(03-04-2005) Who Is The U2 of Sports? - ESPN*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

HelloAngel

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 22, 2001
Messages
14,534
Location
new york city
Who Is The U2 of Sports?

By Bill Simmons

Editor's note: This column appears in the March 14 issue of ESPN The Magazine.



Ever play the musician/athlete game? You just pick a band or singer and then decide which sports star they'd be. For instance, Springsteen is Larry Bird, the workingman's hero. Guns N' Roses are Doc Gooden, the prodigy who flamed out too fast. The Stones are Ali, the greatest until they hung around too long. The Police are John McEnroe -- gifted, tortured, ultimately unable to keep it together.

You can easily kill an eight-hour car ride this way ... as long as you keep U2 out of it. Trying to find a match for that band will make you crazy. Kareem and Roger Clemens had similar longevity, but nobody liked them. Ditto for Barry Bonds, although Bonds' head and Bono's both have grown exponentially over the years. Nolan Ryan was breathtaking in moments, but never transcendent. Gretzky and MJ didn't dominate long enough. The closest comparison? Jack Nicklaus. Big splash in the '60s, superduperstar in the '70s, stunning revival in the '80s -- it's a similar arc, right down to the success of "Vertigo" and the 1986 Masters. But can you compare U2 to a golfer? Of course not.

Here's the point: bands just don't do what U2 have done. They don't stay together for 26 years without even a token separation (or 20). They don't continue to pump out quality albums and concert tours (sorry, I don't count the Dead, who haven't been nearly as popular). And they don't resonate with three different generations.

There hasn't been nearly enough made of these guys. Unlike what we do with our sports heroes, few of us consider the overall body of work of musicians. It always comes down to what they did most recently, or who died at the optimal time, or whose music aged best. Fact is, there is no black-and-white way to judge them. How can you prove Jimmy Page was a better guitar player than Eric Clapton? Instead of statistics and awards, we rely on emotions and memories, on what a particular band meant to us. It leads to some deceiving outcomes -- like how everyone forgets that, when Kurt Cobain killed himself, Nirvana had been eclipsed by Pearl Jam and the Smashing Pumpkins. Had he lived, there's a 90 percent chance Cobain and Courtney Love would be starring in a reality show on VH-1 right now. You just never know. That's why people rarely argue about music ... well, unless they're stoned.

With sports, there is nothing to do but argue about this stuff. If music were sports, Kornheiser and Wilbon would be fighting to the death over "Who's better: Franz Ferdinand or The Killers?" But we don't approach music this way, and so U2 never get their due. Take everything you ever read or heard about MJ, then double it -- that's what we'd have if U2 had played ball. What would their rookie card be worth? How many covers would they have graced? What formula would Rob Neyer have concocted to legitimize their run?

Maybe I'm biased. Some people have photo albums; I have U2. When I listened to them as a kid they were belting out angry diatribes about growing up in Ireland, so who could have imagined they'd provide a soundtrack for my life? There was "The Unforgettable Fire" for my moody years, and "The Joshua Tree" for when I began to put it all together. When "Rattle and Hum" came out, I was also taking myself a little too seriously. "Achtung Baby"? We were both running on all cylinders. "Zooropa" and "Pop"? We were both figuring out where to go next. We finally crossed paths with "All That You Can't Leave Behind." I was covering my first Super Bowl and U2 was singing at halftime of the eventual Pats upset, and yes, it was a "Beautiful Day." With their most recent, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," I'm in a good place, and so are they. They're E.T. to my Elliott.

Throw in the unintentional comedy and general weirdness -- how Bono doesn't age (much like David Robinson); how you can't call "The Edge" just "Edge"; every delightfully absurd minute of the Rattle and Hum documentary (my favorites: The Edge's extended mullet, the Graceland trip and every conversation between Bono and B.B. King); Bono's pompous concert speeches; even Adam Carolla's idea that we should deport Bono so he can annoy Ireland instead of us -- and there has never been another band like this. At the recent Grammys, they were still as strong on stage as anyone else, even though I'm pretty sure The Edge died about three years ago and they're just propping him up. Against all odds, they keep plugging away.

They have no peers in the business, and no sports equivalent. So if you ever play the musician/athlete game, save some time -- skip U2 and go right to a band like Van Halen. (They were Sugar Ray Leonard, but that's a whole other story.)

Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine. His Sports Guy's World site is updated every day Monday through Friday.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050303

Thanks to Apriggs!
 
Last edited:
I think Bill Simmons is the best sports writer on the planet and this column on U2 just solidifies my opinion. Ok, maybe as a Boston sports fan I am a little biased, but nobody compares.

Thank you Bill for another goose bump inducing column.
 
I love this dude and if anyone knows me, sports are not a topic I care about!

Is this the same guy that wrote a very nice article about the Superbowl Press conference and how he was the only one who knew who Paul Hewson was? :giggle:
 
ESPN......great magazine!!!!!
Bill Simmons......wrote a great article!!!!!
I love the humor!!!! (Bono "doesn't age" and "The Edge" can't just be called "Edge") :laugh:
The "best" piece was regarding Van Halen as Sugar Ray...:lol:
How "funny" is that?? Very.....funny.....indeed!!! :lmao:
 
The 90's Chicago Bulls were the U2 of sports- They were a true dynasty - 6 titles in 8 years was extremely dfficult to do and is the only comparison worth making.

Dominant, creative, historic, intense, excellent, groundbreaking, and united.

Bono and Michael Jordan - the greatest individual talents their crafts have ever seen.

Plus, the chemistry between Jordan and Pippen was similar to that of Bono and the Edge.

If the Bulls had Paul McGuinness instead of those idiots Krause and Reinsdorf, they would have won even more titles.

Just my opinion, though. I am biased in favor of both U2 and da 90's Bulls.
 
Interesting take. I've been a big U-2 fan for a long time, and it was interesting to see the Dead (Grateful) get a take. I think the comparisions between U-2 and the Dead are a bit faulty. Both have longevity, but U2 wins the albums/hits categories, but the Dead wins the concert category hands-down. The Dead toured for 30 years at 75-100 (or more ,sometimes less) shows per year. U2, like the Stones, rolls out the machine every three-four years. NIce, but not as prolific as the Dead.

Interesting article, though.
 
wow, what a great article. might pick up this issue just for it, ESPN the magazine is the best.
 
Does this guy have any influence on the Fox network also? Just wondering, since the first and only time I've heard a snippet of Love and Peace or Else, on tv, was on a golf show on a Fox channel one Sunday morning. :shocked: U2 and golf, go figure?
It brought my head up out of the newspaper as soon as I heard the first strands of it. Then another small part was played a short time later.
Parts of It's a Beautiful Day was played also.
Somebody in the Fox & ESPN sports - music division - really likes U2.
Of course that's fine with me:wink:

Edited to say :up: of course, To ESPN for premiering the "All Because of You" video. and this writer/article.
 
Last edited:
Hawk269 said:
The 90's Chicago Bulls were the U2 of sports- They were a true dynasty - 6 titles in 8 years was extremely dfficult to do and is the only comparison worth making.

Dominant, creative, historic, intense, excellent, groundbreaking, and united.

Bono and Michael Jordan - the greatest individual talents their crafts have ever seen.

Plus, the chemistry between Jordan and Pippen was similar to that of Bono and the Edge.

If the Bulls had Paul McGuinness instead of those idiots Krause and Reinsdorf, they would have won even more titles.

Just my opinion, though. I am biased in favor of both U2 and da 90's Bulls.

U2 and the Bulls, AND you are from NY...You're my new hero :rockon:
 
ramblingrob said:
Interesting take. I've been a big U-2 fan for a long time, and it was interesting to see the Dead (Grateful) get a take. I think the comparisions between U-2 and the Dead are a bit faulty. Both have longevity, but U2 wins the albums/hits categories, but the Dead wins the concert category hands-down. The Dead toured for 30 years at 75-100 (or more ,sometimes less) shows per year. U2, like the Stones, rolls out the machine every three-four years. NIce, but not as prolific as the Dead.

Interesting article, though.

The Greatful Dead rarely tour outside of North America though. In addition, "The Dead Heads"(the hardcore fan base) went to nearly every show on the tour, filling up stadiums in places that would not have been possible without them. Unique indeed, but not a true example of widespread popularity, especially when you consider Europe, South America and Asia where the Grateful Dead rarely played.
 
STING2 said:


The Greatful Dead rarely tour outside of North America though. In addition, "The Dead Heads"(the hardcore fan base) went to nearly every show on the tour, filling up stadiums in places that would not have been possible without them. Unique indeed, but not a true example of widespread popularity, especially when you consider Europe, South America and Asia where the Grateful Dead rarely played.

True enough. The Dead were really an American band. They did play Europe in 72, 74, 81 and 90. Canada, too, a bunch of times. But I will stand by my statement that they were a much more prolific touring band than U2 ever was and ever will be. U2 is much more like the Stones in terms of touring. The Stones still made decent albums up until Emotional Rescue (1980) and have been a nostalgic act since. U2 is definitely not a nostalgic act, I would say.

Your statement of "Deads going to nearly every show" is not really true. I know what you are trying to say, but many of the Dead's fans were locals that went to the one show in their local area once a year (or whenever they came around). As for me, I saw the Dead over an 11 year period and never went on tour. I averaged about 3-4 shows a year and used the shows to take mini-vacations around the US (saw 35 total and several offshot Dead-related bands).

But, by and large, what you say is correct. I also think I am correct in stating that the Dead were a much more prolific (and interesting) touring band than U2. One of the reasons Deadheads went to so many different shows each year is that the setlists were never repeated- literally. With U2 you basically get the same show each night. To me this does a disservice to their musicainship and band history..

Good insights, though. (The purpose of the ESPN article was really to compare U2 to sports figures and I really didnt do this, so dont hold it agains me :wink: )

Later
 
Back
Top Bottom