19th Hole: The Readers Take Over

SPORTSMAN (CONT.)
Sir:
When I received my copy of your Dec. 28-Jan. 4 issue and saw that you hadn't selected John McEnroe as Sportsman of the Year, I was initially dismayed. I intended to write a letter of protest, but after reading the superb article (One Life Fulfilled) by Frank Deford and thinking about what the word "sportsman" means, I changed my mind.

Sugar Ray Leonard has earned an unimaginable amount of money as a boxer, and he could probably make even more if he retired now and concentrated on selling his name in the manner of Bruce Jenner and many others. The fact that he continues to fight indicates to me that in spite of all the phony hoopla surrounding pro sports today, Sugar Ray fights on because he loves the sport of boxing for itself. That makes him Sportsman of the Year in my book. Three cheers for Sugar Ray, Frank Deford and SI.
JOHN S. PIERCE
Eugene, Ore.

Sir:
I was very disappointed to see Sugar Ray Leonard picked as Sportsman of the Year. You have honored a man who makes his living by beating other human beings into submission for huge sums of money. Where is the real sportsmanship in boxing? I must admit that Leonard is as fine a man as you can find. I only wish he had attained his success in another sport.
RICHARD GIBBENS ROBICHAUX
Thibodaux, La.

Sir:
Sugar Ray is a commendable selection, although there is some question as to whether he is any more deserving than Alexis Arguello or Marvin Hagler. Nonetheless, your fine boxing coverage over the past year has been deeply appreciated by those of us who are bored with baseball strikes and burned out on football.
MIKE CROSSIN
Atlanta

Sir:
I commend you on your choice. As a resident of Maryland, Sugar Ray Leonard's home state, I have witnessed not only his expertise in the ring but also his patience with youths. Leonard has won well-deserved devotion and praise.
JULIE GALLOWAY
Hillcrest Heights, Md.

Sir:
"...like the majority of black children in America, Little Ray was born out of wedlock." I find it very difficult to believe that more than half of the black children in this country fall into that category. Can Frank Deford substantiate this statistic, or did he simply misuse the word "majority"? Either way, the statement wasn't germane to an otherwise excellent article.
ARTHUR P. TAROLLI
Athol, Mass.

?According to a National Center for Health Statistics estimate, 55% of all black births in 1979, the most recent year for which records have been compiled, were out of wedlock, with the figure for illegitimate children born to black teen-age mothers 15 to 19 years old at 85.1%. By comparison, 37.6% of all black children were born outside of marriage in 1970. In the '70s white illegitimate births rose from 5.7% in 1970 to 9.4% in 1979—and to 30.3% among 15- to 19-year-olds. In the years since Little Ray Leonard was born—that is, from 1973 through 1979—50.3% of all black babies were born out of wedlock, with the annual percentages ranging from 45.8% in 1973 to 50.3% in 1976 to 1979's high of 55%. However, the rate of illegitimate births among blacks has decreased from 95.5 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15 to 44 in 1970 to 85.3 per 1,000 in 1979, while the rate for whites has increased from 13.9 per 1,000 in 1970 to 15.1 per 1,000 in 1979. These national estimates by the NCHS are based on records obtained from 39 states and the District of Columbia. Until 1980, for which the figures are not yet in, the missing 11 states didn't require that a mother's marital status be included on a birth certificate. However, the NCHS has used the statistics in neighboring states to help derive figures for the missing ones, and a spokesman says that if some numbers are off a little, "the trends the figures show from year to year reflect the real changes very accurately."
—ED.

FOR THE BIRDS
Sir:
George Plimpton has written another wonderfully entertaining article for the readers of SI {Birds Thou Never Wert, Dec. 28-Jan. 4). In keeping with Victor Emanuel's suggestion, I think the full name of the giant cacophonous should be Watt's common giant cacophonous cowbird.

Also, although I found the article enjoyable, it is hard for me to take seriously the writings of one who calls himself Hadada Ibis.
THE BEARDED WOOD PARTRIDGE
(KEVIN J. ZIMMER)
Las Cruces, N. Mex.

Sir:
As George Plimpton points out, there is a real bird, the shrike-vireo, that goes, "Peter, peter, peter, peter, peter, peter, peter, peter." This is already one damn peter-peter-peter bird too many. The common giant cacophonous cowbird ought to go, "George, george, george, george, george, george, george, george," possibly sounding something like a demented Liberace.
A. PETER HOLLIS
Wilson, N.C.