(Apologize for the delayed response…computer hardware issues, nothing more.)
Re. the four minute mile: This is a pretty obvious one, but it’s not what I’m looking for. This was an achievement that ceased to be a big deal the INSTANT one person did it. That’s really the only reason anyone paid attention. There’s nothing sacred about four minutes, any more than there was for five minutes or four and a half minutes. A simple case of improved athletes making an old benchmark obsolete.
I think Everest is a valid entry, however, especially with the sheer number of milestones that have fallen. (Topless and in shorts? Man… )
Labrador Deceiver - I know about Norman’s record (well, more or less). My point is, he’s garnered a lot more fame for not winning a slew of majors that the players who did win did. And of course, although he isn’t in the same galaxy as a player, the exact same is true for Jean Van De Velde.
What’s so ridiculous about Duval as an example? There were a lot of experts who thought his first major was overdue. And if he won it because it was the one time he was completely healthy and focused, that makes it even more of a fluke.
As for being elevated above the mainstays, I have seven words for you…“Best Player Never To Win a Major”. Time was this was an ultra-gigantic horrible nightmarish crushing albatross, and it was torture bearing it (I don’t even want to think about what Phil Mickelson went through). To shed that burden (and give it to someone else)…that was always a headline event. If someone else broke the maiden and made the burden even worse, that was only sightly less newsworthy. Nowadays, do we even know who it is anymore? Sergio Garcia? Brief flirtations with greatness; now seems to have sunk back into the pack. Jesper Parnevik? A beast in the Ryder Cup, occasional greatness in foreign tours, and little else. Colin Montgomerie? Please.
Hey, don’t underestimate Tiger Woods’ influence on this. He went a long way toward dropping the stock in one or even two majors. And with him out, it looks like it’s only going to drop further.
147 maximum break in snooker is not such a big deal anymore. CLiff Thorburn’s first in the world championship in 1983 was enormous news in UK sport (I know snooker is hardly a popular sport worldwide, but it was one of the most popular televised sports in the UK in the 80s. 18 million people watched Dennis Taylor beat Steve Davis in 1985. Stop any bloke in a UK street and they’ll know what a 147 maximum means).
PLayers are so much better now that 147 doesn’t hold quite the same cachet. It’s still notable, with good prize money in the world champs, but players like Ronnie O’Sullivan make it look so easy that it’s not in the same league of difficulty as it once was.
Sticking with the pub sports theme, the 9 dart checkout remains a legendary feat in darts. It entails throwing 180 followed by 180, which leaves 141. There are a few ways of going out here (e.g.treble 17, double top then bull), all of them brutally difficult under the pressure of the 9 darter.
Any bowlers out there want to comment on the 300 max score? As tough as ever, or not really a big deal anymore?
Breaking social barriers in sports is rapidly becoming a ho-hum occurrence. Compare Jackie Robinson playing in the majors with Lewis Hamilton racing Formula One.
The same thing’s been happening in Japan with sumo: when Konishiki was in contention to become the first foreign grand champion in '91, there was a great deal of serious argument over whether a non-Japanese should be allowed to hold the top rank, and whether allowing it would mean the end of the sport. When Akebono actually achieved the top rank just two years later, there was far less controversy. When Kotooshu became the first European to win a tournament last month, the milestone was treated like a minor trivia point compared to him beating both grand champions.
I don’t know about 300, but 400 used to be a real benchmark. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth in these parts when Dale Murphy retired with 398 home runs. The thinking was that 400 (together with his other accomplishments) would have guaranteed him a spot in the Hall of Fame.
300 home runs used to be a big deal, even for a player in the live ball era, even in the shadow of Babe Ruth.
Al Simmons (elected to the Hall of Fame in 1953) 307 home runs
Joe DiMaggio (1954) 361
Hank Greenberg (1956) 331
Yogi Berra (1971) 359
Ralph Kiner (1975) 369
Al Kaline (1979) 399
Chuck Klein (1979) 300
Johnny Mize (1981) 359
Carlton Fisk (199) 376
All of these players were considered sluggers, and except for DiMaggio (and maybe Berra) were primarily known as sluggers (Berra, Fisk, Kaline, and Kiner didn’t have a .300 lifetime batting average). Look at their home run totals now and statistically they don’t seem dominant. Klein’s 300 home runs today ranks him at only 116, but when he retired, he was in the top 10.
I think winning the Indy 500 used to be a much bigger deal. That was back in the day when NASCAR was a feeder series to Indy. Now you have F1 World Champs trying NASCAR.
This may hopefully reverse in the next few years. With Indy Racing and Champ Car reconciling and remerging, there’s going to be more advertising, more races, and hopefully more attention paid to open wheel racing.
How about making it into an All-Star game or the Pro-Bowl? Players used to be recognized by how many times they’d done it (He’s a 5-time All-Star with a career .290 Batting Average.) but now no one seems to care much. Even the “It matters!” ad campaign where the winning side of the All-Star game determines who gets home-field advantage in the World Series doesn’t drum up much support. Of course, this is probably due to the fact that the popular players, rather than players having All-Star seasons, continue to make the team. I’m a big Reds fan and love Griffey unconditionally, but even with his milestone achievement he doesn’t deserve to be in the All-Star game this year (he is currently 3rd in voting according to MLB.com.)
Maybe in baseball, which I don’t pay that much attention to… but you can bet your bottom dollar that when, say, Junior Seau goes into the Hall of Fame, the first number they’ll talk about is 12 straight Pro Bowls.
Pardon…it’s two grand slams in one inning, not home runs.
What? You don’t remember who? Me neither. My point exactly.
RNATB - The great (or maybe inevitable) irony: It’s an honor to get selected for the Pro Bowl, but hardly anyone remembers how anyone did in it (let alone which side won). If it weren’t for the revenue it creates for Hawaii, I wouldn’t mind putting an end to it entirely.
Even baseball’s All-Star game has greater interest. Remember when you could count on sportswriters indignantly carping about how stupid the selections were every season? Remember the controversy…controversy!..over one pitch to…Nolan Ryan, was it?..that was probably/definitely a meatball maybe/probably/possibly on purpose? Shoot, in the Pro Bowl, a running back could casually jog 99 yards for a touchdown completely untouched, and the only controversy would concern whether Chris Berman’s newly inspired catchphrase was clever enough.
I hadn’t really thought of it that way, although I always watch them. Actually, I started a thread here about the… 2006(?) Pro Bowl that got something like 3 replies. :smack:
Scoring 300+ runs in an innings in a One Day Game in cricket.
Very rarely done for the first 20 years, but as the game has changed, it is becoming common enough that it is just seen as a large total to chase down instead of a great achievement.
)