When I made the Man Crush Hall of Fame, there was one thing I struggled with: eligibility. You see, in sports, the various Hall of Fames (Halls of Fame?) usually have a grace period that a person must pass prior to being eligible. Basically, active players are never inducted (in basketball, you're not eligible until five years after you've retired.) I like this idea a lot, because not just anyone should make a Hall of Fame. It's not for people that were good. It's for the few people that were great. For example, a guy like Chauncey Billups. He was a very good player. He won an NBA Finals MVP, a championship, and had a very good career. He will also probably retire after this season. Now, upon retirement, every good player has a few days/weeks/months of praise. People/fans/media/teammates are excited and eager to celebrate the player's career. And they should be. But, in that wave of excitement, people caught up in the hype might consider such things as a Hall of Fame induction. Chancey was good. But I don't think he was a Hall of Famer. Give a committee five years to cool down from the excitement of 'career celebration' mode and they'd probably come to that same conclusion.
I'm not saying I'm not immune to getting caught up in the excitement either. Had there been a Man Crush Hall of Fame in 2006, Gerard Butler might have been inducted into it the very moment I saw 300. I was just that excited about him. However, looking back now, (there was no Hall of Fame, so even though it wasn't really a 'grace period', it still ended up being one), I am happy that I wasn't so rash. I like the man. But he's not a Hall of Famer.
Basically, it's like this: if the Academy Awards were the Hollywood Hall of Fame (and in some ways, they kind of are), do you really think Crash would have been named Best Picture in 2005 if the committee had to wait five years prior to crowning a winner? No way. Time (and public opinion) has not been kind to that movie. In fact, it might not have even been nominated by a committee in 2010. But, because cooler heads were never given a chance to prevail, they now have to list that turd as the best movie of the year for 2004 for the rest of time. Same with Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, and Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas.
My point being, I really like the idea of a five year grace period prior to eligibility in any Hall of Fame.
"But Travis" you say, "Jim Carrey still makes movies, Schwarzenegger just released that Last Stand movie, and Gord Downie could probably make music for another 30 years at this point. And yet all of them made your Hall of Fame…"
Well, I… err… um…
Ok, fine. Maybe I did do the opposite for this Hall of Fame than what I just described as 'the only way every Hall of Fame should ever be done.' You don't have to be such a jerk about it…
But ya, that's what made some of these decisions difficult. Because a Man Crush is different than an athletic career. It's hard to fully justify a five year grace period because Bill Murray might not technically be retired for another 20 years. Jackie Chan might last another 10. None are likely to ever regain the same amount of Man Love that I once felt for them, but it still feels silly to wait 20 years to properly honour them. And this choice - Kevin Smith - was one of the tougher ones. I haven't been nearly as into to him as I once was. But, should I assume my once great love is only going to keep fading, and induct him in the Hall of Fame now? Or should I leave the door open for a come back? I don't know. For now, he remains on the list, but just know, this was one of the tougher Hall of Fame vs. Active List decisions that I had to make.
#9 LeBron James
New Entry
I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with LeBron James. I hated The Decision. I hated the creation of a super team in Miami. I hated that they threw a freaking parade before they had even played a single game together. I hated that he disappeared without explanation in back-to-back years of the playoffs, in the most important games possible. I hate that he's a little too aware of how good he is. And I hated The Decision. Did I mention that already? Good. It deserves to be on here twice.
But...
I just love the way he plays basketball. I can't help it. As much as I want to hate him, at the end of the day, I just can't. I'll never root for Miami. But I can't help but root for James on an individual level. I want to see him perform at his best every single time that I watch him. I never want him to have a bad game, even if I still almost always hope that the other team wins.
The thing about LeBron, that I just simply can't remember ever with another player, is that I'm just in constant awe of him at all times. Other players have moments of awe here and there, but never complete and constant awe like James. He's just a specimen beyond belief. He's able to do things that just shouldn't be possible. There are no holes in his game. He scores, he rebounds, he is a brilliant passer, and in my opinion the best (and certainly the most versatile) defender in the league. No one has ever been that well rounded. Scottie Pippen? Maybe. Grant Hill, pre-foot injury? Perhaps. But LeBron is still at another level than even those very great players.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still think Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. And I don't think, even at his current pace, that LeBron will surpass him. Jordan was just too crazed of a competitor, and in order to supplant MJ at the top of the list, LeBron would have to be too. And he's just not. He's plenty competitive, don't get me wrong. But for Jordan, it was almost a mental disorder. A sickness. And while it was probably what made the difference between him simply being great and being the greatest of all time, it's not a burden I would wish upon anyone. Even LeBron.
That said, if he did have it. If he did have that unrelenting drive to be the absolute best. To win every game at all costs, having no concern for the wake of destruction left in his path. Then once you factor in his ability, and his physical gifts, he absolutely could be better than Jordan. And he's one of the few guys that you could ever say that about. Ever.
You cannot claim to be a fan of basketball and not love what LeBron James is able to do on a basketball court. If you're not in constant awe of him then there is something wrong with you. You don't have to like Miami. You don't have to defend The Decision. But I don't know how you cannot love LeBron James. My boy Bill Simmons said it best (as he often does): "If you love basketball, I really hope you're appreciating this."
#8 Jemaine Clement
Previously Ranked: #6
I still love me some Jemaine, but seriously, I need more of him in my life than I'm currently getting these days. Obviously more Flight of the Conchords would be ideal, but even if that's not in the cards, I would taken any other option provided to me. Something. Anything. Please.
#7 Bryan Cranston
New Entry
It's no secret how much I love Breaking Bad. It's not just the best show currently on television, but also one of the greatest ever. We really are in a golden age of television. In fact, TV probably surpassed movies a couple of years back, in terms of being the better medium for story telling. A notion that would have been nothing short of laughable back in the 80's or 90's. But it's true. There's just no way to squeeze the amount of narrative, character development and emotional investment into a two hour movie like you can over the course of a well-planned out season of television. And that's why, now that the proper time, attention and money is starting to be invested in great television shows, that they are now at the unsurpassed level of quality which we are currently seeing.
But that's not the only reason Cranston is here. No, he's just a great dude. Funny, self deprecating, humble. Just a ridiculous ball of talent, that never for a second let's any of it go to his head.
And don't forget, it's not just Breaking Bad, he was also in several episodes of one of the other greatest television shows of all time, too: Seinfeld.
#6 Bill Simmons
New Entry
Back when I made the original list, I had only been introduced to Simmons a few months prior. I was enough of a fan even then that Sneep predicted he would make that original list. But, alas, he did not.
Since then, it has been non-stop Simmons in my life, and I couldn't be happier. He influences my opinions on basketball. He convinced me to watch The Wire (his pick as the greatest television show of all time). And his weekly columns and regular podcasts are all consumed by me with great anticipation, and rarely end in disappointment.
He is the highest 'New Entry' on this list. And he couldn't be more deserving of the honour (assuming being on some random dude with a Blogger account's Man Crush list is actually an honour...)
Much of my Man Love for Matt Damon last time around stemmed from my love of the Bourne Trilogy. One might think that since he wasn't in the most recent Bourne movie - the only one released since the last list was made - that this might hurt Damon's ranking on this list (and maybe raise up Jeremy Renner in the process). Not only is that not the case, but it's even maybe increased his stock a little bit. The last Bourne movie just wasn't very good. Disappointing, is perhaps the best term to describe it. Was that due to a lack of Damon? Maybe. Maybe not. It certainly didn't help.
#14 Jason Statham
Previously Ranked: #10
I haven't seen anything he's been in since the last list came out. That can't be a good sign. Of course, I don't really see as many movies these days as I used to, and a few looked like they might have been worth my time. So take that statement with a slight grain of salt. I still love the man, but at this point it's mostly for the things he did 10-15 years ago. Also: Statham has been around for 15 years?! I'm getting old...
#13 Clive Owen
Previously Ranked: #9
Again, another previous Top 10 guy whom I haven't seen a single movie that he's been in since the last list was made. Only this time, it's for a completely different reason: he just hasn't been in anything. Statham has been in stuff, I just haven't seen it. Clive just kind of… disappeared. Hopefully he'll be back and better than ever, but as with Statham, right now, my love is still mostly based on fond memories from the past.
#12 Quentin Tarantino
New Entry
I love Tarantino the director. I really can't decide about Tarantino the man. Is he a genius? Is he a self-important, pompous, blow hard that thinks the sun rises and sets solely for him? Or is it all just a TV/Awards Show/Late Night persona that bubbles to the surface whenever the cameras are rolling? I'll probably never know, but the one thing I do know is that he's batting damn near 100% in terms of me loving each and every one of his movies.
I mean, even the ones that were kind of 'm-eh' (Jackie Brown, Death Proof) were still decent. And the rest are all classics (or damn close to being classics). Whether you agree with that statement or not, you still have to admit, no one makes movies like he does. There's just nothing even close. There are better movies, sure. Maybe even more entertaining movies. But there is nothing else quite like a Tarantino movie. And considering the success he has had, you would think that the studio executives would be working around the clock trying to find some hack who could do a decent enough Tarantino impression to cash in at the box office. When you're as well known and successful as he is, and yet there's still no one else like him out there, that's pretty impressive. I don't know if I love the man, but I definitely love his movies.
#11 Trey Parker and Matt Stone Previously Ranked: #21
Considering it's now about to start it's 17th season, and has remained consistently funny throughout each an every one of those years, South Park has to be in the running as one of my favourite television shows of all time. Sure, it's not as funny as The Simpsons was in it's heyday. Nor are it's five best episodes better than the five best episodes of Firefly. In fact, it's probably not even close. But in terms of being consistent, I'm not sure I can name any other show that has been this good for this long. Sure, there are always a few stinkers in each season. In fact, the stinkers are starting to get a little more common as the seasons go on. But still, 17 seasons alone is nothing to sneeze at. And considering that I've had South Park in my life longer than I haven't, I think it's safe to say that the two guys that are the driving force behind it have certainly earned this spot on the list.
Barkley
is an absolute anomaly. I mean, he was barely over 6'4" and yet, not
only did he play Power Forward in the NBA (most Power Forward's are 6'9"
or 6'10") but he also dominated the position as well. In fact, up
until Tim Duncan (7'0" by the way…) came along, he may very well have been the
greatest Power Forward of all time. That's impressive enough, but factor
in his size and it's damn near staggering.
That said, that's
not why he's here. Well, not the only reason, anyways. No, he's here
because of his larger than life personality. He's just a smart, funny,
and knowledgeable dude. He's that rare person that, despite being a
little crass, everybody loves. And of course, most famously, he speaks
his mind like few others can. And that candid, unfiltered candor is
definitely what most people love and respect about him. Myself included.
#19 Craig Ferguson
Previously Ranked: Honourable Mention
I only consistently watch one Late Night talk show: Craig Ferguson. I'll
catch clips from Conan, Fallon and Kimmel when they start making the
rounds online, and I'll sometimes check out a guest or musical act that I
really like if they do Leno or Letterman. But in terms of actually
sitting down and watching a show start to finish, only GP the
Fergs get that honour.
I can't really even put my finger on it (what I love about the show so much) either. I guess it's because the it just sort of feels like it's entirely off the cuff. Sure, there's
at least 25% scripted/rehearsed material per night, but the rest genuinely
feels like its just being made up on the spot. Maybe it's not, I honestly don't know, but it feels like it is. And I like to think I have a pretty good nose for sniffing out such things.
Of
course, 'off the cuff' doesn't mean a damn thing if it's not funny. And
that's what makes it so great: it's as good as, if not better than the other - fully scripted - late night shows, but with the feeling that it's all
just being made up as the night goes on. The whole thing sort of feels
like, 'Well, not many people watch us (the CBS executives included…), so let's just do what we want.' And there's something endlessly
endearing about that to me. Plus, the guest interviews feel more
genuine and are way more interesting than most other shows, as they too feel completely unrehearsed, and more like two people just having a conversation.
Basically, I just can't see a production meeting where some CBS guy in a suit is pulling all the strings, saying things like "Hey, Craig, just hit on the guests, and tell dirty jokes with a foul-mouthed rabbit hand puppet." The
whole show just feels like they give Ferguson carte blanche to do whatever he
wants, and everything on screen is really just an extension of Craig
being Craig. None of it works without him. Which is a fairly bold move, when you think about it, because he has a very specific brand of humour that not everyone will be into. I mean, he got one of those bad two-man-horse halloween costumes back when that Secretariat movie came out in 2010 for a one-off gag, and somehow it's become a main character on the show. His sidekick is a robot skeleton which, on paper, is kind of stupid, but in reality, is one of the show's strongest elements. And it all comes down to the great dynamic between Craig and the guy that operates the robot (Josh Robert Thompson - who is great at keeping up with Craig during the improv, while also providing a ton of really good voices and impressions).
That's why I'm convinced the show isn't scripted or planned out. Because none of the best moments that happen make sense/work on paper, or would make it past a pitch meeting. Craig just goes out there and trusts that he can find the funny moments without the need for a prepared joke or elaborate setup. And he's smart/witty/quick enough that he can feel when a moment is working and knows to stay with it until it becomes
something great (or, just as importantly, when it's not working and it's time to bail) and the other people around him on the show do a great job of keeping up with him, and are able to react and build on a bit if he suddenly throws it to them without warning. And it's that sort of stream of consciousness, non-sequitur humour that the show lives and dies by. Which is also what I love about it. Rather than trying to be all things to all people, it would rather just really appeal to the small group that share that same very specific brand of humour. A group which, based on this Man Crush, obviously includes myself.
#18 Jeremy Clarkson
Previously Ranked: #25
Not much to say here. I still love Top Gear, and I still love Clarkson.
#17 Joseph Gordon-Levitt
New Entry
I remember watching 3rd Rock from the Sun
when I was young. I don't remember much about it specifically, and all that I really do remember about it is that it was
just a fairly standard, run-of-the-mill sitcom. That there was nothing particularly exceptional about it, or enough to raise it above the rest of the formulaic fare of the era (gag, laugh track, everything back to the way it was by the end of the episode, rinse and repeat).
What I really don't remember about it is
ever thinking at the time that the kid that played Tommy might some day be one of my
favourite actors. He wasn't bad on the show, but he didn't stand out by
any stretch of the imagination. So, when Brick and The Lookout
came out, and I thought to myself, "Isn't that the kid from that John Lithgow
show? Well, this is probably going to suck…" you can imagine my surprise
when not only did I really enjoy both movies, but the kid from 3rd Rock
was actually really good in them.
(500) Days of Summer was one of the better Rom-Coms that I've seen in recent memory, Inception was solid, The Dark Knight Rises, while disappointing overall, had it's moments, and Looper
was the best movie of last year. Maybe even the last three years. Not a bad
resume. Enough to get you a on the Man Crush list at any rate.
While
I still don't love him quite as much as Jemaine, I will fully admit
that since the last list was made, a period during with which Flight of the Conchords
(my main source of love for both men) has all but disappeared, Bret has
been the far more successful of the duo. I mean, his work on The Muppets movie was dripping with Flight-eqsue goodness, and I think anyone would agree that they'd rather have an
Oscar (like Bret does), over being like main villain in Men in Black 3 (like Jemaine was). Either way, Bret deserved to be on the list last time, and throw in his more successful post-Flight career, and I don't think I need to justify this Man Crush any further.
A fairly large drop, but still in the Top 25. And it's clips like this (sorry about the swearing) that do it for me. Just a great sense of humour about himself.
#24 Will Arnett
Previously ranked: #19
His post Arrested Development career hasn't been great, but a new season is coming at the end of May, so even though he's clinging to life on the list right now, he might have skyrocketed up into the low teens the next time I revisit this thing.
#23 Nick Offerman
New Entry
Obviously without the greatness of his Ron Swanson character on Parks and Recreation, I probably wouldn't even know who Offerman is. But still, it's a pretty great character, and one that might be enough to get him on this list from that greatness alone. On top of all that, the small amount I've seen of him outside of the show, not only suggests that the man and the character might not be so different from one another, but between some solid appearances on the Carolla podcast and two of the better Reddit AMA's that I've seen, he has definitely earned his place here on the list for more than just Parks and Rec.
#22 Joel McHale
New Entry
Again, the assumption here is that my love of Joel McHale stems entirely from my love of Community. And while that is mostly true, McHale has been on my radar for slightly longer than that. I used to enjoy The Soup on a fairly regular basis. And again, his appearances on the Carolla and Nerdist podcasts have pretty much cemented the fact that he's a pretty awesome dude in 'real' life as well.
#21 Conan O'Brien
Previously ranked: #15
Conan makes me laugh almost every time I watch something of his. So, why don't I watch his late night show then? I don't know. I used to. But for some reason, I just don't anymore. I still love the man, but if I can't summon enough interest to watch him on a nightly (or even semi-regular) basis, I can't help but have him slip a bit on this list as well. Super solid to follow on Twitter though. One of the best.
The revised Man Crush list features ten new entries from last time. Which is no small amount, really. Six of the previous entries on the list have already graduated to the Hall of Fame as of last week, but that still leaves four spots that must be vacated in order to make room for the new people. Unfortunately for these folks, they just didn't quite have what it took to make the Hall of Fame, and instead, simply dropped out of the Top 25 altogether.
They are:
Tony Jaa (previously ranked #24): Don't get me wrong, Jaa is an impressive dude. But to be a Man Crush you have to check more than just one box. I fully admit that I was maybe a bit hasty when I put him on the original list.
Gerard Butler (previously ranked #16): I'll admit that I was blinded by my love of 300 when I originally put him on the list. He's done nothing to maintain his spot since then. Moving on.
Adam Baldwin (previously ranked #14): I love Firefly, I do. And the first few seasons of Chuck were pretty good as well. But sadly, they aren't enough to keep Baldwin in the Top 25.
Ryan Reynolds (previously ranked #17): I said it best in my original
write up for him: "If it's good enough for Scarlett Johansson, then it's
good enough for me." Well, my girl Sco has since tossed him to the curb, and so
am I. Actually, that's not the real reason. in fact, this was probably the hardest cut for me to make, since I still think
he's a pretty funny/modest/awesome dude in real life. He's definitely still a Man Crush, just not quite Top 25. Although a quality movie/television release could very easily win me back over.
Well, it's finally happened. I've been doing this blog long enough that I can actually start doing posts about the posts that I have already posted. Enough time has lapsed. So, what I'll be doing over the next several weeks is revisiting a few lists (Man Crush, Cars, etc…) and updating them to reflect any changes/regrets/updates that may have come to pass in the time since they were posted.
First up will be the Man Crushes.
That list was made in early 2010, and now that over 3 years has passed, it could certainly use an update. My biggest issue with the original list was that I didn't know how to rank historical Man Crushes. Was the list a ranking of where these guys were at their very peak, when I was most in man-love with them? Or was it the way I felt at that very moment? I mean, in 1995, my love of Hakeem Olajuwon was a 10 out of 10. But, by 2010, he hadn't played a game in ten years. Sure, I still remembered him fondly, but since so much time had passed since his absolute peak, he had probably faded to a 4 or 5. When the list was being made, Robert Downey Jr. was fresh off Iron Man, and was riding an all-time high of around 7. So, do I put Hakeem ahead of Downey based on his peak of 10 vs Downey's 7, or should I have gone with the ranking as of the day the list was made (5 vs 7)?
In the end, I went with the latter. It made more sense, and felt like a better reflection of me at the time. But, every time I got to the Hakeem's, and Bill Murray's, and Jackie Chan's of the list - guys that I loved greatly, but hadn't been doing enough work to pop up on my radar in recent years - it felt weird to rank them so low on the list, knowing that at their peak, they would have been ranked much higher.
So, I've come up with a solution. Before I revise the list officially, I'm going to create a Man Crush Hall of Fame. This way, I can retire some of these names that really deserve to be on the list, but just aren't as active in my life as they once were. Then the Top 25 can return to being about fully in the moment, and these all-time great guys won't be relegated to the lower rankings that they really don't deserve.
Without further adieu: The Inaugural Class of the Man Crush Hall of Fame:
George Carlin
Jim Carrey
Jackie Chan
Gord Downie
Chris Farley
Michael Jordan
Shawn Kemp
Jason Lee
Bill Murray
Hakeem Olajuwon
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jerry Seinfeld
John Stockton
Christopher Walken
Honourable Mentions: (Guys that I came to love after learning about them long after their time had passed. Hard to say I had a Man Crush on them - hard to put them in the Hall of Fame as a result - but easily would have been Man Crushes, had I been around/alive/aware of them during their peak, and therefore deserve mention)
Andre the Giant
Bill Hicks
Bruce Lee
Paul Newman
Ayrton Senna
Jerry West
Last week’s post was a bit of an accident. It started out with the intention of being nothing more than a brief introduction to the post that I was actually trying to write, wherein the karma stuff would serve to get it started, and after a few quick paragraphs about it, I would tell the Tegan & Sara setlist story before doing a flimsy transition into the real story that I was planning to tell. As you can see, it soon spiraled out of control, and before I knew it, I hadn’t even gotten to the main story and I was already 2600 words in.
So, I did what any self respecting writer with even a grain of integrity would: I trimmed off all the fat, kept only the most important thoughts and points, told the story that I intended to, and posted the new, concise, and much more focused piece with a sense of great personal satisfaction.
Yeah, right…
Really, I thought to myself ‘sweet, I can actually squeeze two posts out of this turd…’ and clicked ‘submit’ without a second of hesitation. I could worry about the rest of the story later (ie: right now) and better spend the time watching a few episodes of Deadliest Ice Road Cupcake Wars before bed.
So, picking up where I left off last week: I had just told the story of how I selflessly gave up a genuine Tegan set list to the young girl sitting beside me at a Tegan & Sara show. Did I mention how noble it was of me? No? Because really, it was borderline heroic. Anyhoo… what I didn’t tell you was how I came to be at this particular Tegan & Sara show. I know, I know, you’re dying to know. And that’s why I’m going to tell you.
Wait. You’re actually still reading? Bless your heart. I’ll try not to make it too boring. Thanks for indulging me.
First and foremost, you have probably already figured out that this was not the Edmonton show. I mean, it’s pretty obvious with the clues I’ve already given, and you’re not a complete idiot, right? But what you may not know is that when they announced the tour, I had actually told myself that I would only do the Edmonton show this time. In the past I had made the drive to Calgary as well, and while I felt it was absolutely worth it each and every time, I still decided that I would just take in the one show this time around. Then they announced the venue: The Shaw Conference Centre. It's not a bad building, but man, it is definitely one of my least favourite concert facilities in Edmonton. So, already less than thrilled, when the VIP tickets (those which got you the aforementioned meet & greet) sold out instantly, even though I clicked away as quickly as I felt was humanly possible, I found myself more disappointed than excited about the show, once the dust settled.
Then I saw that Saskatchewan was still going on sale in an hour. And I saw that the venue was much more intimate, and would have much better acoustics. And more importantly, when I clicked on the 'buy' button, simply to see what was available before clicking cancel, I saw that not only could I have VIP, but I would also be front row, and just about centre on where Tegan normally stands. And, being a man of weak will, and little self-restraint, instead of 'cancel' I clicked 'accept'.
That's how I found myself on the road to Regina. Driving 16 hours in a 33-hour span, simply to get another meet & greet, and the best concert seats ever. And believe me, it was worth every mile, and every dollar spent on gas and stale gas station hot dogs. I'm not sure if it was the seats, or the venue, or the banter, or what, but the Regina show was much better than the Edmonton show. At least, it felt that way to me. But, I'm getting ahead of myself, because sometimes the journey is more important than the destination. In this case, the destination was pretty awesome, but still, I needed to get there none-the-less, and not wanting to be late, I felt that if I left at 7am, I would arrive at my hotel with 3 hours to spare. Sure, it was another hour to drive to the venue (I took the cheapest hotel I could find, which happened to be in Moose Jaw), but I still figured this would give me plenty of time and room for error.
Well, if you know anything about me and my relationship with mornings, it should come as no surprise that I didn't really get going until about 7:45, but it didn't matter, I still had over an hour of leeway, right? Of course, it wasn't until I noticed five hours into my drive that for some reason my car clock was now different than my phone's clock, that perhaps I was mistaken. You smarty-pants readers at home probably know the simple reason for this already: I had passed into the central time zone. But stupid-pants Travis hadn't considered this at all, And just like that, my last hour of leeway had vanished into thin air. Suddenly I was in the one position that I never wanted to be in.
I was in a rush.
Now, up to this point the roads had been fine. The cruise control had been set to a steady 122 km/h, and really, I could have easily gone faster on such a clean/clear surface, had it not been for my fear of getting nabbed by the Five-O. But now, I suddenly found myself in a hurry. I hadn't showered that morning (figuring I would have plenty of time to kill before the show), and I now had to decide between shaving 20 minutes off the drive and another 20 off by not showering and heading straight for Regina, or risking it all, and sticking to the plan of stopping in Moose Jaw first. My hotel didn't have a late check-in, so it was either head straight to Regina, be super greasy and smelly for my meet & greet, and then have no room to check into once the concert got out and I drove the hour back to Moose Jaw, forfeiting the money I had already paid for the room in the process, or go for it.
I decided to go for it.
With about two hours to go, suddenly the roads got bad. Not undriveable, but any thing over 100 km/h soon became a distant memory. I arrived at my hotel with exactly 11 minutes left to shower if I was to hold any hope of making the meet & greet before the 6pm deadline. I was scrubbed and shampooed in record time, slapped some gel in the hair, brushed my teeth and was on the road with 50 minutes to spare. Of course, Google Maps was
predicting it would take me 54 minutes to make the journey, and it was making
this prediction based on being able to average the 110 km/h speed limit that spanned the entire stretch of highway between me and my destination. It did not take into the account the Top Ten worst road conditions that I have ever driven on. It did not take into account that this was the photo of Regina that had been tweeted from the International Space station mere moments earlier.
Now, I hesitate to tell the next part of this story, because, well, I'm not proud of it. In fact, I'm damn near ashamed. But, it was a decision I made, so I might as well accept it. You know when the roads are awful (like, the type we’ve had here the past few days…) and you see a guy that's driving way too quickly for the conditions, and you almost wish that he would hit the ditch, just to teach him a lesson? Well, on this particular night, that douche was me. On a highway with a 110 km/h posted speed limit, the conditions were so bad that no one was doing over 70. Even the big jacked up trucks with testicles hanging from the back. Every inch of exposed pavement was pure ice. But, due to a strong, relentless side wind, one that could (and would) easily unsettle any car, there was not much of this exposed pavement visable at all, as it was mostly buried under a blanket drifting snow.
This is what stood between me and destiny. And I had come much too far to give up now. I had been on the road for over eight hours at this point, and I would sooner bury my car in the ditch than have come all this way for nothing. So, I went for it. I threw caution completely (and literally) to the wind, and I went for it. I needed to stay in the 100km/h range, or I stood no chance of making it in time. I could slow to 90 when it got extra sketchy, and could squeeze 110 when it wasn't, but I needed to average triple digits. It was stupid of me. It really was. I was passing cars and trucks like they were standing still. I stopped counting the number of cars and trucks - some rolled on their sides and roofs - buried in the ditch once I ran out of fingers to count them on.
Every part of me was telling me that this was a stupid thing to be doing. But I pressed on. My death grip on the steering wheel was causing my knuckles to turn pure white and numb, aching from the constant pressure being applied to them. The car came completely loose more than once, each time causing my heart to skip a beat before sending needles of cold blood coursing through my veins. My eyes were starting to feel strained from over-use, endlessly darting around on the horizon ahead for any sign of impending danger. But the clock wouldn’t stop relentlessly ticking away - wouldn't stop counting down the minutes until I would inevitably have come a long way for nothing. So, I pressed on.
Of course, you're reading this now, so you know that I made it. It had been one of the stupidest things I've ever done, but I made it. And, I probably shouldn't admit this, but it was absolutely worth it. I burst through the front door at 6:02, collected my VIP laminate, and had my arms around both of them before you could even say ‘hover hands’. Of course, if you read about my last encounter with them, you'd know why I was perfectly happy to be at the back of the line (I felt this got me an extra minute or two of face time last time). So, when suddenly the back of the line became the front, and I was the first one up, I was thrown for a complete loop. My heart was already practically beating out of my chest from the harrowing drive over, and combined with the excitement of the moment, I was pretty frazzled.
But I like to think I did ok. I didn't swing for the fences with some obscure song request like last time (although I did almost laugh when the first thing Tegan said to me was: "Any requests for tonight?") I got a pretty awesome set of autographs (I'm not a huge autograph guy, but the idea I pitched to them was actually pretty clever, if I do say so myself). And, once again, we parted with hugs all around.
It hadn't lasted as long as my previous meet & greet, but combined with the great concert, best-in-house seats, and the swell people that I befriended along the way, like I said, in the end, every mile, dollar and even stupid risk of my very safety had easily been worth it.
(Also, there's no way of knowing for sure, but since me and the girl next to me got tired of everyone sitting down for the entire show, and decided to try and get everyone out of their seat by leading the charge, there is a 28% chance that this tweet is referring to me... )
I don't
believe in karma. Not really. At least, not to the point where I believe that
there is some mystical energy keeping track of all good and bad deeds, and this
same omnipresent force also doles out the appropriate cosmic reward/punishment
for each and every action a person performs. Now, I'm not saying that being a
good person and doing good things is completely meaningless either. Au
contraire. I very much believe that if you do good things, good things will
happen to you. But, I’m saying these good things are more likely the result of
human nature than some magical entity that we call karma. If you give off a
positive vibe and do good things for people or society in general, then of
course, your chances of having good things happen back are increased.
If you
help an old lady cross the street, maybe a guy will see you do it and think to
himself ‘what a good person’, and maybe he’ll be the one giving you an
interview for a new job later that week. And maybe that little deed is what
made him choose you over the other candidates. That's not karma - you weren’t owed that job by the cosmos - that's just human nature. More likely nothing
tangible would ever come from it, aside from you making an old lady’s day a
little better. If you’re a good person, you’re just more likely to be in
situations that could result in good things happening for you. Not because of
karma, but because other good people are going to gravitate towards you. They
tend not to gravitate towards guys that lie, cheat and steal.
So, while
I don’t believe in karma, I do still try to do what's 'right'. I mean, that
might sound like a no-brainer, but it feels like too many people pick and
choose to do the right thing only when it’s convenient for them. It’s good that
they ‘try’ to do the right thing most of the time, but imagine how different
the world would be if everyone did it all the time.
For
example, today I bought some concert tickets. They were only selling 100 of
them, and once they were gone, anyone else hoping to attend would have to win
their way in. As such, they were in very high demand. I was lucky enough to add
a couple to my bin before they sold out, but I easily could have bought a few
more and sold them for three of four times what I paid. But that's not really
the 'right' thing to do, is it? So, I left those extra tickets to be claimed by
another person - hopefully someone that’s as equally grateful as me that they
will be able to attend. I didn’t do it because I now think karma will owe me
something. Nor was I afraid that bad karma would catch up with me either.
Sure, I could have justified scalping those tickets to myself pretty easily, and not lose a wink of sleep over it either. For all I know, the next person did
just buy those tickets to sell them 5 minutes later at a huge mark up. That
person has no more or less of a right to do it than me, so really, if it was
going to happen anyways, why shouldn’t I have been the one to do it?
Justification
is such a tricky thing. Rather than actually considering what is ‘right’ and
what is ‘wrong’, we spend the majority of our time trying to justify to ourselves
how something we know is ‘wrong’ could technically be viewed as ‘right’. Or at
the very least, ‘not wrong’. I mean, no one wants to think of themselves as
‘wrong’. I doubt that Charles Manson woke up every day and looked in the mirror
and thought ‘you’re wrong, you’re evil, you shouldn’t be doing this… but let’s
do it anyways, just because!’ Of course not. As easy as it is for us to see how
wrong he was, some part of him must have been convinced that he was right. It’s
just human nature. Heck, maybe justification is just a natural reaction your
mind has to being wrong. You know, just like you can’t hold your breath until
you die, maybe you can’t do wrong without your brain automatically justifying
it.
For
example, I have a penchant for downloading videos from torrent sites. I know
it’s wrong, but I somehow justify it to myself as ‘not wrong’. Basically, for
TV shows, I tell myself ‘Hey, I pay for cable, I could be watching these shows
as they air, so really, I technically pay for this.’ With movies, I tell myself
‘Hey, if I like a movie, I buy it, I have a ton of DVD’s and Blu Rays on my
shelves, so if I download a movie, it’s because I was never going to pay to see
it anyways (so it’s not like they were going to get any money from me if I
didn’t download it), and if I do like it, I’ll buy it.’
What I
don’t want to admit to myself is simple: I’m wrong. I just am. Stealing is
stealing, and this is stealing. Every time I click download, I’m spitting all
over the tablet that the 8th Commandment is carved upon. (And the
only reason I even know about those tablets is because I downloaded that Charlton Heston movie for free off the internet…) Just because Warner Brother’s
is a big faceless corporation, just because one movie viewed for free from one
insignificant guy in Canada is barely a drop in the ocean for them either way,
just because actors get paid more than they should, and theatres charge too
much for their tickets, doesn’t mean I’m magically justified in stealing it. I may think that I’m just balancing out what I perceive to be a discrepancy,
but the simple truth is, I want to see the movie, I don't want to pay for it.
The ‘right’ answer is to either pay full price or not see the movie at all. But
I don’t like that answer. So I make my own answer. And that, my friends, is how
society works. People don’t like to accept the cold hard truth, so they go the
extra mile to try to justify a new truth. Even if it’s not the ‘right’ truth.
There’s
an expression in basketball: “It’s not a foul if the ref doesn’t call it.”
Meaning, you can get slapped around and hit all over as you go up for a shot,
but it won’t matter one bit unless the ref blows his whistle. Which, really, is
just a part of the game. A ref isn’t going to see everything, every time. The part
that I find interesting is that because of this, people tend to blame the ref
in such instances, more than they blame the person that actually fouled them.
That the other player is almost let off the hook - maybe even expected to try get away
with however much the refs will allow him to. And while not all of society
plays basketball, almost everyone operates under a similar philosophy: if I can
get away with it, I should do it. And this might be the biggest reason that
society is fundamentally flawed.
The referee
is not the problem. To me, looking to the ref is the same as us looking to the
government. Sure there is stuff we need the government to do (just like
basketball will always need refs), but when we feel wronged, too often we look
to them to solve the problem, rather than looking at the actual source of the
problem itself. Adam Carolla makes a great analogy about this type of thing.
I’m paraphrasing here, but basically he says that our society is like a
capsized boat. All we ever worry about is how to get the boat upright again,
but we never concern ourselves with what tipped the boat over in the first
place. Sure, we might get it upright again, but that’s not going to stop it
from capsizing again later on.
Basically,
it’s like this: when I was a kid, we’d go out trick or treating for Halloween.
While we were gone there would be no one left at home to hand out candy. So, we
left a bowl out front with a ‘Please Take One’ sign next to it. You can
probably guess what happened next: Some kid showed up, looked around, saw no
one was watching, and dumped the whole bin into his pillowcase. No one else got
any candy that night. That’s our society in a nutshell. Sure, a lot of people
think ‘That’s terrible…’ but sadly, plenty of people also think: ‘Good for the
kid, gotta look out for number one…’ And the problem is, this didn’t just have
an affect on one night. Because of it, we didn’t bother putting out candy the
next year. So instead of everyone getting plenty of candy for years to come,
one kid got a small amount of candy one time.
Was it my parent’s fault for
putting out the candy in the first place? Of course it seems stupid to blame them, all
they were trying to do was have candy available for all the kids. They trusted that people would do the right thing. And yet,
people are just as likely to say that they 'should have known better' as they are
to actually blame the kid for being greedy. It’s almost like, kids are supposed to be
greedy. But my parent’s simply should have known better than to put the candy out in the first place.
But can’t
we all agree that society would be better if we could leave out the candy? That
even in terms of ‘what’s best for me,' that the kid might have gotten more candy in
the long run by being able to come back every year and take his fair share,
rather than only getting to take more than his share once?
What
if we’re not talking about Halloween candy, either? What if we’re
talking about welfare or worker’s compensation? Sure, it might feel like free
money to some people, but at the end of the day, that money has to come from
somewhere. We’ve all heard the stories of people abusing the system. At
some point something is going to have to be done about it. And maybe that
‘something’ will stop the people from abusing it, but also prevent many honest
people that actually need these services from getting them too. Wouldn’t it
just be easier if no one took welfare unless they really needed it?
And
that’s the problem. How do you do that? How do you stop people from being
greedy/lazy? Can it even be done? Are we too far gone as a society to ever hope
to fix that? Will we always think that one person can’t make a difference? When
everyone else is benefiting, and you feel like you’re the one person trying to
do what’s right, and it’s not making a difference, it’s pretty tempting to just
join back up with everyone else, and at least help yourself out in the process.
So, which is it? Am I a fool for trying
to do the right thing, even if it’s sometimes at my own expense? Or am I right
to try and lead by example, even if it’s never likely to bring about any change?
For example: I was at a Tegan and Sara concert recently. I had really,
really (really) good seats in the front row (dead centre on Tegan) and next to
me was a young teenaged girl and her mother, who had gotten her daughter the
tickets for Christmas, and they had driven up from North Dakota to see the show
together. This girl had never been to a T&S show before, and she was super
excited. Now, I'm not saying I'm not excited at T&S shows - far from it -
but there’s no way my excitement could match that of a teenaged girl, there for
the first time. You often hear that having a child is great because you get to
experience the world through their eyes, as if for the first time again. Well,
this T&S show was like Disneyland, and this little high school lesbian was
like having a 4-year-old son. Her excitement. Her false hope (that Tegan would
somehow notice her over everyone else in the crowd, and be smitten). Not
knowing what to expect, or when to expect it. What songs they might play. What
banter they might engage in. Everything. It reminded me of a time long since
passed, in which I had gone through the same gamut of emotions at my first
show.
And the
show was great. The music was perfect. The banter, epic. And the seats couldn't
have been better. And, seasoned veteran that I am, I already knew what the
perfect souvenir would be. So, when they took their final bows, and exited
stage left, I sprung out of my seat and snagged the set list (the small piece
of paper that each artist keeps taped to the floor so they know which song
comes next). Now, this wasn't just any set list. This was Tegan's set list. It
was a pretty great score. And I was beyond thrilled to now hold it lovingly in
my hands. But then I looked over at my new concert buddy, and saw a look on her
face that said 'ah, the set list… I never would have thought of that… I'm
trying to be happy for you, but I just can’t stop my jealousy from showing…'So,
after a slight pause, I handed it to her. In the moment it felt like the right
thing to do. But now, I'm trying to decide whether or not I regret it.
Sure, she
absolutely lit up at the gesture. I had probably just put the cherry on the
sundae of this already epic trip for her. And it had felt really good as I did it. But at the same time, I easily could
have kept it for myself. I hadn't wrestled it out of her fingers. Or pushed her
to the ground to make sure I got to it instead of her. It was mine to do with
as I pleased. But I've been to many T&S shows. I have a set list already at
home (granted, not Tegan's personal one… but still). Maybe she'll never have
the chance to go again. Maybe even if she does, she'll never be in range to
grab the set list. Maybe I did the right thing. I'm not sure. I really would
have liked it for myself. But in that moment, it meant more to her - at her
first concert - than it did to me at my… err… not-first concert.
Maybe
she'll move onto Lady Gaga in a week and throw the set list away. Maybe she'll
cherish it forever. Maybe what felt like the right thing to do to me, now has her
laughing with her friends back in Fargo about the sucker that foolishly handed
it over, as they post it on eBay. I'll never know. But it sure would be nice if
there was such a thing as karma. I mean, not to dislocate my shoulder patting
myself on the back or anything, but I think karma would have to reward me
pretty big for that one, right?
I mean, logically speaking, they shouldn't, right? But obviously conventional wisdom has proven that more often than not, they do. Don't worry. This isn't the 'woe is me' post that most perpetually single, consider-themself-to-be-a-nice-guy-but-can-never-find-a-girlfriend, sexually frustrated dudes like me, might normally be gearing up to make at this point. No, I'm not bitter.
Really, I'm not.
If you're a guy working from a distinct disadvantage (in this case, being an asshole) and can still get many a fine young lady to fall for you, that's no reason for me to be mad at you. What is an asshole supposed to do? Never date? "Sorry, you should put your clothes back on. Jerks like me don't deserve to see naked ladies…" It's not their fault that they're just doing what works. The only person you should be mad at is yourself. You're the one that's working without this disadvantage but is still unable to get the same results. There's no point in getting mad at the ladies either. "Boo hoo… girls say they want a nice guy, but they always end up with jerks." As though a girl might overhear it and think, "you know, that guy has said that 300 times already tonight (and let me tell ya, it gets more attractive each and every time), but he's right…" and boom, suddenly all the ladies in the world will be into the nice guys that complain at parties about not being able to find girls.
When has complaining about the way something fundamentally is, ever changed it? If girls like jerks, then it's your own fault for not being a jerk. Leveling all the blame at the guys that are jerks in the first place or the girls that fall for them is like getting mad at the sky for being blue. The sky doesn't know how not to be blue, it's just doing what the sky does. It's your fault for wishing the sky was red.
The real question you should be asking yourself is 'why is the sky blue?' Or, more specific to this blog, 'why are girls drawn towards jerks?' Although we could try to figure out the sky/blue thing too. I mean… what is it? Like, the reflection of the ocean or something? Wait… why is the ocean blue, then? Is it just a reflection of the sky? But if the sky is just the reflection of the ocean, and the ocean is just a reflection of the sky, then which came first, the sky or the ocean? Wait, what do you mean that they have nothing to do with each other? Man… science is hard.
Err... sorry. Where was I?
Ah, yes. Look, I'm not saying every guy should start acting like a jerk. If a girl was drawn to the sight of a jerk like a bull is drawn to sight of the colour red (yeah, yeah... the whole bull/red thing is a myth… I know. Didn't I already establish my scientific ignorance when I didn't know why the sky is blue?), I'd have done it years ago. Obviously there's much more to it than that. Being a jerk alone isn't the source of the attraction. The key is figuring out what it is that could be so great that makes a jerk's jerkiness worth putting up with. And, when you think about what women are attracted to, and what common traits jerks process, it does kind of all make sense.
First, and most importantly (in my opinion) is the initial: is the person into the other person or not? I've discussed it at length previously, but to recap, a person will overlook and ignore a lot of your flaws if they're really into you. They will go out of their way to spend time with you. They will want to talk to you, be around you, and they want you to want to be around them too. It's simple stuff. Unfortunately, the delusion a lot of guys easily fall victim to is that despite the obvious signs, there's always the chance that she's just 'playing hard to get.' Because that's what girls do when they're super into you: Never call or text you. Find excuses to cancel on you when you're supposed to get together. Date other dudes… All because they're playing 'hard to get.'
But, as it pertains to this discussion, most importantly: if a person is into you, they'll be more apt to look past your flaws. Flaws such as you being a bit of a jerk. Or if they're super starry-eyed-smitten from the start, you being a big old fat jerk. But how does a girl get so 'starry-eyed smitten' to begin with? Is it all just based on how a person looks? Is that what I'm saying? Good looking guys can be jerks, because girls will always fall for them after just one glance?
Well, yes and no.
I don't think that a good looking guy gets up every morning, winks at himself in the mirror and declares "Man, we are one good looking guy, reflection. In fact, we're so good looking that why don't we just be complete jerks to everyone we encounter today? What are they going to do? Not love us? Please… not when we're this good looking!"
Well… maybe some guys do that (I'm looking at you, Hoff). But probably not all of them. That said, even if it's not a conscious decision, I do think that being good looking does make it easier to evolve into a jerk. Not over night. Not over a weekend. But over the course of an entire life? Of course. Look, attractive people will always have it easier than the rest of us. If two people go in for the same job, they have the exact same resumé, are both equally charming during the interview, but one person is good looking and the other is not, guess who the job is going to? Is it fair? Not really. But that's just the way society and human nature works. There's no point in losing sleep over it, that's just the sky being blue.
So, if you're a kid, good looking, and ask to borrow a dollar from another kid to buy a chocolate bar. The kid, naturally inclined to seek the approval of a good-looking alpha male, might go so far as to say "here you go, you can have it." The good-looking kid isn't going to turn down a free chocolate bar, and gladly accepts. Smash cut to a year later, and maybe the good-looking kid doesn't ask to borrow the money anymore. Maybe he's so used to the other kid just giving it to him at this point, that the conversation sounds a little more like "hey, give me a dollar for a chocolate bar."
A jerk is born.
When you don't hear 'no' as much as everyone else growing up, you just kind of get used to hearing 'yes'. And eventually, you're an adult that's used to getting things your way, expects that people want to make you happy, and somewhere along the way, started thinking that you might just be a little bit better than everyone else. It's not necessarily a choice you made, but how else are you going to turn out if that's how people have been treating you every single day of your life? If you were told by every person you ever met, every day of your life, that you were a duck, eventually you'd have to start believing that you were a duck. If everyone treats you like you're better than them, eventually you're going to start thinking you're better than them.
Look, I'm not saying every good looking guy is a jerk. I'm just saying, I can see why attractive people are more inclined to turn out that way.
But, not every girl is so quick to be smitten by a pretty face. In fact, girls are way less concerned with looks than guys are. So, if not looks, what else attracts a girl to a guy on first sight? Well, word on the street is that few things are more appealing to a lady than confidence. And, well… if there's one thing jerks don't seem to lack, it's confidence. Again, not all confident guys are jerks, but almost all jerks are confident. I mean, you almost have to be to get away with it. It's hard to be a sheepish jerk.
So, what does any of this have to do with me? I mean, there must be some connection, right? Otherwise why would I bother mentioning it? Well, funny you should ask. You see, while it's pretty easy to say that being good looking and having confidence are good ways to attract women, I have another theory as to why girls might like jerks. Now, obviously I could never go fully down the jerk road to test this, no matter how much I'd like to try (I can only imagine the look right now on the poor bastard's face that accidentally stumbled upon this blog after Googling 'Jerk Road' expecting to get something completely different…), but on a scale of Friendzone Tool to Complete Asshole, I have dabbled in the Aloof area of the spectrum a bit. Now, the theory behind Aloof is that if a girl is good looking, then most guys will bend over backwards to please her. They'll do favours for her, buy her things, and find any excuse that they can to be in the same room with her. And I can only imagine that while flattering (and I'm sure they'd never want it to stop), at some point it also becomes a bit tedious.
So, by that logic, if every guy is constantly fawning over them, wouldn't the guy that didn't fawn at all, stand out just a little bit? Not a lot. But at least a little bit. No drunken texts sent at two in the morning declaring love, no flimsy excuses as to why you need to meet up on Saturday night for dinner, no Valentines chocolates 'because we're such good friends…' None of it. Just complete indifference. "Ya, you can pick up that CD you wanted to borrow, but make it quick, I've got things to do." You can see how it's sort of like a distant cousin of the jerk, but without, you know, the complete jerkiness.
I think it's rooted somewhat in the 'people want what they can't have' theory. Sure, as much as you'd like to look at an attractive girl across the room at a party, have her look back at you, give each other a quick once over, nod in agreement of mutual attraction, and then spend the rest of your lives together, really, that's no fun. There is some thrill in the chase. If a girl is used to always getting who and what she wants, then it doesn't matter if she actually wants you, just knowing that she can't have you is enough to make her want to prove that she could get you if she really wanted to. It's sort of like, "wait, I'm supposed to be the one that's not interested in you… not the other way around." It's the reason rock stars almost never end up dating their fans. Most of the time they prefer someone that has basically never even heard of their band before. Why? Because a fan is just sitting there waiting to be given the green light to pounce, the non-fan has to be chased.
Does it work? Well, in my experience, not really. It still comes down to whether she's into you, or she isn't. Again, not much is ever going to change that. There's a big difference between 'thrill of the chase' and 'thrill of the never-going-to-happen.' But, I will say this, in the small bit that I've dabbled with aloof, I can see why it works. I can see why, when cranked up to 'jerk' levels, a girl can basically wonder to herself 'man, nobody ever talks to me or treats me like that, why isn't he doing whatever I say, and telling me I'm beautiful all the time, like every other guy I know?' and it's almost fascinating to them. And they start to think about it some more. And then again at work the next day. And just like there's no such thing as bad publicity, soon, all that matters is that the only guy she's thought about in the last few days was the jerk. Does it matter why she's thinking about you, so long as it's you that she's thinking about? Well, girls always seem to end up with assholes, so I guess the answer is obvious.
(In case it's not that obvious… Yes. The answer was yes.)
First, a quick recap of my predictions from last week:
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
My prediction: Team Shaq (148) over Team Chuck (136)
[MVP: Kyrie Irving]
Actual result: Team Chuck (163) over Team Shaq (135)
[MVP: Kenneth Faried]
I didn’t actually watch this game, so I don’t have too much to say about it.
Sears Shooting Stars
My prediction: Team Harden
Actual result: Team Bosh
Look, I rag on this event a lot, but it’s not that bad. They just need to tweak it a little. By the end we’ve just seen too much of the same thing. If they just made this event a one round, winner takes all, it wouldn’t be the target of so much of my scorn.
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
My prediction: Damian Lillard
Actual result: Damian Lillard
I actually got a prediction right? Don’t get too used to it…
Foot Locker Three-Point Contest
My prediction: Stephen Curry
Actual result: Kyrie Irving
Kyrie shot the lights out in the finals. It was breathtaking to watch. To start the round, he only missed one of his first 18 shots. Just let that sink in for a second: 17 for 18. Not free throws, three-pointers. Amazing.
62nd NBA All-Star Game
My prediction: East (155) over West (143) [MVP: LeBron James]
Actual result: West (143) over East (138) [MVP: Chris Paul]
LeBron didn’t quite stand out as much as he did last year. In fact, Kobe did a really good job guarding him at the end of the game, something I wasn’t sure that Kobe was still capable of doing anymore. I don’t love the guy, but man, you gotta respect how good Kobe still is, even with all the miles on his body. The Chris Paul MVP nod was great to see, and well deserved. He really did do a great job of getting people involved, controlling the game, and scoring when he needed to. Best point guard in the league, if you ask me. It’s too bad about his spotty health, really. If he could have put together a career at the level he’s capable of (15 solid years with only a few minor injuries here and there, not having to pick his spots and save his knees for the playoffs, but rather playing all-out, every minute that he was on the floor) he could have been one of the 10 or 15 best players of all time. Who knows, it could still end up that way, but I worry that his body will let him down in the long run. Which is too bad, because when he’s playing at his highest level, it’s just a joy to watch.
Sprite Slam Dunk Contest
I had pretty high expectations for this dunk contest. I get the impression Kenny Smith was feeling the same way, as he predicted several times during the broadcast that this would be one of the 10 greatest Dunk Contests in All-Star history. Which, as a guy that loves to make lists, got me thinking: What are the Ten Best Dunk Contests of all time? And then I realized how dangerous and time consuming such a thought might be, and quickly moved on…
And, while this didn’t end up being in the Top Ten (at least, off the top of my head) it definitely wasn’t in the Bottom Ten either. And it was way better than last year. So, without further adieu:
Gerald Green
Dunk 1
Gerald Green comes out swinging here. Ya, it’s not going to win you the contest, but not every dunk you do, can. I mean, even in the great contests of all time, not every dunk was a 50. Even Vince, who most people agree had the greatest performance* of all time, had a few ‘filler’ dunks. They were still good, but everyone remembers the 360º he opened with, the off-the-bounce East Bay, and the elbow hang. The baseline 360º and step-inside-the-foul-line two-hander were fine, (more than fine, really) but they’re not exactly the lasting images that everyone remembers from 2000.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that while this wasn’t a contest winner, it’s still the type of dunk you need to win a contest. A very good, very solid, mid-40 dunk, that keeps your score up, gets you into the finals, and gives you the chance to unleash that epic dunk that will be the one that wins the contest. To me, this is a very good way to come out of the gate: an impressive, crowd-pleasing dunk, made on the first attempt. It gets the crowd on your side, loosens you up, gets your juices flowing, and sets the stage for better things to come. Hopefully. *MJ vs Nique in ’88 might (might) be a better battle, but individually, I think you have to give it to Vince in 2000.
Judges Score: 50
My Score: 44
James White
Dunk 1
I mentioned during my predictions that I’ve had my eye on James White for a while. Not as a basketball player (he’ll never be more than a deep bench guy… although in the NBA, that’s still nothing to sneeze at) but rather as a dunker. And, as a dunker, I’ve seen him do this dunk in practically every contest he’s ever been in for the past 12 years. And you would think that this might turn me off (one of my only beefs with MJ’s contests was that he basically did the same dunks in ’88 that he did in ’87). But it doesn’t. This dunk is just a thing of beauty. The grace. The hang time. All of it. I love this dunk.
Now, I’ll admit, he’s a step over the foul line here. And, while on or behind the foul line is always better, that doesn’t mean being a step over somehow negates the dunk entirely. Sure, if you’re just doing a simple one-hander, with no added flair, then the dunk lives or dies on the foul line placement. But this dunk is so good regardless, that while yes, I will concede it would be improved with the added distance, I do think the judges and broadcast guys were a little too hung up on the foul line then they should have been.
Judges Score: 45
My Score: 49
Terrance Ross
Dunk 1
I don't pretend to be an expert of much. But I do like to think I have a pretty good handle on dunking. Especially 'competition dunks' (dunks that you would never see in a game, but rather have been carefully crafted/honed for a dunk contest). As such, there are a few dunks that have been on my radar for a few years, that i have been eagerly awaiting someone to master for the NBA Competition. They are, in no particular order: The Earl Manigault (also known as the 'Double Dunk'), the 720º, and the Kobe. Why do I call it the Kobe? No, he didn’t invent this dunk the year that he won the Slam Dunk Contest (1997). Nor did he magically throw it down during a game or even in the warm up line before a game.
No, it’s because of an Adidas commercial in 2001. The premise of which was that a couple guys had just seen Kobe do the greatest dunk that they’d ever seen. They never show the dunk, or even describe it or give any details about it, you just see the excitement in their reaction, and it’s left to your mind to only imagine what this dunk could possibly have been. It was an effective approach, because after that much hype, nothing they could have shown you could ever live up to the expectations that you had built up in your mind. So, of course, eventually Adidas decided they had to actually show it. Because that’s what stupid people in suits do. They put up their hand in advertising meetings and say “So, when do we get to see the dunk?”. And the poor guy from the Creative Department, that came up with the whole concept, yet makes a third as much as anyone else in the room, sighs, deflates like a balloon, and tries to mutter “Well, the point is that we never see it, because, you see, as long as….” and without skipping a beat, the guy in the suit goes “No, I think we should see it.”
I’m complaining, but really, I shouldn't be, because the resulting commercial was actually pretty cool. In fact, I think it’s much better remembered historically than the original commercial that preceded it (seeing that I can’t find it anywhere on YouTube, but the follow up is on there 20 times.) And all it was, was basically just 60 seconds of Kobe doing a bunch of crazy dunks. Now, a couple of the dunks were so crazy that I’ve never believed that they were real. There had to be some wires, or computer trickery in there somewhere. But in between the madness, there were a couple of realistic, but still really cool dunks. And the one that always stuck out for me – and apparently lots of guys in the NBA as well - was the behind-the-back 360º. Keep in mind that this was 2001. No one had ever done a behind-the-back dunk before (in fact no one actually did until 2005) so to combine that with the 360º, and because it was so smooth and looked so good (the pose in the air, the power on the dunk, everything) to this day, I’m still not sure if Kobe actually did this dunk for real during the commercial shoot, or if they used the same wires or CGI that I assumed they did for the other dunks.I mean, it's believable enough that he could have, but because of the other 'over-the-top' dunks in the same spot, you do have to wonder.
Regardless, guys have tried more than once to get this dunk down over the years. And much to my delight, they’ve always credited it as an idea they got “watching a Kobe Bryant commercial a few years back.” Which, as the guy that immediately yelled at the TV “He’s trying to do the Kobe!” as it was happening only to be met with blank stares from everyone else in the room, it was hugely rewarding to have the player actually admit as much mere moments later while being interviewed. It’s kind of pointless to know a bunch of obscure trivia like that, unless a great moment presents itself and you get to bust it out, have everyone assume that you’re talking out your ass, and then be proven absolutely correct mere moments later. Anyways, to make a long (long) story short, I’ve been waiting on this dunk for a while now, and it was good to finally see somebody not only get it down, but also do it justice. Of course, in a perfect world he would have nailed it on the first attempt, and by the time he finally got it down (the sixth attempt) it had lost a fair bit of it’s luster, but still, great dunk.
Judges Score: 50
My Score: 50
Kenneth Faried
Dunk 1
We are pretty spoiled these days in the dunk contest. I mean, everyone is pretty m-eh about this dunk by Faried (myself included) and yet, really, it’s pretty good. An off-the-glass, 360º, alley-oop, with his head at the rim? That probably would have been enough to win any contest from the 90’s, a good chunk of the ones from the 80’s and even a few from the 00’s as well. And yet, everyone yawns, the TV commentators talk about it deserving 7’s (guys were getting 7’s for missed dunks…) and Faried walks back to the bench with his head down and his shoulders slouched. People act like the dunk contest is played out, that maybe they should get rid of it, that nothing new can be done. I think people just don’t appreciate good dunks. And this was a good dunk. Not a great dunk. Not a 50. But a good dunk.
Judges Score: 39
My Score: 42
Eric Bledsoe
Dunk 1
Here’s another good dunk. And again, it received a very lukewarm reception. But unlike Faried’s dunk before this, it kind of deserved what it got. For one, he had taken four attempts at a much better dunk already, before finally giving up and settling for this one. It’s hard to get excited for a dunk that a guy settles for. Also, well it really is a very impressive dunk for a smaller guy (Bledsoe is 6’1”) it just doesn’t accentuate his small size like other dunks could. The biggest advantage a little guy has is how high off the ground he has to get to do the same dunk as a bigger guy. And, while he is certainly high off the ground to get this dunk, it just doesn’t come off that way. It’s no fault of Bledsoe, it’s just a flaw inherent to the dunk itself. Nate Robinson chose dunks that showed off his small size. And it made a huge difference.
Lastly, this was a dunk that looked much better on the replay. When you see the slo-mo, and the right angle, you realize just how good of a dunk it was. But as it happened live, in real time, it was just kind of m-eh. And that’s what the judges are voting based on, that’s what the crowd is reacting to, and that’s the difference between you sitting up on your couch in excitement while watching at home, or only realizing it’s a good dunk after the third replay is shown. Again, pretty hard to get excited about a dunk only after you’ve already seen it three times.
Judges Score: 39
My Score: 40
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 1
I had very little faith in Jeremy Evans coming into this competition. In fact, if I had picked the full order of finish instead of just a winner, I might have had him coming in dead last. To me, while he was deserving of last year’s win, it had more to do with how badly everyone else had been, than with how well he had performed. He hadn’t so much been the ‘best of the best’, as he had been ‘slightly-less-worse’ than everyone else. As such, I felt the superior field this year would expose him as the ‘fortunate winner’ that I considered him to be. Nothing against the guy, like I said, he deserved the win, but it was a victory of circumstance rather than domination. Plus, I just felt that he was too reliant on props and gimmicks, and I was hoping that people might start to turn on such theatrics, and that there might even be a bit of backlash against such things. Especially with such good pure dunkers in the field, hopefully winning the crowd over with straight up great dunks and making the gimmick dunks look all the more silly by comparison.
And… well, he actually did win me over a bit in this contest. But we’ll get more into that later, because this first one was not the dunk to do it. No, he was back to his old tricks of trying to fool us into thinking a dunk was better than it is by hiding it’s shortcomings underneath a layer of slick theatrics. Sure, bringing out Mark Eaton is nice. He was a great player for Utah back in the day, and I like the respect you’re giving him, but at the same time, the one thing everyone knows about Mark Eaton is that he’s 7’4”. If you’re bringing him out, it should have something to do with his height. Sitting him on a box negates that completely. It might as well be John Stockton at that point. And at least more people know who Stockton is. But regardless of who was sitting there, the dunk itself was pretty m-eh. Not bad, but not great either. Add in the four attempts to get it down, and trust me, sitting at home, I was smugly thinking that the cracks in the armour were already starting to show.
Judges Score: 47
My Score: 39
James White
Dunk 2
And then the wheels came off…
Obviously, missing a dunk is never a good idea. Especially when they give you so many attempts to get it right. In this case, he took six, and still came away with nothing. The first dunk he was going for could have been pretty cool. Floating, switching hands, getting a bit of power. Having seen so many of his contests over the years, and knowing that he had a penchant for doing almost everything from the foul line, I was pleased to see him mixing it up a little. Don’t get me wrong, it wouldn’t even be sniffing in 50 point territory, but if done cleanly, I could see it being in the 45 range. The same type of dunk I was talking about earlier that doesn’t win you the contest, but gets you into the finals and gives you a chance to win. Not that it mattered, he gave up and went back to his foul line bag of tricks. And sure, a windmill from that far back would be impressive, but even if he had gotten it down, I’m not sure it would have been different enough from his first dunk to merit a high score. I probably would have only given him a 42. But that would only be if he made it. He didn’t even do that. My guy’s night was over. Sorry, James, we'll always have between-the-legs foul line dunks to remember you by.
But, hey, at least I still had Gerald Green up next, right?
Judges Score: 32
My Score: 0 (I don't believe in giving scores for missed dunks)
Gerald Green
Dunk 2
Not so much…
But first a little side jag: I was talking earlier about how there’s nothing better than having a piece of really obscure trivia, and getting to use it. So, the second Green started cutting off the net, I turned to my parents and said “He’s going to do the Earl Manigault Double Dunk.” And they were like “Nani-what?” giving me that look that basically said “We get that you know more about this than us, but come on, do you really expect us to believe you know that he’s about to do some obscure dunk by a guy whose name we’ve never heard before (at least say “Michael Jordan”), just because he’s cutting the mesh down from the basket?” I mean, even I fully admit that this was a pretty specific thing to predict based on not very much information. And then bam, Green goes for the Double Dunk, the commentators mention the name Earl Manigault, and I look like a damn savant.
Or a guy with far too much useless knowledge in his head.
So, the question you might be asking yourself at this point is: “Wait… how did you know that he was trying that exact dunk, just by seeing him cutting down the net?” Well, for starters, I didn’t. Not with anything near 100% certainty, at least. But, having spent countless hours trying to perfect this dunk myself (granted, on a 9 foot rim, rather than the regulation 10 foot height) and having discovered that it was nearly impossible with the mesh intact, I figured I might as well throw it out there. I mean, if I was wrong, no big deal, no one is expecting me to be right about something so odd and specific. But if I’m right… well, it’s almost freaky. Although, to be honest, my parent’s didn’t look nearly as impressed as they should have.
So, I guess the next question you’re probably asking is “Ya, but why were you so obsessed with a dunk made famous by a guy from the 60’s who never played a second of NBA or Division 1 college ball?” Well, you see, back in 1996 there was a decent HBO movie made about the life of Manigault, an infamous New York street baller. And, since back in 1996 I would watch literally any basketball movie that came out (yes, even Slam Dunk Ernest… I wish I was joking) of course I tracked down a copy on VHS and gave it a watch. A scant 120 minutes later, I had became more-than-slightly enamoured with the story of Earl ‘The Goat’ Manigault (this was also the movie that introduced me to Don Cheadle, with whom I also developed an immediate man crush).
The biggest benefit of playing in the 60’s, like Manigault did, is that very few people had access to cameras. As such, playground players became legends more because of the stories of their exploits, rather than cell phone videos posted to YouTube. And, while I admit that I’m sure they came to be greatly exaggerated, I drank up every single story about Earl Manigault that I could find. For example, at 6’1” he would pluck quarters off the tops of backboards to win bets. He once did 36 reverse dunks in a row to win $60. He would often spot his opponents a 10-0 lead at the start of a game and then beat them 11-10. You know, stuff like that. Was any of it true? Who knows. For every guy that says those things are impossible, there are three more guys that swear on their lives that they saw it with their own eyes.
Of all the legends told about Manigault, the most common, the most famous and perhaps even the most believable is that of the Double Dunk. (The quarters-off-the-top-of-backboards one rivals it in terms of fame, but is widely considered to have been a move done by Jackie Jackson originally, and simply ‘borrowed’ by Manigault later on.) Basically, the Double Dunk is where you go up, dunk the ball, catch it after it’s gone through with your opposite hand and then dunk it again, all in one jump. Unlike it’s depiction in the HBO movie (which is how Gerald Green tried to do it as well), The Goat would do it without hanging on the rim, which is what made it such a great dunk. Hanging on the rim greatly lowers it’s impressiveness, which is why I was underwhelmed with Green’s attempt. Well, that and he took 10 attempts, didn’t get a score in, and only completed it afterwards in frustration. Very hard to get excited by that. But, if a skinny white eleventh grader was able to eventually get it down on a 9 foot hoop, then my dream of seeing it done for real will always live on.
(By the way, based on my experience, the key to the dunk is getting the first one down while you’re still on your way up. As such, it’s hard to come ‘flying in’ for the dunk, you almost have to start at a standstill under the basket and just go straight up… which obviously decreases how much height and hang time you can get on the jump,. So while it increases the difficulty, it also lowers the visual impressiveness from a spectator perspective.)
Judges Score: 32
My Score: 0 (40 had the made attempt counted)
Terrance Ross
Dunk 2
Sorry, that last write up spiraled a little bit out of control. I’ll keep this one brief. Not because it was a bad dunk (it was actually a really good dunk), but because I’ve touched on this twice already: This was a perfect example of the ‘not going to win you the contest, but a solid dunk to help you get into the next round’. Smooth. Clean. Powerful. Just a really good, really solid dunk.
Judges Score: 49
My Score: 43
Kenneth Faried
Dunk 2
This is a dunk Jason Richardson did back in 2004. And it still stands as one of the greatest contest dunks of all time (I had it at number #3 on my list). I mean, obviously the J. Rich one will always be special. First attempt, never seen before, never even thought possible, perfect execution… everything. He couldn’t have done it better. Faried’s was nice too - and is easily worth a 50 - but considering it’s the exact same dunk (no added flair, or really, any attempt to improve upon the original at all) it’s hard to really consider it on the same level as the J. Rich original.
Judges Score: 50
My Score: 49
Eric Bledsoe
Dunk 2
Now here’s everything Bledsoe should have done with his first dunk. Great height, high degree of difficulty, puts it through cleanly and powerfully. Great dunk. It’s too bad he wasted his first dunk so badly, as I would have loved to see what he could have done in the finals.
Judges Score: 50
My Score: 47
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 2
This was a tough dunk. Of course, that was kind of obvious when he needed three tries to get it down, but still, the degree of difficulty is very high. Again though, it’s kind of gimmicky. Although I’ll admit that this is at the end of the gimmick scale that I don’t mind. It’s tolerable enough (and actually adds enough to the dunk) that it’s not distracting, so I’ll let it pass. Good solid dunk.
Judges Score: 43
My Score: 42
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 3
Well, if that last dunk was on the acceptable end of the gimmick spectrum, then this one makes up for it in spades by going completely the other way. Ugh. The commentators said it best: the dunk was actually pretty good without the painting. If Evans would just have a little more faith in his dunking ability, and not try to rely so much on this other stuff, he might actually be higher on my scorecard. As it stands, based on my personal scores, Kenneth Faried should have made the finals over him, and after seeing this first dunk, I’m really wishing he had.
Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 38
Terrance Ross
Dunk 3
Side-of-the-backboard, alley-oop, 360º.
Blake Griffin tried and failed in 2011. Derrick Williams did a pretty good job of it in 2012. But Ross one-ups the both of them by making it look even better (bringing it down to the hip and windmilling it home) in 2013. Great dunk. I don’t even mind him wearing a Vince jersey in tribute (a gimmick that I used to love, but has been so over-used in recent years, that it was really starting to annoy me) since he didn’t try to build up the reveal of the jersey with unnecessary theatrics or shoehorn in a dunk that was sort of like something Vince did in 2000. No, he just showed up for this dunk, already wearing it, not drawing attention to it, and just doing what he would have done anyways. At this point, he would have to really blow his last dunk to not walk home with the trophy. Unless of course Evans did something crazy for his final attempt…
Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 48
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 4
Ok, maybe not crazy. But this was a great dunk. A great dunk. No gimmicks, just straight up floating, posing, hanging and putting it home with authority. Like I said in the beginning, Evans did kind of win me over by the end of this dunk contest, and this was the dunk that did it. I don’t know if it’s to his credit or detriment. Like, in one way, it shows what a good dunker he is, but in another way, it shows you how every other dunk could have been so much better if he hadn’t been trying to make each one so gimmicky. Regardless, it had looked like Ross might run away with it, but suddenly we had a contest again. At this point, it really could have gone either way.
Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 49
Terrance Ross
Dunk 4
And we have a winner. Sure, Evans had the better dunk, but this one was good enough, that when you factor in both of the dunks that each guy did in the finals, Ross easily comes out on top. And, when you consider that Ross had the best dunk of the night (behind-the-back-360º) and was consistently the best dunker each round, it’s only seems appropriate that he got to hoist the trophy. The voters got it right. The best man won.
Judges Score: N/A (Fan Voting)
My Score: 46
My prediction: James White
Actual result: Terrance Ross .
