Thursday, August 17, 2006

This Week in Redefinitions

Following this week's news that the International Astronomical Union is pondering whether to redefine what a planet is, other various and august international bodies are considering their own redefinitions:

  • The Intercontinental Congress on Heterosexual Relationships is set to vote on an amended definition of an attractive male to include "skinny sports geeks who talk too much about the Internet and gesticulate with sweaty palms." Experts say this should increase the pool of women interested in me from zero to 3.2 trillion.
  • The Global Club of Historians is mulling whether to redefine a successful military campaign as one "whose aftermath is poorly, it at all, planned, leading to an ambiguous occupation and possibly civil war." Sources say the Bush administration is working behind the scenes to pass this measure.
  • The American Society of Sports Scribes is debating a proposal to adjust the definition of a storied football franchise to include ones that "achieve one playoff victory during a decade when the team has the greatest running back ever, a Hall of Fame middle linebacker, elite receiving corps, strong secondary, and villainous ownership." This would place the Detroit Lions in the pantheon that includes the Green Bay Packers, San Francisco 49ers, and Pittsburgh Steelers.

*****

Finally, the International Astronomical Union's proposed new definition of a planet reads as such: "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

Guess this could qualify Dr. Phil as a planet, then, huh?

6 comments:

b-train said...

Greatest running back ever? Barry? One of the top 3 or 4 but he can't hold a candle (or a shovel) to Jim Brown.

A Hall of Fame middle linebacker? Speilman is one of my personal all time favorites but he doesn't belong in Canton.

Craig said...

That's right. Greatest. If you're judging by pure ability, no one could touch Barry.

But maybe it's going overboard to call Speilman a Hall of Famer. But he was damn good.

Hud said...

It's not even close. Barry Sanders was the best running back of all time...bar none. Give Jim Brown the Detroit Lions and we'd never have heard of him.

Pat said...

Agreed. Barry is the best that ever was or ever will be.

To misquote the classic "Kicking and Screaming":
"I'm paraphrasing myself here but if Plato is a fine red wine, then Aristotle is a dry martini. And if Jim Brown is a stiff scotch and soda, Barry Sanders is the best running back of all time."

Also, just because he doesn't have a shot at making it doesn't mean Chris Spielman doesn't deserve enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

Ditto Lance Parrish, who with the possible exception of Carlton Fisk was the premier American League catcher of the 1980s. Gary Carter is in, but no Lance. Don't get me started on Whitaker, Trammell and Morris.

b-train said...

Hey, I'm not saying Barry wasn't great. He had some of the most spectacular runs ever but was very one-dimensional and inconsistent at times. He would have 24 yards one week and 210 the next. How about -1 yards rushing in a playoff game? And don't give me the "supporting cast" BS. You could say that about a lot of guys. Would we have never heard of Joe Montana if he played in Detroit either?

Barry's o-lines weren't as bad as Detroit fans excuses say they were either.

Just ask Barry's dad who's the best.

Hud said...

Well if you don't like the supporting cast argument that you'll really love the fact that Jim Brown played in the weakest era of defensive football in history.

Boom.