Jump to content

"Classic" is a misnomer


wdm1219inpenna

Recommended Posts

Case in point, the new MLB Network. I tune it in every now and then, as I am more a fan of the history of the game than the present or future. How is it at ALL possible that the 2007 World Series is considered "classic"? And no, I totally reject the notion of any game being an "instant classic". Instant replay, ok, instant potatoes, love them, instant coffee, not so much, but I accept it, but instant classic, absolutely NOT.

First of all, 2007 was barely a year ago. Secondly, the WILD CARD crappy Colorado Rockies, who had a bunch of players who nobody ever heard tell of, representing the equally crappy National League in the World Series. The series was a 4 game sweep. How is a 4 game sweep that was done 5 minutes ago "classic" at all?

To me, the elements of something being "classic" should entail something that is at LEAST over 10 years ago. Was the 2001 World Series a classic? It will be, after 2011. Right now it's still much too new to be "classic" to me, and I think that phrase gets overused to the point where nobody understands what a CLASSIC actually is.

To me, a classic series almost always goes the distance, or at the very least, 6 games. 1993 World Series, classic. More than 10 years ago. Went 6 games, but came to Joe Carter's HR in the 9th off of the "Wild Thing" Mitch Williams.

I'll even concede to say the 1976 World Series was "classic". Not only due to the fact that it was over 30 years ago, but the fact that it featured the Big Red Machine & the revived New York Yankees.

Game 7 of the 2007 NLCS is NOT, I repeat, NOT, classic. Not yet anyway.

1969 World Series, that's CLASSIC, due to the implications of the series, and the fact that it wasn't played 15 minutes ago. I am simply sick and tired of the word classic being thrown around all the time, for series that were boring, and that were played all too recently. Stop it with the "classic" label, it's totally wrong, totally misleading, and disrespects those players and series and events that truly ARE classics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my day, we didn't have fancy sodie-pop, we had phosphates! "Two bits for a phosphate," you used to tell the soda-jerk.

I used to tie an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my day, we didn't have fancy sodie-pop, we had phosphates! "Two bits for a phosphate," you used to tell the soda-jerk.

I used to tie an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

Yessir. And back in my day, we didn't have any fancy remedies for what ailed ya. My mother used to break out the Lister's Carbolic Unguent, and if that didn't work she'd break out a balsam specific. Our family didn't have the money for Smeckler's Powder though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think a timetable should be applied to a series to determine if it is a 'classic' or not. Of course the 2007 World Series will never be known as a classic. But the 2001 World Series should. It had all the elements of a classic. Heck, even the 2004 ALCS is tied in with the word, as it should be. Is the word classic overused? Of course it is. But everyone is going to have their own opinion of what is and isn't classic. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would disagree about the examples I gave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe classic is just a word used to say they are showing an old game.

That is EXACTLY what they are doing. Happens all the time on ESPN Classic

I guess they should change the name to ESPN Old :censored: to please wdm1219inpenna

That channel has strayed so far from its original mission. Then again, many cable channels have. That can be in and of itself an entirely different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me a "Classic" game is not a game of when it was played, but is a great game that you'd watch over and over again. If it's a 10-0 blowout in baseball and someone sets some kind of record in it, then it's not a "classic" and just a "stat" game. To me a "Classic" is something that has you on the edge of your seat and not just a game that was played 25 years ago. That's my definition. Is the word used too much, yes it is. Kobe Bryant's 81 point game is not a classic and actually a very boring game to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me a "Classic" game is not a game of when it was played, but is a great game that you'd watch over and over again. If it's a 10-0 blowout in baseball and someone sets some kind of record in it, then it's not a "classic" and just a "stat" game. To me a "Classic" is something that has you on the edge of your seat and not just a game that was played 25 years ago. That's my definition. Is the word used too much, yes it is. Kobe Bryant's 81 point game is not a classic and actually a very boring game to watch.

I agree.

I also agree with wdm19...er, the original poster...in the idea that the word "classic" has probably been diluted. I wouldn't say that NOTHING in the past 10 years could be called "classic" - Webster's defines "classic" as "serving as a standard of excellence: of recognized value;" or "historically memorable." Most of the "Instant Classic" type stuff probably shouldn't be considered as such, just a ploy to get viewers.

But to say that time absolutely has to pass for something to be considered "classic" is a bit of a stretch. Boise State's win over Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl comes to mind - that was an amazing, back-and-forth game, especially in the final minutes. It should make top-10 lists decades from now. That warrants "classic" status in my opinion. Likewise, if on Sunday the Super Bowl is an extremely exciting one and ends up going into overtime or something similar, wouldn't you consider that a "classic"?

To me, it means that a certain game can/will/should stand the test of time, and will be talked about decades later like, say, the 1958 NFL Championship, Joe Namath's guarantee in Super Bowl III, Nadia Comaneci's Perfect 10, NC State's national championship in 1983, Don Larsen's World Series Perfect Game...etc, etc, etc.

In that sense, I agree that half the stuff being billed as "classic"... simply ain't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeh, FSN Wisconsin kinda does that during baseball offseason...Brewers "classics." Among them is a 12-0 or something rout of Arizona in 07 :rolleyes: which doesn't interest me all that much cus 1: I don't watch those bums unless the Cubs are beatin em, and 2: it's an old rout. the only one of those I wanna see is the 1940 NFL title game, mainly to see what 73-0 truly looked like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it means that a certain game can/will/should stand the test of time, and will be talked about decades later like, say, the 1958 NFL Championship, Joe Namath's guarantee in Super Bowl III, Nadia Comaneci's Perfect 10, NC State's national championship in 1983, Don Larsen's World Series Perfect Game...etc, etc, etc.

In that sense, I agree that half the stuff being billed as "classic"... simply ain't.

It's interesting that you use Namath's guarantee as a classic. I was watching something on that Super Bowl and they were talking about Namath's guarantee and that when he said that, no one in the media thought anything of it. It wasn't until AFTER the Jets one and one of the papers used it as a headline. That "classic" statement is a media created "classic" and has turned into media created cliche as everyone uses it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe classic is just a word used to say they are showing an old game.

Right. Whether a game is a classic is in the eye of the beholder. I wish they showed different things than they frequenty do, but I don't think the station's format renders the name incorrect. Kind of like AMC (American Movie Classics, I think). Some of the movies are not classics in my book, but so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, what do you actually like? You post about what you want to change or hate about most North American sport. The US does not have a Minister of Sport, but you seem to be rallying for it on the professional level to say the least. If you liked the NASL's 35 yardline for offsides, you want that?

If the 1976 World Series was Classic to you, why wasn't 1975 when the Red Sox got there with the Fisk HR which people don't realize was in game 6? That went 7 and you failed to mention it. So it was not classic? Please.

You were MLB specific on this thread, but you do talk about other sports, so what else is classic in your opinion? Super Bowls and even title games? Personally, I think the NYR/VAN Stanley Cup Final was the best I have seen in my life (that TV showed me). 1991 W.S. was great, too. You apparenly want to be Sport God, what are your other Commandments? Help me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic has nothing to do with the time, but it has everything to do with the excitement of the specific game and the ability of that game to bring complete emotion out of the audience. I won't use an example from MLB because I don't watch it enough, but a perfect example would be this past World Juniors, Canada vs USA. Amazing game then? Yes. Would I watch it if they showed it again today? Yes! Would I watch it 10 years later? YES! That was a classic game, and it happened less than a month ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.