Hurricane will never die. It lives on in the cues of the men who's sport Alex Higgins helped to define, and for that we thank him.
Alex 'Hurricane' Higgins; 18 March 1949 – 24 July 2010. R.I.P.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Golf; the underdogs game.
Louis Oosthuizen's triumph by 7 clear shots in the Open Championship, is, to use an example from football like Charlton winning the FA cup; smashing Man United 4-0 on route. Then again its actually not. You see, I realised as Oosthuizen held the Claret Jug aloft, it is golf that is the true sport of the underdog. Football revels in the 'beauty' of the FA cup and her 'giantkillings', but in truth true giant killings on the Oosthuizen scale are few an far between.
In golf there is no differentiation between competitors once the event has begun. The leader, be that Tiger Woods or Louis Oosthuizen, is given preferential treatment.He is given a later tee off time, all the TV coverage and the advantage of knowing what he has to beat. Professional or amateur they are all the same. It is one man against the course. Favourites doesn't come into it. Who ever drives the ball furthest, finds the most greens and sinks his putts will find himself victorious. A golf course knows no favourites.
In football, sadly, the financial clout of the 'big boys' ruins this sense of romance. You can buy football players, you cant buy a better golfing arm. Given the financial backing a club can recruit the worlds best players to assemble a squad that small clubs cannot hope to compete with. Sure giant killings do happen. Bournemouth beating Man United in 84, Sutton United beating Coventry in 89, Swansea beating West Ham in 99, but it is only one match. One match does not win a tournament.
To put it into perspective for a lower division club (feasibly we are talking about League One or below), to emulate Oosthuizen and become 'champion', they are going to have to defeat 8 consecutive opponents. There are 20 teams in the premier division, and a further 24 in the Championship, so even the top team in League One is going into the tournament as the 45th best team. How many 'giant killings' can one team achieve? It pains me to say it but this will never happen, because sadly, in football success can be bought. It is a long way from a level playing field.
Football is not alone in accomodating to the favourite, however, in tennis and athletics the bias is even more exacerbated. In World Championships and the Olympics pre-race favouries are given favourable lane draws and kept apart from each other until later rounds. Usain Bolt, the current World record holder for the 100 and 200 metres has not been beaten in any race, of any distance in two whole calender years. Can you imagine in golf if one man won every competition he entered for two years?
It is on the Tennis court though where the underdog is most constricted. The draw, based on a seeding system, gives the best players the easiest route to the final. Any unseeded player runs the very real risk of drawing the World number One in the first round. Faced with such insumountable odds it is hardly surprising that the there has only ever been one unseeded Wimbledon champion (Goran Ivanisevic, in 2001).
The british publics love affair with the underdog is well documented. The weak prevailing over the strong, the unknown prevailing over the demi-god. Next time you want your fix, however, just remember this advice; It is not at Old Trafford or Wembley but on the golf course where the true romance is written.
In golf there is no differentiation between competitors once the event has begun. The leader, be that Tiger Woods or Louis Oosthuizen, is given preferential treatment.He is given a later tee off time, all the TV coverage and the advantage of knowing what he has to beat. Professional or amateur they are all the same. It is one man against the course. Favourites doesn't come into it. Who ever drives the ball furthest, finds the most greens and sinks his putts will find himself victorious. A golf course knows no favourites.
In football, sadly, the financial clout of the 'big boys' ruins this sense of romance. You can buy football players, you cant buy a better golfing arm. Given the financial backing a club can recruit the worlds best players to assemble a squad that small clubs cannot hope to compete with. Sure giant killings do happen. Bournemouth beating Man United in 84, Sutton United beating Coventry in 89, Swansea beating West Ham in 99, but it is only one match. One match does not win a tournament.
To put it into perspective for a lower division club (feasibly we are talking about League One or below), to emulate Oosthuizen and become 'champion', they are going to have to defeat 8 consecutive opponents. There are 20 teams in the premier division, and a further 24 in the Championship, so even the top team in League One is going into the tournament as the 45th best team. How many 'giant killings' can one team achieve? It pains me to say it but this will never happen, because sadly, in football success can be bought. It is a long way from a level playing field.
Football is not alone in accomodating to the favourite, however, in tennis and athletics the bias is even more exacerbated. In World Championships and the Olympics pre-race favouries are given favourable lane draws and kept apart from each other until later rounds. Usain Bolt, the current World record holder for the 100 and 200 metres has not been beaten in any race, of any distance in two whole calender years. Can you imagine in golf if one man won every competition he entered for two years?
It is on the Tennis court though where the underdog is most constricted. The draw, based on a seeding system, gives the best players the easiest route to the final. Any unseeded player runs the very real risk of drawing the World number One in the first round. Faced with such insumountable odds it is hardly surprising that the there has only ever been one unseeded Wimbledon champion (Goran Ivanisevic, in 2001).
The british publics love affair with the underdog is well documented. The weak prevailing over the strong, the unknown prevailing over the demi-god. Next time you want your fix, however, just remember this advice; It is not at Old Trafford or Wembley but on the golf course where the true romance is written.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Can opinion be correct?
An opinion is a subjective viewpoint, formed by an individual upon the back of the circumstance and knowledge they reside upon at any one time. Opinions differ from person to person, because, as the old adadge goes 'no two people are alike'. We are only able to truly base our opinions on the experiences and obstacles that have crossed our path.
A fitness fanatic, used to regular exercise and an athletic lifestyle would lay scorn upon those who have more of a weight issue, unable to emphaphise with a situation that, to them, is completely alien. So can this opinion really be construed as 'correct'.
The human race, by nature, are very opinionated. Our experiences shape our beliefs, and our beliefs then shape our experiences. Effectively a vicious circle. A staunchly middle class man, who has worked his whole life and payed taxes for the duration of that time is likely to hold those who claim benefits in a fairly low regard. He does not know the circumstance that has lead someone 'sign on', it is simply an opinion formed from the resentment he feels towards the percieved 'idleness' his taxes are funding.
Again, this is a judgement fueled by a very different individual who has lived his whole life in very different circumstances, unable to empathise with an all-together alien world. It is not right, but cannot be dismissed either.
This leads on to the crux of the issue. Can opinion really be construed as 'correct or 'incorrect'? No, no it cant as all opinions are correct, no matter how left field they may appear. Opinions are simply the response of an individual judjing events based on the circumstance in which they have lived their lives. As they encounter an alterior environment opinions become distorted, or even reverse. We can only make judgments upon what we know.
How can we disregard the view of the fitness fanatic who has lived his whole live with an active lifestlye when he fails to understand those who live sedentary lives?
Or the middle class man who resents the unemployed because of his perception of the injustice that his taxes are funding such a lifestyle when he has never experienced life on the breadline?
For they are simply judgements brought about through ignorance. They are two individuals forming an opinion based upon the life that they have lead, and applying it to an alien situation. In both situations the judgement that has been passed is 'correct' as it forms a response to the assimilation of a life's experiences.
Is it wrong to encourage such hasty judgements based purely on ignorance?; well maybe but if the human race is nothing else its judgemental, and who are we to chastise that?
A fitness fanatic, used to regular exercise and an athletic lifestyle would lay scorn upon those who have more of a weight issue, unable to emphaphise with a situation that, to them, is completely alien. So can this opinion really be construed as 'correct'.
The human race, by nature, are very opinionated. Our experiences shape our beliefs, and our beliefs then shape our experiences. Effectively a vicious circle. A staunchly middle class man, who has worked his whole life and payed taxes for the duration of that time is likely to hold those who claim benefits in a fairly low regard. He does not know the circumstance that has lead someone 'sign on', it is simply an opinion formed from the resentment he feels towards the percieved 'idleness' his taxes are funding.
Again, this is a judgement fueled by a very different individual who has lived his whole life in very different circumstances, unable to empathise with an all-together alien world. It is not right, but cannot be dismissed either.
This leads on to the crux of the issue. Can opinion really be construed as 'correct or 'incorrect'? No, no it cant as all opinions are correct, no matter how left field they may appear. Opinions are simply the response of an individual judjing events based on the circumstance in which they have lived their lives. As they encounter an alterior environment opinions become distorted, or even reverse. We can only make judgments upon what we know.
How can we disregard the view of the fitness fanatic who has lived his whole live with an active lifestlye when he fails to understand those who live sedentary lives?
Or the middle class man who resents the unemployed because of his perception of the injustice that his taxes are funding such a lifestyle when he has never experienced life on the breadline?
For they are simply judgements brought about through ignorance. They are two individuals forming an opinion based upon the life that they have lead, and applying it to an alien situation. In both situations the judgement that has been passed is 'correct' as it forms a response to the assimilation of a life's experiences.
Is it wrong to encourage such hasty judgements based purely on ignorance?; well maybe but if the human race is nothing else its judgemental, and who are we to chastise that?
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Hand of a patriot.
Sometimes a moment defines a nation, a career and a dream. Friday July the 2nd 2010, World Cup quarter final, Luis Suarez stretched up his left hand and history was hastily re-written.
The act has been looked at and scrutinised, chastised and praised in equal measure. Critics, such as the BBC's chief sports correspondant Matt Lawton refered to Suarez as an 'enemy of football', but i am unable to do likewise.
In essence Suarez's decision to deny a certain goal that would of given Africa its first ever World Cup semi-finalist is a henous slight against the ethics of the game. A decision that 'robbed' deserving victors of their prize. This would of been all well and good had the incident, in circumstances similar to Diego Maradonna's infamous 1986 'hand of god', gone unnoticed. It wasn't. Suarez was sent off, Uruguay were down to ten men and Ghana were given a penalty. Punishment befitting the crime.
Even at this point Uruaguay were at a huge disadvantage. Down to ten men and having to hope Ghana missed a penalty that, according to studies, they had a 65% chance of scoring. The fact Ghana then went on to miss the penalty is inconsequential. They had the chance.
At the time he struck the ball off the line with his hand Suarez did not have the benefit of foresight to tell him Ghana would miss the penalty. He was simply a patriot, putting himself on the line for the good of his country. The only reason that the 'cheating' furore has been created is because Ghana missed the penalty. They only have themselves to blame and the fact that they have done otherwise is more of a slight against the ethics of fair play than Suarez's handball itself.
The act has been looked at and scrutinised, chastised and praised in equal measure. Critics, such as the BBC's chief sports correspondant Matt Lawton refered to Suarez as an 'enemy of football', but i am unable to do likewise.
In essence Suarez's decision to deny a certain goal that would of given Africa its first ever World Cup semi-finalist is a henous slight against the ethics of the game. A decision that 'robbed' deserving victors of their prize. This would of been all well and good had the incident, in circumstances similar to Diego Maradonna's infamous 1986 'hand of god', gone unnoticed. It wasn't. Suarez was sent off, Uruguay were down to ten men and Ghana were given a penalty. Punishment befitting the crime.
Even at this point Uruaguay were at a huge disadvantage. Down to ten men and having to hope Ghana missed a penalty that, according to studies, they had a 65% chance of scoring. The fact Ghana then went on to miss the penalty is inconsequential. They had the chance.
At the time he struck the ball off the line with his hand Suarez did not have the benefit of foresight to tell him Ghana would miss the penalty. He was simply a patriot, putting himself on the line for the good of his country. The only reason that the 'cheating' furore has been created is because Ghana missed the penalty. They only have themselves to blame and the fact that they have done otherwise is more of a slight against the ethics of fair play than Suarez's handball itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)