Golf is an honorable game with a storied tradition. That tradition should NOT include John Daly!
There have been many feel-good stories throughout golf’s history. Tiger Woods is one of those feel-good stories. Whether discussing his 2006 season, where he racked up 6 consecutive tournament victories following the death of his father, Earl, or the 2008 U.S. Open where he limped his way to victory over Rocco Mediate on a severely injured knee, Tiger has been a part of recent examples that will surely be remembered in golf lore for years to come.
There’s the story of Payne Stewart, golf’s all-around good-guy. Stewart is remembered for several notable moments, including a 15-foot putt at Pinehurst to close out the final hole of the U.S. Open in 1999. There is the time when he won the Tournament at Bay Hill in 1987 and donated the entire sum of his winnings – $108,000 – to the Florida Hospital Circle of Friends in memory of his father, Bill, who passed away from cancer. Most notable is the ghostly image of a bag-piper crossing a fog-covered green at the Tour Championship in Houston in October of 1999, and the sight of many of Stewart’s friends playing the next day in plus-fors as homage to their beloved colleague and friend whose life had tragically ended in a plane crash one week before the event.
There’s Jack Nicklaus, the “Golden Bear.” Nicklaus made a promise to his son, Craig, who was dying of a rare type of bone cancer at age 11. He said he would wear yellow at every tournament he played in, which he proudly did for his son. Fast-forward to 1986 at Augusta National where Nicklaus, still wearing yellow, embraces another of his sons and his caddie, Jackie, as he claimed his record sixth Green Jacket at the age of 46.
There are many magical stories with many wonderful thoughts and sentiments attached to them.
Compare those to the story of John Daly. A man who has been charged multiple times with multiple offenses, including a most recent incident where he was arrested outside of a Hooters Restaurant for appearing intoxicated in October of 2008. This incident led to his third suspension from golf. His first suspension resulted from a domestic-violence charge, and the second stems from an incident at Kapalua Golf Course where he just picked his ball up off the course on 11 and skipped to the 12th tee in 1993.
Daly is an admitted alcoholic and drug user who has also confessed to a gambling addiction. He has been involved in embarrassing incidents both on and off the course. Consider his run-in with a spectator during the opening round of the Australian Open in 2008, where he smashed the spectator’s camera into a tree.
John Daly’s presence on the PGA Tour has resulted in numerous black marks on a game which prides itself on honor and dignity. Daly’s behavior has been anything BUT honorable and dignified.
Now, the golfing world holds its collective breath as Daly makes yet another return to the game which he has disgraced many times over. Has Daly truly seen the error of his ways? Will he take steps to make up for all the wrong he has done, both personally and professionally? My answer to those questions is – who Cares?! John Daly has had more than his fair share of mulligans. I cannot name one quality that I find endearing, and can’t fathom actually cheering for him as he sets foot on the tee-box at a major tournament. He has exhausted any good will that I might have for a man in his situation.
I do not feel that he is worthy of the fans support, especially in a game where so many good and honorable things have happened throughout history.
If you want a REAL player worth cheering for this year at Bethpage Black, site of this year’s U.S. Open, it’s Phil Mickelson. Mickelson has been one of the PGA’s great ambassadors during his career. He has sponsored or founded multiple charities, and always carries himself in a way befitting the dignity of a golfer. Now Mickelson faces a new challenge, supporting his wife, Amy, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The U.S. Open will mark his second tournament since the discovery of her disease. I’ll be watching and cheering for Mickelson AND his family because they truly deserve all the support they can get.
Time and time again, America roots for the underdog in athletic competition. For baseball, maybe it was the Tampa Bay Rays last year. For college basketball, maybe it was George Mason making a deep run in the 2006 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament. Maybe it was rooting for Boise State to knock off Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl in college football. Maybe it’s whoever is playing the New York Yankees or the Dallas Cowboys, perhaps the two wealthiest teams in all of sports. In golf, America roots for John Daly.
In some ways, John Daly is just another regular John Doe. Yes, I know! John Doe doesn’t always have a checkered past littered with alcoholism, gambling additions, and ex-wives. But, many of us may have a friend who has tackled the same issues that Daly has, right? And we root for that friend to succeed, right? John Daly is no different.
John Daly burst onto the scene in 1991, going from zero to hero and winning the 1991 PGA Championship – one of golf’s four majors (as we all know). He was the ninth alternate to get into the tournament (as Sports Geek pointed out in his intro). He won that tournament without playing as much as a single round at Crooked Stick Golf Club in Carmel, Indiana, who played host for the PGA Championship that year. Remember that little mini-mullet he had?
He wasn’t then, and isn’t now, a regular country club golfer. Close your eyes and picture a golfer… it’s tough to bring an image of John Daly to mind – admit it! I’ll admit it. I don’t! But, so what! Isn’t that what makes him likable?
It doesn’t matter that for the better part of his golf career he has been this cursing, overweight, beer-drinking, cigarette smoking, golfer. He comes across as a likable guy. He has that likability factor going for him that Simon Cowell likes to talk about on American Idol. Outside of Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, he is still arguably one of the top draws in golf – which is amazing considering he hasn’t won a PGA tournament in almost five and a half years. If Woods, Mickelson, and Daly were battling it out on the back nine on Sunday, Daly would have just as much crowd support as Woods and Mickelson. He’s David and everyone else is Goliath. He’s the ultimate underdog. That’s why America roots for him.
Last weekend, Daly played in his first tournament in over 6 months at the St. Jude Classic in Memphis, Tennessee. He finished tied for 59th place, with a four round score of one over par. Not great, but it’s a start. Hopefully, it’s the start of many more things to come!
To answer the debate question from Sport Geek, yes, America should root for John Daly. Every sport needs someone to take on the underdog role, and John Daly fits it perfectly!
John Daly is a professional golfer. That statement is an overly simple explanation of the life of John Daly. When he broke into the professional golf in 1987, he appeared to be another dedicated, hard-working golf professional with high ambitions. He won his first tournament in 1990 (the Ben Hogan Utah Classic) and debuted on the PGA Tour in 1991 where he won the PGA Championship. This is where Daly’s underdog story begins.
Daly was the ninth alternate for the PGA Championship. When Nick Faldo dropped out of the vent, and none of the first eight alternates could make the event, Daly got the call and shot a first round 69. Buoyed by the first round success, he won the tournament and the tour rookie of the year award. Several years later, in 1995, he won his second major, taking the British Open at St. Andrews.
Daly has donated time and money to charities in his home state, including his high school’s chapter of both the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the Boys and Girls Club of America. He is also a supporter of University of Arkansas athletic teams.
Despite this early success, Daly failed to become the darling of the ultimate “gentleman’s sport,” golf. Daly has never been chosen to represent the United States in the Ryder Cup, and there’s good reason for that.
Daly has struggled mightily with myriad off-the-course issues, starting with gambling. He even admitted to losing over one million dollars gambling on $5000/round slot machines in Las Vegas. After claiming that the PGA Tour was rife with rampant cocaine use in 1994, Daly decided to take a leave of absence from the tour. He is an admitted heavy drinker – everything from booze to Diet Coke – and unapologetic about his various struggles with addiction. Last January, Daly was suspended from PGA Tour golf for a period of 6 months, a timeframe that has just expired.
A quote from John Daly, “I know there’s a lot of guys who would love to see me fail. Well, good. Let ‘em. I’m glad.”
Daly’s “Joe Everybody” approach to golf and life has endeared him to many golf fans across the country, and brought out a sizable portion of critics, too.
So, the question begs – is John Daly a lovable loser, or just a loser? As golf and sports fans, should we root for John Daly’s success, or admonish him for his poor example and indifference?
Loyal Homer will argue that John Daly is deserving of fan support, while Bleacher Fan will argue that John Daly is not deserving of support from fans.
May the best debater win!
First, I’ll continue to give credit to both Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek for starting off their arguments with real life analogies. Bleacher Fan’s gas station example and Sports Geek chronicling a typical bad day at work really set the tone for their respective arguments.
There’s no doubt that Mike Brown is feeling a little heat up in Cleveland. In fact, he’s feeling a lot of heat. In the back of the mind of many of the Cleveland Cavaliers must be that one little sentence that none of them are willing to admit is possible. What sentence is that, you ask? I’ll tell you…
LEBRON JAMES IS A FREE AGENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE 2009-2010 SEASON!!!!
This is cause for real panic. No one is arguing that in this debate. The fans necessarily have a “win now” attitude, and management, publically at least, has adopted the same attitude (see Bleacher Fan’s opinion for details).
But, firing the coach isn’t always the answer. Maybe some upgrades need to happen within the team. As Sports Geek suggested, the Cavs need an athletic big man to play alongside LeBron James. Perhaps the bench needs to be strengthened, too. Firing the coach won’t strengthen the team. Mike Brown won 66 games and was the NBA Coach of the Year. Whether or not he won it on the strength of Number 23 is not the point. He was still the head coach when his team won all of those games.
Now, if the Cavs don’t win it all next year – or at least make it to the NBA Finals – then a stronger case can be made to fire Mike Brown and question his ability to lead the Cavs to a championship. But, that case isn’t strong enough right now. Not yet.
We’ve all had a bad day at work before, right? Somebody says something snarky in a meeting, or grates on nerves, or steals credit for a project. Instead of just letting it go, what do you do? You vent. You might vent to a co-worker in a back room or call a friend in a hallway. When you vent you don’t think about being politically correct, or taking everyone’s feelings into consideration. You just want to vent… you want to get those negative feelings out of you. Who’s to say having a front office job for a major NBA franchise doesn’t have the same situations taking place? My guess is that’s all that happened – in contrast to the “reports” that surfaced Thursday stating the Cleveland Cavaliers were considering firing reigning Coach of the Year, and owner of more pair of fashionable glasses than any other grown man, Mike Brown. The sports media is, once again, making a big deal out of nothing. Plus, Mike Brown does not deserve to get fired.
How does a guy get a prestigious award like NBA Coach of the Year? Coaching a team that went 66-16 in the regular season, and 39-2 at home, is a good start. Brown has been credited far and wide for inspiring his star LeBron James to put in the same effort on the defensive end of the floor as he always has on the offensive end. Mike Brown has made LeBron James a better defender and a more complete basketball player. In fact, James has grown so much as a player in the 2008-2009 regular season that he earned his first NBA MVP award this year. Mike Brown is good for LeBron James.
Mike Brown has also improved as a coach each year he’s been in the NBA, despite the fact that he has really only had one consistent contributor on the roster since he started coaching – LeBron James. Brown, like James, has suffered from a lack of talent and depth on the roster. It’s hard to install elaborate motion offense if the other players on the team cannot hit an open shot. Which leads me to my next point…
The Cavaliers do not have abundant talent on their roster, Bleacher Fan. How can Mike Brown be asked to create a championship team with only one championship player? The Cavs have no dominant big player (a must for any championship-quality team in this era of the NBA). They also lack depth in the backcourt. For Bleacher Fan to claim the Cavaliers had superior talent to the Orlando Magic in the NBA Finals is completely false. The Magic have 4-5 players who can take a game winning shot – the definition of a true team. The Cavs have one, which they proved.
Those realities make it unfair to place all of the blame for the Cavaliers unlikely demise at Brown’s feet. Name any championship coach in NBA history – Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Pat Riley, Greg Popovich – and it’s easy to see they all had more than one championship caliber player on the roster who performed well on a consistent basis. It’s unfair to expect championship quality teams from Brown, but not give him the tools to live up to those expectations. The mismatches Bleacher Fan talks about were not manufactured by a coach. Stan Van Gundy didn’t make Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu grow to 6’10.” He didn’t sign them to contracts, either. Their General Manager Otis Smith did. Mike Brown is in a difficult situation because the lack of talent, height, and depth on the Cavaliers roster.
Brown’s job as a head coach is to formulate a philosophy that will win championships. He chose defense – a proven path to the Larry O’Brien trophy. The players even bought into that philosophy and played hard for him – another proof point that Brown is an effective coach.
Not only should the Cavs not fire Mike Brown, they can’t act unilaterally. It’s also important to note that LeBron is in a position in Cleveland where all decisions regarding coaches and personnel must be approved by him. You can’t fire the coach for the best basketball player on the planet and not consult him… unless you want zero chance of resigning him when his contract expires in 2010.
The key to helping Mike Brown fully realize his potential as a coach is getting him more good players that perform consistently and fit his philosophy. Zydrunas Ilgauskas is not an athletic, tough center. Neither is Anderson Varejao. Or Joe Smith. Or JJ Hickson. Mike Brown’s success is in part tied to Danny Ferry’s ability to surround the franchise star with more talented players. Even good coaches can’t make something out nothing.
Rumors abound right now regarding the future of Mike Brown as head coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers. If the Cavs are smart, they’ll pull into a gas station, ask Brown to run in and ask for directions, then take off while he’s inside. I would get as far away from him as possible, and fast. Sticking with Brown may cost the Cavs LeBron James.
Sure, Mike Brown has coached a successful team. His record as a head coach is very strong, sitting at 211 wins to only 117 losses. It’s hard to argue those numbers. But, let’s realistically consider where those numbers came from – LeBron James.
LeBron is, without question, one of the best players in the game today. In a game where you play only five people at a time, having 20% of your on-court staff qualify as “one of the best in the game” gives you a distinct advantage. Basketball, unlike baseball or football, creates an environment where a team can be carried by a single player. In no way does a single player guarantee a championship; but, he can single-handedly take credit for many wins along the way. Therefore, I challenge anyone to prove to me that the Cavaliers’ success is due to anyone other than LeBron James.
“But Bleacher Fan,” I hear you say, “Mike Brown was named coach of the year! The Cavs CAN’T fire him.”
I argue, having watched the Cavaliers falter quite embarrassingly against the Orlando Magic, that Mike Brown did not win Coach of the Year because of his coaching ability. He won Coach of the Year because his team had the best record in basketball. To recap, WHY did the Cavs have the best record in basketball? Everyone say it with me… LeBron James!
Now, why did the Cavaliers lose the Eastern Conference Finals to the Magic? Because of Mike Brown’s coaching. Sure, the Magic were able to capitalize on mismatches created in the line-up, but those mismatches were manufactured by a superior coach, Stan Van Gundy. Van Gundy out-coached Brown to the point that the Cavs actually looked like they didn’t belong in the Eastern Conference Finals.
To give Brown some credit, his strategy coming into each game was relatively strong. The Cavs were able to run up a quick (and rather large) lead in several of the games. Where Brown failed, though, was his inability to anticipate or respond to the adjustments made by Van Gundy, a much better coach. The end result was that Brown got schooled, despite having better talent on the court.
The 2009 Eastern Conference Finals, though, is not the first time this problem has popped up. The Cavaliers were outscored in the third quarter in 50% of their games this year (although the problem has been ongoing since Brown came on board). Mike Brown is incapable of making any type of a half-time adjustment. Think about it. The Cavaliers were one of the top two teams in first half scoring all year. Yet, somehow, during the halftime break, they became sub-standard. It is because the opposing coaches make adjustments during halftime that Brown is incapable of handling. This is something that can be overcome when playing teams like the New York Knicks or the Washington Wizards. When you are playing teams with superior coaches, such as Stan Van Gundy, the stakes get raised and overcoming that obstacle becomes a little more challenging.
Getting back to my original point, why should the Cavs fire Mike Brown? Because in pressure situations, against the better teams and better coaches, Mike Brown will always come up second best. Under Mike Brown, the Cavaliers will NOT win a championship, and LeBron will seek greener pastures as a result. If Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert REALLY wants to promise Cleveland an end to their championship drought, then he should begin with the taking care of the problem, and fire Mike Brown!
The 2009 NBA Finals is in full swing, and that should be the focus of NBA fans right now. But, rather quietly, Mike Brown’s status as coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers has been called into question by some.
Congratulations Coach Brown. After winning 66 regular season games this past year, you have to fight for your job?
Reportedly, several “sources close to the situation” are saying that the front office is divided on the status of Brown’s future. Others are saying that Brown’s job is safe. If the reports about a divided front office are true, what should Cavaliers General Manager Danny Ferry do?
Brown’s record after four years is an impressive 211-117. That’s a .643 winning percentage. Not too bad, huh? How about a 66-16 record this past season, including 39-2 at home. And, oh yeah, he is the reigning NBA Coach of the Year!
That’s the good news. Now, the bad news.
Brown’s team (or maybe LeBron’s team?) made the 2009 Eastern Conference Finals as the odds on favorites over the talented Orlando Magic. But, they were upset by the Magic in six games. King James is due to be a free agent after next season (in case you haven’t heard… and if you haven’t, where have you been?).
The question posed by Loyal Homer, and by a good portion of America’s sports fans, is:
Does Mike Brown deserve to lose his job as coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers?
Bleacher Fan will argue that Brown hasn’t taken this team to the next level and more is expected by the coach of LeBron James’ team.
Sports Geek will argue that Mike Brown has done enough to keep his job.
Present your case to me so I can make one of you happy and one of you mad!
After posting my last article, I was convinced that I was ready to call it quits. My run on TSD was a good one: I have won 2 out of 4 courtroom debates, and am a whopping 3-1 on King of the Hills (Thanks again to all my Bleacher Fan brethren!).
Despite that success, I felt tired. However, having taken this time away from TSD since noon yesterday, I realized that I have a lot more left in me, so it gives me GREAT pleasure to announce that I am coming out of retirement to continue debating! Effective immediately, I am declaring myself once again eligible for participation in newest phenomenon that is The Sports Debates!
As my first act of business, I am honored to tell you that I have made a decision regarding the topic of whether or not the manner in which an athlete retires affects their legacy. I’m awarding this ‘W’ to…
Loyal Homer!!!!!
If I’m being completely honest, I came into this debate a little one-sided, actually in favor of Sports Geek. I was pretty convinced before I even heard this debate that a player’s exit from the game would HAVE to influence their legacy. How could a guy like Brett Fah-vruh, who retired from the Green Bay Packers as a hero, EVER be remembered as fondly after his retirement saga?
But, Loyal Homer hit the nail on the head with his argument, an argument I never even considered. When you ask who the greatest basketball player of all time was, the majority of the responses are “Michael Jordan.” When you think about guys like Jordan – or Hank Aaron, or Joe Namath – no one ever talks about how they retired (except maybe as a punch line). I actually had forgotten that Aaron retired as a Milwaukee Brewer!
Sports Geek raised some interesting counterpoints, such as the fact that Jordan’s stats may have been even greater had his career gone uninterrupted. However, thinking about “what might have been” with Jordan’s career does not change the fact that his career is still widely regarded as one of – if not THE – greatest in basketball. Consider Jim Brown or Barry Sanders, arguably two of the greatest running backs in professional football history, and two people who ended their career shockingly early. Both left fans reeling with “what might have been” thoughts running through their heads, but both are still remembered for amazing careers.
Sports Geek’s other counterpoint, the fact that a lesser percentage of people from Favre’s “neck of the woods” want to see him play some more, doesn’t truly address their thoughts regarding his career. Just because the good people of Hattiesburg, Mississippi don’t want to see Favre play another season, that doesn’t mean that they think less of his career.
Whether the decision is a faux retirement, staged only so that you can call your next fight a “comeback” in the hopes of making a little extra money (I’m talking to you, Floyd Mayweather, Jr.), or a refusal to admit you’ve no longer got it, it is what you did on the field that will ultimately be your legacy.
As sports fans, we like our history uncomplicated. We like underdogs. We like happy endings. We don’t like any negativity sprinkled into a result. For example, how many diehard New York Yankees fans would be glad for a win if shortstop Derek Jeter and first baseman Mark Teixieieiiieeieieeieeira were both lost for the year? They wouldn’t. Fans like simple, positive results, and that same truth applies to the legacies of our favorite sports stars as they contemplate retirement. It’s clear that fans think about a player’s career differently depending on how they go about retiring. I have two examples.
First, let’s look at Loyal Homer’s Michael Jordan example. Here’s a legend that had a see-saw battle with retirement, first retiring from basketball on the heels of winning three consecutive NBA titles. Now, this wasn’t a Seinfeldian “we can accomplish nothing more let’s get out while we’re on top” type retirement. No, October 6, 1993 was about Jordan wanting to play professional baseball (apparently only in the minors, thanks to his robust .202 batting average). How do you I remember the exact date? Because my English class stopped what we were doing, and at the behest of the instructor, watched the breaking news press conference live in the middle of the day (thanks, Mrs. Gessler). The second time he retired it was about a situation with management that he was unable to resolve. The THIRD time he retired was about being done playing basketball. I agree with Loyal Homer that Jordan’s statistics with the Wizards weren’t really that bad, and those stats don’t change how we think about Jordan on the court. But, it’s impossible to dismiss these brief retiring stints from Jordan’s history. Moreover, it’s impossible not to think about what MIGHT have been. How much farther out of reach would some of his league-leading stats be if he played each season consecutively? So, did the way Jordan retired affect how we think about his career? Of course.
For the second example, let’s examine our perpetually topical friend, Brett Favre. The first time Favre retired from the Green Bay Packers he was “mentally tired.” The second time he “retired” he decided to skip the tear-filled press conference and just say it from his house in Mississippi. Now he’s contemplating coming out of retirement again, just so he can retire a third time. (Interestingly, Favre’s retirement saga is very similar to his career as a player, with many questioning his decision-making while he was still able to muscle his way in to whatever situation he wanted.) To get some perspective from the source, I placed a call to sports writer Tyler Cleveland of the Hattiesburg American in Mississippi. Cleveland told me that the first time Favre was contemplating ending his retirement his droves of fans in Mississippi were thrilled at the prospect of continuing to watch him play. According to Cleveland, a “vast majority” of people wanted to see him play. Now the feeling from the locals is different. Cleveland puts the sentiment from the diehard local fans Favre has always had in his corner at 50-50. That’s a substantial difference. Has the way Favre is approaching retirement affected how fans think about his legacy and his career? Yep.
This back and forth about retirement remains newsworthy for years to come in part because it can impact the decision-making of their former(ish) organization, too. The longer a player contemplates retirement, the bigger the void in the organization, and the harder it is to recover. The player’s legacy lives in infamy within the organization they decide to leave(ish).
For a retiring player to avoid negatively impacting their legacy they must make the decision to leave the sport in private, publically announce it after they’re certain (but not at a huge worldwide press conference), and be disciplined about sticking to it. It’s not like a player has to quit cold-turkey. Look at the revolving door of ex-players who are cast as an “analyst” or talking head on TV? It seems to me that any respectable player (or Trent Dilfer) that wants a job in TV can get one. There’s always the prospect of coaching, too.
Going back and forth about retiring is human. It’s natural. It doesn’t completely destroy a legacy, either. But, does indecision impact how a career is thought about? Sure. Indecision about playing or retiring is an unavoidable footnote that gets branded onto a player’s history – and a fan’s memory – for all eternity.
Close your eyes. Visualize watching some of your favorite players growing up. Try to remember reading and hearing about some of sports’ greatest players. Now, I’ll mention some all time greats, and we’ll see if you can tell me what uniform they were wearing when they retired.
Up until Barry Bonds came along, he was the all-time home run leader. He played most of his career with the Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves. (The Milwaukee Braves moved to Atlanta in 1966.) But, what team was he playing for when he retired? Would you have guessed the Milwaukee Brewers? Aaron finished up his career in 1976 as a Brewer with 10 home runs and a rather paltry .229 batting average. Hardly Hall of Fame numbers if you average that over a career. But, when you think of Hank Aaron, you think of the Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves Hank Aaron, don’t you? Did his time as a Brewer ruin his impression?
The man known as “Broadway Joe” or “Joe Willie” is perhaps best known for starring in Super Bowl III as his underdog New York Jets upset the heavily favored Baltimore Colts. He famously guaranteed victory in the days leading up to the game and it defined his career. Take that game away and his legacy wouldn’t be nearly what it is today. Did you know that Namath ended his career playing for the Los Angeles Rams? Did his time as a Ram ruin his legacy and his reputation as Broadway Joe?
Johnny U threw 290 touchdown passes in his career. He made the Pro Bowl 10 times, and won a Super Bowl with the Baltimore Colts. He played in “the greatest game ever played.” When you think of Unitas, you think of the quarterback for the Baltimore Colts. But, would you have guessed he finished up his career with the San Diego Chargers?
“His Airness” is arguably the greatest basketball player ever. He won six NBA titles with the Chicago Bulls, with back-to-back-to-back titles on two separate occasions. He retired and came back two different times before finally retiring in 2003. He’s only been retired for six years, but 20 years from now are many people going to remember that he retired with the Washington Wizards?
The answer to all four of the questions involving these four sports icons is NO! No one will remember that they finished their careers with pedestrian numbers playing for different teams. Their legacy was set long before they reached the twilight of their careers. Did they hang around too long? Perhaps. But, the legacies of Hank Aaron, Joe Namath, Johnny Unitas, and Michael Jordan are intact due to their incredible achievements that they accomplished during the peak of their careers.
And we're back... Should college coaches look into criminal and juvenile records when recruiting? The verdict says YES! http://bit.ly/dZ5LF310 months ago
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
