I saved this one for last. Why? Because for once I not only have an opinion on this, but for the first time ever, I also have experience that directly relates to the topic at hand. I know, right? Who knew?
Which brings us to: Can a guy and a girl just be friends?
I'm pretty sure the general consensus is a resounding 'no', but I stand firmly in the 'yes' camp. Why? Because I've had many successful friendships with members of the fairer sex. Now, this tends to lead to the assumption that I fall somewhere in the spectrum of 'simply naive' all the way up to 'completely oblivious about the world in which I inhabit'.
While I can't deny my naivety at times - I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in assuming that everyone is inherently 'good', when this is obviously not always the case - but I don't consider myself an oblivious person at all. If anything, I over-analyze the small details way too much. That said, my response (or often lack thereof) to such analysis can understandably be misconstrued as such. And while I understand why this is, all I can do is try to assure you that it is not the case. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.
Now, before you shake your head and start to question every opinion I've ever had, in response to this unpopular claim that guys and girls can in fact be friends, let's get a few things out of the way: First, and most importantly, I'm not saying that every guy and every girl can be friends. Not at all. There are certainly many instances where this is not possible in the slightest. Secondly, there's a very different situation that one can find themselves in called 'the friend zone'. This is a completely different scenario, and rarely ever turns out well.
With that out of the way, here's why I think that a guy/girl friendship can work:
The main reason that people assume a co-ed friendship is impossible is of course, attraction. The assumption is always that one or possibly even both of the 'friends' are actually hoping that the friendship leads to something more. That one of the them is attracted to the other, and either they've been told they can't be more than friends by the other person, and they hope they can wear them down over time, or else they haven't had the guts to make their move yet and let their intentions be known. And don't get me wrong, this is undoubtedly the most common example of a male/female friendship, and is always, without fail, going to come crashing down at some point.
These friendships are pipe dreams, and quite frankly are impossible. The main reason being, that whether they even realize it or not, one of the people doesn't even want to be friends. They may be patient, they may even be willing to convince themselves that they can just be friends. But eventually the other shoe will drop. Not always in a negative way, mind you, I'm sure some do evolve into that relationship that they were hoping for. But as a general rule, if at least one of the 'friends' is attracted to the other, even in a small way, the friendship is ultimately doomed to fail.
So, moving past that, once we've found the rare two people that have absolutely no attraction to one another, the next thing that people can't get past (and therefore discredit every co-ed friendship because of) is the simple question: Why? Some people definitely have a singular opinion of the opposite sex. Like, a woman is only good for marrying, impregnating, or sewing. So, if you're not after any of those things, then why would you even bother with them? Obviously, no one wants to admit to that narrow and ultimately sexist mindset, but it's actually a pretty common response to a legitimate male/female friendship. Maybe not as blatantly as I've laid it out in my example, but there are definitely people that don't understand why a person would want to be friends with a lady if they don't have some other underlying motivating factor.
And these people will probably never be convinced. So, I'm not even going to bother trying. Just know, some people genuinely enjoy the company of each other, regardless of gender, and not because they eventually want to jump each other's bones.
Trust me, I know. I've been friends with a girl from high school for over 13 years now. And I know I have no interest in her beyond friendship, and I have to assume the same of her, since she's definitely not the type to hold back from expressing her feelings, so I doubt very much she would have kept them bottled up for over a decade. By contrast, I've also been in friendships where interest in an eventual relationship has been the ultimate goal. So, honestly, I do know and am able to recognize the difference between the two.
But if you still have trouble believing that, then let me tell you about another type of guy/girl friendship that most people have trouble wrapping their minds around, that I have also been involved with. Well, actually, I haven't really ended with a good tease in a while, so really, I should say: let me tell you all about it... next week.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships III
Last week we got into how you might feel if your significant other had to make out with someone because of their job. You know, like if they were an actor or an actress or an accountant or something. Regardless of how you felt about it, you have to admit, in that scenario, at least you knew about it and sort of had a say in it. Even if they chose the job over you, you still had a say in it.
But what if you didn't? That's right, could you forgive a cheater?
Randy was watching Extract the other day, and thought that the ending implied that (spoiler alert) the couple stayed together in the end. That got him thinking about the aforementioned question at hand. And when Randy starts thinking, guess who the poor bastard is that has to listen to it? Well, now you all get to share in my pain.
As per my usual disclaimer, in which I fully admit to having no real grounds to be giving an opinion on any of this, I should mention that I have never been in love. And I can't honestly claim to know how that sticky little emotion might change my perspective on any of this. I can only guess based on how I think I would feel. So, again, take this all with a grain of salt.
First and foremost is the popular mantra 'once a cheater, always a cheater'. Which I fully endorse. It takes a certain moral ambiguity to cheat on someone that you claim to care about, and I don't think that sort of inherent character flaw is the type of thing that just goes away simply because you got caught once. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say whether it can even be corrected with time and counselling or not. But for the most part, I think it's is a very good rule of thumb. If they cheat on you once, no matter how sorry they seem, there's a pretty good chance they'll cheat on you again, eventually. It's like waking up after a night of drinking, with an awful hangover, and promising yourself that you'll never drink again as long as you live. In that moment you honestly mean it (just as I'm sure an apologetic cheater does). In your mind, you absolutely won't drink ever again. But how many people honestly stick to that promise in the end?
And it's all tied in with that same little character flaw that let's them cheat in the first place: selfishness. To me, the sort of person that cheats is the sort of person that thinks about themselves first and foremost. If they were thinking about your feelings, they could never have done it in the first place, right? If they cared about you at all, they wouldn't be able to do it, knowing how much pain it would cause you. The fact that they don't - even for that one little instant when they give in to temptation - tells me everything I need to know about them. It's a very revealing moment. You learn more about that person in an instant, than a thousand dates could ever reveal.
Sure, they're all tears once they're discovered. And they should be. They aren't complete monsters (or you wouldn't have cared about them in the first place). But it's the difference between someone that honestly cares about you, and someone that only cares whether or not you know about it. Yes, it makes them sad to know that they hurt you, but the mere fact that they're only sad after the fact, speaks volumes. They may not be selfish all the time, but in that moment of truth, they chose themselves over you. Which, to me, is what would bother me more than anything. The thoughts of her in the throws of passion with another man - while it would be tough - I honestly believe I could get past. It's the knowledge of how easily she could cast my feelings aside for her own enjoyment that would be impossible to get over.
It's sort of like that term 'emotional cheating'. Where people get mad at their significant other for having a relationship with someone in a chat room or something. And the argument is that if there's no sex, then it's not cheating. And when you first hear about it, your initial reaction is that getting upset over some harmless emotional cheating is stupid. That it really can't be cheating without sex. But at the end of the day, I kind of agree with the person that's upset. An emotional connection goes much deeper than a physical one, in my mind. And to not understand why trying to have that same connection with multiple people might upset your partner, well, that's just missing the point entirely. It's not about a text book definition of cheating, where everything is black and white, and sex is cheating and everything else isn't. That's not the way it works. It's all grey area. And it's all different for each person. Some people think simply looking at another person - checking them out, or what not - is wrong. Other people could care less, so long as the person looks but doesn't touch. Some wives don't mind if their husbands go to strip clubs, whereas others won't even let their husband look at the Sunshine Girl.
My point is, you should know your partner. If you really care about them, you know what they consider to be ok and you know what will hurt them. And by still doing that which hurts them, when you know that it does. Well, that's the worst thing you can do. Playing dumb, or trying to stick to some rigid definition of right and wrong, where these things are always right and only these things are wrong, well that's just bullshit. If you know it hurts her, then it's wrong. Simple as that.
So whether it's 'just' kissing, or 'just' having sex, you know when you've cheated on your partner, and while the ability to forgive that transgression will vary based on the person and the severity of the act, at the end of the day, you know if it was cheating or not, and if you chose to still do it anyways, then you just didn't care about that person as much as you'd like to think that you did.
Which brings us to whether or not I would take someone back if they had cheated on me. No, I don't think I would. Not because I think adultery is unforgivable - which some people do, and have every right to - but because I think that their true character has been revealed, and honestly, that is not the sort of person I want to be around. It's kind of like the type of person that would torture and kill a puppy. I almost think they should be punished worst than the guy that accidentally ran over an old lady in a cross walk. Not because I value the life of a dog more than the life of a human, but because I think it speaks to a much deeper sickness. If you can look a cute puppy in it's adorable face and without regret, hit it or burn it or cut it or beat it, then there is just something wrong with you. You are broken and probably cannot be fixed. On a strictly psychological level, that guy is a bigger threat to society than the accountant that wasn't paying attention when Nana needed to cross 32nd and Vine.
I'm not trying to compare animal cruelty and manslaughter to cheating, at least not in terms of the severity of the transgressions, but I am comparing them on a strictly psychological level. I'd be willing to forgive the guy that accidentally ran over grandma, but I don't think I could do the same for the guy that could look something so cute in the face and only wish it harm. Just like I don't think I could ever believe a person that looked me in the eye and told me that they cared about me, but then proved that they really didn't by cheating on me. The end result isn't the point, otherwise having a dead person would of course be far worse than having a injured dog. The point is why they did it in the first place.
But, maybe that's just me. I can't factor in what it would be like to have a wife of 20 years cheat, especially if you had kids. I mean, at that point, what do you do? You may not ever forgive them, but you might need to move past it and stay together for the kids. And like I said, it's different for everyone. Maybe you have forgiven a cheater. Maybe that makes a you a better person than me. Although, I doubt it. Really, it just proves that each person has a different set of standards, and no one person's are right, and no one person's are wrong.
Except for Hitler. I'm pretty sure his were wrong.
But what if you didn't? That's right, could you forgive a cheater?
Randy was watching Extract the other day, and thought that the ending implied that (spoiler alert) the couple stayed together in the end. That got him thinking about the aforementioned question at hand. And when Randy starts thinking, guess who the poor bastard is that has to listen to it? Well, now you all get to share in my pain.
As per my usual disclaimer, in which I fully admit to having no real grounds to be giving an opinion on any of this, I should mention that I have never been in love. And I can't honestly claim to know how that sticky little emotion might change my perspective on any of this. I can only guess based on how I think I would feel. So, again, take this all with a grain of salt.
First and foremost is the popular mantra 'once a cheater, always a cheater'. Which I fully endorse. It takes a certain moral ambiguity to cheat on someone that you claim to care about, and I don't think that sort of inherent character flaw is the type of thing that just goes away simply because you got caught once. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say whether it can even be corrected with time and counselling or not. But for the most part, I think it's is a very good rule of thumb. If they cheat on you once, no matter how sorry they seem, there's a pretty good chance they'll cheat on you again, eventually. It's like waking up after a night of drinking, with an awful hangover, and promising yourself that you'll never drink again as long as you live. In that moment you honestly mean it (just as I'm sure an apologetic cheater does). In your mind, you absolutely won't drink ever again. But how many people honestly stick to that promise in the end?
And it's all tied in with that same little character flaw that let's them cheat in the first place: selfishness. To me, the sort of person that cheats is the sort of person that thinks about themselves first and foremost. If they were thinking about your feelings, they could never have done it in the first place, right? If they cared about you at all, they wouldn't be able to do it, knowing how much pain it would cause you. The fact that they don't - even for that one little instant when they give in to temptation - tells me everything I need to know about them. It's a very revealing moment. You learn more about that person in an instant, than a thousand dates could ever reveal.
Sure, they're all tears once they're discovered. And they should be. They aren't complete monsters (or you wouldn't have cared about them in the first place). But it's the difference between someone that honestly cares about you, and someone that only cares whether or not you know about it. Yes, it makes them sad to know that they hurt you, but the mere fact that they're only sad after the fact, speaks volumes. They may not be selfish all the time, but in that moment of truth, they chose themselves over you. Which, to me, is what would bother me more than anything. The thoughts of her in the throws of passion with another man - while it would be tough - I honestly believe I could get past. It's the knowledge of how easily she could cast my feelings aside for her own enjoyment that would be impossible to get over.
It's sort of like that term 'emotional cheating'. Where people get mad at their significant other for having a relationship with someone in a chat room or something. And the argument is that if there's no sex, then it's not cheating. And when you first hear about it, your initial reaction is that getting upset over some harmless emotional cheating is stupid. That it really can't be cheating without sex. But at the end of the day, I kind of agree with the person that's upset. An emotional connection goes much deeper than a physical one, in my mind. And to not understand why trying to have that same connection with multiple people might upset your partner, well, that's just missing the point entirely. It's not about a text book definition of cheating, where everything is black and white, and sex is cheating and everything else isn't. That's not the way it works. It's all grey area. And it's all different for each person. Some people think simply looking at another person - checking them out, or what not - is wrong. Other people could care less, so long as the person looks but doesn't touch. Some wives don't mind if their husbands go to strip clubs, whereas others won't even let their husband look at the Sunshine Girl.
My point is, you should know your partner. If you really care about them, you know what they consider to be ok and you know what will hurt them. And by still doing that which hurts them, when you know that it does. Well, that's the worst thing you can do. Playing dumb, or trying to stick to some rigid definition of right and wrong, where these things are always right and only these things are wrong, well that's just bullshit. If you know it hurts her, then it's wrong. Simple as that.
So whether it's 'just' kissing, or 'just' having sex, you know when you've cheated on your partner, and while the ability to forgive that transgression will vary based on the person and the severity of the act, at the end of the day, you know if it was cheating or not, and if you chose to still do it anyways, then you just didn't care about that person as much as you'd like to think that you did.
Which brings us to whether or not I would take someone back if they had cheated on me. No, I don't think I would. Not because I think adultery is unforgivable - which some people do, and have every right to - but because I think that their true character has been revealed, and honestly, that is not the sort of person I want to be around. It's kind of like the type of person that would torture and kill a puppy. I almost think they should be punished worst than the guy that accidentally ran over an old lady in a cross walk. Not because I value the life of a dog more than the life of a human, but because I think it speaks to a much deeper sickness. If you can look a cute puppy in it's adorable face and without regret, hit it or burn it or cut it or beat it, then there is just something wrong with you. You are broken and probably cannot be fixed. On a strictly psychological level, that guy is a bigger threat to society than the accountant that wasn't paying attention when Nana needed to cross 32nd and Vine.
I'm not trying to compare animal cruelty and manslaughter to cheating, at least not in terms of the severity of the transgressions, but I am comparing them on a strictly psychological level. I'd be willing to forgive the guy that accidentally ran over grandma, but I don't think I could do the same for the guy that could look something so cute in the face and only wish it harm. Just like I don't think I could ever believe a person that looked me in the eye and told me that they cared about me, but then proved that they really didn't by cheating on me. The end result isn't the point, otherwise having a dead person would of course be far worse than having a injured dog. The point is why they did it in the first place.
But, maybe that's just me. I can't factor in what it would be like to have a wife of 20 years cheat, especially if you had kids. I mean, at that point, what do you do? You may not ever forgive them, but you might need to move past it and stay together for the kids. And like I said, it's different for everyone. Maybe you have forgiven a cheater. Maybe that makes a you a better person than me. Although, I doubt it. Really, it just proves that each person has a different set of standards, and no one person's are right, and no one person's are wrong.
Except for Hitler. I'm pretty sure his were wrong.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships II
I'm no prude, but what's the deal with married actors getting a free pass to make out with their co-stars?
"Oh, it's just part of the job…"
Really? That actually flies? I mean, I can see why the actor's don't complain - they get the best of both worlds - but does this honestly not bug their wives at all? Do we just not hear about it? Is there an unspoken understanding, or is it spoken about quite frequently behind closed doors?
Or is it the greatest scam in the history of all time?
Again, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just curious is all. I mean, it can't not bug someone, right? Seeing their significant other chewing on the lip of the next up-and-coming Hollywood starlet. Sure, part of the job is part of the job - and some benefits are better than others - but that alone can't stop jealousy from rearing it's ugly head, right?
Maybe this is why so many Hollywood marriages fail. We always assume it's cheating or something like that that causes the split, but maybe, more often than not, it's just plain old fashioned insecurity. I mean, I would place actors and actresses at damn need the top of the insecure food pyramid. There's only a handful that are immune to the possibility of a younger/hotter/more-talented-one coming along and taking their job. Imagine then, if you're not getting many offers, your agent isn't returning your calls, you audition to play the cool twenty-something, only to be offered the role of her mom, and then you see your husband doing a guest spot on Californication, completely naked on top of a young girl that's half your age, twice your hotness, and making double your salary. There's no way that doesn't lead to a little resentment.
But that's Hollywood. It's easy to shrug such a situation off as being the problems of some far away, strange place, worlds away from your own. But, in the spirit of Hollywood, let's pretend for a second. How cool would you be with it? Because I'm not a jealous person by nature. I don't think I would care too much if my actress girlfriend was making out with some new dude every week on her Sex and the City-for-a-new-generation type sitcom. Not the least of which is because I'd just be so happy to be dating an actress that nothing else would even matter. But, honestly, I don't think I would be that jealous. Like I said before, if has to bug everyone at least a little bit, right? But all things considered, I think I would be on the low end of that scale. That said, you never know. I might not lose sleep over it at all, or I might catch a hint of something that looks like genuine lust and gather up all her stuff and burn it on the lawn right then and there.
Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm sure I never will. And as much as I like to think that my nickname at the cool Hollywood parties would be 'Cucumber' because I'd be so damn cool with it all, really, I honestly don't know. I've seen guys that fly into a rage when their girlfriend is too flirty with a waiter and I know that there exists in this world normal(ish) guys that are married to porn stars. I'm definitely not the former or the latter. And, as cool as I think I'd be with it, I totally understand those that wouldn't be. There really is no right and wrong here. Different people feel different ways about such things.
Regardless of where you fall on the subject, feel free to forward this blog onto Scarlett Johansson. That way she'll know that it won't be a problem for me, and then, undoubtedly, we'll be married within the year. Thanks.
"Oh, it's just part of the job…"
Really? That actually flies? I mean, I can see why the actor's don't complain - they get the best of both worlds - but does this honestly not bug their wives at all? Do we just not hear about it? Is there an unspoken understanding, or is it spoken about quite frequently behind closed doors?
Or is it the greatest scam in the history of all time?
Again, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just curious is all. I mean, it can't not bug someone, right? Seeing their significant other chewing on the lip of the next up-and-coming Hollywood starlet. Sure, part of the job is part of the job - and some benefits are better than others - but that alone can't stop jealousy from rearing it's ugly head, right?
Maybe this is why so many Hollywood marriages fail. We always assume it's cheating or something like that that causes the split, but maybe, more often than not, it's just plain old fashioned insecurity. I mean, I would place actors and actresses at damn need the top of the insecure food pyramid. There's only a handful that are immune to the possibility of a younger/hotter/more-talented-one coming along and taking their job. Imagine then, if you're not getting many offers, your agent isn't returning your calls, you audition to play the cool twenty-something, only to be offered the role of her mom, and then you see your husband doing a guest spot on Californication, completely naked on top of a young girl that's half your age, twice your hotness, and making double your salary. There's no way that doesn't lead to a little resentment.
But that's Hollywood. It's easy to shrug such a situation off as being the problems of some far away, strange place, worlds away from your own. But, in the spirit of Hollywood, let's pretend for a second. How cool would you be with it? Because I'm not a jealous person by nature. I don't think I would care too much if my actress girlfriend was making out with some new dude every week on her Sex and the City-for-a-new-generation type sitcom. Not the least of which is because I'd just be so happy to be dating an actress that nothing else would even matter. But, honestly, I don't think I would be that jealous. Like I said before, if has to bug everyone at least a little bit, right? But all things considered, I think I would be on the low end of that scale. That said, you never know. I might not lose sleep over it at all, or I might catch a hint of something that looks like genuine lust and gather up all her stuff and burn it on the lawn right then and there.
Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm sure I never will. And as much as I like to think that my nickname at the cool Hollywood parties would be 'Cucumber' because I'd be so damn cool with it all, really, I honestly don't know. I've seen guys that fly into a rage when their girlfriend is too flirty with a waiter and I know that there exists in this world normal(ish) guys that are married to porn stars. I'm definitely not the former or the latter. And, as cool as I think I'd be with it, I totally understand those that wouldn't be. There really is no right and wrong here. Different people feel different ways about such things.
Regardless of where you fall on the subject, feel free to forward this blog onto Scarlett Johansson. That way she'll know that it won't be a problem for me, and then, undoubtedly, we'll be married within the year. Thanks.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships
I know that I start pretty much every blog entry with some sort of "let's get this out of the way right now…" wherein I explain that even though I am clearly no expert on the given subject, and probably have no qualifications whatsoever to be writing about it, I'm going to anyways. It's my way of letting you know that I know, that you know, that it's really not my place to be writing about anything. I'm essentially bursting my own bubble in advance, so that you can't slam me in the comments after the fact, saying something like 'u put the ferrari at 1 butt only have the mclaren at 5, i'm not surprised, since ur a little bitch that drives a '99 cavalier…'
First off, ouch. Second, you spelled 'butt' wrong, and now that I've pointed that out, I am the superior internet guy, loser!
And third, that's why I wrote that whole thing at the beginning. Because I know I don't drive a nice car, I know I don't work for Road & Track, and I know that I'm a little bitch. Wait, what? Dammit. Now look what you've done…
Sure, this all probably stems from a much deeper issue - a general lack of self confidence - and it's probably all just a huge unnecessary waste of effort. But it's just something I do. If you're not used to it by now, well you can… you can…
Ah, forget it. You know I'll take whatever readers I can get.
Anyways, basically, what this all comes down to is this: nothing I have written about on this blog has been because I'm an expert on the subject. But at the very least I've had an opinion on it. A horse in the race, if you will. Not any more. Because for the next few weeks, I'm giving my thoughts on dating, marriage and relationships. We're diving into the fairer sex here, gents. And I'm not going to lie, it's a topic that I'm woefully unqualified to be talking about.
So please, be gentle.
This week, I'm going to ease you in lightly. The topic of discussion, as sent to me by one of my readers, whom shall remain nameless, is as follows:
Well, Randy, I would most certainly consider that 'wrong'. The fact that you would even suggest such a horrible thing is demeaning to your wife and the very institution of marriage itself. You are the kind of man that is giving the rest of us a bad name. Shame on you.
All joking aside though, is it entirely wrong? Isn't attraction a big part of a relationship? I'm not talking about love here. I'm talking about attraction. Just because you're not as attracted to someone as you once were, doesn't mean you've stopped loving them. So, well I'm not saying guys should start telling their wives 'if you put on 5 pounds, we're getting a divorce…', I do wonder if it is really that unreasonable to want to stay attracted to your wife, which might not happen if she puts on 75 pounds.
Needless to say this is not exactly going to endear me to the ladies, and probably makes me sound like a complete asshole - and obviously it's not really something you just come out and say as part of your wedding vows - but I still think it's foolish to just assume that once you're married, you'll stay attracted to each other no matter what. And look, I'm not saying a woman should ever be expected to be like she was in her 20's, now that she's 40 and has pumped out a few kids along the way. But sometimes that's an easy crutch to fall back on too.
That said, after a long day of packing lunches, driving the kids to school, working a shift at the office, picking the kids up, making supper, doing dishes... all that stuff, maybe an excuse is all someone needs in order to lay on the couch with a tub of ice cream and watch The Bachelor. I know the last thing I would be thinking is 'I should get on the treadmill…'
So what's the answer? Women work hard and deserve their downtime. Men have an unfair double standard in which they aren't judged as harshly if they 'let themselves go a little' as they age. And the cold-hard-truth is that it takes more work to stay in shape the older that you get. But none of that changes the fact that if you weren't attracted to a heavy-set girl before you got married, you probably aren't going to be attracted to one after you get married. As unfair as that is, and no matter how much you love them.
And my solution? Well, actually, I'm starting to realize that I'm not exactly easing myself in with this topic of discussion, as I had originally hoped when I first brought it up. In fact, it's pretty much a veritable minefield of potential statements in which I can't possibly hope to come away from without having my foot very squarely lodged in my mouth. But here it goes anyways: as with all things, compromise. Men, don't expect washboard abs, or the ass of a twenty year old. She's older now, and so long as she looks like a woman her age is supposed to, you have nothing to complain about. Ladies, stop asking us if anything you try on makes you look fat. You already know the answer, and we're horrible liars, so knock it off already.
There. Done. I've pretty much eliminated divorce from all of society. Be sure to tune in next week for even more unsolicited relationship advice. Don't worry, it has to be good seeing as how I'll be spending the whole week alone in my apartment thinking about what to say.
First off, ouch. Second, you spelled 'butt' wrong, and now that I've pointed that out, I am the superior internet guy, loser!
And third, that's why I wrote that whole thing at the beginning. Because I know I don't drive a nice car, I know I don't work for Road & Track, and I know that I'm a little bitch. Wait, what? Dammit. Now look what you've done…
Sure, this all probably stems from a much deeper issue - a general lack of self confidence - and it's probably all just a huge unnecessary waste of effort. But it's just something I do. If you're not used to it by now, well you can… you can…
Ah, forget it. You know I'll take whatever readers I can get.
Anyways, basically, what this all comes down to is this: nothing I have written about on this blog has been because I'm an expert on the subject. But at the very least I've had an opinion on it. A horse in the race, if you will. Not any more. Because for the next few weeks, I'm giving my thoughts on dating, marriage and relationships. We're diving into the fairer sex here, gents. And I'm not going to lie, it's a topic that I'm woefully unqualified to be talking about.
So please, be gentle.
This week, I'm going to ease you in lightly. The topic of discussion, as sent to me by one of my readers, whom shall remain nameless, is as follows:
Right or Wrong? To tell your finance that she 'better not get fat'
Well, Randy, I would most certainly consider that 'wrong'. The fact that you would even suggest such a horrible thing is demeaning to your wife and the very institution of marriage itself. You are the kind of man that is giving the rest of us a bad name. Shame on you.
All joking aside though, is it entirely wrong? Isn't attraction a big part of a relationship? I'm not talking about love here. I'm talking about attraction. Just because you're not as attracted to someone as you once were, doesn't mean you've stopped loving them. So, well I'm not saying guys should start telling their wives 'if you put on 5 pounds, we're getting a divorce…', I do wonder if it is really that unreasonable to want to stay attracted to your wife, which might not happen if she puts on 75 pounds.
Needless to say this is not exactly going to endear me to the ladies, and probably makes me sound like a complete asshole - and obviously it's not really something you just come out and say as part of your wedding vows - but I still think it's foolish to just assume that once you're married, you'll stay attracted to each other no matter what. And look, I'm not saying a woman should ever be expected to be like she was in her 20's, now that she's 40 and has pumped out a few kids along the way. But sometimes that's an easy crutch to fall back on too.
That said, after a long day of packing lunches, driving the kids to school, working a shift at the office, picking the kids up, making supper, doing dishes... all that stuff, maybe an excuse is all someone needs in order to lay on the couch with a tub of ice cream and watch The Bachelor. I know the last thing I would be thinking is 'I should get on the treadmill…'
So what's the answer? Women work hard and deserve their downtime. Men have an unfair double standard in which they aren't judged as harshly if they 'let themselves go a little' as they age. And the cold-hard-truth is that it takes more work to stay in shape the older that you get. But none of that changes the fact that if you weren't attracted to a heavy-set girl before you got married, you probably aren't going to be attracted to one after you get married. As unfair as that is, and no matter how much you love them.
And my solution? Well, actually, I'm starting to realize that I'm not exactly easing myself in with this topic of discussion, as I had originally hoped when I first brought it up. In fact, it's pretty much a veritable minefield of potential statements in which I can't possibly hope to come away from without having my foot very squarely lodged in my mouth. But here it goes anyways: as with all things, compromise. Men, don't expect washboard abs, or the ass of a twenty year old. She's older now, and so long as she looks like a woman her age is supposed to, you have nothing to complain about. Ladies, stop asking us if anything you try on makes you look fat. You already know the answer, and we're horrible liars, so knock it off already.
There. Done. I've pretty much eliminated divorce from all of society. Be sure to tune in next week for even more unsolicited relationship advice. Don't worry, it has to be good seeing as how I'll be spending the whole week alone in my apartment thinking about what to say.
Friday, March 2, 2012
2012 NBA All-Star Weekend Results/Recap
Last year I did a pretty thorough Dunk Contest Review after the All-Star Weekend had wrapped up. I've done the same for this year's contest, but first let's have a quick look at how my predictions from the other events stacked up to the final results:
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
My prediction: Team Shaq (135) over Team Chuck (120)
Actual result: Team Chuck (146) over Team Shaq (133)
These were some thoughts that I scribbled down right after the game:
Despite only playing 11 college games, the Cavs were absolutely right to take Kyrie Irving with the first pick over all. That kid is a heck of a player. Blake is still the best dunker in the league. DeMarcus Cousins has a ton of talent, but his reputation as a head case looks to be well deserved. If he can't crack a smile during an all-star game, let alone refrain from starring down teammates when they don't pass to him every possession… I can't imagine what he's like on a nightly basis for the Kings. That's gotta be a sketchy locker room to be in. Rubio is the real deal. He's got to be the most fun passing point guard to come in the league since Nash. Cole from Miami and Morris from Phoenix looked really good. Evan Turner was probably the most skilled player on the court. But John Wall stood out to me the most. I've seen him in small doses these past 2 years, but he looked like an absolute specimen out there. I don't know if I've ever seen a player quicker, or faster with the ball. And his athleticism is off the charts. If he had the basketball skills and IQ of a guy like Turner, he would be one of the best players the league has ever seen.
Haier Shooting Stars
My prediction: Team New York
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
My prediction: Team Shaq (135) over Team Chuck (120)
Actual result: Team Chuck (146) over Team Shaq (133)
These were some thoughts that I scribbled down right after the game:
Despite only playing 11 college games, the Cavs were absolutely right to take Kyrie Irving with the first pick over all. That kid is a heck of a player. Blake is still the best dunker in the league. DeMarcus Cousins has a ton of talent, but his reputation as a head case looks to be well deserved. If he can't crack a smile during an all-star game, let alone refrain from starring down teammates when they don't pass to him every possession… I can't imagine what he's like on a nightly basis for the Kings. That's gotta be a sketchy locker room to be in. Rubio is the real deal. He's got to be the most fun passing point guard to come in the league since Nash. Cole from Miami and Morris from Phoenix looked really good. Evan Turner was probably the most skilled player on the court. But John Wall stood out to me the most. I've seen him in small doses these past 2 years, but he looked like an absolute specimen out there. I don't know if I've ever seen a player quicker, or faster with the ball. And his athleticism is off the charts. If he had the basketball skills and IQ of a guy like Turner, he would be one of the best players the league has ever seen.
Haier Shooting Stars
My prediction: Team New York
Actual result: Team New York
Although I picked the teams correctly, I still didn't even watch this event. And I'm fine with that.
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
My prediction: Tony Parker
Actual result: Tony Parker
2 for 2 with my picks for the Saturday events so far. Can I keep the streak alive?
Chase Budinger (6'7", Houston Rockets)
Dunk 1
I like the self-awareness on this dunk. Because, really, there's no way to say this other than, this is a white dude. Like really white. Something about the blonde hair just makes his complexion all the lighter. In fact, the only way he could look any whiter is if he was an albino. And, as much as we like to think our society has evolved beyond racial stereotypes, you can't help but see this guy and come to a few instant conclusions about him. Particularly about any potential dunking ability that he may or (more likely) may not possess. So rather than be like "I'm just going to come out here and win you over with some nice hops" he does a couple smart things. First, he gets Diddy involved. Think what you will about the guy, but there is a certain amount of 'street cred' that comes with his endorsement that you just aren't going to get if you're jumping over Dirk Nowitzki (although that would be much more impressive, seeing that Dirk is a 7-footer, and Diddy is decidedly not). Second, he references and pays homage (with the t-shirt and backwards ball cap) to one of the great sports movies off all time - White Men Can't Jump - right out of the gate. He's embracing the preconceived notions that eveyrone in the audience has about him right from the get-go. And I think that's smart.
Next up, as much as it pains me, I have to give respect to Diddy (although it's hard to do, when you have to keep calling the guy Diddy). One, for willing to be jumped over in the first place. I mean, it's not that dangerous, but it's not exactly for the faint of heart either. Things can go horribly wrong. And second, he really did throw a good pass. I imagine they must have practiced this a few times, but even with NBA point guards throwing the lobs, I've seen guys need 2 or 3 attempts to get it right, and they got this one down on the first try. So kudos there.
That said, this wasn't exactly a show-stopper. It's a good dunk, don't get me wrong. But it's not a classic. Diddy isn't tall enough to really make this one impressive. But I will give them full points for the slick presentation (theatrical, but concise, not dragging on for too long, or going too overboard) and getting it down on the first attempt.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 16
My score: 41
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans (6'9", Utah Jazz)
Dunk 1
*Yawn*
There's not much here. This would be a pretty basic dunk in a lay up line during warm ups, let alone a dunk competition. The gimmick was supposed to be that he's wearing a camera at eye level so you can see what he sees as he's dunking, but even on a good dunk that still isn't going to make for much of a camera angle. Kind of cool to see once, but again, even on a good dunk it's not going to show you much, unless you're looking right into the rim from the height of your jump. Which he wasn't.
But, even if the camera somehow made for a great point of view shot, that still doesn't change the fact that this was a pedestrian dunk at best. Gotta do better than this.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 37
My score: 35
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Paul George (6'8", Indiana Pacers)
Dunk 1
Jumping over a guy standing straight up is cool. No doubt about it. But it's starting to get played out a bit in dunk contests. I watched both the D-League competition and the amateur Sprite Showdown competition this year, and almost all the dunks in those contests featured jumping-over-guys dunks too. Kind of like, how all we saw for the next few years after Vince went through-the-legs in 2000 was guys doing the same thing. It's impressive, sure. But you can only see it so many times before you start to go "Ok, let's move on to something else…"
But, my own personal bias aside, Roy Hibbert is a legit 7'2". So, clearing him, along with a second guy is no joke. Props should be given. Although, like Charles is quick to point out, he does use a fair bit of that left hand to help him get the height needed. And while it's still impressive, once you factor in a few too many attempts to finally get the dunk, plus the left-hand-vault technique, it does need to be docked a few points.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 18
My score: 44
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Derrick Williams (6'8", Minnesota Timberwolves)
Dunk 1
You know my thoughts on props and theatrics and multiple attempts, so I won't bore you with too much redundancy here. This is just a perfect example of: there's no need to ride in on the motorcycle, it's not impressive enough of a height to clear to really even elevate the impressiveness of the dunk, and a dunk is always better on the first attempt. Always.
But, even with these three things working against it, it was still pretty solid. Good extension on the windmill, decent power. It's not going to win you the competition, but all things considered, not a terrible way to warm up the crowd and get loose on your first dunk.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 19
My score: 39
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Although I picked the teams correctly, I still didn't even watch this event. And I'm fine with that.
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
My prediction: Tony Parker
Actual result: Tony Parker
2 for 2 with my picks for the Saturday events so far. Can I keep the streak alive?
Foot Locker Three-Point Contest
My prediction: Ryan Anderson
Actual result: Kevin Love
Nope. My guy didn't even get out of the first round. But it was a pretty good competition this year, despite some low scores in the finals.
Actual result: Kevin Love
Nope. My guy didn't even get out of the first round. But it was a pretty good competition this year, despite some low scores in the finals.
NBA All-Star Game presented by Kia Motors
My prediction: West (142) over East (127) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Actual result: West (152) over East (149) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Come on, that's a pretty solid prediction if you ask me. I didn't go as in-depth with my notes after watching this game. I just want to say: there is no other player like LeBron. In a game with the very best of the best in the league on the court at the same time, he was still obviously head-and-shoulders that much better than everyone else. Sure, Durant got the MVP (because he had the best stats on the winning team, and they rarely give it to a guy from the losing squad) but LeBron easily had the best game of any player on the floor.
Actual result: West (152) over East (149) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Come on, that's a pretty solid prediction if you ask me. I didn't go as in-depth with my notes after watching this game. I just want to say: there is no other player like LeBron. In a game with the very best of the best in the league on the court at the same time, he was still obviously head-and-shoulders that much better than everyone else. Sure, Durant got the MVP (because he had the best stats on the winning team, and they rarely give it to a guy from the losing squad) but LeBron easily had the best game of any player on the floor.
Sprite Slam Dunk Contest
My prediction: Paul George
Ok, this is a bit out of order, seeing that the dunk competition is before the All-Star Game, but since we're going in depth here, I thought I would save it for last.
First off, let's get this out of the way now: it wasn't a very good contest. There were no big names, and only a few dunks were any good. In fact, some of the dunks that LeBron, Blake, Durant and Iguodala did in the All-Star Game would have been better than 90% of the stuff seen here. And those are dunks done within the confines of a game. A game without any defence being played, but a game, none-the-less. In fact, John Wall's dunk from the Rising Stars game, might have been the best of the entire weekend - including the dunk comp.
But, let's try not to let that get us down. There's still some decent stuff here to talk about. And it's still a dunk contest, so I can't help but analyze it and give way too much of my own opinion on things. But I mean, that's the point of having a blog, right?
The rules were changed a bit this year. Instead of a first round, second round or finals, there was just one round, and each contestant got 3 dunks total. This resulted in less total dunks than ever before, but maybe that turned out to be a good thing. Also, no judges, so instead of giving a score, I instead am including what I would have judged the score to be (out of 50). Another addition this year was the Dunk Intensity Meter, which is a technology developed at MIT to measure the force in which the ball is thrown through the hoop. According to the broadcast, a reading of 10 is 'The energy required to lift a 2L bottle of Sprite™out of a cooler", 33 is the "Energy required to break a human nose" and 100 is the energy or a "150 mph tennis serve".
Dunk 1
I like the self-awareness on this dunk. Because, really, there's no way to say this other than, this is a white dude. Like really white. Something about the blonde hair just makes his complexion all the lighter. In fact, the only way he could look any whiter is if he was an albino. And, as much as we like to think our society has evolved beyond racial stereotypes, you can't help but see this guy and come to a few instant conclusions about him. Particularly about any potential dunking ability that he may or (more likely) may not possess. So rather than be like "I'm just going to come out here and win you over with some nice hops" he does a couple smart things. First, he gets Diddy involved. Think what you will about the guy, but there is a certain amount of 'street cred' that comes with his endorsement that you just aren't going to get if you're jumping over Dirk Nowitzki (although that would be much more impressive, seeing that Dirk is a 7-footer, and Diddy is decidedly not). Second, he references and pays homage (with the t-shirt and backwards ball cap) to one of the great sports movies off all time - White Men Can't Jump - right out of the gate. He's embracing the preconceived notions that eveyrone in the audience has about him right from the get-go. And I think that's smart.
Next up, as much as it pains me, I have to give respect to Diddy (although it's hard to do, when you have to keep calling the guy Diddy). One, for willing to be jumped over in the first place. I mean, it's not that dangerous, but it's not exactly for the faint of heart either. Things can go horribly wrong. And second, he really did throw a good pass. I imagine they must have practiced this a few times, but even with NBA point guards throwing the lobs, I've seen guys need 2 or 3 attempts to get it right, and they got this one down on the first try. So kudos there.
That said, this wasn't exactly a show-stopper. It's a good dunk, don't get me wrong. But it's not a classic. Diddy isn't tall enough to really make this one impressive. But I will give them full points for the slick presentation (theatrical, but concise, not dragging on for too long, or going too overboard) and getting it down on the first attempt.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 16
My score: 41
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans (6'9", Utah Jazz)
Dunk 1
*Yawn*
There's not much here. This would be a pretty basic dunk in a lay up line during warm ups, let alone a dunk competition. The gimmick was supposed to be that he's wearing a camera at eye level so you can see what he sees as he's dunking, but even on a good dunk that still isn't going to make for much of a camera angle. Kind of cool to see once, but again, even on a good dunk it's not going to show you much, unless you're looking right into the rim from the height of your jump. Which he wasn't.
But, even if the camera somehow made for a great point of view shot, that still doesn't change the fact that this was a pedestrian dunk at best. Gotta do better than this.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 37
My score: 35
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Paul George (6'8", Indiana Pacers)
Dunk 1
Jumping over a guy standing straight up is cool. No doubt about it. But it's starting to get played out a bit in dunk contests. I watched both the D-League competition and the amateur Sprite Showdown competition this year, and almost all the dunks in those contests featured jumping-over-guys dunks too. Kind of like, how all we saw for the next few years after Vince went through-the-legs in 2000 was guys doing the same thing. It's impressive, sure. But you can only see it so many times before you start to go "Ok, let's move on to something else…"
But, my own personal bias aside, Roy Hibbert is a legit 7'2". So, clearing him, along with a second guy is no joke. Props should be given. Although, like Charles is quick to point out, he does use a fair bit of that left hand to help him get the height needed. And while it's still impressive, once you factor in a few too many attempts to finally get the dunk, plus the left-hand-vault technique, it does need to be docked a few points.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 18
My score: 44
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Derrick Williams (6'8", Minnesota Timberwolves)
Dunk 1
You know my thoughts on props and theatrics and multiple attempts, so I won't bore you with too much redundancy here. This is just a perfect example of: there's no need to ride in on the motorcycle, it's not impressive enough of a height to clear to really even elevate the impressiveness of the dunk, and a dunk is always better on the first attempt. Always.
But, even with these three things working against it, it was still pretty solid. Good extension on the windmill, decent power. It's not going to win you the competition, but all things considered, not a terrible way to warm up the crowd and get loose on your first dunk.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 19
My score: 39
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Chase Budinger
Dunk 2
Well, we pretty much have the exact same dunk as the last one, only without the motorcycle. And while I don't think the motorcycle added that much to the last one (in fact, Budinger would have cleared it easily had it been on the floor for this dunk too) you still have to dock points for lack of creativity. You just can't go out and do almost the exact same dunk as the guy before you, without adding an element that ups the degree of difficulty, and expect a better score.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 24
My score: 37
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 2
Now we're talking. Finally a dunk of note. Very high degree of difficultly (and he only needed 2 tries… it's still better to get it on the first, but usually a dunk with this much going on needs 4 or 5 tries, which ruins the anticipation completely). Throw in some solid creativity, and all-in-all we have a very good dunk. Perhaps this will get the other guys to start stepping up their game as well and really turn this contest around…
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 15
My score: 50
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 25-30
Paul George
Dunk 2
Interesting. I'm still kind of divided on this dunk. Is it unnecessary theatrics (which I hate) or does it legitimately ramp up the degree of difficulty? It does, although probably not that much. But it serves a purpose so I suppose I can appreciate it. It's also a pretty bold move, seeing that the whole point of a dunk is to be able to see it as clearly as you can and from the best angles possible. So this easily could have worked against him seeing that maybe the cameras wouldn't pick up the dunk well enough, and the whole thing would just end up being one of those ideas that looked good on paper but failed horribly on camera (and especially in person at the arena, where the cheers of fans have more of an effect on the players than most people realize). Also, when an idea goes wrong, Charles, Kenny and Reggie don't hesitate to laugh you out of the building.
In the end, it worked for the most part. You could see that he did a pretty good dunk, it was kind of a cool effect, and you have to give him props for trying something new. That said, you still couldn't fully see the dunk to judge how powerful or acrobatic it really was. Maybe that played to it's advantage. Like not seeing the monster in a movie can sometimes be more scary than just showing it, since your imagination fills in the blanks. In the end, I need to be able to really see a dunk to properly judge it. So, if I don't see the mid-air pose, or how high off the ground his feet are, or how cleanly and powerfully he slammed it through, the pessimist in me just assumes that it couldn't have been that great. Once you get to the replays, that stuff become a little more clear, but there's still always that moment when you see a great dunk for the first time, where you sit up and go "oh, what was that?" Your brain is kind of scrambling to make sense of what it just saw, and even if you're not sure yet exactly why you liked it, you still know that you did. You don't really have that moment with a dunk like this. You're just kind of waiting for the replay so you can get a better look at it, rather than being almost unable to wait for the replay so that you can see it again and figure out exactly what all went on to give you those chills you just had when you saw it live a few seconds earlier.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 17
My score: 46
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 45-50
Derrick Williams
Dunk 2
And the streak continues. Another really good dunk. This time, with Williams managing to put down a dunk which Blake Griffin failed to complete properly last year. Which is pretty impressive when you think about it. Plus, anything with Ricky Rubio involved in it is definitely going to get bonus points from me. I love that kid.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 18
My score: 49
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 30-35
Chase Budinger
Dunk 3
The tribute dunk has become pretty popular in recent years. Ever since Josh Smith introduced it in 2005, there has been at least one per year in every contest since. And I kind of dig it. Sure, like the leap-frog dunk, it is becoming a little played out, but when it's done right, it still manages to win me over. And while there's nothing wrong with this one, I'm still pretty m-eh about it. And I think there's two reasons for this. For one, you'll never convince me that a guy can't see at least a little bit with a blindfold dunk. I don't care how much you practise it, I just don't believe anyone can just count out the steps and then manage to run up and dunk a ball without at least a hint of light sneaking through to let them see enough to guide them. It's still not easy, but it's very different than not being able to see at all (which is what these guys want us to think). And secondly, because of this, the Ceballos dunk (which he's paying homage to here) is often considered one of the lesser dunks to have won a contest in the entire history of the event.
So, while the dunk itself is not bad - better than the original to be sure - I still think if you're going to do a tribute dunk, you should probably pick something a little more revered in the annuls of dunking history.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: result not shown
My score: 40
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 3
And just like that, I'm off of the tribute dunks again. Twice in one contest will always do that to me. But more importantly, at least Budinger's tribute has some historical merit. Sure, the dunk isn't fondly remembered, but Ceballos had won the contest with it exactly 20 years ago in the exact same city that was again hosting the current All-Star. But Karl Malone? I mean, as great of a player as he was, he wasn't exactly known for his dunking. Ya, he could put them down, but it was always the same thing: a one-handed power tomahawk. Which is fine in a game, but even Malone knew not to take that anywhere near a dunk competition.
So, now Evans is doing a tribute to a guy not known for his dunking, and he's adding in the mail delivery theatrics? Ya, I get it, Karl Malone was 'The Mailman', but still, you know how I feel about superfluous theatrics. Add in that we've already seen the leap-frog dunk twice in this contest already, and the guy that you're jumping over might actually be shorter than the motorcycle… to call this dunk 'played out' just doesn't encompass just how played out it really was. I'll give him kudos for not using his off hand to clear the guy (as was done in both of the previous jump-over-a-guy dunks) and for putting his hand behind his head, just like Malone used to always do. But still, I'm not exactly putting a poster of this dunk up in my bedroom any time soon.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: result not shown
My Score: 40
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Paul George
Dunk 3
For a really good dunk, this ended up being pretty lacklustre. Again, I think there's a couple reasons for this: For one, this is technically another tribute dunk. George plays for Indiana and Larry Bird is the greatest basketball player to come out of Indiana (plus he's the Pacer's current GM, which is the team George plays for). Without two tribute dunks right before it, he might have had a little more traction with the tribute angle. But he didn't. Secondly, he took 5 tries to get it down. That's just too many. No matter how good a dunk is, by the time you get past your second or third try, it's just not exciting anymore. And soon, as a fan, you're just hoping he gets it down, simply so that we can move on to the next one, rather than because you actually want to see the finished product. And third, this dunk looks way better in the replay. As a result, after finally getting it down, the crowd doesn't really react, George walks off the court with his shoulders slumped, and it's hard to get excited by the time we finally see just how good it actually was in the replay.
And it is good. I mean, there's a lot going on here: he slaps the backboard first (his intention was to put a Bird sticker up as he slapped it, but he ran out of stickers due to all the attempts) and then spins around and windmills it on the other side, along with having the highest power meter reading of the night. That's a heck of a dunk. Unfortunately, because of the overall flaws mentioned above, I can't score it on just the merits of the dunk alone, and the score suffers as a result.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 40
My Score: 45
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 45-50
Derrick Williams
Dunk 3
After 9 attempts at an off-the-backboard-through-the-legs dunk, Williams settled for this as the clock was about to expire. Obviously, not much of a dunk, and not what he was hoping for, but if he wants to look at the bright side, it actually wasn't the worst dunk of the night. Evan's first attempt gets to hold that prestigious honour.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: result not shown
My Score: 36
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Final Result: Jeremy Evans wins (based on fan voting)
Friday, February 24, 2012
2012 NBA All-Star Weekend Preview/Predictions
Ok, I'm not going to lie. This is probably the least interested in an All-Star weekend that I've ever been. For one, with the lock-out-shortened season, it just doesn't even feel like there should be an All-Star Weekend at all. Add in the lack of big names involved with the Saturday events, and the "I'd rather be resting than playing today" attitude that most of the players will have when the 'big game' actually tips off on Sunday, and I just don't feel like this is going to be something any of us looks back on as a true 'classic' five years from now.
But, as is the great thing about sports, you never really know what's going to happen, and low expectations can always be greatly exceeded. So, I'm going to try and not let these preconceived notions ruin any potential enjoyment I might otherwise have been able to have.
And it's with that in mind that I give you my list of Picks and Predictions for this year's various events.
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
Friday Feb. 24, 7pm MT
If you think the All-Star Game is bad for being nothing but turnovers, 3 point shots and alley oop dunks, then you really need to sit down and watch one of these. Formally known as the Rookie/Sophomore Game, it has undergone a few tweaks and changes over the past few years. All of which have been improvements, in my opinion. In it's current form, rather than the best Eastern Conference Rookies vs the best Western Conference Rookies (1994-1998) or Rookies vs Sophomores (2000-2011) it is now done in a school yard pick up style fashion, where the eleven best rookies and eleven best sophomores were all put on a list, and then Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal took turns selecting players until everyone had been selected.
This should result in more evenly matched teams, although, I still fully expect the game itself to degrade into a high turnover, low shooting percentage, missed alley oop barrage based disgrace just as quickly as it has in years past.
The rosters are:
Haier Shooting Stars
Saturday Feb. 25, 6:30pm MT
I won't spend too much time on this, since it's the worst event of them all. But, if you're interested, it's a current NBA Player, a current WNBA player and a former NBA 'great' teamed together in a timed shooting competition.
The rosters are:
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
Saturday Feb. 25, second event
This one is pretty fun. It's a obstacle course that tests a good variety of guard skills - from dribbling and passing, to quickness and shooting.
The contestants are:
Kyrie Irving
Tony Parker
John Wall
Russell Westbrook
Deron Williams
Rajon Rondo
My prediction: Tony Parker
But, as is the great thing about sports, you never really know what's going to happen, and low expectations can always be greatly exceeded. So, I'm going to try and not let these preconceived notions ruin any potential enjoyment I might otherwise have been able to have.
And it's with that in mind that I give you my list of Picks and Predictions for this year's various events.
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
Friday Feb. 24, 7pm MT
If you think the All-Star Game is bad for being nothing but turnovers, 3 point shots and alley oop dunks, then you really need to sit down and watch one of these. Formally known as the Rookie/Sophomore Game, it has undergone a few tweaks and changes over the past few years. All of which have been improvements, in my opinion. In it's current form, rather than the best Eastern Conference Rookies vs the best Western Conference Rookies (1994-1998) or Rookies vs Sophomores (2000-2011) it is now done in a school yard pick up style fashion, where the eleven best rookies and eleven best sophomores were all put on a list, and then Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal took turns selecting players until everyone had been selected.
This should result in more evenly matched teams, although, I still fully expect the game itself to degrade into a high turnover, low shooting percentage, missed alley oop barrage based disgrace just as quickly as it has in years past.
The rosters are:
| Team Shaq | Team Chuck |
| Blake Griffin Jeremy Lin Ricky Rubio Markieff Morris Kemba Walker Landry Fields Norris Cole Brandon Knight Tristan Thompson Greg Monroe | Kyrie Irving DeMarcus Cousins Derrick Williams Paul George MarShon Brooks John Wall Evan Turner Gordon Hayward Kawhi Leonard Derrick Favors |
My prediction: Team Shaq (135) over Team Chuck (120)
Haier Shooting Stars
Saturday Feb. 25, 6:30pm MT
I won't spend too much time on this, since it's the worst event of them all. But, if you're interested, it's a current NBA Player, a current WNBA player and a former NBA 'great' teamed together in a timed shooting competition.
The rosters are:
| Team Orlando | Team Atlanta |
| Jameer Nelson Marie Ferdinand-Harris Dennis Scott | Jerry Stackhouse Lindsey Harding Steve Smith |
| Team New York | Team Texas |
| Landry Fields Cappie Pondexter Allan Houston | Chandler Parsons Sophia Young Kenny Smith |
My prediction: Team New York
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
Saturday Feb. 25, second event
This one is pretty fun. It's a obstacle course that tests a good variety of guard skills - from dribbling and passing, to quickness and shooting.
The contestants are:
Kyrie Irving
Tony Parker
John Wall
Russell Westbrook
Deron Williams
Rajon Rondo
My prediction: Tony Parker
Foot Locker Three-Point Contest
Saturday Feb. 25, third event
I've always really liked the 3-point contest. I tend to lean towards guys that are taller and don't actually leave their feet to shoot as they seem to have the advantage of not getting as tired, but I've seen the smaller jump shooters get it done too. Anyone can get hot at any time, and therefore it's always anyone's game.
The contestants are:
James Jones
Kevin Love
Ryan Anderson
Anthony Morrow
Mario Chalmers
Kevin Durant
My prediction: Ryan Anderson
Sprite Slam Dunk Contest
Saturday Feb. 25, final event
This is the one that everyone waits for on Saturday night. Everyone complains that there are no new dunks to be seen these days, but I would argue that we saw 3 or 4 dunks last year that had never been attempted before. The problem is the excessive attempts some dunks require, as well as the theatrics that some players try to incorporate, that really just grind the event even further to a halt. If they could sort that out, I think we could see some good stuff. Of course, they haven't, but they are continuing to tweak the rules, and this year is no different. For the first time ever, there will be only one round, and all the voting will be done by the fans. We'll see if it results in a better contest or not. (I predict: not)
The contestants are:
Chase Budinger
Paul George
Jeremy Evans
Derrick Williams
My prediction: Paul George
NBA All-Star Game presented by Kia Motors
Sunday Feb. 26, 5:30pm MT
The main event. I tend to agree with Bill Simmons that an All-Star Game is only as good as it's point guards, and we actually have a pretty good batch this year. Hopefully this results in a decent game. Although, who knows, maybe the players will be completely checked out, knowing that they could use the rest for the remainder of the crazy regular season schedule more than they could use a few extra highlights on ESPN. Could be interesting to see who ends up taking it seriously...
The rosters are:
Eastern Conference | Western Conference |
Carmelo Anthony LeBron James Derrick Rose Dwyane Wade Dwight Howard Chris Bosh Luol Deng Roy Hibbert Andre Iguodala Paul Pierce Rajon Rondo Deron Williams | Kevin Durant Blake Griffin Kobe Bryant Chris Paul Andrew Bynum LaMarcus Aldridge Marc Gasol Kevin Love Steve Nash Dirk Nowitzki Tony Parker Russell Westbrook |
My prediction: West (142) over East (127) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Friday, February 17, 2012
Top 10 Favourite Motorcycles (Streetfighters)
Now we're talking. The pièce de résistance.
I love naked bikes. Especially streetfighters. Similar to the Cafe Racer's of the 50's and 60's, in essence, these started out as a subculture in the 80's and 90's where guys would race their sportbikes, but couldn't afford to replace the non-essential body fairings when they laid down or crashed their bikes. So, they would just strip it all off and ride without. They evolved over the years, to where guys would add custom headlights and taller, motocross-style handlebars to make it so you didn't have to hunch over the bike as much (and also so you could more easily pull wheelies). Eventually manufacturers took notice and started offering them right from the factory, starting with the iconic Triumph Speed Triple in 1994.
And it is with this underground heritage that the spirit of the bikes remain in their current factory offerings to this day: powerful engines, with minimal bodywork, and an upright, comfortable riding position.
The thing I don't get though, is here in North America they just don't sell. In fact, so poor are our naked purchasing numbers, that often bike companies don't even bother sending them over here, as the sales often don't outweigh the cost of getting the bike approved for safety and emission's regulations. In Europe these are the most popular style of bike by far. I just don't get it. No one really ever rides their supersport at the track, so why wouldn't they want similar performance only with way more comfort and often a list price thousands of dollars less than the equivalent supersport? Society confuses me sometimes…
10. Suzuki SFV 650 Gladius
Engine: 645cc V-Twin
Power: 66.6 hp
Torque: 46.5 ft lbs
Weight: 446 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $8299
9. Aprilia Shiver 750
Engine: 749.9cc V-Twin
Power: 95 hp
Torque: 59.7 ft lbs
Weight: 416.7 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $9995
8. Aprilia Tuono V4 R
Engine: 999.6cc V4
Power: 164.9 hp
Torque: 82.2 ft lbs
Weight: 403 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $15,695
7. Ducati Monster 1100 Evo
Engine: 1078cc L-Twin
Power: 100 hp
Torque: 76 ft lbs
Weight: 373 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $13,495
6. KTM 990 Super Duke R
Engine: 999cc V-Twin
Power: 123 hp
Torque: 75.2 ft lbs
Weight: 410.1 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $14,398
5. Honda CB1000R
Engine: 998cc Inline Four
Power: 123 hp
Torque: 73 ft lbs
Weight: 489 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $13,999
4. BMW F800R
Engine: 798cc Parallel Twin
Power: 87 hp
Torque: 63.4 ft lbs
Weight:390 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $10,150
3. Triumph Speed Triple
Engine: 1050cc Inline Triple
Power: 133 hp
Torque: 81.9 ft lbs
Weight: 471 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $13,495
2. Ducati Streetfighter 848
Engine: 849cc L-Twin
Power: 132 hp
Torque: 69 ft lbs
Weight: 373 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $13,995
1. MV Agusta Brutale 1090 R
Engine: 1078cc Inline Four
Power: 144.2 hp
Torque: 82.6 ft lbs
Weight: 418.9 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $15,995
It was a tough decision to leave the Kawasaki Z1000 off this list. I mean, by all accounts, it's a really great bike - one of the best - but I just can't get over the styling. Much like the KTM Adventure a few weeks back, it's just too big of a issue for me to get past. Looks matter, and the Z1000 just isn't for me.
Speaking of looks, I definitely miss the iconic twin headlights that used to be on the Speed Triple. The new ones aren't horrible, but it will take me a while to get used to them. It's like seeing a moustache on the Mona Lisa. But, it is the original factory streetfighter - and without it, we might not be seeing any of the bikes on this list - so I suppose it can do whatever the hell it damn well pleases.
That said, in terms of an actual streetfighter, only the Aprilia Tuono and Ducati Streetfighter (go figure) really stay true to the original theory, as the Tuono is really just a RSV4 with the fairings taken off, and the Streetfighter is essentially the same as the 848 supersport. All the other bikes on the list aren't really based on anything else, and were created from the ground up, which definitely isn't how the subculture was started.
So of course this makes the die-hard purists cry foul - claiming that really that means none of these bikes are actually streetfighters (even the Aprilia and Ducati have their engines tweeked slightly from their supersport brothers). In their minds, nothing stock from the factory can be considered a real streetfighter, since, in it's essence, a streetfighter must be altered from something else to truly bare that title. Sort of like if Chevrolet released a car and simply called it the Chevrolet Hotrod, when really, a hotrod by definition is an alteration of a pre-existing car.
I personally don't care one way or the other. Call 'em what ever you like: 'streetfighter' , 'naked' or even 'performance standard'. All I know is that they are easily my favourite bikes on the planet. And with very few exceptions, I would take them over a pure sportbike any day of the week.
I love naked bikes. Especially streetfighters. Similar to the Cafe Racer's of the 50's and 60's, in essence, these started out as a subculture in the 80's and 90's where guys would race their sportbikes, but couldn't afford to replace the non-essential body fairings when they laid down or crashed their bikes. So, they would just strip it all off and ride without. They evolved over the years, to where guys would add custom headlights and taller, motocross-style handlebars to make it so you didn't have to hunch over the bike as much (and also so you could more easily pull wheelies). Eventually manufacturers took notice and started offering them right from the factory, starting with the iconic Triumph Speed Triple in 1994.
And it is with this underground heritage that the spirit of the bikes remain in their current factory offerings to this day: powerful engines, with minimal bodywork, and an upright, comfortable riding position.
The thing I don't get though, is here in North America they just don't sell. In fact, so poor are our naked purchasing numbers, that often bike companies don't even bother sending them over here, as the sales often don't outweigh the cost of getting the bike approved for safety and emission's regulations. In Europe these are the most popular style of bike by far. I just don't get it. No one really ever rides their supersport at the track, so why wouldn't they want similar performance only with way more comfort and often a list price thousands of dollars less than the equivalent supersport? Society confuses me sometimes…
10. Suzuki SFV 650 Gladius
Engine: 645cc V-Twin
Power: 66.6 hp
Torque: 46.5 ft lbs
Weight: 446 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $8299
9. Aprilia Shiver 750
Engine: 749.9cc V-Twin
Power: 95 hp
Torque: 59.7 ft lbs
Weight: 416.7 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $9995
8. Aprilia Tuono V4 R
Engine: 999.6cc V4
Power: 164.9 hp
Torque: 82.2 ft lbs
Weight: 403 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $15,695
7. Ducati Monster 1100 Evo
Engine: 1078cc L-Twin
Power: 100 hp
Torque: 76 ft lbs
Weight: 373 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $13,495
6. KTM 990 Super Duke R
Engine: 999cc V-Twin
Power: 123 hp
Torque: 75.2 ft lbs
Weight: 410.1 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $14,398
5. Honda CB1000R
Engine: 998cc Inline Four
Power: 123 hp
Torque: 73 ft lbs
Weight: 489 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $13,999
4. BMW F800R
Engine: 798cc Parallel Twin
Power: 87 hp
Torque: 63.4 ft lbs
Weight:390 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $10,150
3. Triumph Speed Triple
Engine: 1050cc Inline Triple
Power: 133 hp
Torque: 81.9 ft lbs
Weight: 471 lbs (wet)
MSRP: $13,495
2. Ducati Streetfighter 848
Engine: 849cc L-Twin
Power: 132 hp
Torque: 69 ft lbs
Weight: 373 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $13,995
1. MV Agusta Brutale 1090 R
Engine: 1078cc Inline Four
Power: 144.2 hp
Torque: 82.6 ft lbs
Weight: 418.9 lbs (dry)
MSRP: $15,995
It was a tough decision to leave the Kawasaki Z1000 off this list. I mean, by all accounts, it's a really great bike - one of the best - but I just can't get over the styling. Much like the KTM Adventure a few weeks back, it's just too big of a issue for me to get past. Looks matter, and the Z1000 just isn't for me.
Speaking of looks, I definitely miss the iconic twin headlights that used to be on the Speed Triple. The new ones aren't horrible, but it will take me a while to get used to them. It's like seeing a moustache on the Mona Lisa. But, it is the original factory streetfighter - and without it, we might not be seeing any of the bikes on this list - so I suppose it can do whatever the hell it damn well pleases.
That said, in terms of an actual streetfighter, only the Aprilia Tuono and Ducati Streetfighter (go figure) really stay true to the original theory, as the Tuono is really just a RSV4 with the fairings taken off, and the Streetfighter is essentially the same as the 848 supersport. All the other bikes on the list aren't really based on anything else, and were created from the ground up, which definitely isn't how the subculture was started.
So of course this makes the die-hard purists cry foul - claiming that really that means none of these bikes are actually streetfighters (even the Aprilia and Ducati have their engines tweeked slightly from their supersport brothers). In their minds, nothing stock from the factory can be considered a real streetfighter, since, in it's essence, a streetfighter must be altered from something else to truly bare that title. Sort of like if Chevrolet released a car and simply called it the Chevrolet Hotrod, when really, a hotrod by definition is an alteration of a pre-existing car.
I personally don't care one way or the other. Call 'em what ever you like: 'streetfighter' , 'naked' or even 'performance standard'. All I know is that they are easily my favourite bikes on the planet. And with very few exceptions, I would take them over a pure sportbike any day of the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
