Being factual takes nothing away from what Caitlin Clark has accomplished. Nevertheless, we can’t simply compare number of points scored when talking about Caitlin and Pistol Pete Maravich. Unless you’re prone to ignoring particulars. But who would do that?
Oh…yes. Of course.
Here come the media…
ESPN’s comparison is a prime example of the media’s spin on history and reality.
They leave out specifics.
She did it in four years.
He did it in three.
Not to mention changes to the game in the years between his time and hers.
Imagine what Pete Maravich’s collegiate scoring record would have been if LSU had allowed him to play varsity his freshman year. But Freshman weren’t allowed to play varsity basketball when Pete arrived at LSU in 1966. He averaged 44.2 points over 83 games during his three years playing varsity basketball, in an era when there was no 3-point line or shot clock.
If “Boomers” and middle-aged men and women sound a little salty in the Pete v Caitlin comparison deliberations, I ask that you give us a little grace. We were kids and teens when Pete arrived on scene. He was just a few years older than us. He could have been our older brother. Or a friend of a sibling. He was one of us and he was incredible.
When the Hawks drafted him, schools, church groups, and youth sports leagues from our rural Georgia counties took bus loads into Atlanta to see Pistol Pete play in person at McCamish Field, on the campus of Georgia Tech. And later, at the Omni Coliseum.
Everyone became a Hawks fan because of a lanky, gifted, determined kid.
Our math teachers wove his statistics into their lesson plans.
Back then, we didn’t refer to athletes as heroes. And we were taught to “idolize no man.” But we admired Pete Maravich for his abilities.
We admire Caitlin Clark for her skills, too. But her scores shouldn’t be marked alongside Pete’s. They have to be appreciated separately.
red clay ponderings 