joe morgan versus howard cosell

on mike and mike this morning i heard an audio clip from curt schilling where he said that he doesn't care about getting into the hall of fame because he doesn't care what people who never played the game think about his career.

who gets into the hall of fame is determined by the baseball writers of america. i would say it's safe to assume that most, if not all of these writers have never played baseball, at least on the major league level. that being said, i wonder about schilling's comments. i feel as though this is a common sentiment in general about writers, although i doubt if players don't care about getting into the hall of fame or receiving any other accolades that writers can bestow upon them.

his comments bring up two sentiments i've heard over the years. the first one that comes to mind is joe morgan's comments about sabermetric geeks or statisticians and how easily he dismisses their kind, once alleging that billy beane himself ghostwrote moneyball. the basic point was that these people have never played the game and thus do not understand what truly makes a great ballplayer. this job should be left to scouts and those who have an intrinsic knowledge of the nuances of the sport.

well, although i don't completely disagree with this concept, i do think that it is overblown. are there things that statisticians can't or at least don't understand? i'm sure. but, as a counter-point i'm sure that there are things that they are not blinded by as well. for example, scouts or people who once played the game can easily be shaped by their own experiences which leads them to see other players with a bias towards their own positive and/or negative attributes. statisticians, on the other hand, use mostly neutral numbers to come to their conclusions, although these numbers may tell an incomplete story.

howard cosell, on the other hand, used to talk about the skills necessary to be a sports reporter, announcer, etc. he would say that being a former athlete does not necessarily give you the gift to be able to dissect the game or speak intelligently about it. his points are of a little different substance than schilling's or morgan's, but there is some comparisons that can be made. i think he was obviously speaking to some extent about journalistic skill and oratory skill. but, at the same time, he was making a point that being able to comment on something is vastly different than being able to do something.

disliking critics is commonplace. for the most part, they are there to tear down. and although i agree that those who do not enter the arena shouldn't blast those that do, it doesn't mean that they are wrong with their opinions when they do, especially when those opinions are based on something concrete (like baseball stats). you don't have to be picasso to appreciate his art nor do you have to be scorsese to say that ed wood films are terrible (yet hilarious at the same time).

schilling is saying that he doesn't care what the baseball writers say about him and that's cool. i don't think he should care. but underlying those comments is a concept that i firmly stand against. moreover, i wonder whether schilling would care more about the writers if his entrance into the hall were more guaranteed than it is (i would say he's borderline, closer to in than out). it's easy to dismiss other's opinions when your fearful that they are negative... and easy to accept them when they are receptive.

the new mets

so we're a couple of days removed from the media-fueled debacle that was the firing of willie randolph. since then we've heard the nonsensical ramblings of omar, seen a temper tantrum from reyes, witnessed the managerial quote of the year, "i'm a gangster" from new mets' manager jerry manuel and saw an improbable comeback win against k-rod, which may have been the best win so far this season.

first, let me say that the circumstances involving randolph's firing have been way overblown. new york reporters were just pissed that they didn't receive the news until 3:15 am et. what they fail to realize is that the world doesn't work around new york time. when willie was fired, he was fired in california which i believe works on pacific time. it was 12:15 when the email was sent out saying willie was fired, which means that he was probably fired before that. the game ended around 10:30 so it's safe to assume that willie was fired as soon as he returned to the hotel.

the whole episode was not handled as well as it could have been, that's without argument here. however, to make this out to be some indictment on the entire mets organization is just foolish. omar should have fired him way back when, but he was going to get fired sometime and somewhere. WILLIE RANDOLPH GOT FIRED AFTER A GAME IN CALIFORNIA. that's it. he didn't hear it from the media first. he didn't get fired right before the game. he didn't get fired on father's day or in uniform. everyone needs to relax and that includes almost every major baseball writer in america.

onto something actually important. i like jerry manuel he has this levity about him that i believe is going to be important in this clubhouse especially after all the drama that has ensued. do i think that his presence was a factor in last nite's comeback win? perhaps, but i doubt it. or rather, it has the same influence as the temperature of last nite's game, which is to say that i'm sure it has some influence but to what degree, either positive or negative is indeterminable.

there are two things i will proclaim right here and now. first, i think that the new coaches will have a positive influence on the team, if not solely for the fact that they're not the old coaches. the constant cloud hanging over willie will be gone. hopefully it will be a less stressful environment.

second, and more importantly, the mets will be in serious contention for both the wild card and division come late september. to say that they will win either would be a stretch as you never can foresee injuries or bad luck. but i can say that i have little or no faith in most of the teams above the mets in the standings.

the phillies have terrible starting pitching, save hammels. the braves are done, let's face it. the marlins? please.

the cubs are without soriano and possibly zambrano although i still believe they are the best team in the nl at the end of the season. the cardinals have outdone themselves, but i don't see that lasting. the brewers are talented but no more so than the mets and have just as many question marks.

the dbacks have been slipping and maybe last year's performance (getting outscored) is an indication of things to come. and the dodgers, who i picked to win the division, are playing terribly.

so who am i supposed to be afraid of? the cubs yes, but i assume they'll win their division. so in our division, we got the phils who are definitely playing above their talent level and will come back down to earth at least enough to give us a shot. for the wild card, we got the cards, brew crew, braves, marlins, dodgers and possibly the dbacks if they can't hold onto their huge lead. i couldn't be less afraid of any of those teams.

the problem is two-fold. one, i've named a lot of teams that we have to leap over or at least hold at bay. that's not an easy task. second, we actually have to win some games... no one is going to fold b/c they're afraid of us. but i believe we're going to do just that. by the all-star break we'll be no more than 4 games back of the phillies, if that. and by the last week of september, we'll be at least within a game or two of both the divison and wild card. you heard it here first.

what makes tiger clutch?

have you seen that tiger commercial? the one where his father is explaining how he made tiger tough. how he used to make noises during his backswing to disrupt his concentration. how tiger used to step back, recompose himself and proceed to hit a monster shot, as to rub it in his dad's face. the one where his father says to him, 'no one is going to be tougher than you.'

that toughness was on display during the 108th us open at torrey pines in s. california over the weekend. mere minutes ago, tiger parred the first hole of a sudden death playoff (the 7th hole) to win his 14th major championship at age 32. i repeat... his fourteenth. jack nicklaus won 18, his 18th coming at age 46. tiger is at 14 in his prime.

tiger is in class of his own, in any sport, in any era. his achievements are singular. but what makes him so great? people throw out words like clutch, but i'm not sure what that means. i do know this... tiger is 14-0 now when at least sharing a lead after 54 holes in a major. he has, however, never won a major when trailing after 54 holes.

you know that feeling when you're at the foul line with 1 second left on the clock down by 1 with one shot left. having a 8 foot putt on the 18th that breaks 2 inches left to force a playoff and being able to sink that putt like you would at any other time. some people, when the pressure is on, only make it 50% of the time and some people make it 99%. that's clutch.

i define clutch as the ability to NOT fold under pressure. the ability to be who you are when all eyes are on you.

tiger is clutch. he had so many putts and shots these past two days that could have ended his dominance at majors with a lead. but he always made the ones he needed to make. the 8 foot putts he always makes on a normal day? he made them on sunday and today when millions of eyes were on him. that's clutch... that's the toughness that makes him tiger. without it, he'd merely be the best golfer in the world, not the greatest golfer ever.

every professional athlete has talent. the superstars are fortunate enough to have immense talent. but what defines a truly great player is not always talent above and beyond... it is that ability to come through when it counts, not because of luck or chance, but because your ability dictates that you succeed and your mind follows suit. for anyone who was lucky enough to watch tiger play this weekend, it was surely a treat... one of the greatest performances we've ever seen by one of the greatest athletes this world has ever known.

griffey or bonds?

let me start out by saying that i'm a griffey jr. fan. not a huge fan, but a fan nonetheless. he's been one of the best players of my generation and has still, to me, the prettiest swing i have ever seen in any sport.

let me follow up by saying that i am not a barry bonds fan. he, as well, has been one of the best players of my generation and is probably the most feared hitter at the plate i have ever seen (steroid use aside).

it should be pretty obvious by now that i'm going to choose bonds. granted it is fairly reasonable to assume that he has done steroids and/or hgh. and although you can never be sure with griffey, i have a feeling that he has not used those substances (at least to the same degree as bonds) or maybe we would have seen him less frequently on the dl.

regardless of bonds' alleged use of peds (which supposedly started around 1999), i still would argue that he's better than griffey. if you include the steroid years and ignore the effect of peds, then it's not even close.

griffey is a great player. great. but not as great as ruth, mantle, williams or mays. his career numbers are around .285, .375 and .550 (ba, obp, slugg) without considering park effect or anything else. those are fine numbers especially when considering he's one of the top few defensive outfielders ever. but so was bonds and that's where he gets the edge.

if bonds were a bad outfielder or even an average one, i could see the argument. even though centerfield is a more important defensive position, bonds was the best in lf, possibly ever. bonds' career numbers are .298, .444, .607 playing primarily in a pitcher's park. add in the large discrepancy in steals between the two and i don't know if there's an argument.

people will obviously argue about his use of peds, but listen to this. prior to 1999, barry bonds had 9 consecutive years with an obp over 400. prior to 1999, bonds had five years with a slugging percentage over 600.

in griffey's entire career, he's only had two seasons with an obp over 400 and five seasons with a slugg percentage over 600.

take, on top of all of this, that bill james rated barry bonds as the best player in baseball every single year from 1990 to i believe 2004 with the exception of 1999. bill james took into consideration defense, offense and baserunning. you would think that if griffey was even close, he would have snuck in their one of those years.

things may, and i repeat may, have been different without bonds' ped use or griffey's injuries, but i doubt it. by the time griffey had reached cincy, he was already past his prime (age 25-30) and bonds had already established himself as the preeminent player in baseball.

why won't you just go away

i hate curt schilling. no, i mean i despise curt schilling. he was at the lakers-celtics game on sunday nite and surprise surprise had some things to say about kobe bryant. basically he said that all kobe does is yell at his teammates in a non-constructive way, etc. etc. etc. this all may be true, but shut the fuck up. this guy might be the worst teammate in the known universe (curt, not kobe). all anyone talks about is how much his teammates have hated him from philly to phoenix to boston. and he has the balls to talk shit about kobe? give me a fucking break. i hope curt schilling falls into a black hole.

A GIANT AMONG MEN

michael strahan retired yesterday. 15 years in the nfl. one team. superbowl champion. that's how he wanted to go out and i guess i can't blame him.

a lot of people, including myself, didn't think he would retire. he went through a messy divorce last year and was forced to give up a huge chunk of his fortune. everyone just assumed he would string us along until after training camp just like he did last year. i wouldn't have had a problem with that.

but he didn't. instead, he's decided to hand in his helmet, hang up his shoulder pads, for what most likely will be a television job. i still haven't quite come to grips with it. i'm hoping that he'll change his mind in a month or two, but i don't think that'll happen.

strahan was a giant. drafted in the second round fifteen years ago, he played his entire career for new york, which is a feat unto itself. he finished with 141 1/2 sacks (5th all time). he holds the single season sack record with 22 1/2. he was relentless in the pass rush, but equally dominating when stopping the run game. he controlled the line of scrimmage like few players i can remember. and he's been the face of this team for as long as i can remember. he's seen great giant players come and go on this team and all the while, he's been the best of the best.

i'm not sure what the public's perception of him is outside of new york. he obviously had the chunky soup commercials, but also had the public feud with tiki and his coach. in my opinion, though, he was just a great football player. often times he would speak his mind after a game and you'd shake your head. maybe you didn't agree with his "ballin'" fadeaway after every sack even if it was hilarious. but still, he always did it with a quiet dignity and a little bit of child-like silliness. my lasting memory of him will be his gapped-tooth smile and the display of his massive biceps after making a great play in the opposing team's backfield.... oh and let's not forget the superbowl win over the pats.

the end of matt hughes?

ufc 85 saw the rise of thiago alves and possibly the end of matt hughes. i didn't watch this fight and i couldn't be more upset about it. alves ended the match with 1:02 left in the second round after landing a knee to the face of mr. hughes.

matt hughes, a former welterweight champion and bitter rival to georges st. pierre and matt serra, has effectively ended his reign as one of the most feared fighters in his weight class. he states that he has at least one more great fight in him (with the aforementioned serra).

alves, on the other hand, seems to have many more great fights in him. possibly, and hopefully, with the champion st. pierre. a brasilian muay thai fighter, his dangerous knees were surely the reason for hughes' downfall. as you can tell from his picture above, he sure looks the part of a champion and is further evidence that the welterweight division in the ufc may be the best in the world.

lessons learned

saturday came and went and we still haven't had a triple crown winner since 1978. what's the lesson to be learned from this? i'd have to say that the lesson is don't by into the hype. big brown had two great races in the derby and preakness and was coming into this race 5-0, never being defeated. the 6 horse that won lost to big brown by 23 lengths in their first ever meeting months ago. well, things have certainly changed.

you could say that it was the heat. you could say that it was the mile and a half length of belmont. you could say that it was the cracked hoof or the lack of preparation due to the cracked hoof. maybe the pressure got to the horse. who knows.

i'm happy that kent desormeaux, the jockey, pulled up towards the end of the race so not to risk any further injury to big brown (leg injuries are quite serious to horses and usually lead to euthanasia). but looking back on the race, i'm embarrassed i didn't see it earlier.

big brown entered the race at 1-4 odds. that's quite high. but is that an accurate reflection of his chances? no. like vegas odds, it merely reflects perception and tries to create equality on both sides of the betting world. the line was at 1-4 because the line makers knew that people would still bet huge on big brown. so the line, is in some sense, a fabrication.

also, take into consideration that big brown's numbers (times) weren't historically that impressive and that he was suffering from an injury that limited his preparation and you get a horse that I probably shouldn't have taken at 1-4. obviously this is all easy to say in hindsight.

youkilis being manny?

apparently the red sox love to fight. they fight the opposing team and they fight each other. last night, reports are that manny ramirez and kevin youkilis got into it and had to be pulled apart. supposedly manny took a swing at youk. understandably this happens in sports... there's a lot of testosterone involved and emotions/competitiveness are high.

what makes this story interesting to me, however, is why the fight supposedly started. apparently, the red sox had a team meeting some time ago where the players complained that youk's behavior was selfish and didn't reflect team unity. youk? really? youk is known for throwing his bat, helmet and whatever else he can get his hands on after he has a bad at-bat. well, this doesn't sit well with his teammates. especially not with manny it seems, who approached him after youk displayed such behavior in last night's game.

the question, and i hope it's obvious, is in what universe does manny ramirez think he has the right to opine on someone else's baseball habits? i have no hatred for manny, i actually find him quite amusing. but we're talking about one of the more flashy, arrogant ballplayers in the game. talk about selfishness! this is a guy who catches a ball and then jumps on a wall to slap some guy's hand (i loved it too!). this is a guy who takes bathroom breaks in the middle of a game... IN THE LEFT FIELD WALL!!!!!

don't get me wrong... i love manny. and many people will probably defend him by saying that it's manny being manny and that he's not selfish or arrogant, he's just clueless. i disagree. his actions (and i'm not saying i don't support it) are very selfish. it draws attention to yourself and draws attention away from your team. isn't that exactly what he's complaining about with youkilis? granted that youk's actions are quite different than manny's, but don't they come from the same basic place inside (your brain that is)? i would say yes.

i don't think this is that big of a deal of course. i just found the story amusing is all. i don't normally make big deals out of such things, but i do ask for some consistency... and this screams inconsistent.

what can big brown do for you?

the kentucky derby has got mint juleps and big hats; the preakness stakes has beer and big boobs; And the belmont stakes has.... well, this year, it's finally got another triple crown candidate.

the kentucky derby is always a big event, the first race of the triple crown series. the preakness almost always features the kentucky derby winner so inherently the excitement is there for a triple crown winner. but the belmont stakes? well, it's fun when a horse like big brown is vying for a place in history, but it's like a big 'who cares?' when the triple crown threat is absent.

big brown (pictured above at the derby; #20) is trying to become the 12th horse to claim horse racing's most prestigious title. however, since 1978's 'affirmed', he'll be the 10th horse to try and accomplish this feat. the last 9 have all failed (last one was smarty jones in 04).

what makes big brown different? well, most people say that his competition is fairly weak. and the one horse they brought in (from japan) is now injured and may not even race. that would have been an interesting matchup as casino drive (ridden by edgar prado) has been bred to run a mile and half (the length of the belmont stakes, significantly longer than the derby and slightly longer than the preakness).

now with the second favorite (morning line of 7-2) possibly out of the picture or at least somewhat subdued, who will be there to stop big brown? the answer to that question may be the track itself, famous for its length and difficulty. the winning horse will have to pace itself and position itself much more so than in the other two races. usually in horse races, you can spot the winner going into the final turn. the horse that was in the middle of the pack right before the final turn and has made his final strong move to the outside and to the lead pack is usually the one that pulls it through. that's what big brown did at the derby, with a very difficult #20 pole position (far outside).

in this race, he'll be positioned at #1, which is historically a good position for the stakes (which has far fewer horses than the derby; 10 v. 20 this year). however, he will have to either hold back for the first half and give himself a chance to make his move outside or will have to get off to a strong start. if not, he runs the risk of being caught against the rail on any of the turns, which could slow his momentum and spell disaster for his chances.

at 2-5, big brown is surely the favorite to win this race. the third favorite is at a distant 12-1 and then it is all longshots. if i were a betting man (which i am), i'd take a long hard look at the 8,9 and 10 horses, all of whom have the luxuries of either experience, great trainers or great jockeys. in a race like this, that may make all the difference.

i personally will be attendance and hope for nothing less than history. my pick: superfecta of 1, 10, 5, 9 (assuming casino races).

Crisp v. Shields I

"I charged the mound. I feigned it like I was going to go to first base, just to get Navarro off me a little bit, and just charged the mound. He tried to hit me with a haymaker. He missed. I threw a punch. I pretty much missed. And the rest, went down to the ground� like the scratches on my face were people trying to scratch like we were playing football or something, like little girls, trying to scratch out my eyes. I move one hand down, scratch me right here [points to scratch to the right of his nose].

After that, people were trying to pull my hair like little girls. Instead of throwing some real punches or something like that. I'm down on the ground, I mean the fight's pretty much over baseball-term wise. You wanna come in late, and throw some extra blows and get your little blows in, that's cool. I'll cover up. It's all good, trying to pull some hair. It's all right. It was between me and Shields that time and everybody tried to get their little blows in I think even more he was unsure if he really wanted to hit me or not it seemed like, but cause he didn't really hit me hard.

Big dude, what's his name Jonny Gomes, he tried to come in, a hefty dude, tried to throw some blows but I think Navarro, I credit him. And actually I credit Shields, too cause, even though we went at it, he hit me in the leg. He didn't try to hit me in the head so that's good. He didn't like try to kill me. Then I ran out there, then he tried to hit me in the head, so that's the way to go [laughing]. It is what it is now. I say tit for tat, I think I got the worst of it because I'm running out there and they can get to me before our guys can get to me to help."

These were the words of Coco Crisp after the brawl at Fenway last night. It was actually an amazing fight. Shields throws a haymaker that missed and Crisp tried to counter but missed as well. I must say that Shields did not attempt to run away or even duck... he went right after Crisp and I like that. Then Navarro (rays' catcher) tackles Crisp and Gomes tries to jump on him and throws repeated right hands at his head. It was all entertaining. I highly recommend at least three viewings today.

http://www.outincenterfield.com/blog/2008/06/fight_night.html

get ready to temper your expectations

tim beckham (picture left) is set to be drafted by the rays at #1. so where does that leave buster posey? is he going to drop to #3? #5? out of the top ten? i know these are the questions that have been keeping you up at night right? probably not i guess.

today at 2pm, baseball's rule 4 draft (this is the first year player draft, rule 5 draft is in december) begins. it's essentially the same as the nba draft in june and the nfl draft in april except who even knows who tim beckham or buster posey are? i couldn't pick them out of a lineup of one.

we get excited for the nfl draft cuz most people follow college sports, the bcs bs and for the fact that mel kiper is on espn almost every two minutes. we also know all the best college basketball players; we watched derrick rose light it up in the championship game, watched beasley dominate all year and even watched the mid-level prospects like hansborough scrap it out for high-profile programs.

but college baseball is a second-rate spectator sport. the college world series is fun to watch but when do we ever get a chance to see long beach state play cal state-fullerton during the season? but even beyond that, the mlb draft is so heavily laden with high school players who we never get a chance to watch play (we even saw lebron james' high school team play on espn).

maybe the biggest detriment to being able to follow the draft is that pro baseball is so different than amateur ball. the game doesn't translate as well as in the other sports. drafts, even to a greater degree than in other sports, is built on promise and potential. how will a batter progress when facing high level breaking balls using a wood bat for the first time? will a pitcher be able to get by, like he did in high school, using his mid-90s fastball? doubtful. it's almost impossible to use a college (or hs) players numbers and then translate them into professional success. and the ability of scouts to determine potential is such a crapshoot that sometimes we find the mike piazzas drafted past the 50th round (realize that tom brady was drafted in the 6th round).

finally, let's not forget to mention the importance of a team's developmental program. every team has organizational philosophies on how to approach a player's development. do we emphasize the slider rather than other breaking pitches? do we allow slow development and success early on or do we push a player in order to make him struggle? these are just a few of the variables that go into the draft.

the mlb draft is a great time to get excited for your team, but it's also dangerous. the mets could draft player X and i'd have no idea whether or not he was better than player A that fell ten spots lower. i've never watched any of them play and thus have no ability to form any opinion on my own.

this is the first year that the mlb draft will be televised (on espn 2) and to prepare i've been reading scouting reports for the past three months on the top 50 or so prospects. but truth be told, when the mets make their picks, i'll be enthusiastic and optimistic, but i'll remember one thing: more than half of these players will never even make it to the show.

primetime kimbo, a review

mr. slice, as i'd prefer to address him, was introduced to a whole new audience on saturday night, when he defeated james "colossus" thompson on cbs in the first ever broadcast of mixed-martial arts on major network television. although the fight failed to live up to most people's expectations, this event was nothing short of historic. let's rewind.

more than a decade ago the first ultimate fighting championship premiered. the gracie family, in order to display the dominance of their family's brazilian jiu-jitsu, helped organize a martial arts contest between many different styles. and as planned, the young royce gracie took home the championship. the event became a cult hit and mixed martial arts was born (at least in its modern format).

eventually, in response to protests about its violence, the ufc and other mma leagues developed rules, such as weight classes and no elbows to the back of the head. and with these new rules, mma started going mainstream. the ultimate fighter reality show became one of spike tv's biggest hits and today you can watch several mma leagues (ufc, pride, ifl, and elite xc-kimbo slice's league) all across the cable universe (hdnet, showtime, fsn, cw11).

the last few years have proved especially fruitful as mma has surpassed boxing in the minds and hearts of most viewers, save some old timers. as pay-per view requests for boxing have steadily decreased, those for mma have been increasing. even floyd mayweather has toyed with the idea of jumping into the octagon (before he chose to go into the wrestling ring instead). this past saturday night was a culmination of the growing fascination with this sport. it was an inevitability.

detractors will say that the sport is too violent, too dangerous, too bloody, too uncivilized. but where are those detractors when people get paralyzed on the football field or when hockey players lose teeth in nhl-sanctioned fights or when dale earnhart dies at the daytona 500. as the evidence shows, mma has proven to be a safer sport than boxing, football and hockey. because most fights end up on the ground requiring some sort of grappling or wrestling skills, there is less of a chance for head injury through blunt trauma force.

but i'm being too analytical. most people don't want boxing to watch the footwork or counter punch jab. they watch to see mike tyson knock someone out cold. the same goes for mma. by now, everyone's heard of kimbo slice (on the cover of espn the mag) and his street brawling rep. he's the perfect face for mma.

the question was, however, 'Is Kimbo For Real?'
in kimbo's two previous fights, he essentially ended the fight before they even got started. his jiu-jitsu was never tested and neither were his grappling skills. perhaps even more importantly, we didn't even know if he could go for the full 15 minutes.

well, saturday night's fight provided many answers to those questions. kimbo showed that he has no stamina and no ground game, but that when it comes to pure punching ability and strength, he's right up there with anyone in the sport. if it wasn't for thompson's ear practically falling off in the third round due to a slice right hook, kimbo probably would have lost the fight (he was losing on two of the three scorecards and tied on the other one when the ref called the fight due to excessive damage to thompson's ear).

thompson, an average fighter at best, went at kimbo all night long and was completely dominating using the ground and pound attack (you basically sit on someone, immobilize them and proceed to throw elbows, fists and forearms at the now unprotected face). kimbo looked clueless when not engaged in a striking match (although to be fair, thompson was no match for him when standing up).

all-in-all the fight was pretty entertaining. although neither fighter was that impressive, the fight was evenly matched and there was plenty of blood. however, for the purists, this fight was nothing but fluff and hype. it's apparent that kimbo slice, for all his gold teeth and youtube videos (and trust me, i love mr. slice) is not even one of the top 100 fighters in the world. when georges st. pierres moves up to fight "the spider" anderson silva, that'll be a fight to remember.