Oakley Not Cheap Shot Artist

To the editors:

Jamal K. Greene's column on Charles Oakley and Latrell Sprewell (Sports, Jan. 20) lulls the reader into a false sense of security. Greene makes us think that the author understands what Oakley meant to New York sports fans and why the Sprewell trade is a tragedy for the Knicks.

The article is correct in hinting that there was something special about Oakley's work ethic. But Greene reveals his ignorance by repeatedly calling the hard-working power forward a thug. Granted, Oak was a bruiser and did play a physical game, but he was anything but a cheap shot artist.

Greene suggests that Oakley perennially led the league in personal fouls, but such an insinuation is blatantly false--last year Oakley barely cracked the top 10 and was well behind the league leaders. The column's earlier claim that Oakley led the league in flagrant fouls is similarly unjustified.

The column also misses the point about the Knick's acquisition of Sprewell. If Greene wants to focus only on the player's on-court merits, that's fine. But claiming that Sprewell is too undisciplined a shooter is more or less irrelevant--John Starks, who the Knicks gave up as part of the trade, was equally brick prone.

While I laud Greene's misguided attempt to honor the Oak and point out the dangers of Sprewell in a Knick uniform, it would be a shame for his readers to come away with a false impression of the man who played with gritty integrity. WILLIAM O. RECKLER '99   Jan. 20, 1999

The writer is the former executive sports editor of the Harvard Independent.