The Athletic: Paige Bueckers didn’t need a title to be a UConn legend. She deserved one, though

[Plebe]

My apologies if this was posted in another thread, but it's such a sweet write-up by Marcus Thompson II that I thought it merited its own thread.

(And hopefully the link is accessible to everyone.)

Paige Bueckers didn’t need a title to be a UConn legend. She deserved one, though

Bueckers’ greatest victory, the one most meaningful to her undeniable legacy, is how she has handled the weight of her crown.

www.nytimes.com

“Bueckers’ greatest victory, the one most meaningful to her undeniable legacy, is how she handles the weight of her crown. What she emanates from the pedestal on which she’s perched. Her greatness is gracious. She knows how to shine while deflecting it, and how to meld character and competitiveness.”​

 

[TheFarmFan]

My apologies if this was posted in another thread, but it's such a sweet write-up by Marcus Thompson II that I thought it merited its own thread.

(And hopefully the link is accessible to everyone.)

Paige Bueckers didn’t need a title to be a UConn legend. She deserved one, though

Bueckers’ greatest victory, the one most meaningful to her undeniable legacy, is how she has handled the weight of her crown.

www.nytimes.com

“Bueckers’ greatest victory, the one most meaningful to her undeniable legacy, is how she handles the weight of her crown. What she emanates from the pedestal on which she’s perched. Her greatness is gracious. She knows how to shine while deflecting it, and how to meld character and competitiveness.”​

It's an excellent article, which is manifested by the (deserving) praise Marcus received over and over in the comments. I'd call it Sports Illustrated-calliber, but these days that'd be a grievous insult to the author.

 

[Plebe]

It's an excellent article, which is manifested by the (deserving) praise Marcus received over and over in the comments. I'd call it Sports Illustrated-calliber, but these days that'd be a grievous insult to the author.

Let's call it “the magazine formerly known as Sports Illustrated”-caliber.

One hundred ninety-six comments (and counting)! It's nice to see some readers appreciating a quality piece.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Let's call it “the magazine formerly known as Sports Illustrated”-caliber.

One hundred ninety-six comments (and counting)! It's nice to see some readers appreciating a quality piece.

Both the writers and readers of the Athletic are generally literate, thoughtful, and engaged. (Which is more than can be said for the other 99.5 percent of muck that washes up on the shores of the interwebs...)

 

[Bone Dog]

I thought the prose was a bit too purple. And awkward: Beholding? Proliferated?

I felt like Laertes hearing long winded advice from Polonius. Or maybe Dee interrupting Geno’s presser.

 

[ucmiami2]

Both the writers and readers of the Athletic are generally literate, thoughtful, and engaged. (Which is more than can be said for the other 99.5 percent of muck that washes up on the shores of the interwebs...)

I agree. They can be a bit pompous and ponderous, and I can occasionally think they are blowing smoke out their ___, but they take the written word seriously which is refreshing in a world that showers in sound bites and the pursuit of the whatever is going to be next.

I used to love the sports writers who followed baseball, because like the game itself, they took the time: to reflect on the whole history of the game, and used that as context to the current game and season; the context of the world in which the games had been and were now being played, etc. It helped that the game had been around for ever, and had been fully documented. When I lived in England I found a corollary to the writers following cricket which is the ultimate 'you have days' contest in which to contemplate your navel, as the true form can last five days.

 

[PacoSwede]

well, i did like that allie made the lede. a lovely touch!

but i definitely have trouble deciphering what the author means in this excerpt, which is repeatedly admired and cited in in the readers' comments:

"Because, truly, winners aren’t defined by wins, but by the willingness to produce them. And the character winning inevitably reveals."

could someone please interpret that? it makes zero sense. "winners aren't defined by wins" i can somewhat twist into a solid thought, but "the willingness to produce them. And the character winning inevitably reveals" -- HUH? what is that supposed to mean? i am totally mystified. seriously. i need some help on this.

 

[PacoSwede]

I agree. They can be a bit pompous and ponderous, and I can occasionally think they are blowing smoke out their ___, but they take the written word seriously which is refreshing in a world that showers in sound bites and the pursuit of the whatever is going to be next.

I used to love the sports writers who followed baseball, because like the game itself, they took the time: to reflect on the whole history of the game, and used that as context to the current game and season; the context of the world in which the games had been and were now being played, etc. It helped that the game had been around for ever, and had been fully documented. When I lived in England I found a corollary to the writers following cricket which is the ultimate 'you have days' contest in which to contemplate your navel, as the true form can last five days.

that could be because the old magazine only came out once a week, so the editors (which they actually had -- and good ones) could correct the inevitable goofs (not just the facts, but in the writing). that isn't a priority in today's environment, it seems.

 

[Dogdude]

well, i did like that allie made the lede. a lovely touch!

but i definitely have trouble deciphering what the author means in this excerpt, which is repeatedly admired and cited in in the readers' comments:

"Because, truly, winners aren’t defined by wins, but by the willingness to produce them. And the character winning inevitably reveals."

could someone please interpret that? it makes zero sense. "winners aren't defined by wins" i can somewhat twist into a solid thought, but "the willingness to produce them. And the character winning inevitably reveals" -- HUH? what is that supposed to mean? i am totally mystified. seriously. i need some help on this.

I'll try...the first sentence describes the effort that's more than just the normal amount put into playing, and the second the graciousness in victory that true winners have. Maybe, I guess...it's sort of verbal quantum mechanics...

 

[Glenn]

I am sorry. But this idea that "winners aren't defined by wins" is garbage. Winner have to have the wins--there are lots of gracious nice people that work very hard and are not successful--they are not winners, though they derve to be honored and respected. There are also a lot of winners that are jerks, and we should not honor them, but to say they are not winners is just trying to redefine "winner" to include only people we respect

 

[Sifaka]

And the character winning inevitably reveals."

That is what, long away and far ago, in my wastrel youth was called an awkward noun phrase. Here it is impersonating a sentence, with scant success and lacking the requisite verb.
O tempora! O mores!

 

[Bald Husky]

Of course it's important if she wants to become known as one of the greats. The greatest feat is to win a title in college, in the WNBA, and an Olympic gold medal. She got the first one in her last chance, and the other two will be easier I believe. In our hearts she didn't need one, but for all those who just look at stats, it was an important win. She has now completed everything she had to do at this point. Time to work on the rest. (I believe she also won the national high school championship at Nobleville).

 

[ABCDFE]

I thought the prose was a bit too purple. And awkward: Beholding? Proliferated?

I felt like Laertes hearing long winded advice from Polonius. Or maybe Dee interrupting Geno’s presser.

Are we sure Plebe isn’t Marcus himself. Uncanny similarities in prose

 

[Plebe]

I thought the prose was a bit too purple. And awkward: Beholding? Proliferated?

I felt like Laertes hearing long winded advice from Polonius. Or maybe Dee interrupting Geno’s presser.

The irony runneth over

 

[BBallF]

I thought the prose was a bit too purple. And awkward: Beholding? Proliferated?

I felt like Laertes hearing long winded advice from Polonius. Or maybe Dee interrupting Geno’s presser.

You know there is always something new on the Boneyard. That speech by Laertes, in the most famous play ever written, which play has had the most written about it than any other piece of literature except for the Bible, would only be called "long-winded' here. I kinda like the approach though. Get to the point Dad, the game is about to start!