"Life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal."
- Jean-Paul Sartre

If this quote is true, then the battle between American John Isner and Frenchman Nicolas Mahut on Wednesday at Wimbledon was the most meaningful match ever played. It was unquestionably one of the finest sporting exhibitions ever.

And it's still not over.

After having their tussle stopped due to darkness Tuesday night with the score tied at two sets apiece, Isner and Mahut stepped onto the court Wednesday just after 2 p.m. and remained on that patch of lawn until it was too late again. What resulted was an adjective-defying display of sports survival at its finest. The final set has now lasted longer than any entire match ever played and stands at 59-59.

And they have to come back Thursday.

This is a test equal parts physical, mental and emotional that will likely never be witnessed again.

There's really no point in recounting all the records. They are obvious: most aces, most games, longest match and so on.

But what will be debated heatedly is the policy of playing the fifth set without a tiebreak in the Grand Slam events, except the U.S. Open. There will now be a call to get rid of this rule. But that would be a terrible decision.

Just remind yourself of what are considered the two greatest matches ever played: the 1980 Wimbledon final between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe, and Rafael Nadal's victory over Roger Federer in the 2008 final. Both matches contained extended fifth sets, 8-6 in 1980 and 9-7 in 2008. And don't forget last year, when Federer had to win 16 games to finally outlast Andy Roddick.

If any of these matches had ended in anticlimactic tiebreakers, they'd be considered close but not necessarily epic. Yet tiebreaker advocates will argue that since one still has to win by a margin of two points, the notion of eternity is preserved and a tiebreaker could go on almost forever, end up something like 50-48 and be far more riveting since each point is make or break. True.

But the tiebreaker also usually favors the server disproportionately and allows for just one or two errant points to decide one's fate, whereas playing the full games keeps the natural momentum of the match in place.

Sport at its best can be raised to art or transcendence, as the monumental Isner-Mahut encounter demonstrates. Inherent in any display of intense competition is allowing the struggle to proceed naturally, unimpeded by unnecessary and forced restrictions. And not having a tiebreaker in a deciding set allows the match to move toward its organic conclusion.

It was so hard for Roddick to mentally maintain last year as he was always serving from behind, knowing that any break of serve and the match was over. Indeed, he did succumb in the end. The fact that Mahut has had to serve from behind with the match on the line a total of 55 times thus far is astounding.

The Isner-Mahut match isn't as rich in narrative as the Nadal-Federer championship. But it has its unique drama in the way of a blinking contest and in the manner of just being able to maintain and not, well, just give up like most mortals would. It was almost like two competitive siblings who just refuse to relent and let the other guy triumph.

Granted, a lack of strategy has been evident from both players, especially when on the return of serves. And it can be argued that if these were two highly ranked players, it's doubtful the match would have lasted as long. But that shouldn't diminish one iota the effort put forth by these two. It's extraordinary that neither player eased up on intensity and focus. It is an utterly herculean achievement.

And it's hard to refer to a few points that decided anything or a moment when a player should have hit such-and-such a shot. It was simply astounding, this continued absence of lapses by either player.

Oh, yeah. While all this was going on, Roger Federer was nearly pushed to a fifth set by the 153rd-ranked player in the world. A more fascinating and bizarre start to Wimbledon there has never been.

TV COVERAGE NOTES: I beg ESPN to remove Hannah Storm from ever covering tennis again. Her inane and ignorant presence nearly detracted from the occasion. I also plead with all announcers to cease from the intersports analogies. I must have counted 50 times when Brad Gilbert or, more annoyingly, Patrick McEnroe compared the marathon match to other sports. It's a useless and simplistic device that commentators employ.