5 books about sports other than baseball

These recent releases offer plenty of variety

3. ‘Upon Further Review: The Greatest What-Ifs in Sports History,’ by Mike Pesca

In sports, the outcome of games often depend on a few pivotal plays. There are pivotal moments, too, that can have lasting impacts for athletes, teams, and entire sports, which fuel ‘what if’ questions that make for intriguing debates. For example, what if Billie Jean King had lost to Bobby Riggs in their Battle of the Sexes tennis showdown, or what if Tom Brady hadn’t taken over at quarterback for an injured Drew Bledsoe? These are the type of questions that Mike Pesca, a former PBS sports journalist, is intrigued by and puts to writers, historians, and athletes in an edited compilation of alternative scenarios.

Here’s an excerpt from Upon Further Review:

“Had [Bobby] Riggs won it’s quite likely his next contest would have been a rematch with [Billie Jean] King herself. Given King’s competitive wiring, it is completely inconceivable that had she lost to Riggs, she would’ve just gone away. King ended her Hall of Fame career with the thirty-nine Grand Slam titles and universal acclaim as one of the greatest pure competitors on the planet. One of her signature quotes was, ‘Champions keep playing until they get it right.'

“She would’ve kept up the fight. She would’ve been in the face of every tournament promoter who tried to tell her that women didn’t deserve the same treatment, and pay, as men. She would’ve railed about the hideous hypocrisy of treating people differently because of gender, race, or sexual orientation. 

“She would’ve said what she did say at a stop on the WTA tour once: ‘Everyone thinks women should be thrilled when we get crumbs, and I want women to get the cake, the icing, and the cherry on top, too.’"

3 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.