Diamond League Herculis (Monaco) 2013Jul 24, 2013 by FloTrack Staff
The Spam Folder: Webb, Farah, and Geb - What Defines a Legacy
The Spam Folder: Webb, Farah, and Geb - What Defines a Legacy
In this week's installment of The Spam Folder, Mitch and Sterner rant about legacies, become everything they hate and talk about Tim Tebow and Kim Kardashian, and ask what's left for some of the greatest athletes of all-time (and those who are making their case to be mentioned in that conversation).
Miss last week's Spam Folder? Read it here.
TO: Ryan Sterner
FROM: Mitch Kastoff
SUBJECT: The Royal Baby was crowning yesterday
What’s the deal with the English? They’re supposed to be island of underperformance, though, statistically speaking, they usually overperform. But they’re not supposed to win anything. They’re supposed to keep their chins high as “God Saves The Queen” plays them out.
Now they’re winning everything. Bradley Wiggins won Le Tour last year, now Chris Fromme wore the maillot jaune into Paris. Andy Murray won Wimbledon. Winbledon, won by a Brit? There was a better chance of a long distance specialist breaking into the all-time 1500m list… Wait.
So, Mo Farah. Yeah. He’s surpassed Coe, Ovett, Cram, and the rest of The Super Milers on the British list. He’s number six all-time in the 1500m. I honestly don’t think he even knows how fast he just ran in Monaco. What’s sort of odd is that he’s the third person to simultaneously hold the European 1500m and 10k records. Weird, but I digress.
The guys are talking about Mo and The GOAT. The conversation started with a picture of Mo as a goat and ended with “but seriously...”
My thing with Farah comes from the idea You’re Only British If You Win. The difference between being associated with the cultural hodgepodge in the UK and being able to sit in the royal box at Wimbledon is being a winner.
Despite the fact that we’re more homogeneous, the same thing applies to Americans. You win, you have a legacy. The only middle ground is if you’re a crowd favorite. Then you’re remembered for something more qualitative (being a badass, sweet mustache) than quantitative (personal bests, medals).
Maybe this is a critque about track and field. I’m not counting other individual sports like golf or tennis because there are a lot more opportunities to win major titles and such. When it comes to one’s legacy, track is pretty cutthroat.
You’re Only Relevant If You Win. Not in every sport.
Cheers,
Mitch
TO: Mitch Kastoff
FROM: Ryan Sterner
SUBJECT: RE:FWD:FWD:FWD: 19 things you didn’t know about me
Mitch,
Great to see you got out of bed this morning. And I will gladly take credit for the goat drawing.
You’re only relevant if you win… I have to scoff a little bit. Of course you’re only relevant when you win, and that doesn’t apply to just track and field, it applies to every other sport in the world.
Remember Tracy McGrady? That friendly looking fellow with a slow eye? He was the league’s highest scorer for two years in a row back in 2006 or 2007 (or somewhere close). I had a pair of his basketball shoes and everybody thought he was amazing. What’s he doing now? Riding the pine for the San Antonio Spurs and eating the scraps that is the last :45 seconds of a game. Is he relevant anymore? Of course not.
But in thinking about McGrady, it kind of brings me to Alan Webb. That kid was on top of the world by the time he turned 18. Heck, they even put him on Letterman! Now—and I hate to say it, because I’m a big fan—he’s a little washed up. But unlike McGrady, he remains relevant. Why?
We can take it back to Tiger Woods (of the 2009-2012 variety). Why was he relevant? Moving away from his bedroom habits, the guy was playing like garbage and all around the twittersphere (I hate myself) the tweeples (ugh) were twittering (sigh) wondering where the old Tiger was.
Or a more useful example. Haile Gebresellassie. He was great—and by all means still was, has the guy ever ran slower than 2:06? But when he started dropping out of all those marathons, he remained relevant, because people were still talking about him.
And I suppose that brings it all back to a quote that I remember some old guy telling me once, “Be hot. Be cold. But never be lukewarm.”
If Mo Farah got dead last in every race he ever ran again, he’d still be relevant. If he won every race he’d still be relevant. They’re obviously two different legacies, but his name would still be floating around in the ether.
Best,
Ryan Sterner
TO: Ryan Sterner
FROM: Mitch Kastoff
SUBJECT: So you’re telling me that British royalty is irrelevant?
Ryan,
You’re the worst kind of person.
If Tracy McGrady scoring 13 points in 33-seconds doesn’t make him relevant for the rest of history, I don’t know what to tell you. But he’s riding the pine simply because he’s past his limelight. His skills have probably deteriorated as much as his knees, but he still was almost a champion this year. A CHAMPION.
But, yes, despite the fact that both of them are in the twilight of their careers, I do agree that T-Mac is irrelevant and Alan Webb is not. It’s exactly what you said: because we’re all wondering where the old Webb went. Talent may not go away, but runners don’t get the same “Old Yeller” treatment (read: riding the bench, not being put down in the pasture you jerk) as other athletes in different sports. It’s all out there on the track or the roads.
I remember some old guy telling me (just kidding - it’s from Sports Night), “As if it matters how a man falls down, when the fall is all that is left, the fall matters very much.”
Webb, like Tim Tebow, Kim Kardashian, and The Royal Baby, is only relevant because people say he’s relevant. It’s the ouroboros of pop culture and fandom.
The difference with Webb and some of the guys you mentioned is that he’s in a category all his own. Woods may have had some personal problems, but he was still semi-competitive on the course. Geb was in the latter part of his career, so it wasn’t like the pendulum was ever going to come back up. After what he accomplished, it didn’t have to.
Webb could be competitve and his pendulum could swing back up, but that’s why we’re infatuated with him. McGrady is never going have sort of fourth quarter run ever again, but Alan Webb has the potential for a comeback.
And it is that characteristic that track stands alone. There’s no “utility” player or free pass to a championship in running. You make your own legacy either from winning medals or because you were a fan-favorite and overall badass.
Also, switch out “Mo Farah” for “Kenenisa Bekele” and you’ve found your own answer.
Cheers,
Mitch
TO: Mitch Kastoff
FROM: Ryan Sterner
Subject: Old Yeller had rabies
Mitch,
If you were in your office I would throw my lunch at you. There’s a big difference between the relevance of Tebow and Kardashian compared to Webb. Tebow hasn't done anything memorable aside from accidentally winning a few foosball games and being a media darling. People like him are products of the media. Webb's hype is legitimate due to the fact that he is a current American Record Holder.
Either way, I do agree that track and field doesn't have the same utility players that other professional sports do, but that’s the nature of our game. You either get out while the getting’s good (El Guerrouj) or you stick around long enough to get that slow, terrible, pity clap (Alan Webb).
But I like your notion of the possibility of the upswing. We’re always holding out for the upswing. And I think that’s what track shares with all sports. You said that Tiger was still relevant post-sex scandal, but he wasn’t. People were cheering for him though because they knew he could be old Tiger. We still watched Michael Jordan play as a Wizard (lolz) hoping for a glimpse of the Michael of yesteryear.
And the bench players of track and field are no different. The Webbs, Gebs, and Solinskys of the world still get that recognition because we know their potential. We see the American and World records and we know they can get there again—or atleast hope.
But I digress. I feel like this argument has gotten very muddled, and I don’t think I’ve come to any concrete conclusions on how to be relevant in track and field. I’ll try to sum up in one sentence:
Be phenomenal once, and you’ll be remembered forever. And this applies to track and field, and track and field only. When’s the last time anyone talked about Jeremy Lin? People will always talk about Webb and Farah and Solinsky and Geb.
Let me know if this is gibberish,
Sterner
P.S. Nice round of Catan
TO: Ryan Sterner
FROM: Mitch Kastoff
SUBJECT: Kate Upton, Kate Middleton... where’s Kate Downton?
It’s all in the timing. If a potential GOAT stays on the track too long and starts to lose, it kind of sullies his or her reputation. But if this person moves to an event where he or she is still a contender, then it’s a different story.
Geb made the move to the roads at the perfect moment in his career. Records and competition galore. Look at Farah - he's already making the transition. Then again, we’re all still wondering when Bekele will trade his spikes for racing flats. He’s no longer a threat on the world stage. And Then there’s Webb, who’s in the midst of an identity crisis.
For non-medalists, failure overshadows success. For those who have silverware, failure is just a bump on the Road to Greatness. Losing might hurt one's chances at being #1, but at least they're still in that category.
You could be the first president to establish diplomatic relations with China, but one little burglary at the Watergate Hotel, and that’s all people remember.
Until next time,
Mitch
Miss last week's Spam Folder? Read it here.
TO: Ryan Sterner
FROM: Mitch Kastoff
SUBJECT: The Royal Baby was crowning yesterday
What’s the deal with the English? They’re supposed to be island of underperformance, though, statistically speaking, they usually overperform. But they’re not supposed to win anything. They’re supposed to keep their chins high as “God Saves The Queen” plays them out.
Now they’re winning everything. Bradley Wiggins won Le Tour last year, now Chris Fromme wore the maillot jaune into Paris. Andy Murray won Wimbledon. Winbledon, won by a Brit? There was a better chance of a long distance specialist breaking into the all-time 1500m list… Wait.
So, Mo Farah. Yeah. He’s surpassed Coe, Ovett, Cram, and the rest of The Super Milers on the British list. He’s number six all-time in the 1500m. I honestly don’t think he even knows how fast he just ran in Monaco. What’s sort of odd is that he’s the third person to simultaneously hold the European 1500m and 10k records. Weird, but I digress.
The guys are talking about Mo and The GOAT. The conversation started with a picture of Mo as a goat and ended with “but seriously...”
My thing with Farah comes from the idea You’re Only British If You Win. The difference between being associated with the cultural hodgepodge in the UK and being able to sit in the royal box at Wimbledon is being a winner.
Despite the fact that we’re more homogeneous, the same thing applies to Americans. You win, you have a legacy. The only middle ground is if you’re a crowd favorite. Then you’re remembered for something more qualitative (being a badass, sweet mustache) than quantitative (personal bests, medals).
Maybe this is a critque about track and field. I’m not counting other individual sports like golf or tennis because there are a lot more opportunities to win major titles and such. When it comes to one’s legacy, track is pretty cutthroat.
You’re Only Relevant If You Win. Not in every sport.
Cheers,
Mitch
TO: Mitch Kastoff
FROM: Ryan Sterner
SUBJECT: RE:FWD:FWD:FWD: 19 things you didn’t know about me
Mitch,
Great to see you got out of bed this morning. And I will gladly take credit for the goat drawing.
You’re only relevant if you win… I have to scoff a little bit. Of course you’re only relevant when you win, and that doesn’t apply to just track and field, it applies to every other sport in the world.
Remember Tracy McGrady? That friendly looking fellow with a slow eye? He was the league’s highest scorer for two years in a row back in 2006 or 2007 (or somewhere close). I had a pair of his basketball shoes and everybody thought he was amazing. What’s he doing now? Riding the pine for the San Antonio Spurs and eating the scraps that is the last :45 seconds of a game. Is he relevant anymore? Of course not.
But in thinking about McGrady, it kind of brings me to Alan Webb. That kid was on top of the world by the time he turned 18. Heck, they even put him on Letterman! Now—and I hate to say it, because I’m a big fan—he’s a little washed up. But unlike McGrady, he remains relevant. Why?
We can take it back to Tiger Woods (of the 2009-2012 variety). Why was he relevant? Moving away from his bedroom habits, the guy was playing like garbage and all around the twittersphere (I hate myself) the tweeples (ugh) were twittering (sigh) wondering where the old Tiger was.
Or a more useful example. Haile Gebresellassie. He was great—and by all means still was, has the guy ever ran slower than 2:06? But when he started dropping out of all those marathons, he remained relevant, because people were still talking about him.
And I suppose that brings it all back to a quote that I remember some old guy telling me once, “Be hot. Be cold. But never be lukewarm.”
If Mo Farah got dead last in every race he ever ran again, he’d still be relevant. If he won every race he’d still be relevant. They’re obviously two different legacies, but his name would still be floating around in the ether.
Best,
Ryan Sterner
TO: Ryan Sterner
FROM: Mitch Kastoff
SUBJECT: So you’re telling me that British royalty is irrelevant?
Ryan,
You’re the worst kind of person.
If Tracy McGrady scoring 13 points in 33-seconds doesn’t make him relevant for the rest of history, I don’t know what to tell you. But he’s riding the pine simply because he’s past his limelight. His skills have probably deteriorated as much as his knees, but he still was almost a champion this year. A CHAMPION.
But, yes, despite the fact that both of them are in the twilight of their careers, I do agree that T-Mac is irrelevant and Alan Webb is not. It’s exactly what you said: because we’re all wondering where the old Webb went. Talent may not go away, but runners don’t get the same “Old Yeller” treatment (read: riding the bench, not being put down in the pasture you jerk) as other athletes in different sports. It’s all out there on the track or the roads.
I remember some old guy telling me (just kidding - it’s from Sports Night), “As if it matters how a man falls down, when the fall is all that is left, the fall matters very much.”
Webb, like Tim Tebow, Kim Kardashian, and The Royal Baby, is only relevant because people say he’s relevant. It’s the ouroboros of pop culture and fandom.
The difference with Webb and some of the guys you mentioned is that he’s in a category all his own. Woods may have had some personal problems, but he was still semi-competitive on the course. Geb was in the latter part of his career, so it wasn’t like the pendulum was ever going to come back up. After what he accomplished, it didn’t have to.
Webb could be competitve and his pendulum could swing back up, but that’s why we’re infatuated with him. McGrady is never going have sort of fourth quarter run ever again, but Alan Webb has the potential for a comeback.
And it is that characteristic that track stands alone. There’s no “utility” player or free pass to a championship in running. You make your own legacy either from winning medals or because you were a fan-favorite and overall badass.
Also, switch out “Mo Farah” for “Kenenisa Bekele” and you’ve found your own answer.
Cheers,
Mitch
TO: Mitch Kastoff
FROM: Ryan Sterner
Subject: Old Yeller had rabies
Mitch,
If you were in your office I would throw my lunch at you. There’s a big difference between the relevance of Tebow and Kardashian compared to Webb. Tebow hasn't done anything memorable aside from accidentally winning a few foosball games and being a media darling. People like him are products of the media. Webb's hype is legitimate due to the fact that he is a current American Record Holder.
Either way, I do agree that track and field doesn't have the same utility players that other professional sports do, but that’s the nature of our game. You either get out while the getting’s good (El Guerrouj) or you stick around long enough to get that slow, terrible, pity clap (Alan Webb).
But I like your notion of the possibility of the upswing. We’re always holding out for the upswing. And I think that’s what track shares with all sports. You said that Tiger was still relevant post-sex scandal, but he wasn’t. People were cheering for him though because they knew he could be old Tiger. We still watched Michael Jordan play as a Wizard (lolz) hoping for a glimpse of the Michael of yesteryear.
And the bench players of track and field are no different. The Webbs, Gebs, and Solinskys of the world still get that recognition because we know their potential. We see the American and World records and we know they can get there again—or atleast hope.
But I digress. I feel like this argument has gotten very muddled, and I don’t think I’ve come to any concrete conclusions on how to be relevant in track and field. I’ll try to sum up in one sentence:
Be phenomenal once, and you’ll be remembered forever. And this applies to track and field, and track and field only. When’s the last time anyone talked about Jeremy Lin? People will always talk about Webb and Farah and Solinsky and Geb.
Let me know if this is gibberish,
Sterner
P.S. Nice round of Catan
TO: Ryan Sterner
FROM: Mitch Kastoff
SUBJECT: Kate Upton, Kate Middleton... where’s Kate Downton?
It’s all in the timing. If a potential GOAT stays on the track too long and starts to lose, it kind of sullies his or her reputation. But if this person moves to an event where he or she is still a contender, then it’s a different story.
Geb made the move to the roads at the perfect moment in his career. Records and competition galore. Look at Farah - he's already making the transition. Then again, we’re all still wondering when Bekele will trade his spikes for racing flats. He’s no longer a threat on the world stage. And Then there’s Webb, who’s in the midst of an identity crisis.
For non-medalists, failure overshadows success. For those who have silverware, failure is just a bump on the Road to Greatness. Losing might hurt one's chances at being #1, but at least they're still in that category.
You could be the first president to establish diplomatic relations with China, but one little burglary at the Watergate Hotel, and that’s all people remember.
Until next time,
Mitch