That is a very interesting concept. I've never really thought of that before. Did Jordan have the sort of social impact that Ali, Jackie Robinson, or even Joe Namath did?? Was it all hollow, with money the only thing at the core?? I've been a Jordan critic, to some degree. Not because I think he wasn't great...he clearly was. But because I don't think he's the easy answer to, "who was the greatest player to play in the NBA" question. By simply disagreeing with that assertion, you're labelled a hater of Jordan's for some reason. But I've never really considered his social impact before. I know that some people were very disappointed that he didn't speak out more about certain things...never took sides in political issues. Is that because he didn't care??? Or because he'd rather not piss anyone off so he can make more money in endorsements?? Or is it because he just didn't feel it was his place? Honestly...should I revere the political opinions of a pro athlete?? I know some pro athletes personally...grounded in reality is not a strong suit for pro athletes. As for closing deals now...what is Magic now?? Who among hoopsters would the author say equates with Jackie Robinson?? Thanks for posting this, Sam...good stuff.
"He's just another guy in a limo now, looking for a deal to close before the sun goes down." And? He was a basketball player, for cripes sake, he threw a ball through a hoop. Why expect anything? I like Pierce, a lot, but crediting Larry O'Brien with anything is a huge stretch. O'Brien essentially retired from making decisions of any import once CREEP broke into his Watergate office. Stern (as head NBA counsel) was the man behind the first salary cap and drug policy. Pierce answered his own, pointless, question early in the article: why expect anything more? What, does he want MJ to learn the tenor sax and tour France in a bebop quintet?
I don't think it just a social impact question - whether or not his politics were this or that - which was more of the norm back in the 60s for athletes and other folk alike, but an over stamp put on the league. Michael Jordan just has a different feel than, say a Larry Bird, who has a different feel than a Magic Johnson or a Charles Barkley. I remember Jordan as a dominant scorer, a winner, and a LOGO...it just can't be helped. That's who he was.
This article is spiteful and harsh, but sort of captures what always left me cold about Jordan. He never transcended sports with anything human or relatable. Hakeem was, at least seemingly, someone who shunned the trappings of consumerism with discipline and wisdom and patience, and became a champion. Mohammed Ali was... well, that's not fair, but he was an extreme example of a person using sport as a medium for something greater. Bird was about hard work and smarts and grit. Magic was about intelligence and flair and joy. Barkley was a flawed but truthful and deceptively wise player. Iverson is about keeping one's youth and hunger to succeed while trying to grow up. There is just some thematic 'storyline' to these players that made basketball seem almost secondary. There was a larger point being made, and it revealed some human truth via basketball. What the hell was Jordan about? I could never figure it. I mean, he won, and he worked hard, but in the end, Jordan was about Jordan. No qualms with his career, no disputing his legacy, but to me, he was nothing more than what he was - a remarkable, yet conspicuously corporate and inoffensive, basketball player. Never really did much for me. I'll take one Chucky Brown over ten Michael Jordans any day.
right...the author is lamenting that he wasn't something more. that it diminishes his legacy, in some way, i think. i guess it depends what you're looking for out of pro athletes.
To go fishing with, of course, but not on your basketball team...which I assume is the underlying point.
He's the reason you and everybody else don't wear nutters anymore (not just when playing basketball; when doing anything). He's the reason it's cool to be bald. I think those are pretty huge, personally.
What social impact is he supposed to have, it was the eighties. What social impact does Montana, Elway, Gretzky, or any other sports star from that period have? Like all of us, he is a product of his times. Could he be more benevolent, sure. I always hated the fact that he didn't speak out when kids were robbing each other for his shoes. But that wasn't his fault or his responsibilty. He has no obligation.
of course he has no obligation...this is about asking him to be beyond merely what he's obligated to be. that's the whole point, pgabs. i don't have a very well-formed opinion on this yet.
That's just one example of a small issue and I don't think it would have enhanced his legacy if did have more to say. But my larger point is what issue or cause is M.J. supposed to take up? What is he supposed to be remembered for besides basketball and his marketing? When you look at Ali, being a black superstar during his time, there is no way he could avoid the issues of his day. To his credit, he spoke up for racial injustices and other issues, but he had no choice to voice his opinion one way or the other. Those were the issues that dominated those times. On the flip side of guys like Ali and Jim Brown, you have O.J. O.J.'s legacy before the murders was that he was the first black athlete to be accept fully by White sports fans. But O.J. didn't do anything special to create that legacy. Like Ali his legacy was dictated by the time he was playing and what was going on around him. I have heard this criticism of Jordan before and I just think it is very vague. I don't know what people want from him, how do they want him to use his fame to affect the world around him.
pgabriel -- people use their fame to call attention to issues all the time. sting and the rainforests....bono with the aids crisis in africa...on and on. the argument being made is that jordan was the most recognizable face in the world...and he RAN from stuff like that. i'm not taking a position one way or the other, because my knee-jerk reaction is similar to yours, frankly. but he intentionally left that stuff alone, and in the end, earned that kind of label as being nothing more than a marketing brand. if you're fine with that...fine. the author isn't. and a lot of other people aren't, either. certainly not the way i'd want to be remembered. "yeah...MadMax was a lawyer who made a lot of money, and didn't want to jeopardize that by doing anything else that would offend someone." that's not how i wish to be remembered....but Jordan is his own man. if he doesn't mind it...oh, well.
Had he been some sort of advocate on social issues, it'd have been simply something else for people to criticize him about. I have no illusion that Jordan was a great man or an honest man. I don't see why I'm supposed to believe that. But this article seems like a rather desperate attempt to diminish Jordan's mark as a basketball player now that he's retired. Anyone who watched him play knows he was one of - if not the - greatest to play. What he did out on the court was quite impressive. IT was that way when he played, when he retired, and now. I don't see how anything has changed. Social impact? How many of our sports stars really fall under that category? It seems like the author of this has been waiting a long, long time to write this article.
I don't think the real point is Jordan being socially irresponsible, it's about him being totally plastic in a way that others on his plane rarely are. It's sort of epitomized by the Jordan-Vegas thing; the city of the cheap neon facade that is all about marketing and not about substance. It's very difficult to articulate precisely why Jordan seems like diminshed in retirement due to his fakeness/materialism in a way that other stars like Magic/Bird have not, but it is something there.
very well said. the social responsibility part is only a part of it. there's very little left that's endearing in the way we remember other legends.
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly today, but I don't remember that many sports stars, especially in the last 25 years, transcending their sport into a more national or worldly social place. What exactly have Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Dr. J, Shaq, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, Brett Favre, Wayne Gretsky, Mark Messier, etc. done that Michael Jordan has not? I agree with Rokkit that this piece seems to try and diminish Michael Jordan the basketball player by criticizing him for being something that no one else (or at least any that I can think of) in athletics has done in the past quarter century. I think it's patently unfair to compare him to someone like Jackie Robinson who had the opportunity to make a brave and courageous stand against racism in becoming the first ever African-American MLB player. Comparing him with Elvis Pressley is just silly. I also doubt that any sane person ever compared him to either of those people like the author assumes.
Thanks, sam, good article. The Vegas-Jordan comparison is pretty much spot-on. This sentence was painful to read, though: "The instinctive genius of James Naismith was that he put his goal in the air, thereby ensuring that basketball would untether itself from gravity and that the people who played it would have no choice but to fly."
First, of the athletes on your list, none of them achieved anything close to Jordan's status, at home or abroad, in terms of name recognition. When you list Jordan's contemproraries, you shouldn't list Mark Messier or Troy Aikman. Hell, a lot of Americans couldn't pick them out of a crowd. But Jordan, ****, I had guys in rural villages in Tibet last year telling me how much they loved Michael Jordan, and these guys speak almost no English and have never seen an NBA game in their life. No, when you list Jordan's equals as far as celebrityhood, you're talking about Babe Ruth and Muhammed Ali in the sports world. But anyway, if you want to compare to another NBA player, Magic has done a hell of a lot, he got AIDS and we all thought he was going to die, but didn't, he runs Magic Johnson theaters as a sort of urban redevelopment thing; he had "The Magic Hour", where he willingly failed in front of a national audience and became a laughingstock, which I find somewhat admirable in retrospect. Like I said before, it's very difficult to articulate, but it just seems like there's more "there" there. Magic is definitely Magic, for all his faults. Barkley is Barkley. Jordan? he's a logo, like Jayz750 said.
I think the difference the article points to is this exactly. Magic develops in the hood, Jordan in Vegas, or Grand Central Station. Personally I thought the steaks sucked...
