Homage to Dominance

There isn't enough space in space to cover this topic. Our grandparents talk about, our dads talk about it, we talk about it, our kids will talk about it and our grandkids will all have this same discussion in their period of life. It's never ending and...quite fun. In lieu of this past weekends sporting events, I thought I'd throw out a few questions and open up the flood gates to theory, philosophy, etc. of what team and individual sport is hardest to dominate. I realize this type of discussion was on every sports radio channel yesterday and every sports talkshow, but who cares. However, first I want to throw a few thoughts of my own before getting to the meat and potatoes:

Barbaro: Come on people, it's a freakin' horse! Enough already. If I hear or read the bottom ticker one more time giving me a Barbaro update, well, I don't know what I'll do. A freaking horse? I want you to know, I was thinking this before yesterday's tragic events took place.

Serena Williams: I have no idea if I spelled her name right, which leads me to this statement. I could care less about tennis, let alone any women's sport for that matter. However, I was tired of hearing people like Dick Vitale on Mike and Mike explain how incredible it was for the 935rd ranked player in tennis to win the Austrailian Open. Okay, she was ranked 82nd. Anyway, she's still Serena Freakin' Williams in case you forgot. She dominated before her injury and now has come back to dominate again. I don't know how much more I can empathsize she is still Serena Williams. Maria Sharapova only became Maria Sharapova because she didn't have to play Serena, oh and she's kinda attractive. I guess that gets extra attention by the media. It would be like Tiger Woods taking off a year, coming back, and then winning the Masters and "shocking" everyone. He's Tiger Woods!

Ok, now that I have all that off my chest, let's open up the discussion of what happened this weekend: Roger Federer and Tiger Woods continuing their streaks. I'm not going into what those streaks are, because if you don't know, grow a pair. Again, I don't care about Tennis, but 36 consecutive sets won is dang impressive. That would be like winning 24 straight quarters in Football. Not just winning 6 NFL games in a row, but every quarter for all 6 games. So, what Dominance is more impressive, Tiger's streak or Federer's? Is it possible to look at two individual sports that are differents types of competition?

And this Domination topic can go way outside the box if you want. We can break down Harry Potter's Domination in books. We can compare the hotdog eating guy Kobyashi's food comsumption domination. We can analyze all the great sports of badminton, frisby golf, Red Neck Racing...the list goes on and on.

We can even look at the overall dominators of their sport. For instance:

Car Racing: Michael Shumacher
Boxing: Mike Tyson, Ali
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky
Basketball: Jordan
Basketball Teams: Celtics, Bulls
Football Teams: Bills for 4 SB's in a row, 49ers
Football: Joe Montana
Baseball Teams: Braves - 14 straight Division Titles
Ping-Pong:
Billiards: Janet Lee
Bowling: That Weber guy

We can even look at individual time periods and look at who dominated their sport in that era:

2000's: Tiger, Shaq, Tom Brady, LaDainian Tomlinson,
1990's: Jordan, Gretzky, Sampras, Barry Sanders,
1980's: Bird, Montana, Rice, Gretzky, Marino,
1970's: ???

Let's pay respect to what is happening in our lifetime in these sports. Have fun and enjoy. Let the discussion begin.

RE: Math Equations = Food for thought

Good to see you, "Big Daddy." Having only lived on one side of the equation, I can't really comment. I just hope you don't manage to get yourself in trouble with that post. I'd hate to see your rising star extinguished after only two posts.

Math Equations = Food for thought

The following is real conversation that took place between my woman and I

Me: Did you know that the little Brandel boy going to be Haag's Pallbearer?

Wife: What are talking about

Me: Little Brandel boy is going to be Haag's Pallbearer

Wife: (silence)

Me: (Realizing my error?) I'm mean Ringbearer.

Wife: (Laughing at me) Oh

Conversation over.



Then it hits me - was it an mistake?

Marriage greater than or equal to Death?

Pu##y greater than or equal to death of a Single man's soul ?????

PMS greater than or equal to a Techmo Tourney?

mmmm.....

I'm Here

My Arrival has finally come, after a much anticipated wait by everyone I'm sure. Had to comment after that picture. I love it. Anyway I'm not sure that I'm going to bring alot of knowledge and respect to the table but here I am. The past post have inspired me. Gotta love the Patriots, Aaron = Monkey, more Alumni pictures, and stupid cars.

Late

Fascinating

I noticed something this week that I thought everyone else would find... fascinating. Check out the following picture:


So, what do you think?

Applying "Calculus"

Well, the timing was finally perfect...and I delivered. Jokes are all about delivery and timing. I've been waiting to "apply" this for a long long time. It finally had it's chance to shine once again. (Although there are many times the phrase could do the trick.) There are close to 30 people in the class and I'd say after everyone had 2 seconds to think about it, everyone chuckled.

Instructor: So, what are you going to do if you see a question like this on the test?

Nathan: (Applying the 3 second rule before answering) Close the book.

(Class laughing...after realizing what has just been said)

Instructor: (Acting as if no one could make fun of calculus) Well, this would be a test so you wouldn't actually have a book open to close.

I realize I could not have done that phrase without Adam's spirit living through me. And yes, I understand the phrase doesn't quite make sense if you aren't allowed to use a book on the test, but it still did the trick and the class loved it.

Happy Winter-een-mas!

Today marks the beginning of Winter-een-mas. To celebrate I thought I'd do some quick retro gaming and played a game of Double Dribble on the emulator. What did I learn? NEVER play Double Dribble with the keyboard. You can't even come close to winning in DD if you can't steal, and you can't steal when you use the keyboard. Add to that the fact that the computer can pass all the way down the court while you can only pass to guys you can see and you have the recipe for a massacre. I just scratched 50 in a game where I usually break 100. I may have to go find a gamepad.

Alumni Sightings

I ran into someone this weekend that I seriously probably haven't seen since we graduated. I'm about 90% sure I didn't see her at a U of M football game. I saw her, of all places, at the Movie Gallery on Saturday night. I actually didn't even see her in the store. I was checking out and she was slightly off to the side of the counter talking to the worker, but I wasn't paying attention. She said, "Nathan Haag! Wow, you look different." Then I said, "Mandy Board! Wow...this is my fiance Mandy."

So I thought I would dig up my senior pictures of everyone and her and scan it. After looking at all those senior pics, we all looked like we had a tapeworm. We were all sooooo skinny. I couldn't help but sit back and say "Ah, the memories."

So here she is.

She looks about the same I guess. I had no problem knowing it was her. She still had that same voice Hobbs and Downing loved to make fun of. However, she appeared to be quite thin in the face. You can make your own assumptions. If I remember, I believe she got married within the last two years to a Walther. So maybe she lives in the Thumb and yet I haven't bumped into her.

P.S. If you would like me to do a "Way Back" column or just want to request certain scans of senior pics, let me know. I can even do a special female show...just for Adam. Sorry Adam, I somehow don't have a Senior pic of Katie. And no, B. Doerr will not be part of the show.

Good Job

Michael Smith of ESPN has written absolutely the best article I've read about the two Super Bowl head coaches. Smith dismisses racial bean-counting quickly and gets down to why you should really admire these two men. Check it out.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I just read this response from a reader over at the Corner and thought I'd post it because it pretty concisely states my problem with so many government-types.

One of the excerpts you guys just posted:

"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity – and this is the business before us tonight."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! It is not President Bush's job to make my life better. He has never met me or anyone I know and hasn't the faintest f***ing idea what my hopes, dreams and aspirations are. It MY job to make my life better, assisted by my family and friends. It is his job to make sure the likes of al Qaeda leave me alone so I can do that.

Argh.

Hat tip: Jonah Goldberg at The Corner.

Best of Show

Saturday I went to the North American International Autoshow at Cobo, and, among the Lamborginis and Mustangs, I was most struck by a few exceptional vehicles. These finely crafted visions in steel and plastic stand out as shining beacons, showing the world that, truly, some automotive designers, men of vision, really suck at their jobs.

I would like to show everyone exactly what I mean, and with your help bestow upon homeliest vehicle our very own Cass City Monkies "Ugliest in Show" 2007.

Here are the contestants:
The Pit,

Notable primarily for its mediocrity. Its a hatchback with a hoodscoop and a roof rack. Really not sure what they were going for.
Probably not a serious contender however.

Chevy WTCC













Honestly, I'm torn on this one. It wants to be cool, but I feel like I would have to pull it backwards to wind it up. Or insert a 9V battery.

Now our leading contender, and my personal selection, The Rhombus, by the dirty ChiComs.













It may be hard to tell in the picture, but it does have four wheels, in a diamond arraignment. I have nothing to add.

Finally, a special entry, a dishonorable mention, the entire Scion product line.

That's all folks, cast your vote in the comments and watch democracy in action.

Measurement of Greatness

I know I'm not going to win any votes on this stance, but hear me out.

Peyton Manning is viewed as the "greatest QB to never win the big one." Well, he's still just like Marino, in the SB but no ring yet. I realize if he wins the SB, he'll definitely be considered one of the best ever just because of a championship. Fine. I get that, no problem here. But, I want to look at the inverse (yeah, since I'm in Calc class, it's just so much fun to use math words.)

How many of us look at Trent Dilfer or Shawn King as great, heck, even GOOD quarterbacks just because they have a SB ring? It doesn't even matter how well they played in that game, they are sucky QBs. Is Big Ben a great QB? He won a SB. What about Mark Rypien? So, should one game really make all the difference?

Here is where my stance might not get many votes: What if Peyton Manning has a terrible SB game. And I mean terrible. Like, oh, hypothetically speaking, a QB rating of 1.3. BUT, the Colts still WIN the game. Based on the type of game Manning had and his rating in this scenario, should he really be considered to have had any part of them winning that SB game? With that performance and rating, ANYONE would have won the game. However, because the Colts won the SB and Manning was the QB, he will now be considered as one of the greatest ever, just because he won a title, even though his performance in that ONE game had nothing to do with his team winning. Yet, Dilfer, King, Rypien, etc. could have incredible games, but not much is going to change about how good of an NFL quarterback they were. We will still forget about them and our opinions will be that they stunk as QB's.

Football Rules

I need some clarity on the philosophy of certain football rules that I noticed in the Colts/Pats game last night:

Rule 1: Number of players allowed to break the huddle/be in the huddle. As I understand it, having 12 players in the huddle is a no-no. Why? Isn't there already a rule in place for "too many players on the field" when the ball is snapped? Isn't that redundancy? Who cares how many players are in the huddle? I thought all that mattered was how many you had when the ball was snapped. Is it supposed to make the referee's life easier at counting players? I.e, if 3 players run on the field, then all you have to watch for is 3 to come off. Instead of always counting 11. But, I'm sure they still always count for 11 because many times after a running back gets a big play or wide receiver makes a good catch, they run out of bounds and many times take the next play off. Probably because it's a new down, and new formation package...and they weren't needed. Anyway, back to the original question. Is the rule for the defense so they know what players have entered the game so they know what kind of defense to set up or be prepared for? Are they watching if 4 players come into the huddle and 3 of them are WR's and then notice that all 3 left and so now they have to think it's going to be a run play? I don't get it.

Rule 2: Face guarding. Last night there was a pass interference penalty against the Pats for "face guarding" the WR because the defensive player didn't make a play on the ball. Keep in mind, he never touched the WR! Instead, he watched the eyes and body language of the WR and knew the ball was probably coming his direction, so he better put his arms up to knock it away. In my opinion, I would think you should be allowed to do whatever you need to do possible to not let the WR catch the ball, as long as you don't touch him. Think of it this way, if the Defense would rather play defense in the NFL by just watching the eyes of the WR without looking for the ball, then I'd say that is to the Offense's ADVANTAGE. You'll give up a lot of touchdowns if you want to rely on hoping the ball runs into your ape-like waving arms or your huge dome of a helmet.

Try to picture this: What if the defensive player was making a play on the ball and turned around to deflect it. However, what if he missed the ball completely but the action of his arms attempting to deflect the ball temporarily shielded the WR's eyes and he lost concentration on the ball and failed to catch it. What is the difference? Because the defensive player temporarily blocked the WR's vision, that is a slight form of face guarding. I just think the defense should be allowed to do whatever it takes. If he wants to stand on his hands and use his feet, that's his prerogative. It's called LUCK.

Colts Win

I'm so glad the Colts won the AFC Championship. I'm pretty sure a Patriots-Bears Super Bowl would have the lowest rated in NFL history.

Save the Sharks

Sharks have an image problem. The mulitple rows of teeth and the eating people have made them look bad. But, "They're not all just teeth," says Sonja Fordham, policy director of the Shark Alliance. They're just misunderstood and some conservationists are looking to rehabilitate the image of the shark. You see, they ONLY killed 7 people for sure, maybe two more. Advocates estimate there are about 100 million sharks or shark-like fish killed each year and point out that's only 1 human for every 10 million sharks. I'll admit that's a pretty shocking statistic. We must need to kill more sharks since they're obviously not getting the message. Come on, we kill 10 million for every person and they keep attacking? I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Hatable

Bill Simmons of ESPN, a Patriots fan, finds himself asking a terrible question in this article: Wait a second ... am I rooting for the football version of the Yankees? He goes on to explore the question and of course finds that, while some the hatred is earned, a large part of it has to do with the current 24-hour sports world. It's a good read from a great writer, but I don't think he's 100% right.

I've often asked myself why I dislike the Patriots so much. As Simmons points out, they don't buy wins like the Yankees have been known to, they're free of T.O.-type players, and they do the little things right to win. I ought to love the team. But I really, really don't. Like many things in football, it's starts with the QB. Brady went to Michigan, which I can (mostly) forgive, but it's still a strike. There's probably a bit of jealousy involved as well since there have been QBs at MSU that I've rooted for that were better college QBs but haven't had anywhere near the amazing success Brady has enjoyed. Plus, he's a pretty boy who dates movie stars. I'd rather hang with Peyton Manning any day. That said, I like Brady more than I used to. I mean, he did have his O-line in a commercial with him.

I don't think you can discount the effect of all the media attention either. Simmons says you can shut it off and just watch the game on Sunday, but it's not quite that easy. If you're going to follow football you have to see some of it, and you can't escape it during the telecast either. You can only hear so many superlatives about Belichick, Brady, and the rest before your ears start to bleed. And I'm sorry, but no one who dresses in a hobo-style hoodie can actually be a genius.

There's other things, but I'll make one final comment. Simmons says that because Patriots fans endured four decades of "futility and embarassment" that "we earned this." Pffft. Unless you've followed the Lions your entire life, don't you dare try and play the "futility and embarassment" card because you don't really know what those words mean.

UPDATE: As I'm watching the game I'm reminded of another annoying thing about the Patriots: they always get lucky. Going into the endzone the RB fumbles the ball and a Colts player looks like he has it, but it squirts out and is recovered for a Patriots TD. So often, they don't look like the better team, or even a great team, just a team that enjoys everything going their way. That's frustrating.

Kryptonite

I had forgotten how much I enjoyed the music of Three Doors Down. Nothing new, just thought I'd mention it.

Compare and Contrast

Yes, I must be really bored.

Lethal Weapon 27 was on last night. Well, part 2. I've been thinking about this for awhile now and last night just reminded me. I'm going to take two blockbuster movies and show how much they parallel. Maybe you've noticed the same things. The movies are "Lethal Weapon" and "Die Hard."

1) The movies were released in the US somewhat close to each other as blockbuster action movies. LW in March of '87. DH in July of '88.

2) Both had major action roles played by white guys fairly new on the Hollywood scene. Gibson was known for "Mad Max" but Willis was "famous" for "Blind Date."

3) Both white characters had African-American sidekicks. Gibson/Glover. Willis/Sgt. Al Powell (Carl Winslow as most of you know him). Side note: His real name is Reginald VelJohnson and is the textbook definition of "type cast." I think more often than not his character is a police officer.

4) Both main characters in both movies are police officers.

5) Both have a Christmas time theme.

6) Both give Joel Silver a credit as one of the Producers.

7) Both give Original Music credit to Michael Kamen. LW also added Eric Clapton.

8) Both "tough guys" playing "bad guy" roles were blond. Busey in LW and "Karl" in DH.

9) Both have the classic fight scene near the end of the movie between the hero and tough guy. Gibson v Busey in LW and Willis v "Karl" in DH.

10) Both have the stereotypical Hollywood ending where the "tough guy" is still alive at the end of the movie after everyone thought they were dead. Busy in LW and "Karl" in DH.

I think that's all I could remember. There may be more.


Stayed tuned for my next movie parallelism between "Escape from Alcatraz" and "The Shawshank Redemption."

All (Sports) Stars

Keeping on track with Adam's last post, I have my own question:

Which guys who are stars in their own sport, could be stars in just about anything they would try. Or, if you had to create an ultimate decathlon sports team, which athletes would you want? Obviously you want athleticism, but the reoccuring theme is probably going to be brains. Guys that would be mentally tough and possibly bad mothers no one wants to mess with.

For example, Derek Jeter would probably be a stud at underwater basketweaving.

So, here are the guys I'd want on my team (of course I can't remember EVERY athlete to pick from) if I had to go to war with them on the field, diamond, course, court, euchre, RISK, spelling bees, ice, water, etc.

1) Roger Clemens
2) Derek Jeter
3) Tom Brady
4) Michael Jordan
5) Tiger Woods
6)

First Love

Jeff Samardzija has taken the first step towards becoming the next Drew Henson. Err, I guess that wasn't exactly a compliment, was it? Anyway, Samardzija has agreed to a $10 million, five-year deal with the Chicago Cubs. Said Samardzija: "Baseball is my first love. I played it my whole life." He has no plans to return to football.

So, I've got a question. How many athletes who are considered serious prospects at both football and baseball choose the right sport? If you're considering money it would seem football is the way to go, but baseball is probably safer, unless you get hit in the face with a 90+ mph fastball. Henson managed to wash out of both sports. Kirk Gibson was an All-American WR at MSU, but it's hard to imagine that he would have had a better career in football, or an achievement like his homerun in the '88 World Series. Deion Sanders played both sports well but didn't make a real impact in baseball. Any others?

UPDATE: Ump's comment is too good and long to leave in the comments section, so I'm reproducing it here:

ump said:
Jordan had mental issues with his mid-life crisis. His father was murdered and that screwed him up a little, but I can't blame him for that. So, we can't really talk about him, also because I think I could have suited up in the Minors and struck out less times than him. I could at least have bunted one of those three strikes.

Bo: He, like Deion, didn't make as much of an impact in baseball. But, I still saw some impressive stuff: Running up the outfield fence after catching a fly ball on the run because he couldn't stop his momentum so he just ran up the wall. Or, the time the umpire wouldn't grant him a timeout while he held his right hand up but kept his left on the handle as the pitch was coming. Needless to say, the pitch traveled 400 feet the other direction.

Donovan McNabb: Basketball would have probably led to easier injuries to rehab, but I doubt he would have been a starter.

Charlie Ward: Won the heisman, but maybe he could see the writing on the wall and didn't want to be the next "Heisman winner who sucked in the pros." Didn't want to be the next Gino.

Antonio Gates: I think he made the right choice. Then again, he may have turned out to be a brute in the paint like a Charles Barkley. If I remember, Charles wasn't exactly towering over anyone.

John Elway: Did he play college Baseball?

I can't remember, but it seems like John Smoltz or Tom Glavin or someone like those guys was really good at Hockey. I could be confused with some other guy. I thought there was some MLB pitcher good at hockey.

Stack's reponse:
1. Jordan: Can't believe I didn't think of him.

2. Bo: Another great example. He might have been one where doing both was the right decision, if his health had held up.

3. McNabb: Football had to be the right decision.

4. Ward: Yeah, he saw the writing on the wall.

5. Gates: He's changing the way people think about the TE position, even more than Tony Gonzalez. Definitely the right decision.

6. Elway: He played baseball, he used it as leverage at the draft when he was selected 1st overall by the Baltimore Colts and managed to get traded to Denver. Again, right decision.