Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
Last night's Celtics-Hawks game was billed by ESPN as a rivalry reborn, since this rematch was on Atlanta's home floor. They even interviewed players about the rivalry, and what it meant to them tonight and for the rest of the season.
But Mark Jackson decided to go all rogue (sorry for the outdated joke, it had to happen), and insisted that no, this wasn't a rivalry, since the Celtics are gods on earth, and the Hawks mere up-and-comers. That puts him in line with that sourpuss KG, who has himself gone out of his way to dismiss this description.
Generally, I would agree. Rivalries are supposed to be about history, sky-high stakes, and a sense that two teams are battling over the same niche. That's not the case here. Certainly, Lakers-Celtics fits the bill much better. Still, the Hawks are a thorn in the Celtics side, the source of their greatest embarrassment. If anyone wants to point to them as mortal, or question whether they can pull off a historic 2008-09, last season's first-round series will be the first evidence offered. Boston has to beat Atlanta as often as possible, in convincing fashion. It's as much about pride as public perception.
You could argue that series saved the Hawks franchise (or at least its coach), raised awareness of Joe Johnson and Josh Smith, riled up the hometown fans, cemented Al Horford as their emotional leader, and pretty much legitimized them in the eyes of the league. That would certainly explain this year's surprise performance. For the Hawks, that series is like a superhero origin story, or that part of the Bible where all the animals appear out of thin air. It's a source of inspiration, and reminds them who they are. So obviously their emotions are high when they're reminded of it. And in some ways, they probably welcome it.
Maybe the two teams haven't battled for conference supremacy for years running, cores intact, in a way that defines an era. But really, do those kinds of rivalries really exist anymore? These Celtics didn't even exist until last summer. This is true in all sports, but is especially pronounced in the NBA, where there are fewer players, and they're less interchangeable and more visible. Lakers-Kings? Spurs-Suns?
I'd say for now, if it feels like a rivalry, quacks like one, smells like one, and gets us amped like one. Mark Jackson needs to leave his outdated definition back in the closet, along with his Bernard Goetz mask and other relics of the past.
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
7 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
General Sherman had several enthusiastic Massachusetts brigades, and Georgians are good at holding a grudge. I’d do the same thing if I were them.
by L'etat, c'est moi on Dec 18, 2008 1:15 PM EST reply actions
LOL @ General Sherman. And General Custer’s bandleader was Adam Vinatieri’s great-great-grandfather. He was smart enough to stay home during Little Big Horn. No idea why I even brought that up.
In any event, as a Boston sportswriter said about the Yankees-Red Sox "rivalry" years ago…"is the hammer and the nail a rivalry?"
by cdcosta on Dec 18, 2008 4:26 PM EST reply actions
all i have to say is that boston better hope and pray that they dont get these hawks in the playoffs again, sooner or later the hawks are going to put it all together, figure the celtics out, and in the process take out the defending champs!
by RUTBUCK12 on Dec 18, 2008 5:18 PM EST reply actions
Idiotic column. Come on, Shoals, Celtics-Hawks "is as close as the modern NBA can get to a real rivalry?" Really? Closer than Celtics-Pistons, or Celtics-Cleveland? Or closer than Celtics-Lakers? Just to use three of the Celtics actual rivals who actually win playoff series once in awhile.Not to mention other real rivalries, like Detroit-Cleveland, Lakers-Phoenix, Lakers-Spurs?Just because the young team on the losing end thinks it’s a rivalry, doesn’t mean it’s a rivalry. You have to actually win a playoff series before you can have a rival. And I don’t want to take anything away from Atlanta. They are a very exciting young team. But they are still babies, and haven’t won squat. Talk to us about rivalries after they’ve won a playoff series, or better yet, if they ever even win a playoff game on the road.
by thefoulness on Dec 18, 2008 5:18 PM EST reply actions
I think we need a new word for it because a) your initial description of a rivalry is spot-on, but yet these two teams do have that something extra going on whenever they lock up. So we need a new word for that. How about "grudge"?
by logicjohnson on Dec 18, 2008 7:31 PM EST reply actions
While it is not a typical rivalry, the hawks celts matchup has quickly become one of if not the best in all of the nba. Both teams bring their A game and they match well against each other. something about playing the C’s makes atlanta that much better and this is why its a special matchup
by The Kid 14 on Dec 18, 2008 11:15 PM EST reply actions
Listen man, this is not a rivalry. First of all people seem to forget that Boston swept Atlanta in the regular season last year 4-0, so if you want to count from there then it is Boston 10, Atlanta 3. That is hardly my description of a rivalry plus they have only played one playoff series and Boston won with no games being close in Boston. Games 4 and 6 in Atlanta came down to the final minute, which lets me know that Boston doesn’t have to play a perfect game to beat Atlanta. Atlanta can play its best game and still lose as they did the first game with Pierce’s game winner. Entertaining yes, rivalry not yet!
by nswh8 on Dec 19, 2008 12:06 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed