DATE: Monday, April 21, 1997                TAG: 9704210161

SECTION: SPORTS                  PAGE: C1   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Column 

SOURCE: Bob Molinaro 

                                            LENGTH:   64 lines

SO, WHAT'S THE BEST SPORT? CAN YOU SAY HUT-HUT-HUT

Here's something you and your friends might want to try after you've run out of nice things to say about Tiger Woods: Get an argument going about which sport is the best.

Not the most popular. Or the most televised, star-studded or trendy.

The best.

I used to think basketball was the best sport in the world. Now I think it may have to settle for being the most entertaining.

We've all seen too many basketball games decided not by players, but by officials. Often, it seems as if the baskets and rebounds don't count for as much as the tweets of the whistle. That's basketball's major defect - the game cannot be properly officiated.

Related to that is the importance of the home court. In no other sport is the site of the game as crucial in determining the outcome. The judgment of hoop officials is constantly being influenced by the crowds.

This is a very big flaw.

Add to that the vagaries of the sport: the ball bouncing three times on the rim before dropping through, the spectacular, but lucky, last-second shot, the star player fouling out on a bogus call.

Basketball is a lovely sport to watch, but it isn't the best.

Soccer is a nice sport. The players' footwork is amazing. And I like the international flair of the game.

But here's the problem with soccer. No, it's not the lack of scoring. The flaw in soccer is that the best tactics and execution are not always rewarded with a victory (or even a goal). Meanwhile, a single fluke kick can determine the outcome. This is a familiar scenario, from the rec leagues to the English Premier League.

Ditto for ice hockey. Too many shots carom haphazardly off sticks and skates into the net. Besides, any game with two halftimes cannot claim to be the best.

Is boxing the best? Except for the odd extravaganza - i.e. Whitaker vs. De La Hoya - the fight game is followed by a couple dozen middle-aged sports writers. Pro boxing is entertaining in the same way the demolition derby is.

Another acquired taste is tennis, which is boxing without the brain damage. As for golf, it is not even a sport. It's a game: billiards on grass.

Here, I want to put in a kind word for the much overlooked bowling, which has the coolest shoes and shirts of all the sports, and which pulls in surprisingly robust TV ratings. But can anybody name a bowling superstar younger than Don Carter?

In any case, individual endeavors - boxing, tennis, golf, bowling, running - cannot compete with team sports for Best in Show.

What about baseball, then? Isn't it a solid, honest game that has stood the tests?

The charm of the Great American Past-its-time is that it is an individual sport played by teams. But in big-time baseball, a bad team beats a good team 40 percent of the time. Both victories and losses tend to be taken in stride.

Football is different. In football, the best team almost always wins.

In football, then, an upset means something. Football rejects the fluke victories so popular in basketball, and the casualness of baseball. And a football team rarely wins because of a freak play or a blown call.

Football's flaw is obvious: Its violence keeps the artificial hip-and-knee assembly line humming. But as spectacle and a test of teamwork, athletic prowess and excellence it is superior to all the rest.

There you have it. Football is best.

Now go start your own argument.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu