10 reasons Ajaz Patel took a perfect 10 wickets against India
I'll leave Sir Edmund Hillary out of this argument, because mountain climbing isn't a sport IMO.
Okay, so Patel wasn't first there, which takes a bit of a shine off this celebration ball.
But the mark is so incredibly rare that to overly emphasise that would be like dissing a confirmed photo of a second Yeti.
Simply put, the Patel mark has an x-factor you can't beat. Throw in that he's zoomed out of test cricket's undergrowth and will probably head back there, it also possesses the extremely weird factor.
The only other blokes in the 10 wicket club, England's Jim Laker and India's Anil Kumble, were stellar test cricketers, although in Laker's case his career was overshadowed by his own feat of taking 19 wickets in a test.
By comparison, Ajaz Patel is lucky to get a game.
Patel's mark has an advantage in the memorable stakes.
Cricket affords its bowlers this ultimate goal, a perfect mark, which isn't actually available in a lot of other pursuits.
A rugby player can always score another try, a batsman can score another run, a runner can go a split second faster.
But in cricket bowling, you can't beat 10, and even the number 10 itself has that aura of perfection.
It exudes exclusivity in a way that nine, also a wonderful mark of course, doesn't get close to doing. Ten is first class, sit with the captain, get sick of so much lobster territory. Nine just gets you more leg room.
Who is Patel up against in this Kiwi apples and oranges deal?
It's a very open discussion, of indeterminate rules, and only worth having because the magic of sport is lost if you can't have a crazy argument about stuff that only matters because in the end, it doesn't really matter at all.
We've had some people who have set wonderful milestones - John Walker was the first runner to go under 3m 50 seconds for the mile although that didn't have the same ring to it as Roger Bannister cracking the four-minute mark. Sir Richard Hadlee set a record for test wickets, which has since been obliterated. And I'll stop there, for brevity's sake.
(Although...I'd like to throw in that Richie McCaw played a World Cup final on a broken foot, although to fit such a matter into this particular argument probably blurs too many lines)
To put Patel's performance into a cricket context, statistics indicate it is way harder to do than score a triple century, the batting Holy Grail.
But this is bigger than cricket.
Shortly after he claimed the 10th wicket, Patel made the main bulletin of the BBC world news. It is that sort of event.
LOSERS - the Kiwi cricketers
Patel's perfect 10 was completely wasted, as they slumped to an embarrassing 62 all out. Kane Williamson's long-term injury, which kept him out of this second test in India, is a big worry.
LOSERS - IOC
The Women's Tennis Association has made a stand, scrapping tournaments in China while the safety of tennis player Peng Shuai is uncertain.
Shuai has been "disappeared" from the internet since accusing a former top Government man of a sexual attack. This raised general and natural concerns about her overall freedom and safety in that tightly controlled society.
In contrast, the International Olympic Committee couldn't wait to sweep the matter under a carpet with the sickeningly uncaring video hook up between boss Thomas Bach and Peng herself.
Nobody in their right mind would take Peng's assurances to Bach on face value. The IOC looked more interested in preserving its relationship with one of the world's superpowers.
China may be more complex place than they totalitarian place a lot of us take it for, but personal freedom is not a strong point.
It was such a disingenuous act by the IOC that Bach should be forced to contemplate resigning.
WINNERS - the Women's Tennis Association
(see above). The previously unheralded WTA boss Steve Simon has emerged as a strong and principled leader willing to stand up to the financially powerful, overly-controlling Chinese.
