Golf is just a four letter word.

Yesterday, after the better part of a century living on this planet, I played my first round of golf.  While it may be hard to believe that--as a card-carrying upper-middle-class corporate lawyer--I managed to avoid playing this most "establishment" of games.  It is, however, true.  Just to be completely candid, I have played miniature golf, and have hit (erratically) off driving ranges with my late brother-in-law, Dick, who was a avid golfer.  We once were supposed to play four holes, but bad weather intervened.  I suppose the closest I ever came was a round of "jungle golf" on a makeshift course a friend had as his country home.  We only used one club, and it was virtually impossible to putt. When I would go on company golf outings , I'd mess around on the driving range.  A long-ago girlfriend had asked me never to play golf, out of 60's fear that this would irretrievably put me over on "the dark side."  And so, I stuck with tennis, played on both my high school and college teams, and long maintained that tennis was sufficiently frustrating for me so that golf was not necessary to increase my stress level.
  On April 27, 2012, this all changed.  One of our friend's wives was having a birthday luncheon to which my wife, among others, was invited.  And so, one of the other men whose wife was also invited, asked me if I wanted to round out a foursome.  I tried to beg off, saying I really should take a lesson, or at least practice on a driving range (both of which, in retrospect, would have been well-advised), but he would have none of it.  He even had an extra set of golf clubs.  I have played baseball and (as mentioned) tennis, and know about the importance of keeping my head down, my body still, and completing the stroke.  I also am, modesty apart, a pretty good natural athlete, so I figured, "how bad can I be?"  Pretty bad, as it turned out, but not egregious.  I had some incredible luck on the first hole.  After struggling a bit with my initial drive off the tee, I got great distance and height on my next two strokes, landing on the tee.  The other players were astonished, and I accepted their plaudits with appropriate modesty.  Secretly, I was thinking, hell, this isn't that hard.  For the next eight holes or so, I hit more ground balls than flies, and was starting to feel the frustration that has vexed golfers through the ages.  Here's a little white stationary ball, and all you have to do is make contact with said ball.  After all, in tennis, I am able to hit a fast moving ball on the run, and (more or less) control where and how I hit my return.  And yet, as all golfers know, the slightest variation in the swing can bring about unforeseen (and disappointing) consequences.
   Fortunately, the other fellows with whom I was playing were friends, and understood what they were getting themselves into when they invited me along.  Also, fortunately, we were not keeping score, and had to keep moving lest we further irritate the foursomes behind us.

"20/'21: Is Djokovic First Among Equals?"

On Sunday, July 11, 2021, with his victory in the Gentlemen's Singles Final at Wimbledon, Novak Djokovic entered the history books by tying the great Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal with his 20th "Grand Slam" championship. Oddly enough, Djokovic's run to the championship ended as it began--with a dropped first set. In his first match of this most prestigious of tournaments, a British wild-card entry, Jack Draper,  ranked 250th in the world, took the first set off the great Serbian.  Similarly, in the final, the powerful Italian, Matteo Berrettini, overcame a 5-2 deficit and set point against him to win the first set in  tie-breaker against Djokovic.  

Following those two first-set surprises, Djokovic reeled off three consecutive sets in each of his seven  matches, culminating in his third straight Wimbledon crown. Three quarters of the way to the first men's Grand Slam since Rod Laver's sweep in 1969 (Laver's second, having done it before in 1962),  Nole is the first man since that time to win the first three of the men's Majors.  He is also the only man since Laver to have held all four Major titles at the same time. 

After a shaky first set, which he lost to a surging Berrettini in a tie-breaker, Djokovic went on to go about his business as if the first set never happened. He quickly went up two breaks in the second set, breaking at one-all in the third and at three-all in the fourth, never surrendering his lead. The Wimbledon final, despite its historic outcome was not, apart from the topsy-turvy first set, ever in doubt.  As for the turning point, of the match,  it came in the decisive fourth set with the players "on serve" at 2-3.  Djokovic had dropped the first two points and found himself in a love-thirty hole.  The crowd was cheering so loudly for the young Italian that Djokovic could not serve until the umpire calmed them down.  After narrowing the score to 15-30, the two players got into an extraordinary exchange that, against virtually any other player, would have given the challenger a double break point.  After a couple of side to side groundstrokes, Berrettini hit a beautiful down the line low backhand slice which forced Djokovic to race wide to the forehand to return, enabling Barrettini to then wisely pull him extremely wide to the backhand side with a laser-like inside out forehand. Racing across the baseline from right to left, Djokovic managed to power a crosscourt backhand at full sliding stretch, which Matteo returned with a brilliant drop-shot to the forehand side.  Amazingly, Djokovic dashed in and hit a sharply angled ball out of the reach of the lunging 6'5" Italian.  The crowd went wild and Djokovic both beckoned and relished their cheers.  Announcer Jim Courier (no stranger to Grand Slam finals) said that he didn't know of any other player in the history of the men's game who could have played such a point. Point taken.  Djokovic won the next two points to even the score at three-all. One observation made both by Courier and veteran commentator Ted Robinson was Djokovic's remarkable ability to redirect a ball, in this case, going down the line after a series of crosscourt exchanges. In tennis, the advantage often goes to the player who is prepared to "do the unexpected."  This, undoubtedly, is the Serbian's forte.  That, and being the best "big game" player I have ever seen. I don't doubt that this is a point on which both Federer and Nadal would agree.

And now, at three-all, came what tennis commentators refer to as "the all-important 7th game."  While this has become a cliche, it is nonetheless a truism.  Think of it: if the server loses, he is down 3-4 and his opponent gets to serve for a 5-3 lead, with one more chance to serve out the set.  Obviously, if the server holds, the set is deadlocked 4-4.  Djokovic, riding the crest of his come-from-behind hold at 2-3,  broke Berrettini's serve to go up 4-3.  Now on a roll, the Joker held serve convincingly to go up 5-3.  Berrettini, by the way, was dialed in, serving at an insane 83% on his first serve, which had averaged 130 miles per hour over the course of the tournament.   With his back to the wall, Matteo had to hold to force Djokovic to serve again in order to win the match.  But Djokovic denied him that opportunity, and broke the mighty young Italian for a second time to clinch the set, and the championship at 6-3.

I wrote extensively about the classic 2021 French Open (and its implications) just a few weeks ago.  The drama of the incredible third-set semi-final tiebreak against Rafael Nadal was nearly equalled by the Joker's overcoming a two-set deficit in the final against the superb young Greek, Stefanos Tsitsipas. This amazing come-from-behind victory over Tsitsipas enabled him to finally wrest the French title from Nadal, whose losses on the red clay of Roland Garros can be counted on one hand. In a weird way, Djokovic's victory at Wimbledon, however historic, seemed almost anti-climatic after the French.

Now, of course, issue has been joined as to who among Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic is the Greatest of All Time ("GOAT").  Clearly arguments can be made for each of these stalwarts locked in a 20/20/20 tie in Major championships.  That such a tie could even exist would have seemed unfathomable not so many years ago.  For years, the leader in Grand Slam victories was the great Aussie, Roy Emerson.  Emerson, however, won the Australian at a time when its schedule and out-of-the-way location caused many of the world-class players to skip the trip Down Under.  Fully half of Emerson's singles titles were at the Australian Open, a record which stood until Djokovic eclipsed it this year.  When the great Pete Sampras retired following his 14th Major, it was a record most tennis commentators believed would last forever.  Enter the amazing Roger Federer, followed by the equally remarkable Rafael Nadal. 

While I would argue that, with this victory,  Djokovic has become first among equals, it's not unfair to say that the jury is still out on this question as (amazingly) all three are still actively competing.  While it may be easy to say that Federer has lost the proverbial step, let's not forget that he remains--at almost 40--still one of the best players in the world.  To have reached the quarterfinals of Wimbledon at an age when most tennis players have been retired from active competition for at least five years, is almost as remarkable  as his other stellar achievements.  Let's not forget that as recently as 2019, he had championship point against Djokovic at Wimbledon, only to lose in the tournament's first ever fifth set tie-breaker.  

Nadal, of course, plays every point as if the match was on the line, and his high-kicking topspin shots have made him almost invincible on clay. Lest we write him off as "only" a clay-court player,  it's important to recognize his victories at the U.S. Open, Australia and Wimbledon.  Along with Federer and Djokovic (who has done it twice), Rafa is among the very few greats who have a "career" Grand Slam. Let's also remember that winning at Roland Garros is the most elusive of all the Majors. Among the many outstanding players who never won the French are all-time greats Jimmy Connors,* John McEnroe and Pete Sampras.  So, happily, for those of us still basking in the glow of the big three's continued dominance (however tenuous), we can look forward to seeing each of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic vie for history in their GOAT race up the magic mountain of tennis greatness. 

*Connors, however, was the odds-on favorite at the 1974 French Open, missing it due to a contractual dispute.  He also won the U.S. Open when it was played on clay, so it is not too much of a stretch to think he might have won the French in '74.  One record of Connors that will likely stand forever is having won the U.S. Open on three different surfaces--grass, clay, and hardcourt. 

"Djokovic Beats Nadal at Roland Garros in Classic Final* Match"

     *Well, not quite.  Amazingly, while Novak Djokovic did beat Rafael Nadal in what many have already heralded at the best match they've ever seen, it was, in fact, a semi-final and the 34 year-old Djokovic will be playing the 22-year old Stefanos Tsitsipas of Greece on Sunday in the French Open final.  But, as President Biden often says, "here's the thing:" the Rafa/Nole contest should have been the final.  For reasons know best to themselves, whoever did the seedings for this year's French Open, decided to base it on ATP rankings, rather than on historic success at Roland Garros.  After all, going into today's semi-final, not only did the fittingly entitled "King of Clay" have a preposterous 105 and 2 match record at the French Open, but is the reigning champion at Roland Garros (having drubbed Djokovic in straight sets last year) and clearly should have been seeded number one.  Instead, Djokovic, deservedly ranked number one in the world, should not have been seeded over the third-seeded Nadal.  But rather than waste any more print on the illogic of the seedings, suffice to say that a system which seeded Djokovic first and Nadal third at Roland Garros presented the anomaly of having the two top players in the world in the same half of the draw. Thus, instead of giving us what should have been a final for the ages, it left Djokovic with "just" a semifinal victory with yet another giant step to climb before hefting the trophy of which Nadal has taken so many well-earned bites.  

There are--as we're constantly reminded--only two men who have ever beaten the great Nadal on the red clay of Roland Garros; firstly, the relatively unsung Robin Soderling, and the other (twice now), Novak Djolovic. Interestingly, their two previous meetings at the French Open were lopsided affairs--the Joker whipping Rafa in three straight sets in 2015 and Rafa returning the favor in the pandemic ridden 2020 final.  It must also be a wee bit intimidating for anyone to be pitted against a still very active player whose newly erected "larger than life" steel statue greets you upon entry to Roland Garros (..."and now playing God in the Men's Semi-Finals...").

Years from now, when Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are elder statesmen of the game, observing from the sidelines whatever tennis will be like in, say, the 2050's (not unlike Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall do now), people may not remember whether this epic match went four or five sets (seemed like five, didn't it?).  Nor will they likely recall that it began with one player reeling off an unexpected five games in a row and ended with the other reeling off the final six.  What they will remember, however, is that they saw what may be among the last of the meetings of the longest (closest) and greatest rivalry in the men's game, and that they saw the two slug it out toe-to-toe for over four hours in some of the most memorable tennis ever played.  

What has always fascinated me about the head-to-head meetings among these three great champions is how critical the "swing" factor can be.  When Novak played Roger in that memorable 2019 Wimbledon final, more than one title was at stake.  At  the time, Djokovic trailed Federer 20-15 in Grand Slam titles.  Had Federer won that match, he would have been five titles up on Djokovic, a dominant 21-15.  As a result of Djokovic's stunning victory in Wimbledon's first-ever tie-breaker, the lead was cut by two, to 20-16; hence the two title "swing." Similarly, the epic semi-final in this year's French Open would have given Nadal a three title-lead over Djokovic (21-18), and a 21-20 lead over Federer in the race to see who is the Greatest of All Time" ("GOAT").  Given the advancing ages of these three enduring champions, titles become harder to win, especially when they play each other and face the two title "swing."  As it turned out the GOAT race is almost at "dead-heat" level: 20-20-19.  It is still, of course, too early to say which of the "big three" will ultimately be dubbed the GOAT--or whether the debate will continue long after they hang up their battered and monogrammed tennis shoes--but no one will deny that on Friday, June 11th-- they saw two of the all-time greats give us a lasting memory.

And so, on to Sunday, when the (forgive me) final takes place, it can't help but seem anti-climactic.  Don't get me wrong, Stefanos Tsitsipas is a marvelous tennis player, deservedly where he is in the tournament. Doubtless, he has at least several Grand Slam championships ahead in his most promising future.  But please, not yet.  Not now.  Just as people continue to root for Federer and Nadal whenever they play Djokovic, I suppose I can be permitted pulling for the Joker on Sunday.  Sure, he's won enough majors to not only last a lifetime, but bear in mind that his path to being the greatest of all time has been an uphill one in which virtually every match against Fed or Rafa has cast him as a parvenu, if not an unworthy interloper.  

No doubt about it, Federer's timeless (and seemingly effortless) grace on the court and Rafa's undying grit make them great champions and worthy of their universal adulation, but let's give Djokovic his due: he's a big game player like no one else. Yes, his temper gets the best of him at times and some people find his heart-extending arm sweeps a bit tacky, but his road from war-torn Serbia to the pinnacle of men's tennis has been a far tougher one than the smoothly paved roads for Roger and Rafa.  So let's resolve as fans to sit back and watch with love for this wonderful game, and let "the best man win."

Well, here I am at the second installment of this post. Although both Tsitsipas and Djokovic are coming off five-set semi-finals, the former is both more rested and significantly (12 years) younger.  While thankfully I am not a betting man, I would not be too hasty in wagering against Tsitsipas.  He is supremely fit, strong, and--for all appearances--fully in control of his all-around game.  At 6"4.' he is fast, agile and plays with both confidence and resolve.  He showed his tenacity against Sasha Zverv in his semi-final in which Zverev clawed his way back after losing the first two sets, to force a fifth.  Tsitsipas dug in and prevailed. And, while this is not something that ever shows up on a scorecard, the elegance of his ground strokes (especially that one-handed backhand) reminds me of a young Roger Federer.  He is such a pleasure to watch.

The first set of that men's final was a question of who would blink first.  Not surprisingly, we found ourselves in a tie-breaker in which the great Djokovic had fought his way to a 5-4 lead with the set on his racket.  When, after two very unforced errors by Nole, the younger player took charge and closed out the set, Djokovic seemed as deflated as (doubtless) Tsitsipas would have had the roles been reversed.  The second set found Djokovic dazed and visibly downtrodden, spraying shots long and wide in a manner most unfamiliar to those who have watched him over the years.  Tsitsipas, for his part, kept his poise, and won a second set for a commanding lead.  Monday morning quarterbacks (like me) have made much of the fact that this would be the first time anyone had won a major after twice being down in the tournament two sets to love.  But, what was amazing to me was how predestined the rest of the match seemed. Djokovic had notably changed not only outfits, but attitudes.  From the time the third set began to what now seems its forgone conclusion, the dogged Djokovic never faced a break point in his relentless march to tennis history.  There truly didn't seem to be anything Tsitsipas could do to forestall the inevitable, and his body language seemed to show it.  Slowly but surely, his impeccable ball placement eroded along with his confidence.  

By the time the fifth set began, the only question was whether the young Greek could recalibrate his game and, similarly, whether Djokovic could continue to play with the surgical precision that had brought him back from a two-set deficit.  After trading holds, the fifth game of the final set turned out to be its crucible.  Tsitsipas was serving, and staved off four break points before going up after the fifth deuce. The crowd, at this point was going wild--loving the tennis over all--but pulling for Stefanos, whom they hoped would be heir-apparent to the throne shared by the big three.  But Djokovic pulled even again and after going up on the sixth deuce point of the game, won on his fifth break point. of the nearly eleven-minute fifth game.**   From then on, the only question seemed to be whether Djokovic would seal the deal by going up a second break, but the courageous Tsitsipas continued to hold, climbing out of a 15-40 hole in the "all important" seventh game to make it four-three.  The two both held serve handily, and now the only question was whether Djokovic could close it out.  After winning the first point easily, it seemed as if Djokovic would be up 30-love, but netted an absolute "sitter." The two traded points until Djokovic reached match point, only to have Tsitsipas draw even with a beautiful down--the--line winner.  But Djokovic reached championship point again on a masterfully constructed rally and then won the match following a deep drive to Stefanos's backhand, which yielded a harmless defensive lob resulting in an easy overhead winner at net.  As they say, game set and match, but also--easier said than done. Young Stefanos Tsitsipas was understandably deflated following this loss, but stay tuned, tennis fans, we were watching a future champion in the making.

In addition to winning his 19th major, Djokovic has become one of only three male players who have won all four Grand Slam tournaments twice and, in his case, the only one to have one to have done so on three different surfaces (grass, clay, and hard courts).  In fact, there are only a handful of men and women to have each achieved this signal feat--the career grand slam--even once. On the men's side, back when the great Aussies, Rod Laver--who twice won calendar Grand Slams, in 1962 and 1969--and Roy Emerson achieved this rare feat, three of the four surfaces were on grass,  and relatively few people chose to compete in the Australian Open.  Now, happily--especially for 9-time winner Djokovic--the tournament Down Under is a popular first stop for the very best in men's and women's tennis.  Outside of those mentioned above, the only men to have ever achieved a single career Grand Slam are British great, Fred Perry, Federer, Nadal and Andre Agassi--that's it.  To have done it twice, as Djokovic has just done--makes this sweet 19th some special, indeed. And to have beaten the (forgive me) statuesque Rafael Nadal for only his third defeat in 108 matches at Roland Garros makes it even more so.  As I've doubtless said before, we are living through a golden age of men's tennis, in which (arguably) the three greatest players of all-time are still on active duty.  Let's enjoy it--and appreciate it--while we can, for we are not likely to see it like again.

**For the numerologists in the audience, it was the 5th break point of the 5th game of the 5th set that set the stage for the balance of the match. And, perhaps most remarkably, this turned out to be only the fifth time in the history of Grand Slam tennis that someone has come back to win a Major after being two sets down in two matches. 

"The King of Melbourne Park"--Djokovic wins number 9

 On the eve of the 2020 French Open, I (as an admitted Djokovic fan) had what could only be described as a premonitory nightmare.  I dreamt that Rafael Nadal had routed Djokovic not only in straight sets, but 6-0, 6-2, 6-3.  Relieved when I awoke, I went downstairs to watch a match and realized that it's not always a good thing when dreams come true, even if Djokovic lost 7-5 in the third set.  But if Nole is worthy of the title of "King of Melbourne Park," then he lost decisively to the undisputed "King of Roland Garros" with an amazing"lucky 13th" French Open Championships. 

Djokovic's 2020, like much of the world's, has been extraordinarily trying.  As a leader of the ATP, he came in for much criticism for scheduling a tournament amid the Covid crisis, with disastrous results.  After winning the 2020 Australian Open, with Wimbledon postponed, his French Open final against his most frequent opponent, Rafa, was one-sided in the extreme.  To add insult to injury, his front-running status in the 2020 U.S. Open came to an abrupt halt when he accidentally hit a ball into the throat of a linesperson, resulting in his automatic disqualification. A bit unfair to be sure, but this is a pretty firm and worthwhile rule. No one, however, could predict the after-effects of these shocks to his self-confidence. 

Ironically, the 2021 Australian Open posed no such problem, inasmuch as this was the first Major in which there would be no linespersons.  What we would have would only be disembodied electronic voices-"male" and "female" calling serves and lines with emotionless precision.  (Kind of fruitless to get mad at a machine, I suppose.) For the 33-year-old Djokovic, both his number-one ranking and top seeding for the 2021 Australian Open were deceptively optimistic.  The draw included GOAT-candidate Rafael Nadal, playing at the very top of his superb game.   Breathing down the necks of Nadal and Roger Federer (who, at 39, has sat out much of 2020 and 2021 due to injury), were the "Young Turks:" 2020 U.S. Open winner Dominic Thiem, Alexander "Sasha" Zverev, Stefanos Tsitsipas, and, at the apex of his still-rising game, Daniil Medvedev.  Few would argue that the best player of 2021 (so far) has been the 25 year-old Medvedev.  Consider this: he'd won twenty-one matches in a row, twelve of which have been against top-ten players.  Entering the final against Djokovic, Medvedev had won his last ten sets. Djokovic's road to the final has been--to put it mildly--fraught.  When up two sets to love in his third-round match against top American seed, Taylor Fritz, the Joker pulled up short during one of his patented splits, possibly tearing an abdominal muscle.  In any event, Djokovic (occasionally accused of over-emphasizing injuries) was unquestionably in considerable pain.  After dropping the next two sets, and playing on little more than will-power, he managed to survive the fifth set. After doing so, he expressed a legitimate concern as to his ability to recover sufficiently to continue in the tournament. Given his sorry showing at the French Open final and his disastrous exit from the U.S. Open, withdrawing from the site of his most numerous Major successes, would have marked a sorry continuation of traumatic "Grand Slam" appearances.

One more word about the amazing Medvedev.  At six-foot six, he has a serve like a cannon, and moves with the agility of a much shorter man.  He appears to have no flaws.  From the first time I saw him play, it seemed as if he could hit as hard as he had to, but never overhitting.  All in all, he has as controlled an aggressive game as I've ever seen.  There is no doubt in my mind that it is just a matter of time before he wins his first of what will likely be many majors.  Djokovic has long recognized that Medvedev is not only an extraordinarily talented player, but the "man to beat."  Fond as I am of the Joker, and respectful of his marvelous skills, I recognize that, at 33, time is no longer on his side--especially with the high quality of players nipping at the heels of the "big three," now, more realistically, the "big two."

And so, although the number-one seed, as sage a tennis analyst as Patrick McEnroe, picked Medvedev in four sets.  While hoping for the best, I was inclined to agree. Statistics like being 41-0 when seeded number one at the Australian Open are fine and dandy, but they are only as unbreakable as your next performance. The first set, to me, was decisive.  After trading breaks, I knew that Nole, after having been up a break really had to win the first set if he wanted to hoist his record-breaking 9th trophy down under.  Even if he did, I was not ruling out a Medvedev win.  How could I?  Indeed, after Djokovic won the nail-biting first set 7-5, Medvedev started the second set with a break. But then, Djokovic adjusted his game--as he does so well--and kept battering the ball up the middle and wore Medvedev down, no mean feat that.  In the blink of an eye, Nole broke back and--much to the pleasure of the overwhelmingly pro-Djokovic crowd--was up two sets to love.  Speaking of crowd favorites, it is rare (outside of Australia) for Nole to enjoy crowd support.  At Wimbledon, for example, 2019's Federer-Djokovic final was so overwhelmingly pro-Roger, that Nole's focus had to be, and was, extraordinary,  For a great champion, and (in my view) he's both an unusually good sport (he still applauds other people's shots, and when's the last time you saw either Federer or Nadal do that?) and spokesman for men's tennis.  Okay, I'll get off my soap-box.  After all, Both Rafa and Roger are eminently deserving of their crowd support.  I just think the Joker deserves more than his flag-waving Serbian faithful pulling for him (not that, as Seinfeld would remind us, there's anything wrong with that.

The third set was crucial, and-before Djokovic ran away with it--closer than it appeared. At love-three, Medvedev won a drop shot exchange with an absurdly preposterous spin to put him on the board. The critical juncture came at 2-4.  Joker went up 15-love with an incredible serve and volley. Medvedev proceeded to run off two magnificent winners to go up 15-30 and implored the crowd to cheer, which they did. The Joker quickly responded with three strong points and closed off the game forcing a net after a long rally.  That, as they say, was 'all she wrote."  A deflated Medvedev was broken--both literally and figuratively at 2-5, and  a jubilant Djokovic made a (for him) surprisingly impressive sky-hook overhead and fell to the ground in victory.  They are good friends, and embraced at the net with a great deal of mutual respect.  One thing that no one would have predicted was how dominant Djokovic's serves would be in this tournament.  In was not only(for him) a record number of aces, but the marvelous precision and placement of his serves which helped pace his march to the championship.

The book on who, of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will ultimately be the "GOAT" (greatest of all time) is still open. At 20, 20 and 18, respectively, it is still very much too close to call.  That said, with today's remarkable victory over the best of the challengers, Djokovic is not only still very much in the running but--at a stage of life when even the greatest of the greats can no longer take grand-slam victories for granted--today's dominant performance makes him, in John McEnroe's words, "arguably the greatest of all time." Regardless, every serious tennis fan knows that (as long as the majors remain best of five) we are unlikely to ever see a serious challenge to any of the "big three's" achievements.  And how lucky we are for the game we so love to have been witness to something the likes of which we'll never see again.  

And, in these most terrible times of Covid, how wonderful (after five-days of empty stands) it was to see (and hear) fans cheering two such great champions--one who is already in the history books, and the other someone likely to write some history of his own in the years to come.