Thursday, September 30, 2010

September Guest Blogger -- Jessica Hummel

Jessica Hummel of A Healthy Medium

Hello Followers of the Hot and Bothered Effect:

As has been promised to you, once a month I will have a guest blogger from another blog come and post on the Hot and Bothered Effect so that you can get an appreciation for different writing styles, points of view, and blogs. It will also give other blogs operated by friends of mine to get some exposure for their blogs as well as exposing my readers to blogs that I like. This month's Guest Blogger will be Jessica Hummel who operates A Healthy Medium. Her blog dispenses cutting-edge nutrition advice from a nutritionist who works for The Biggest Loser. She is, however, not a big fan of capitalization. I have known Jessica since we were two and asked her to be my first Guest Blogger because my Lush Life Chronicle was about food. You can follow Jessica's blog at: http://ahealthymedium.blogspot.com. Without further ado, here is Jessica Hummel:

 

The Dealio


Hello folks!

My name is Jessica and I am one of the many trying to empower a health revolution in America. Today there seems to be a lack of nutrition normalcy, with a growing amount of obesity AND eating disorders, what we need to find is A HEALTHY MEDIUM! The goal of my blog is to help reach out to anyone who is interested in learning tips that promote overall health and positive body image.

Let's talk salt


SODIUM
what a harmless sounding word, right?
incorrect.
too much sodium can lead to hypertension or high blood pressure. your daily amount has been pushed down recently, the amount of sodium/salt in your day has been reduced from 2500 mg/day ----> 2300 mg/day ----> 1500 mg/day.
this breaks down into less than 1 teaspoon of salt for your entire days worth of food.

to combat the salt cravings, fill your pantry up with herbs to spice up your life (and your meals). my personal new fave mixture is adding oregano, ground pepper and turmeric (oust your inflammation!) to steamed veggies and chicken.

My new favorite breakfast


this is my new favorite healthy breakfast recipe, it is both balanced and delicious! special thanks to my sister who made it for me a few days ago and now i can't stop whipping it up each morning!
enjoy!

healthy open-faced egg and arugula sandwich:
ingredients:
1 egg
1 slice of multi-grain bread
a handful of arugula
teaspoon of balsamic vinegar
tablespoon of fat-free ricotta cheese
scoop of dill
scoop of thyme

1)place egg in frying pan, top with dill and let it cook over easy
2)toast the piece of bread
3)mix the ricotta cheese with the thyme and then spread it on top of the piece of toast
4)pile the handful of arugula on the ricotta and pour the balsamic vinegar over the arugula
5)top it all off with the egg over easy!
mm mmm good!and a nice balance of protein, veggies and starch!

Beer bummer in the summer


i have had a lot of clients recently asking how to drop unwanted belly fat in time for bikini and speedo season. the fat around your abdominal region is usually the last to go, it lingers around for many reasons - stress, age, metabolism and man's best friend beer.
i know i have written before about alcohol, but i just want to reiterate. alcohol is in it's own nutritional category weighing in at 7 calories per gram and turning half the calories that you drink straight to fat. almost all beers are over 100 calories each, so that beer pong game you just played (even if played with only a few beers) just weighed in at the same calorie count as a large dinner meal! is this scaring you guys yet? if not, read on for calorie information beer by beer...

(all information is for one 12 ounce can)
Anheuser Busch Natural Ice:157 calories
Blue Moon:171 calories
Budweiser:145 calories
Bud Light:110 calories
Colt 45 Malt Liquor:175 calories
Coors:149 calories
Keystone Ice:142 calories
Michelob:155 calories
Miller Genuine Draft:143 calories
Miller High Life Light:110 calories
Pabst Blue Ribbon:153 calories
Rolling Rock Extra Pale:142 calories
Sam Adams Boston Ale:160 calories
Sierra Nevada Bigfoot:330 calories (AH!!!)
Steel Reserve:222 calories (ah!)

my suggestion to still keep the beer pong festivities going minus all the calories...use one can of beer to fill up all the cups and reuse the left over full cups for the later games.
OR
get a boost in metabolism and zero calories each game by filling the cups up with diet arizona flavored green tea. yum!

Overeating hot spots

it's true, certain places inspire binge eating behaviors more than others...these spots all have one thing in common, they all take your attention away from your food that you are about to consume.

prime overeating hot spots include movie theaters, places with poor lighting (the cookies don't count if i can't see them??), your car, and especially your best friend-the comfy couch in front of your t.v. set.
studies show that the best of the best at portion control eat at the dining room table, in a well lit room, away from the television, with preportioned plates. this way the focus is entirely on the meal being consumed and it can be thoroughly enjoyed and fully chewed with time to start digesting in your system.

remember this the next time you are tempted to grab a bag of chocolate covered pretzels and watch the ball game - it will save you from a gnarly tummy ache and a whole lot of empty calories!

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Lush Life Chronicles - - Volume 1: The Double - Double

Perhaps I should preface this by explaining the name of this segment. The Lush Life refers to my quest to discover for myself the 12 pillars of the American Dream. One who has achieved the Lush Life (it's kind of like the Buddhist's enlightenment) is one who has realized in their own lives the 12 pillars and has achieved or attained them. The pillars are much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs in that some are more difficult to attain than others. They are also broken down into categories with 4 pillars occurring in each level of the hierarchy. The first four pillars are all physiological dreams, the second four pillars are relationship dreams, and the final four pillars are self-realization dreams. I will write about one pillar per month with the final pillar being revealed on August 28th, 2011 which will be a few days before one-year anniversary of this blog.

It should not be surprising that the first Pillar of the American Dream revolves around food. When people often think of the Lush Life as it is described by the opulent they think of caviar, filet mignon, and Cristal. However, one does not have to have opulence to live the Lush Life. The Double - Double refers to a delicious treat that can only be found a select few places on the planet. Those from the Midwest and the East Coast who have never ventured further west than Chicago have yet to experience it. You must cross the Mighty Mississippi River and trek over the Rocky Mountains but once you reach the sunny valleys of Arizona and California you will find there an eatery known fondly as the In-N-Out Burger. The Double - Double is the probably the best burger you will ever taste. Even Drew Bledsoe thinks so. A Double - Double consists of two 1/8 lb. beef patties cooked "medium well" and served on a toasted bun with cheese, tomato, leaf lettuce, and secret "spread". Raw or grilled onions can also be added. When you kick in the In-N-Out Secret Menu, you can also get your burger served Animal Style, Chopped Chilies, Extra Toast, with Pickles, or even 3x3 and 4x4. In my mind there is nothing more delicious.

However, the Lush Life is about more than just my mind. You may have never been to the West Coast. This does not mean that you are not living the Lush Life. The Double - Double is simply my gold standard for food. However, the Double-Double as a Pillar of the American Dream does not refer to this delicious burger. It refers to one's ability to enjoy great food. If you live in Philadelphia, PA you can enjoy the "Double - Double". It just comes in the form of a fully-loaded Philly Cheese Steak from Pat's. If you live in Kalamazoo, MI you can enjoy the "Double - Double". It just comes in the form of a Prime Rib dinner with Raspberry Cheesecake from the Great Lakes Shipping Company. If you live in Cincinnati, OH you can enjoy the "Double - Double". It just comes in the form of a Pork Chop and Ribs combo dinner from the Montgomery Inn. Truth be told: you don't even need to leave your house to enjoy the "Double - Double". Part of achieving the Pillar of the "Double - Double" is being able to achieve it on your own stove top. You should be able to provide it for yourself. For years I lived the "Double - Double" because Patricia Dwyer is one of the finest unpublished culinary masters on the planet. Fortunately, she taught me just enough of her tricks so that I might provide the "Double-Double" for myself and those who enter my abode.

Obviously, this Pillar is about quality. But that doesn't mean that it isn't about quantity as well. Food is to be savored and enjoyed but, food is also an enemy that must be defeated. The Lush Life is about asserting your dominance over food. Every time you go to an eatery and see a wall that will bear your photo should you complete a food challenge; you must accept that challenge. This is why I must announce my intention to get myself on Orochon Ramen Wall of Bravery when I return to Los Angeles. I will attempt their Special #2 with 10 kinds of chilies and conquer the heat that is the Hot Ramen Challenge. Whether it's eating a seven pound burrito or eating hot wings that chart a 15 Million on the Scoville Scale (roughly the same as taking pepper spray to the face) you have to get on that wall and conquer that food. The Ultimate example of this comes from the home of the Double - Double itself. Behold the 100x100 (at right).

However, I must say that unfortunately the "Double - Double" is coming under fire. Instead of becoming ever easier to attain the "Double - Double", it is getting a little more difficult. You can still get your fill of the Lush Life at many wonderful eateries around this great country of ours. However, it's becoming rarer that one can partake of the "Double - Double" in one's own kitchen. I would like to blame Generation U. If you don't know what Generation U is then I'm sure I will explain it further in some future post. However, Generation U stands for Generation Useless. It has come about due to our progressive nation's insistence on doing away with gender roles. Girls have been told that they don't need to learn traditional skills and boys joined in on the whole let's not learn any useful skills movement. Therefore, you have girls who can't cook or sew and boys who can't change their car's tires and oil or fix a leaky sink. This lack of usable skills is harming your quest for the Double - Double. People used to take pride in their ability to cook...sometimes too much. I once had a hibachi chef get third degree burns after falling onto the grill and yet he still finished the meal. That may have been the manliest thing I have ever seen.

Women find it extremely offensive when they are told their place is in the kitchen. And they should because this is made with the implication that they can't achieve elsewhere. However, there is nothing wrong with knowing how to cook a decent meal. It shouldn't be a gender thing. Both men and women have to know how to cook. I love to cook and if feminists ever convince women to march out of kitchen in protest...I will march in and claim it for men. And then a woman's place won't be in the kitchen and they'll want it back when I tell them they can't have it. My point is that people don't know how to cook anymore. And if you can't cook for yourself then you are not living the Lush Life. Man or Woman: if you can't cook then get in the kitchen and learn. Or take cooking classes. Cooking classes are a great place to pick up chicks and/or dudes. Knowing how to cook and feed people great food is important. The Double - Double is depending upon you.

The other thing that is harming the status of the "Double-Double" in America and the world at large is the new Style over Substance movement in the culinary hierarchy. Food has always been about taste. Aesthetic is nice but it should never be allowed to interfere with taste. I blame much of this on food critics. Just as I implied a few posts ago that I think many movie critics are bad to the point of being detrimental to their art form...I think that doubly of food critics. When I watch Top Chef, Hell's Kitchen, and Master Chef it is constantly about the look of the food. During Master Chef's Mystery Box challenges they don't even try all of the dishes. They only taste test the three dishes that look the most appetizing. Whenever somebody overcooks a piece of chicken or tries to fry any meat, Gordon Ramsey will look at, throw it on the floor, and tell the person that they're serving him god damn Chicken McNuggets. Gordon, have you ever had a Chicken McNugget? They are fucking delicious. Top Chef is even worse. On this show a contestant's perfectly-cooked filet can't compete with another contestant's nitroused gazpacho because the judges are so impressed by the food science. When you are needle injecting tasteless nitrogen gas into your foods to make them puffier and more appetizing...there is an issue. Let your food's taste speak for itself.

The Substance over Style movement in the culinary world can most readily be seen at Chalk, Jean Robert de Cavel's restaurant in Covington, KY. I am not going to rip on the food at Chalk. It wasn't bad...but it wasn't great. However, it would so elegantly done, especially the desert. The two deserts that I remember vividly were the Flight of the Cupcakes and the Deconstructed S'mores. The Flight of the Cupcakes was a plate of six miniature cupcakes that were so well-decorated and plated they looked like they came from Ace of Cakes. However, I don't know if any of them would go down as a spectacular cupcake. They were quite average and a little dry. The Deconstructed S'mores was high concept also. It was a chocolate ganache with graham cracker flavored ice cream and homemade marshmallows. Once again, it looked super fancy but failed to stun in the taste department. I would have rather had an actual S'more. And I could have fancied it up by replacing the Hershey's with Twix...so suck on that cutting edge cuisine artists. We have to hold these "foodies" accountable and protect the concept of the "Double-Double". If you accept the responsibility to make and eat good food then you're on your way to the Lush Life.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Perfect Woman (Part I)

People often ask me, "Ray, when it comes to women, what's your type?" Easy question. Usually drunk, lonesome, with nowhere to turn. Orphans, a lot of them or "on the run". Sometimes homeless. Oh! They mean what type of girl am I attracted to. There's the type of girl that I am attracted to and the type of girl that I can attract and land. One has very little bearing on the other. But just for the hell of it let's talk about the former in a four-part extravaganza.

Contrary to popular belief, I do consider a female's personality to be the most important selection criteria. So Part I will consist of the twenty most important personality characteristics.

20. She should be feisty and preferably crafty. I would be quite disappointed if my wife were to just put up with my shit. I want her to be argumentative. I want her to cut me down on a fairly regular basis, when I am being ridiculous. I want a fighter. If she fights with me then I know that she thinks I'm worth fighting for. Besides, I love to argue. It's probably my favorite past time. I'd also prefer she be somewhat good at arguing in both her tactful approach to it and her passion for it. I don't want to be able to whoop her in arguments all the time like I do with so many other people in my life. I'm talking to you Nick, Rosie, and Andrew. Non-feisty people/non-confrontational people (or pussies as I like to call them) will do just about anything to avoid an argument. I want my girl to step right in with Sissy Spacek and Gina Gershon ready to go. That's right...I also want my girl to name her fists. And it's not just me that I don't want her to take shit from...I don't want her to take shit from anyone. Of course, I as the man will stand up for her in any altercation. But I also want to have to hold her back lest she fuck some bitch up. Nobody likes a pushover. I want her to let most things roll off her back, but when somebody is seriously pushing her around or taking advantage of her I want her to stand her ground.

19. She must be supportive. While I want her to argue with me and yell at me when I'm being an idiot; I also expect her to be supportive of the person that I am, the needs that I have, and the goals that I want to achieve. I've had countless football games, ComedySportz matches, track meets, theater shows, and stand-up sets that few if any of my friends/love interests have ever taken an interest in. When I am taking on any public endeavor be it recreational, occupation, or even legal, I would like her to take an active interest in it and provide support with her presence and her enthusiasm both during these endeavors and in preparation for them. She also has the right to expect that this is a two-way street, and that I will, of course, do this for her. I would also like her to be supportive and receptive of my ideas for "us". I'm not saying that if I recommend moving across the country so that we can become ranchers she should support that. I'm also not saying that if I want to have a threesome she should support that. I'm saying that if I want to try various social experiments to improve our relationship and ourselves as people by stepping out of our comfort zones I would like her to be on board.

18. She has to be tough. This might sound a little like feisty but I assure you that they are completely different. I expect her to be a tough chick and I mean this within both the physical and mental arenas, although one is more important than the other. I would prefer that she be physically tough but that isn't totally necessary. I'm obviously not going to hit her or anything but a girl who can deal with pain the way a man is expected to is extremely sexy. This is part of the reason that I have a thing for girls with tattoos. I know that they can handle themselves. What I really care is that she is mentally and emotionally tough. This is probably one of the areas that I excel at most and I would like her to as well. I probably get insulted, be it well meaning or malicious (or my dad's well-meaning and malicious combo insults), about 20-40 times a day. Some days it's significantly more. Most of it is not of the malicious variety but it is of the variety which other people would find to be quite hurtful. The reason that I am buffeted as often as I am is because I have shown that I have built up a tolerance and can handle it and therefore criticism of me gets the green light. I find it very annoying when people who are criticism-prone themselves take offense too easily. I say a dozen things that I probably shouldn't every day. I'm not saying that it's OK...I'm just saying that it's who I am. I have no desire to walk on egg shells around a girl so at least 50% of the offensive junk I say or do can't even register with her much less make her angry.

17. She can't be the jealous type. I just got through typing that I don't want to have to walk on egg shells around a girl. Sometimes you don't even have to do anything wrong to get in hot water with your lady. They just have to perceive your actions as less than on-the-level. These are often the jealous types. I have absolutely no use for them. There has to be a certain level of trust in a relationship, and I expect that unless something is clearly done to violate that trust, that it is maintained. I would like to be able to associate with other females without suspicions abound. I don't just mean jealousy in this regard though. I mean it in the deepest sense of the word. I want my girlfriend/wife to be able to be happy for other people when they accomplish something. Thou shalt not covet and all that good stuff. This is of course impossible. We are all at some juncture going to envy the good fortunes of our friends and associates. We might even be suspicious of our mate at some juncture. I'm not saying that isn't OK...I'm just saying you have to lock that shit away. Lord knows I will...there is nothing wrong with keeping things secret. Which will also lead me into my next desire.

16. She must be guarded and mysterious.
I hear people say all the time how a good relationship has no secrets. Bunk. Bunk I say. Every single person on this planet, bar none, has things that they keep in the dark recesses of their heart that they share with only themselves. This might not be a good thing but it is an unavoidable axiom of human behavior. I'm just asking that she use this axiom to her advantage. Keep tons of things from me, there is no reason I need to know everything about her, especially all up front. The best way to keep the relationship fresh is to keep each other guessing, and the best way to do that is to slow play our reveals. I think it would be awesome if I was dating a girl for eight months and then one day out of the blue I find out at a farmer's market that she speaks fluent Spanish. Almost intentionally hide information about yourself in order to reveal it at a later stage in a very flashy and showmanesque way. Women claim to love a mysterious man. Well, I want a mysterious woman.

15. She has to have life skills. I appreciate girls who are independent and useful. For a great girl...I'd be more than happy to do anything for her. But a great girl can do things for herself. I don't care what these skills are as long as they exist. If she is a great cook, that's fantastic. However, I would also be impressed by a girl who could change her oil, solve a Rubik's cube, pick a lock, or field dress a deer. At some juncture in the future (next week) I will be talking about Generation U (or Generation Useless) wherein which we as a society are losing our Renaissance Man or Woman life skills. I want to be with a girl who takes pride in her ability to do things others can't. When I electrocute myself and need CPR I don't want her to have to wait for paramedics. I also would like her to be able to teach me some of these things and let me teach her some. I can teach her how to change her oil or change a tire. Hopefully, she can teach me how to ski. And even though I'm an excellent cook...it's such a broad skill I'm sure we could both teach each other a few things.

14. She must be a good negotiator. Knowing females as I do, this basically means: willing to negotiate. Oftentimes, arguments are a zero sum game: for every inch somebody gains, the other party loses that inch. I want her to be interested in the concept of having both parties walk away satisfied. I could consider myself a stubborn person, but the truth is that my stubbornness is directly proportional to the stubbornness of the person that I am dealing with. If I see myself making some sort of progress using a "give a little to get a little" strategy I immediately will go with that approach. Otherwise, it's going to be a tug-of-war. I want my girl to not be a pushover, but also to care that I am getting a fair shake. She has to be able to walk that line. However, it's not just about me. I want her to have this mentality when dealing with friends, family, enemies, strangers, and frienemies alike. Whoever, she is negotiating with should see her as confident in her stance yet sympathetic to the needs of the other party.

13. She must be "needy" but not "clingy". You might be wondering what the difference between these two is. Normally, "needy" is used negatively to describe people. I prefer to think about it in a different light. I want her to be "needy". If she doesn't need me then what are we doing together. If she can fulfill all that I provide with a vibrator and a pen pal then our relationship is worthless. I want her to need me a lot. I want her to lean on me heavily. Being needed will make me feel important and I could use that in my life. That being said, I don't want her to be "clingy". My presence shouldn't be necessary constantly. Relationships need time together and proximity to grow but they also need time apart. Even with married couples, you should never spend more than an average of eight waking hours a day with a person. This breeds resentment and the lack of a singular identity. She needs to have friends and enjoy hanging out with them and respect that the same should be true of me. It doesn't matter if I like her good girlfriends, but she has to have them. A girl without close girlfriends should send up some serious red flags. In summation she should want to lean heavily on me but still be highly functioning and happy without me.

12. She must have uncommon interests.
Common interests are way over-rated. They say that we're together because we're compatible, we like the same stuff, and because it's easy. Well, I don't want our relationship to be easy. Logan Echolls told me that they don't write love songs about the ones that come easy. Or maybe I saw that on a fortune cookie. Either way, I will know that she loves me if she wants to play golf or watch Russell Crowe movies despite having little independent interest in these things. And I want her to drag me to things that I have little interest in and appreciate them. New and exciting experiences await and how am I going to know that things like scrapbooking and horseback riding aren't great unless I have a chick to make me take an interest in these thing? I think we should both be taking an active interest in the other person's passions. After two months I'll probably expect her to know the starting lineup for Xavier men's basketball. And if this means that she'll expect me to be able to name the Real Housewives of Orange County then so be it. We shouldn't be compatible from the get go. It will be infinitely more rewarding if we work towards making ourselves compatible.

11. She must be horny.
I want this girl to be revved up and ready to go on a regular basis. I talked a few points ago about negotiation. This should be no negotiation necessary. She shouldn't want to get her freak on to please me...she should want to do it to please herself. Contrary to what sitcoms playing situations for comedic purposes have insinuated, no man has ever turned down sex within a relationship. We are always willing. Consent is a one-way street unless the male is Mormon or has erectile dysfunction. A healthy sexual relationship is mostly dependent upon having a female who is regularly "in the mood". Part of this desire stems from my dislike of asking for things. I have no problem accepting favors or gifts from people, but I don't like to ask for them. I'd be exceedingly more comfortable with a sexually aggressive woman who wants to be all up on me without a moment's notice. It would also be gratifying to know that she finds me arousing. I'm not just talking about sex. I could go for some of that "Hair Action" that those Axe commercials are always talking about. I'm not just looking for a girl who wants sex, sex, and more sex. I'm looking for a girl who is comfortable with physicality and gives into these needs on a consistent basis. All she needs to do is give me the "Come Hither" look.

10. She must be intelligent. Guys often catch a lot of flack for not expecting much in the way of brains from our women as long as their hot. This isn't an unfair stereotype. It usually goes that the hotter a woman is the less brains she can get away with. You could easily plot this phenomenon on a line graph. However, different men would have different slope gradients on this chart. Assuming that hotness is in the X-axis...my gradient is a little steeper than most. If you didn't follow that then you aren't the perfect woman and you might be on the wrong side of that slope. I want a woman who knows things. I play a lot of bar trivia. I want a girl who can contribute knowledge to my vast bank. This means intelligent in every sense of the word: book smart and street smart. I could use a girl whose well-read, bi-lingual, and with solid spacial reasoning skills. Life is about learning and the more I can learn from a potential mate the more desirable she becomes. Now due to my sensitive ego, I'm not sure I want her to be smarter than me. But considering I think I have an IQ of about 217 (that's right, scores do go over 200) that still allows her to be pretty damn smart.

9. She has to have a high tolerance for bullshit.
I'm a lot to handle. I dare say I can be infuriating at times. I expect her to be able to put up with all of my inane nonsense and annoying pet peeves. I'm not saying I expect her to be quiet about it, but it can't be allowed to affect her mood in any real or serious way. I am more than willing to fix myself for the right girl, especially the perfect girl. However, it will be a lot easier if she is willing to put up with a certain amount of lunacy. This is something that I don't feel that bad asking for because despite the fact that I have spent the last several paragraphs crafting the perfect woman, I can handle a lot of faults and would easily accept a girl who is 5 for 20 on this list. Hence why my "type" and my "type" don't often match up. A high tolerance does not mean that she has to put up with all of my ugly traits. It just means that she has to be able to deal with them constructively. I think that I possess a good deal of adaptability and if she wants to change me it can be done. There just has to be the right combination of stick and carrot used on her end. They say that girls like bad boys because they think that they can change them and they're looking for a project. Allow me introduce myself as an excellent project to undertake. I'll allow a girl to mold me to her desires...she just can't get her panties in a bunch about the inevitable failures that will occur along the way.

8. She must make a good mother and want kids. Call me far-sighted. I don't know where I see myself in five years, however, I can see myself in twenty or so. And when I see myself in twenty years, I see children. I think it's important that people have compatible life goals even in the early stages of a relationship. I know a ton of people who are in relationships while knowing that they aren't going to end up with that person. Different strokes for different folks...but I consider this a waste of time. I'm not going to use somebody as a placeholder in my life. I would never enter into a relationship if I didn't think that I could ever marry that person...and I don't think that I could ever marry someone who didn't want kids. I don't care if she can't have kids. We can adopt. But I want to raise kids. The only reason that this item isn't further down the list is because I'm convinced I can lull any girl into motherhood eventually. The desire to have kids is something that evolves over time. Many girls might think that they don't want to have kids now...but give them ten years and the baby crazy usually sets in. The baby crazy has already gotten a hold of me. When I see an adorable baby there's a piece of me that wants to snatch that baby for my own. So gird your children, new parents. And for a more in depth look at how I plan to raise children...wait for an upcoming post.

7. She has to have a sense of humor.
I have always been madly attracted to funny woman. Girls who can make me laugh are incredibly hot on a certain level. People constantly say that a sense of humor is the most important thing. They are often lying, it almost never is the most important thing. If I thought it was it would be at #1 and not #7. But it is extremely important. I don't even buy into the fact that she has to be uproariously funny. She just has to be able to see the humor in things. She has to be able to laugh at me and she has to be able to laugh at herself. This shows a certain light-heartedness. If you will learn one thing about me from reading this blog it might very well be that I enjoy some good hijinks, some prankage, and some tomfoolery. I would like her to appreciate these things as well. A good couple will have many great holiday traditions that they enjoy. We will enjoy April Fool's Day. I want her to have fun at my expense and I want her to be able to appreciate that I might like to do the same. If she is a hilarious chick, I will be totally turned on. However, if she's just an average chick that has a good attitude about humor...well, I guess that's pretty hot too.

6. She has to be adaptable. Charles Darwin said that it is not the strongest member of a given species that is able to survive, but rather the one that is most easily able to adapt. I'm looking for a survivor. I place a very high value on somebody's ability to go with the flow and be comfortable in any environment. At it's most basic level, this is every guy's dream. The prototypical dream girl is the one that can be "0ne of the guys" during the football game, but that then is able to transform into a very feminine presence when you enter the bedroom. This is only sort of what I'm going for. I want a girl who is functional and comfortable in all sorts of environments. I want her to be one person when my best friend comes to dinner, another person when my boss comes to dinner, and yet another when my mom comes to dinner. Lord knows I change myself to interact within the dynamics of these different relationships. She doesn't need to be a drastically different person but subtle changes are normal and represents that she has a deeper understanding of tact within different settings. On a more real and desirable level I actually want her to be able to adapt to unwelcome changes that come her way. I want her to be able to deal with adversity. When we make plans and then are thrown a curve ball I want her to be able to sidestep the obstacle by slightly altering the plan rather than scrapping the plan like so many people are inclined to do.

5. She has to be a great conversationalist. One could assume that this ties in heavily to my stipulation that she be intelligent, but it really is so much more than that. Being a good conversationalist combines equal parts of about seven or eight skills...only one of which is intelligence. At it's core at least three Pillars of the Lush Life (which we will begin to chronicle next week) are tied into becoming a better conversationalist. Intelligence helps but it's also about being open and inviting, being tactful, being interesting, being outgoing, being a good listener, and being skilled at reading other people so as best to control the flow of conversation. It is a true art that requires lots of skill and I want her to make it seem effortless. I consider myself to be a good conversationalist, but not a great one. There are certain skills within that set I could be better at. I want my girlfriend to be a great conversationalist because the only way you can go from being a good conversationalist to being a great conversationalist is by communicating with great conversationalists. And I would like to get to great. The only problem with finding a girl who is a great conversationalist is that they are a hot commodity. A truly great conversationalist is the type of person who has a cult of personality built around them. Everybody wants to be their friend and they don't stay on the singles market for long, regardless of physical appearance. I'll have to strike while the iron is hot. Note that great conversationalists also never have to resort to phrases like "strike while the iron is hot". They coin phrases that become cliches.

4. She has to be emotionally vulnerable but stable. This is a very tricky tightrope walk. I'd say it's one that only about 20% of the female population can do effectively. It requires women to wedge themselves into a certain "Safe Zone" of a long and complicated spectrum. At one end of the spectrum we have the "Robots". These are women who are closely guarded and who swallow all emotion and sentiment and lock it deep down where only they can find it. This group encompasses approximately 25% of women to varying degrees leading up to the "Safe Zone". If I can play amateur psychologist...these women have probably been hurt deep before and are too jaded and proud to let anybody know what bothers them. To be fair, while the spectrum is different for men, this is the category that I would place myself in. I don't know that I'd say that I am a "Safe Zoner". Then on the other end of the spectrum we have the "Heart Sleeves". As the name would imply, these women wear their hearts on their sleeves. These women make up about 55% of the population. They are emotional. They are volatile. They are the reason that we have stereotype of the loose-cannon woman who is an emotional wreck that men make PMS jokes about. They are Cathy from the cartoon strip of the same name. I want a woman who can walk the line and fit right into that safe zone. I want her to let me know when something is bothering her, but not let me know everything that is bothering her. For such a wicked formula it can be broken down by a simple platitude: If it's something that is going to still bother you when you wake up tomorrow please let me know. If it's not then it's best to just let it roll off your back.

3. She has to love herself. For the longest time I always thought the most important requisite for any girl that I was in a relationship with was that she loved me. That's what they tell you in school. Find somebody who loves you for you. I'm not sure which class that was in, but it always felt like one of those school lessons. Maybe because it was preachy and obnoxious like multiplication tables. I've found that I do best with people who don't really even like me. Barely tolerating me is where I am at my best. If there is one thing that you will learn about me from this blog it is that I love myself. I love myself a lot. And I feel fairly confident that I will love myself enough for the both of us. However, it's going to be fairly hard for me to love my girlfriend enough for the both of us if she is actively working against my love by not loving herself. There is an icebreaker question that is often asked at job interviews and AA meetings: What don't you like about yourself? I want my girl to have a very short list. It doesn't have to be an empty list. Everybody should see room for improvement in themselves, but she should be fairly satisfied with the person that she is. Self-esteem is a beautiful thing and I want the girl that I'm dating to know how beautiful she is.

2. She has to be considerate of others. This actually means a lot less than you would think, but is also rarer than you would expect. By this I don't mean that she has to act on others behalf as this phrase has come to mean in our current lexicon. Anybody who does something mean or self-serving is immediately branded inconsiderate. I am totally alright with my girlfriend acts in a self-serving manner (I'd be a little freaked out if she didn't). I just want to know that she considered the needs and feelings of others. Acting on them is less important. I just want to know that she thought through all of the information available when making a decision. I would like her to be charitable and care about others but one thing that I can't abide by is someone who is so self-absorbed they don't even see the potential ramifications that their decisions have on other people. I just want her to put on other people's shoes when making decisions. If she then says "Fuck these shoes" and does her own thing...I can work with that. If I know that the needs and feelings of others are being considered when she is making decisions, I can then evaluate those decisions and work on things from there. If others aren't even being considered, then fixing poor decision making isn't going to be an option. That's something that is very hard to teach.

1. She has to be open-minded. I want her to have a broad world view. I mean this in every sense of the word. I want her to be open-minded politically and religiously. It's OK to have deep-seeded beliefs, but she should be able to see the value in diverging points of view. She should be open-minded sexually. It's more than OK to have hard-forged sexual boundaries, but I want her to give thought to the value of alternative sexual experiences. On this same vein...I want her to be adventurous. I was considering making that an important stipulation, but I realized that I don't need her to actively seek and initiate adventure...I just need her to be open-minded and receptive to adventures that I propose. And when I say I want her to be open-minded I mean that I want her to say "Yes" to most of my ideas that are marginally reasonable. I want her to experiment with the unknown. I don't include drugs in the unknown, we had scientists experiment with those. They're bad. But I want her to experiment with new adventures and ideas and relationships. I want her to push herself to grow and develop in the most dynamic way that a human being can and bring me along for the ride. At the very least as I push myself to grow and develop in the most dynamic way that a human being can, I want her to let me bring her along for the ride.

Hold on for Part 2 of this series which is currently slated to arrive on November 14th.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Ray's Contrarian Opinions #1

As a society we're instinctively prodded towards consensus. It seems that more and more everybody likes the same things. Cults of Personality take over and turn into phenomenon. I'm starting to think that I could survey 100 people for their favorite book or movie and get no more than 10 different answers for each. Convenience rules our lives and most people want to swim the mainstream. This is the same reason why no matter how hard some people try, we aren't going to have a three-party or four-party political system in America. People want options but they don't want to be exhausted by options. Most people would be perfectly happy strolling through life as though it were an SAT test. Multiple choice, but no more than four choices. This is sad enough, but what is even sadder are those topics on which there is NO choice.

There are certain things that we are raised from an early age to like and dislike without much say in the matter. You really aren't allowed to not like Abraham Lincoln, puppies, sunny days, Krispy Kreme donuts, Morgan Freeman, or sliced bread. Sure there are people who don't...but they are often forced to hide these feelings and made to feel as though they were wrong. If you tell people you don't like puppies then you become the godless miser who hates puppies. I personally am not a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. I think he was kind of a dick. However, since everybody thinks that he was the one who freed the slaves and united America, I become the guy who is pro-slavery and anti-America. Read those history books a little closer, people.

There are also things that we as a society are told we aren't allowed to like. Racism, hurricanes, tuberculosis, Pauley Shore, and meth labs come to mind. Well I say it's about time we stopped listening to the societal consensus and thought for ourselves. I say we make like Stevie Nicks and go our own way. I fully intend to do my part for this revolution by sharing four things I dislike that society praises and four things that I enjoy that society frowns upon.


#1: Disney

True to the above rationale, I am already catching flak for this opinion and I haven't even posted it yet. But you know what, to hell with Disney. You can tell that they truly have untouchable status because their movies are the only wide-release films that can garner 95+ ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, but movie reviewers who write bad reviews of movies they like so that they can up their readership is something for me to bitch about at a later date. It is also generally agreed that Disneyland is the happiest place on Earth. Clearly these people have never been to Disneyland, or to Las Vegas for that matter. Then there is the beloved Walt-Disney himself: the Academy-Award grabbing father or animation and purveyor of the American Dream. In actuality: a fascist hate-monger. There is so much to criticize about the Disney corporation (now officially the Walt Disney Company). That is why I'm going to have to break this down into three parts: Their films, their theme parks, and their societal footprint.

I'm not here to criticize all of the films of Disney or to say that there is nothing redeeming about them. The Walt Disney Company has produced many fine films, but they aren't all Hakuna Matata (that means "No Worries"). I recently saw an advertisement for Disney's new re-release of The Jungle Book. They were bringing it out of the depths of the Disney vault for it's 40th Anniversary to give it a new release on a 2-disc Blu-Ray and DVD. This begs two questions. The less important of these two questions is "What the hell is on that 2nd disc?" We're talking about a 40-year-old cartoon here. I'm pretty sure it's not a making of video. Anybody involved who warrants providing commentary is either decrepit or dead by now. And if they've got some deleted scenes, please spare us.

However, this is probably a ploy to take our attention away from the greater question which is "Why are you putting a movie that everybody has already seen in the Disney Vault?" There is the standard asshole reason that putting a moratorium on availability drives up prices, but I think that the answer is more sinister still. Putting tons of movies, even ones that everybody has seen, into the Disney vault allows you to better disguise the fact that this is also the location of Disney films that not everybody has seen and that you have little desire for them to see.

Who knows what tremendous embarrassments to the Disney brand lie within this vault? I'm sure that's where they are keeping Song of the South for good. This race-relations nightmare has been kept under lock and key for quite some time and many of the stars died shortly after making it of mysterious circumstances. If they could part with the ever popular Splash Mountain and Zippidy-Doo-Da they'd be rid of this for good. Let's not forget such classic animation as Donald Duck decked in Nazi regalia or Mickey Mouse smoking a cigarette (gasp!) using a lighter with a Swastika on it (double gasp!). I'm sure the Aladdin version with the original cut of "Arabian Nights" is in there. Mickey and the Boy Thursday is definitely in there (google it, oh so racist) along with the original Fantasia with Sunflower the Centaur.

However, there are certain examples that Disney hasn't scrubbed out of existense because they think that they're subtle enough. These include the Siamese cats in The Lady and the Tramp, King Louie and the monkeys in The Jungle Book, and of course the crows from Dumbo led by the uneducated, smoking, and pimptastic-hat wearing Jim Crow. And who could forget the ever so racist "What Makes the Red Man Red?" number from Peter Pan. In case you have forgotten you can direct your attention to the video and pay attention to the lyrics.


It's the whole vault cover-up that makes things even worse though. Sure the original Aladdin "Arabian Nights" lyrics were controversial but quite frankly wasn't the merchant just saying what most Americans were already thinking: That the Middle East is barren wasteland where the justice system runs on a clear and simple limb-removal policy. However, the unnecessary political correctness involved in airbrushing these lyrics out of history like a failed comrade in a Stalin painting allows the mighty Disney corporation to maintain it's erroneous status as a moral idealist so that it can continue to corrupt generations yet to come.

Also, I'm all for fantasy and idealism but it is pretty rough how children of the Disney golden age are let down every day when there unrealistic expectations of love, family, and the physics of human hair are shattered. There was never a worse twelve month span for romance than when The Little Mermaid and Pretty Woman came out. How many tween relationships ended because he just wasn't Prince Eric. Likewise, Disney clearly over-glorified the allure and magic of the single parent household. I'm pretty sure Mulan is the only protagonist that made it into adulthood from a two-parent household. I grew up in a loving two-parent household, so I can't speak from experience, but I know plenty of people that can tell you that one-parent households and the orphan life aren't the swashbuckling good time Disney promotes them to be. And then there is the ridiculous issue of Disney hair. Have you ever tried helping a friend's daughter with her Princess Jasmine Halloween costume sans a wig? The multiple ponytail holder concept does not work the way Disney implies that it does.

Yet there is no more epic letdown from elevated expectations than that of the Disneyland parks. They are marketed as the happiest place on Earth. Bunk! Bunk I Say! First of all, it is crowded, noisy, and there is no place to sit. And it lacks amusement. There are only a small fistful of rides that could be considered amusing by anybody over the age of 7. I'm not saying that kids aren't the most important thing, but they can't drive themselves to the park. Have you ever heard of fun for the whole family, Disney? The park is also a death trap that has few major attractions by which to mark oneself and keep from getting lost. How does one know where Adventureland begins and Frontierland ends? They are the same place. You basically have to use the Matterhorn to orient yourself because their maps are worthless. The lines are already ridiculously long for the five rides that anybody actually wants to go on, and when Space Mountain or Pirates of the Caribbean is down for maintenance every other weekend the lines for the other decent attractions multiply exponentially.

Any parent will tell you that the worst aspect of Disney parks is that they are money traps. I was once at a gathering where a child asked his father if they could go to Disneyland. The dad said, "Sure. We can go to Disneyland." The kid then got really excited. "I'll take you to the parking lot! Ha Ha Ha!" The kid's hopes deflated like one of my tires on my exceptionally shitty car. Everybody can tell that this dad is a jerk for taunting his son, but he's an even bigger jerk because he's willing to shell out $20 to park in Disneyland's parking lot just to taunt his son. You pay $20 to park! And then you lose your car because instead of having to remember a number to know where you parked you have to remember which one of the Lost Boys you parked near because Disneyland marks their lots with sometimes obscure characters. If you don't know the difference between Chip and Dale then screw you.

Then if you want to go into the park the leeching truly begins. This I can't actually blame Walt Disney for. When he died the parks admission was $4. Now it is $72. This so Michael Eisner can give himself a bonus that is half the size of my Alma Mater's endowment (not an exaggeration). A family of four is now at $302 and they've just entered the money trap. Welcome to a World of $4 sodas and $6 churros. I have eaten at the 2nd most expensive McDonald's in the world. It is at the Staples Center, where a Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal costs $9. The most expensive McDonald's can be found at Disneyland Tokyo. Souvenirs are also ridiculous. They'll charge you a couple dollars for some Mouse ears that were produced by a little Indonesian boy who's lifetime salary couldn't gain him admission to the park. And then they will charge you $10-$15 for a photo of you coming down Splash Mountain. Don't worry though, if you want to take your own pictures they have marked "Kodak Picture Spots" throughout the park for tourists who are too stupid to recognize a scenic view. It just gets more and more ridiculous. Did you know that the value of all the purses and wallets that get lost at Disney's parks every day is over $35,000 and the value of all of the purses and wallets that get returned to Disney's lost and found stations every day are $14.08. You can't make up numbers like that off the top of your head.

They also treat their employees like dirt. And not just the Indonesian boy who makes their mouse ears. I'm talking about the hard-working drones who help run their park. I have seen a Disneyland employee manual. For somebody who hated the communists so much Walt Disney really wanted everybody to look the same. There are outlines for acceptable hair cuts which is basically one for guys and one for girls. Nail polish colors are at one. Your uniform is issued down to your shoes and jewelry is often nish-nish. There also appears to be a caste system amongst the costumed performers. I haven't exactly figured it out yet but I think that if you are actual royalty (ala Princess Jasmine, Sleeping Beauty) you are at the top of the caste system and it works it's way down from there. Heaven help you if you are Lady or the Tramp. You get treated like an actual dog. Although Mickey is the trump card. The Mouse rules all. If you get sick or are suffering the effects of heat struck you had better suck it up because if you remove your head for any reason (i.e. to vomit) it ends in immediate termination. So vomit in the suit. And employees who overhear parents telling their children that the characters are just humans in costume are told to call the child abuse hotline. When audioanomatronic characters die they are given audioanomatronic funerals. When human workers die they are dumped in a ditch on Tom Sawyer Island. You get the picture. For the record, I made up less than half of those facts.

Disneyland has tried to whitewash away the less than glamorous parts of their parks (just like they did with their movies) and in doing so have wiped away all of the fun. They put It's a Small World through the old Politically Correct facelift and now the Chinese have regular-sized eyes and don't wear those ridiculous cone hats. This was probably for the best. I can't fault them for trying to be less offensive. However, I'm not sure that removing Tienneman Square signs from EPCOT's Chinese district after the riot there is in any way, shape, or form historically responsible. But on the Jungle Cruise they no longer shoot the attacking hippopotamuses (hippopotimi?). They throw rocks at them. If you want to kowtow to a billion Chinese people, that is one thing. But don't kowtow to PETA. They aren't real people. Having a fucking spine and remember that when a hippo attacks listen to Robert Muldoon and "Shoot Her!" They keep the best parts of their parks hidden. Every child wants to go to the Magic Kingdom. The best Disney park experience is found at Blizzard Beach at Walt Disney World. The 120 foot drop of the Summit Plummet and girls in bikinis beat the hell out of anything the Magic Kingdom has to offer, Fast Pass or No Fast Pass. If I were to go to Disneyland today I would probably just find a bench in New Orleans Square within the French Quarter and sleep until it was time to go home. By the way, New Orleans Square is actually an irregular hexagon in yet another Disney ploy to miseducate our youth.

However, the most atrocious of Disney's flaws have nothing to do with their movies or their parks or even the fact that Walt Disney was a spy for the FBI during the Red Scare and helped craft Hollywood's Blacklist. No...the main problem with Disney can be seen actively at work today as part of Disney culture. It stems from the Disney Channel. The Disney Channel and it's tween lifestyle machine are one of the main problems in America today. It started long before the Britney Spears Mousketeers of the mid-90s. Way back when Annette Funicelli led the Mickey Mouse Club they were already being corrupted by Walt Disney. They were forced to address him as "Uncle Walt" (creepy) and anybody who was caught cursing (even if it was just "hell" or "damn") was immediately terminated. Things have taken a turn for the worse recently though. The Disney Channel is pumping out maladjusted child tabloid fodder at a record pace.

Take a look at the top child talent to come out of the two major child actor camps of the mid-90s. Nickelodeon produced Amanda Bynes, Kenan Thompson, Larisa Oleynik, Melissa Joan Hart, Elisha Cuthbert, Michelle Trachtenberg, Christine Taylor, Nick Cannon, Jason Dohring, Emma Roberts, and Seth Green. All of these actors went on to great success after they left Disney and if some of them didn't reach super-stardom well at least they were well-adjusted and none of them (except maybe Nick Cannon) was ever plagued by scandalous tabloid stories. Now let's look at the cream of the Disney crop: Lindsey Lohan, Kirk Cameron, Dustin Diamond, Joey Lawrence, Kristen Stewart, Erik von Detten, Britany Spears, Mischa Barton, Shia LeBouf, Hillary Duff, Raven Symone, Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, and Vanessa Hudgens. These names are a lot more famous, but the ones that haven't crashed and burned yet are headed to do so soon. Among them I can count over half a dozen DUIs, at least a dozen celebrity feuds, at least four whose genitals I have seen, multiple counts of possession of a controlled substance and hundreds of National Enquirer and Star cover stories. But Erik von Detton was the runner-up of Celebrity Mole so they've got that going for them.

Sure I'd rather have Miley, Britney, or Shia's bank account or the ability for me to address them by their first name and have you know exactly who I mean, but I'd rather sit down for a meal with Amanda Bynes, Elisha Cuthbert, or Jason Dohring any day, because they are real people. Also, their careers are ahead of them, not behind them. And this isn't a coincidence. This has everything to do with the vapid lifestyle that Disney promotes and their uncanny ability to want to make childhood seem so magical that those who buy in too deeply lose touch with reality. Like I said...Life isn't all Hakuna Matata.

#1: Elective Surgery (and Steroids in baseball for that matter)

Elective Surgery gets a bad rap. There's multiple reasons that people look down on. Some people think that it's expensive and carries unnecessary risk. Some people look at cases like Joan Rivers and Kenny Rogers and see people who have turned themselves into maniacal-looking clowns. Yet others see it as humans valuing superficiality over who they are supposed to be and inner beauty. These are not totally unfounded concerns. However, the problem here is not the plastic surgery itself. It is the overuse of it. Everything in moderation. Sure you have cautionary tales like that of Heidi Montag who went from super-hottie to somewhat scary looking by trying to have ten elective surgeries consecutively. But let me tell you...for every Heidi Montag there are ten hideous gargoyles who were transformed into decent looking human beings.

I have always supported every human's right to attempt to achieve their maximum potential by any means that I deem moral, be that legal or not. This is why I support illegal immigration. Trying to be American is just the epitome of maximizing your potential. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with people who are unattractive. Unattractive people are some of the best people. However, it is an undeniable fact of life that there are rights and privileges that are afforded to the beautiful that are not afforded to the ugly. However, this is not something that works in the reverse. If we are talk about maximizing one's human potential then we are talking about getting better looking. Who are we as a society that blesses the beautiful to tell people that they shouldn't take drastic measures to be amongst that beautiful elite?

I hear your arguments against it. You can tell me that people that elect to have superficial surgeries aren't being true to themselves and that they should look for somebody who will respect them and love them for who they are rather than trying to fix themselves to land a mate. These critics are apparently very unaware of the shortage of non-superficial people that make up the general population. That isn't a judgment or a condemnation of society, I'm one of them...and I don't think that I feel all that bad about it. It's human nature. I don't always support a conformist philosophy, but it isn't always a bad thing. I do support grabbing the brass ring and taking what it is that you want. If we look at the state of the American dream it becomes increasingly clear that some people might need a little help from the knife to do that. So who are you to tell them that they shouldn't?

Naysayers of elective surgery like to focus on the augmentation of undesirable physical attributes whose removal or alteration is unnecessary. They spend significantly less time considering the psychological changes that a recipient of cosmetic surgery goes through. Cosmetic surgery has obvious effects on people's self-esteem and confidence levels and has been proven to be a very effective tool in combating depression. A simple rhinoplasty may not drastically change an individual for the better on the outside but if it gives them increased self-confidence then that is invaluable. Also, while there are risks associated with elective surgery, if done by a properly trained surgeon it is significantly safer than using mind-altering drugs to combat depression.

However, this doesn't mean that I'm saying you shouldn't use chemical-altering drugs. I am after all for steroids in baseball. Why the hell not? To argue that they disgrace our national past time is a futile argument. That argument may have had teeth about ten years ago, but since then baseball has been shot in the head and kicked into a shallow grave. Baseball is boring as hell and it sure as shit isn't our national present time. Football has taken over. Basketball is making a stand. And NASCAR, golf, tennis, soccer, and even pro wrestling can make their case to be above baseball. Baseball has been mismanaged into the ground by too many consecutive generations and faces irrelevance in the near future if it can't pull out of it's tailspin. It seems destined to take it's spot next to boxing and horse racing in the graveyard for once-great American sports. But there is hope for baseball and it comes from what many consider to be baseball's worst enemy: Steroids.

That's right...I am suggesting re-pumping the sport. Let the juice run loose. Baseball was so much better ten years ago. I want to see people at their best, even if that isn't their natural best. I'm not trying to say that steroids aren't dangerous or without their consequences but I don't want to see first basemen be sexual lotharios. I want to see them jack some dingers. And let's reconsider our stance on steroid users entering the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds is pushed out because he was a steroid user then Major League Baseball's all-time hit leader (Pete Rose), all-time home run leader (Barry Bonds), and third highest career batting average (Joe Jackson) will all be banned from it's Hall of Fame. No thanks, Cooperstown...I have little interest in viewing your Hall of Average. And I don't want to hear that steroids give hitters an unfair advantage when shooting for home run records. Every decade baseball has made rule changes to increase it's number of home runs: Banning the spitball, integrating the league, building "hitters parks", expanding to cities at high altitude, and actively spiking the coffee in every club house with steroids while preaching against it. And it led to one of the most exciting eras in baseball (1997-2006). Now we turn our back on that. No...we reach for the brass ring and much like elective surgery we strive for best body available. And if you are a baseball player, that means a steroids body.

I am clearly advocating using any sort of artificial means to enhance one's physique and appearance in an effort to maximize mankind's potential through Darwinian adaption. And I can see and hear that some of you are sick right now. You're asking yourself where it ends. Will I endorse building robotic third arms onto people or splicing our DNA with that of a dolphin so we can breathe underwater for longer periods of time? The answer. Maybe. Some of you might be saying "Get Bent Dr. Moreau, we will lose our humanity!" To which I will respond, "Listen to yourself, you fucking child!" And after we've had a good yell at each other I will explain that our bodies are not what makes us human. If God had really cared that we all cling so dearly to our human shell and not alter it then he wouldn't have created Siamese twins or thalidomide babies or told the Israelites to circumsize themselves. It is our soul that makes us human. So if somebody doesn't want to look like the Elephant Man or if somebody actually does I support them in their endeavor.

Let's be all that we can be, people. I fully support working to be all that you can be...but when that fails you, there is always science. Don't let the movie Splice scare you, we can push the science of human improvement ourselves without things going to shit. We just have to remember the timeless words of Tony Sinclair "Always in Moderation". That's how you get into trouble with elective surgery (I'm talking to you Montag, Rivers, and Rogers) and that's how you get in trouble with scientific exploration. But let's let science show us what we can truly be. After all scientists owe us for fucking up the food pyramid. It was ten times better when I originally invented it and gravy was at the base. So feel free to get that otoplasty, pound some HGH, or get a tattoo because it's your body and it will be what you make it.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Summer Sports Re-Cap: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I've decided with this blog I'm going to try and limit the amount of posts I do about sports, movies, and television. I could write all day about these fine topics but my readership tends to find my opinions on them less interesting that those on social theory and the such. Therefore, I have decided to limit or devote (whichever way you want to look at it) one post a month to these topics on a rotating basis (not including monthly and quarterly segments). I would be remiss if I did not spend at least one post to recap my thoughts on this summer of sport. So here are my thoughts on the big season:

The World Cup

Only half the teams in the World Cup that warrant my opinions so if you are waiting to hear my opinions on Slovakia, Nigeria, or Denmark you might not want to get your hopes too high. I want to talk about the Winners and Losers of this World Cup and hand out some grades for effort and execution. I will start with the Winners.

Spain - A

Winners don't get much bigger than World Cup Champions. Furthermore, they never really left any doubt that they were the best team. They had an opening game stumble to Switzerland but rebounded to win the group and then methodically take down each team in their way with what has to be considered the best midfield and goalkeeping in all of soccer. The stranglehold they have on European soccer started with Euro Cup 2008 and it clearly hasn't diminished. Of the player's receiving votes for FIFA World Player of the Year in 2009, more than half played in Spain's La Liga and six play for their national team including three of the top 7, and the top midfielder, winger, and goalie in the World Cup. They have good coaching and a methodical, if not flashy, style that utilizes ball control to effectively dismantle any team that steps onto the pitch against them. They qualified through Europe by winning ten out of ten matches. Ten games without a tie in today's game is almost inconceivable. They may have lost their opening game to Switzerland, but their fan base responded with the appropriate amount of optimistic disappointment.

They have maintained their success despite changing managers between Euro Cup and the World Cup and they have kept the managerial job within the country which Samuel Adams will tell you is "Always a Good Decision!" They haven't gone out of the country for a manager since they were helmed by a Uruguayian for the 1982 World Cup. David Villa is also scoring goals at a pace unseen in Spain's history. I fully expect him to fly by Raul as the country's all-time leading goal scorer. He's one away and he's only 28. Iker Casillas is also a big winner. Not only did he win the Golden Gloves award for the tournament but apparently he has a ridiculously attractive girlfriend. To the victor go the spoils. Let's also consider that Spain's team is remarkably young. Every starter from the final could concievably be back for the next World Cup and young guns like Sergio Ramos could have three more Cups in him. Casillas could also have three more cups in him because he's only 28 and the older the goalie, the better. We have to see what Brazil relaods with in four years but as of right now Spain has to be considered the prohibitive favorite for World Cup 2014.

Netherlands - A

This runner-up has nothing to be ashamed of. Several commentators lambasted their style of play after the final. But what do those ninnies know? They dispatched some impressive teams along the way and did their country proud. It has to hurt to come that close and fall just short but you've got a trump card for every country except Spain and things are only looking up for the future of your national team. They are even younger than Spain with no current players over 30 and a solid young duo of Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben who are both 26. Unfortunately this takes into account that their oldest player, captain, and stud Giovanni van Bronckhorst (35) just retired after the World Cup. He will be sorely missed.

However, they won the UEFA U-21 Championships in both 2006 and 2007 which means that the young players they have hitting the squad now are the most talented in Europe. They're one of the best at ball control but Spain is better. They have no problem scoring goals but could shore up their defense a little. This is a team on the rise. They have great communication and I think every team in the tournament took notice when they dispatched Brazil. They'll be in the upper echilon of European football until at least the next World Cup.

Germany - A-

There really wasn't a more exciting team in the World Cup than the German side. This is another team that has a great deal of youth even though there two biggest names, Michael Ballack and Miroslav Klose, are in their early 30s. Hey, Thomas Muller is only 20. That kid is going to be a stud. The team plays together well and actually finished third place in the World Cup without their Captain and possibly best player. That is an impressive feat. I mentioned that the Dutch team has no problem scoring goals...well the German side REALLY has NO problem scoring goals. They unleashed an unholy fury of goals rarely seen in the World Cup. They had eight different players score. Spain only had three. They scored four goals in three different games. The rest of the field only did it twice and only when playing Korean teams. They've been the most consistently great team in Europe this decade. They don't necessarily have the gold to show for it but they've placed in the Top 3 in all three of the World Cups this decade and were Runner-Up at Euro Cup 2008.

They thrive where others fail because they have a very disciplined style of play. Further down this post I am going to rip England for having a very disciplined style of play so it is best that I explain myself lest you think of me as a hypocrite. Every member on their team has a clearly defined role. They are a cog in the greater German machine. They train these players to fulfill their role and players are hand-selected meet the needs of the team. Every player on their National Team and their U-21 plays within the German Bundesliga with the exception of Everton's Jerome Boateng. These players know each other very well and the camraderie shows on the field. Speaking of their U-21 team. They won the UEFA U-21 Championship in 2009 which means great young reinforcements are on the way. I see Germany as the third big superpower with Brazil and Spain in the mix for World Cup 2014.

USA - B+

I have to give props to America. They did us proud. They caught bad break after bad break from the officiating but somehow found a way to make the plays when they absolutely needed to be made. It was unfortunate that they went down earlier than they could have but progress was made and we definitely took a step in the right direction. We developed an international reputation as late game scrappers and clutch artists (though flip-side of the choke artist coin). I don't think anybody will debate that the USA owns the play of the tournament. Other countries may want to argue that we have three of the top five plays...but they have their work cut out for them in that argument. Landon Donovan now has several major European clubs down his pants for his services. We've also seen the superstar emergence of Clint Dempsey and Tim Howard. We still won't have the clout of their European power counterparts but nobody is going to want to see America in their draw in future World Cups. You've heard that American soccer has been turning a page for years now but finally we have an actual cause and effect to back up that it is happening. The young stars competing on the national team today are the first of the AYSO generation. American children didn't play soccer in the 60s. Landon Donovan pre-dates the AYSO boom that happened in the late 80s and early 90s. We now are seeing a generation that grew up playing soccer the way kids in Europe and South America did. We have been able to stay competitive because of our advanced training facilities and funding for our national program but now we have the added advantage of en masse young homegrown talent.

Let's look at America's future prospects. We are not young, but we've got up and comers. Also, we depend less on young talent than other countries. America has always been about mental toughness and thus uses wily veterans. Countries such as England and Brazil who left seasoned veterans at home could learn from this. Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Carlos Bocanegra, and Tim Howard will all be in their early to mid 30s during the next World Cup but they're gutsy gamers so I expect that they will all still be elite players. I expect Donovan to still be elite at 36 two World Cups from now. Our fitness is tremendous. Jozy Altidore is only 20. Michael Bradley is only 23. And Maurice Edu is only 24. Then there are the young studs who are coming up. Jack McInerney just turned 18 and has already become a goal scorer for the MLS's newest team, the Philadelphia Union. Mykell Bates is also waiting in the wings as is Juan Agudelo who at 17 just signed with the New York Red Bulls. We also have the necessary flexibility down. Whereas other more rigid countries train their players to play a very specific position and system, US players are adaptable. Landon Donovan can play left, right, or center and can actually play midfielder or forward. We also have the best goalkeeping in the World which will keep us competitive as we continue to grow.

Uruguay - B+

A gutsy performance by South America's most successful team in this World Cup. Only eight different countries have ever managed to hold the World Cup and Uruguay seems like an unlikely one despite hoisting it twice. However, it's easy to see that they have guts and grit. After barely qualifying with a last ditch win over Costa Rica they really had very little business making it to the semi-finals. However, they clearly have a talented team and Diego Forlan has vaulted himself onto the World Stage as one of the world's premiere goalscorers by capturing the World Cup's Golden Ball. This is good because this is a team that does not have youth. Seven members of their national team are over 30 (including Forlan), however, they are in remarkably good shape which probably has a lot to do with their high altitude training. Uruguay has a supreme home court advantage in qualifying games because they play in the highest altitude national stadium in the world.

One solid young player that they do have is Luis Suarez who has found some new international swag after his desperate, blatent handball to save Uruguay and send them into the Semi-finals. He has been decried by football purists but I say "Bravo". That kind of desperation is what we need in sports. I haven't seen such desperate innovation since Nicholas Kiefer threw his racquet to distract Sebastian Grosjean at the Australian Open (another less than legal move that paid off brilliantly). Now that we know that Uruguay has players who can think outside the box to win, the sky is the limit. However, while Uruguay has some solid talent right now they really aren't getting any younger and I would enjoy this semi-final appearance because I don't foresee them having the same magical run in 2014 with a 35 year old Diego Forlan.

New Zealand - B+

Bravo, New Zealand. This small Oceanic nation with barely 25 footballers to rub together and call a team is the only nation in this World Cup to go undefeated. They also didn't win a game but several other teams accomplished that feat...so it's less impressive. Nobody could take down the mighty Kiwis or the All Whites as they like to refer to themselves (a little racist if you ask me considering that they are in fact all white). Quite frankly, I think they should be proud of that. I know your wondering how I can give New Zealand, a team which did not advance a B+ when I plan on giving out Cs and Ds to teams that did advance. It's a matter of expectations.

In New Zealand's only other trip to the World Cup in 1982 they got there face stomped on in all three games that they played. They had 12 goals scored on them, lost every game by at least three goals, and if Hungary hadn't stomped on El Salvador 10-1 then they would have ended up as the worst team in the tournament. And that was New Zealand's previous all-time best team. Not bad for the only team to actually feature multiple players who are not pro soccer players by profession. Aside from a couple players in the Premiere league and a few in the powerhouse MLS there isn't much talent on the New Zealand team and I wouldn't automatically expect things in 2014. But 2010 was something to be proud of, so savor it, boys.

South Africa - B

Let's hear it for the host nation. This was another team that didn't necessarily wow with it's soccer prowess, but did manage to impress people by defying it's low expectations. As the host nation South Africa got an automatic bid and that was about the only way they were getting into this World Cup. That don't have an abundance of talent on their squad. There captain does play for Portsmouth and they have a player on Everton but all in all not too much to be excited about.

That being said they performed more than admirably in what was considered to be a fairly tough group. They held their ground in the opener against a heavily favored Mexican team, thus protecting the undefeated streak of hosts in the opener. They then got pushed around by a very talented team from Uruguay but roared back to score a win against those highly touted French punks. They tied Mexico in the points and didn't advance based on goal differential because of the bad Uruguay loss. Still, not too shabby for a team that has spent time since the last World Cup ranked outside of the top 100 in the world. They showed guts on World stage and probably scored a lot of poon the entire month. Maybe not as much as Spain's team is still scoring right now but enough to warrant a B and allow them to hold their heads high until the next World Cup.

Honduras - B-

Honduras gets a B- for just getting to the World Cup. And by getting to the World Cup I mean the United States escorted them in when Jonathon Bornstein scored a final second goal to take care of Costa Rica. You're welcome Honduras. They did have kind of a tough break in that their second best scorer, Carlo Costly, was injured for the World Cup. However, they got to play, they didn't embarrass themselves and it's nice for Hondurans to have some relief now that Emily Kenney is currently terrorizing their countryside. (Just kidding, Emily.) They also appear to have gained a greater appreciation for America which is a victory in itself.

Now let's give the Losers their due.

Ghana - C+

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking how in the world I can I grade Ghana at a C+ when they made the Quarterfinals and beat the mighty USA team to which I awarded a B+. Believe me, if we were talking about quality of play Ghana would have an A-. But given that every person in Ghana felt absolutely sick with the way this ended, I don't think they want me to grade them that highly. They feel a sense of loss and thus I have to bestow on them a loser's grade. They played awesome. This was by far the best performance ever put up by an African nation. But that last minute and shootout against Uruguay has to feel like the ultimate stomach punch. They were less than 60 seconds away from advancing and then a crafty play that many are decrying as outside the spirit of the rules sent them into a penalty kicking tailspin.

However, this isn't Ghana's first rodeo and it's not likely to be their last for a while. They advanced to the Knockout Stages in 2006 and have a solid young core that includes players for Chelsea, AC Milan, and Internazionale. The only rapidly aging star that they have is Richard Kingson and he's their Goalkeeper so he is probably good for another go-around. I'm just surprised that he is the backup for a relegation-danger EPL team despite being better than any goalie that England has. The goals they scored and the skills that they showed proves that this team can compete with any team in the world. They beat a highly touted Serbian team and played right with an elite German squad. I expect Ghana can be the first African team to break through to the World Cup Semi-finals and I wouldn't be surprised if they did it as soon as next World Cup.

Portugal - C

I would fully agree that Portugal got dicked by their draw. The draw was set up so that one of the top 3 ranked teams in the world was not getting out of the Round of 16. However, I'm not excusing Portugal because they had multiple opportunities to prove that they weren't the weakest of those three teams and they blew them both. All they had to do was beat Brazil OR Spain. They only needed to win one of those games and they could advance. In truth, they didn't even need to do that. If they had just beaten the Ivory Coast, whose star Didier Drogba had had his arm broken only a week prior, they would have advanced. Portugal had a very rough draw but they still showed no ability to get it done outside of their 7-0 dismantling of North Korea. They had one of the two biggest stars in the tournament and he didn't show up. That seemed to be a theme for powerhouse teams: the biggest stars in the world were really quite quiet during this World Cup.

It seems like Portugal has always had a transcendent star within the World game. It started with Eusibio back in the 70s and has since continued with superstars like Pauleta, Luis Figo, and now Christiano Ronaldo. It just seems like on the national stage Ronaldo hasn't managed to live up to these other names. Granted these are tough names to live up to. Eusibio is one of the ten best players ever to play the game and shattered the Golden Boot competition at the 1966 World Cup with nine goals. Pauleta and Luis Figo were a fierce tandem that led Portugal to both a Euro Cup final and a World Cup Semi-final. Granted Ronaldo was on both of those teams and was even considered the best player on that 2006 World Cup team but he didn't produce for them the way Pauleta did. Sure everyone remembers his semis-clinching PK but you're supposed to make PKs. The only reason it seemed remarkable is because we had just seen 3/4 of England's PK team shank theirs. Ronaldo is still young but he has a lot of work to do if he wants a statue of himself to be erected like the one in that Nike commercial.

Algeria - C

Algeria...what a bunch of pansy-ass motherfuckers. The United States was in severe danger of going home because these lazy, mediocrists decided they wanted to play for a tie when they needed a two goal win to advance. They are getting a C because of their quality play which included a tie against the heralded English side. However, they deserve an F for their competitiveness. This is the World Cup. You go for the jugular every time. Ties are lame and playing to tie is not acceptable. If you tie a significantly better team then you can walk off the pitch with your head held high. However, if you did so because you were trying to tie them then shame on you.

And what really burns me up is that they did this after they were legitimately screwed by team collusion in the 1982 World Cup where Austria and Germany basically agreed on a 1-0 game to eliminate them. Algeria is the reason why group games are now played simultaneously. This was their chance at glory and they squandered it. They barely even made it to the World Cup after eking out a win over heavily-favored Egypt and they probably won't be back. This was their chance to compete on the World stage and they used it to compete for ties. Consider your nation shamed, Algeria. Try to come back in four years and pretend like you're attempting to win a game.

Italy - C-

Well, that was embarrassing for Italy. The defending champions from 2006 failed to make it to the Knockout stages of this World Cup. Not only did they not advance but they finished last in probably the weakest group in the field. They did have injury problems regarding their goalie but that still can't be considered an excuse for a team with such high expectations. When your team has every player come from it's own national league as well as several other team's top players you have to win. Only England, Germany, and Italy qualify in that regard. The Italians are easily one of the world's top three all-time squads and any exit before the Knockout stages is going to be disappointing. That being said this isn't a major setback for Italy. Italy in recent years has been a team without stars. In the last 15 years only one Italian has finished in the Top 3 for FIFA World Player of the Year voting and that was Fabio Cannavaro in 2006 which is the customary you led your team to the World Cup vote. He didn't receive a point the year before and was well out of consideration the year after. In this last two votes from 2008 and 2009 the only Italian player to receive a point was the aforementioned injured goalkeeper, Gianluigi Buffon.

The Italians may have been hurt by their lack of star power but they don't need stars. They will continue to win the same way that they always have: by playing a dirty, filthy brand of football. Right now Italy is just stuck between good crops of players. There top players are getting old and their young stars haven't reached full maturity yet. The players that led them to the World Cup were the same ones who led them to three Euro U-21 Championships in four years between 1992-96. Only now are Italian U-21 teams starting to do well again so it will be a few years before this team returns to prominence. I would fully expect them to compete in the next World Cup.

Brazil - C-

I really thought that this team had what it took to win this World Cup. And then they lost to the Netherlands. This is another team that's play warrants better than a C- but who's astronomical expectations allow for this to be a fitting grade when they depart the tournament in the Quarterfinals. I don't need to tell Brazil how to win World Cups because they've won it more times than anybody. However, I can't understand what the hell they were doing with their roster. They were needlessly persnickety with their roster bordering on downright stupid. Four of their five top active goalscorers weren't on the roster and five of their seven most capped active players weren't on it. I understand their not taking three-time World Player of the Year Ronaldo. I think they should have seeing as he was old and out of shape in 2006 and was still their best player because he's that damn good. However, I do not understand how they leave behind two-time FIFA World Player of the Year Ronaldinho. The guy is young and in shape and even if he isn't playing well he can help the team just with his presence, even if not in the game. Better to bring him than half of the young, useless bench players you brought. I also don't know why Adriano was left off. That guy is practically my age.

Brazil has very loosy-goosy style of play and it has worked for them a lot. This World Cup definitely favored a more disciplined style of play with teams like Germany and the Netherlands excelling. Brazil made the fatal mistake of cutting loose many of it's best and most experienced players in favor of young guns who were playing well in the moment. The beauty of the Brazilian system is that it will absolutely re-load by the next World Cup. If anything Brazil is cursed with an abundance of talent. Silly sports reporters like Bill Plashke have said that America should expect to be better at soccer because of our large population. What he doesn't understand is that population means nothing...soccer-playing population means everything. We have 300 million people, but our soccer-playing population is probably about 25 million. Brazil has a population of 200 million with a soccer-playing population of 200 million. Everybody in Brazil plays soccer. It is the world's fifth most populous country but China, India, the United States, and Indonesia all have soccer on the back-burner. Brazil will always be a soccer power because of what it means to the country. They do, however, need to realize that the World Cup only comes once every four years so they can't afford to screw it up by getting fancy with their roster.

Argentina - D+

Here was another team that had to be considered a World Cup favorite whose promise dried up in the Quarterfinals. There loss to Germany via a 4-0 stomping is in my mind the biggest game of the tournament. The final game wasn't spectacular so the honors of most important game go to this one. It was a statement game. It didn't just tell us about Germany or Argentina. It told us about soccer in 2010. On a tangent that will return to my main point, I played American football in high school. My senior year my team went to the state championships for a game that pitted football players (my Loyola Cubs) against athletes (the Long Beach Poly Jackrabbits). The athletes were heavily favored but the football players won. This game showcased that same principle. There was far more talent and ability on the Argentinian side. They had the best player in the world in Lionel Messi, a hot striker who was coming off a hat trick in Gonzalo Higulain, and a crazy coach who just so happens to be the second best player of all time in Diego Maradona. This team was on a roll. They had a solid core of young talent that was responsible for winning the last two Olympic gold medals in the sport. They weren't even really tested in the group stage. They even used all of their players except for their two reserve goalkeepers. And then they got absolutely stomped. This was an enormous victory for discipline over athletic prowess. There is absolutely no excuse for a team getting stomped 4-0 in a game like this. The reason for the D+ is because of the generally classifiable humiliation that this game brought upon Argentina and the weaknesses that it has exposed in their side.


First of all, Lionel Messi isn't that great. I bet my roommate $5 during Argentina's very first game that he wouldn't score a goal all tournament. Guess who won that bet. He is an impressive player but I've only seen flashy dynamo performances from him. I've never seen gamey, mentally tough performances. I think that he might be the best player in the world but is still wildly overrated. I don't see in him what I've seen in greats like Ronaldo, Zidane, or even his own coach, Maradona. It was especially clear during this World Cup that he's not leader he should be. He might be too young to be the captain but that doesn't mean he can't be a leader and communicator on the field. It was clear that no player on Argentina's team had any clue what their defensive assignment was against Germany. They were just freeballing it. Many people see Argentina as a team on the rise, but I'm not convinced that they aren't a team on the decline.

England - D

England is getting a D because of their poor performance versus high expectations. I understand the poor performance...I know exactly why it happened. What I can't wrap my head around is the high expectations. Why? What has England ever done in soccer that has warranted such high expectations. They won a World Cup in 1966. OK. They haven't scored a medal in the World Cup before that or since that. They've never even made the finals of Euro Cup. And they haven't even won a Euro U-21, U-19, or U-17 Championship since the early 80s. They are the original Sultans of Suck. There big scary reputation comes mainly from the fact that their rabid fan base likes to inflate their worth and other people buy in and the fact that they have the best National league in the World. That national league is, however, stocked with the best talent from other countries. The EPL may be the best pro league out there but the best player in the EPL doesn't play for England. He plays for the Ivory Coast. The second best player plays for Spain. Some play for Portugal, France, Germany, etc. It has been at least five years since the best player in the EPL actually played for England. However, England's lack of winning has nothing to do with lack of talent. They have enough of that to compete and maybe even excel. Though basically disowning the leading scorer from your last World Cup and the only great player you've had in the last quarter-century (David Beckham) probably isn't the way to go.

The main problem with England stems from their fans and their manager. England's fans are so rabid and brutal that they have mentally broken almost all of their players. The mental abuse that is showered upon anybody who screws up for the national team has wrecked their confidence to the point where England literally has no goalies left who are not a quivering mess. After Robert Green screwed the pooch against America in group play he was replaced by a 40-year-old. A 40-year-old whose is nicknamed "Calamity" for his penchant for screwing the pooch. They drive these players hard and then they turn on them viciously when they collapse. It really isn't a good long term solution. However, the main problem is their management. This is a team that has all of its players taken from its national league and yet it hires an Italian manager. World Cup managers should be managing their home country. And this manager plays in a very disciplined system without understanding it. Germany plays a very disciplined style, training every one of it's soccer athletes to fit within a certain mold for it's national team. England plays a disciplined style that trains players to fit molds for their club teams and then expects that it can just throw the best individuals together and that will work on the world stage. England needs to learn that there players are not Brazilians. They are not dynamic adaptive athletes. Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are both great center midfielders for their respective teams Liverpool and Chelsea. However, when you move one of them to left midfielder to accommodate the other they become useless. They need to train their players to be more versatile and fit within the national system. They always have high hopes for this team but I don't see them getting past the Quarterfinals in 2014. And I am willing to put money on that.

France - F

Giving England a D felt a little wrong since I can only give France an F (Sorry no F-s. That compromises the scoring system.). They not only proved to be just about the worst team at the World Cup but they humiliated their entire nation while doing so. They let South Africa, a team that was given a spot that they probably couldn't have qualified for, step on their throats. They acted like petulant little children who had no clue what an honor it is to represent your country at the most important sporting event this side of the Olympics. The most unfair thing is that France didn't even belong here. They qualified on a hand ball and now Ireland has to sit at home to watch France disrespect the tournament and the sport. This opportunity only comes around once every four years and they squandered it. They acted like the defeatist quitters that we often stereotype them to be. It's one thing for a once great team to embarrass themselves by just falling off and not living up to their legacy. This was bound to happen to a post-Zidane France. They weren't that good before him and apparently they weren't that good after him. However, it's a totally different thing for a once great team to disgrace themselves and their nation by disrespecting the game and what is stands for. People thought it was an embarrassment when Zidane got roped in and headbutted Materazzi in the last World Cup. Well at least he stood up and fought for something which was very un-French of him. I mean do you even remember who was the captain of France's 1944 World Cup team? That's a trick question...ze fuhrer didn't like futbol. I'd spend the next paragraph talking about France's future prospects but I really don't want to waste the paragraph on a bunch of quitters, malcontents, and losers.

Summer NBA Free Agency

While we're on the subject of losers we find ourselves with a perfect segway into this summer's free agency debacle...LeBracle, if that is what we are calling it. The trick here is that for every loser there is a winner. It's a seesaw effect. Here are some things I think I think and questions I think I have:

Small market teams are more screwed than ever. Ever since the NBA-ABA merger the financial rules of owning a basketball team have been ever-changing. Large market teams have always had a competitive advantage because they produce more money and thus can spend more money. This is why teams like the Boston Celtics, the Los Angeles Lakers, and the Chicago Bulls are the NBA's storied franchises. However, with the advent of the salary cap era we saw a sort of competitive balance arise. During the mid to late 90s we saw perennial powers like the Celtics and Lakers weaken and we saw the Utah Jazz (from the leagues smallest market) become one of it's best teams. Teams from lower third of market size began to thrive. In the 1999 Finals the lowly San Antonio market (1,711,703) crushed the mighty New York market (18,323,002). San Antonio then went on to win four titles in nine years, while the leagues biggest market became arguably it's worst team over that span. Teams like the Indiana Pacers and Portland Trailblazers actually contended for titles. This can't happen in baseball. Mark my words...the Kansas City Royals will never win another World Series in an uncapped league. However, the salary cap made it so that anything was possible in basketball. Every team could spend the same amount of money. More profitable teams were more likely to spend all that money, but if our owner was rich enough you had more than a puncher's chance.

However, we saw a disturbing trend in this off season's free agent dealings. Despite being in a down economy, there was a boatload of money left on the table. In a free agent market that included Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Carlos Boozer, Ray Allen, Shaquille O'neal , Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, Allen Iverson, Manu Ginobili, and countless other all-stars, Joe Johnson walked away with the biggest contract. He signed for $120 million. Miami may have shelled out a lot money for the Big 3 but Tiger Woods could shell out twice that much in divorce court. Elin Nordegrin could be the biggest free agent of 2010. LeBron took over $20 million less than he was entitled to to go to South Beach. This is a new phenomenon, but an explainable one. LeBron made about $15.8 million with the Cavaliers last year. He made over $40 million in endorsements last year. He's willing to take the hit to $14.5 million in salary with the Heat in the hopes that his endorsement number will go up with the change of scenery. The change in jerseys prompting increased sales of his new jersey is enough to make up the salary difference all by itself. And the ability to build your brand in a large market could be the death knell of the small market team. If something doesn't change (and it probably will given that this is the NBA) we could see the Utah Jazz become the Kansas City Royals.

However, the size of the market isn't the only thing shifting the balance of power. LeBron could have gone to New York or Chicago (which are markets #1 and #3 respectively), but he chose to go to Miami (market #9...but still a step up from Cleveland at #22). It's because of the locale. The Heat don't play in South Beach but that is where LeBron is taking his talents. It's because players are being drawn to the NBA's literal "hot spots". Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and Dallas are now prime destinations for NBA free agents and you can bet that every owner except for cheap-ass Donald Sterling is going to cash in on this. We saw this a few seasons ago when Lamar Odom severely undercut his bargaining value for a new contract by admitting to the media that he couldn't play for a team that didn't have a beach. Looks like the Lakers didn't need to match any offers from the Pacers or Grizzlies. So if small market teams are screwed, consider the Milwaukee Bucks double screwed.

Any talk of LeBron ending up as a Top 10 Player of All-Time should be put to rest.
Cleveland fans be damned. I still have to think that the biggest loser of the LeBracle is LeBron himself. His career has turned into the kitchen from that super sexy Rachel Leigh Cook "This is your brain on drugs" PSA. It's kind of hard to imagine how he could have fucked things up harder than he did. That extra endorsement money he was looking for probably isn't going to happen. Had he signed with New York or Miami or stayed in Cleveland...it was there for the taking. Instead Amare Stoudemire and Rajon Rondo have swooped in to get in the new lucrative Foot Locker and Nike marketing campaign. Also, after Kevin Durant totally stuck the landing by quietly signing an extension with the small market darlings the Thunder, he immediately received endorsement offers and interest from the likes of EA Sports and Gatorade, who are moving away from LeBron in terms of his spokesperson potential. With Durant signing on as the face of USA basketball for 2010 his star is rising right as LeBron's is plummeting.

Sure, Durant won the scoring title last year but LeBron was still MVP. How can he be in that bad of shape if he's still widely considered to be the best player on the planet? The truth is that it doesn't really matter how good he is. We as Americans don't celebrate the best athletes. We don't even really celebrate the biggest winners. We celebrate the toughest competitors. Look at who we consider to be the greatest of all time. Julius Erving is probably the best pure basketball athlete of all-time. Bill Russell is the greatest winner of all-time. But it appears to be almost consensus opinion that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all-time. This is because he is the fiercest competitor of all-time. LeBron didn't really care about competing. He wanted to win. So he fled to South Beach to join up with Wade and Bosh which many will consider to be the easy way out. What he didn't realize is that it isn't just that you win...it's how you win. Winning might not be the only thing as we were once told. And I mean that in that winning might not be enough.

We've already heard Jordan, Magic, Bird, and Barkley weigh in and they all clearly disapprove. And even if LeBron wins eight championships I think he gave up his chance to be Jordan or Magic or Bird or maybe even Barkley who has no championships. It's because those guys loved to compete. They've all said that they never would have dreamed of playing with each other because they reveled in playing against each other. Magic won five titles (mainly against Bird's Celtics) and Bird won three titles (mainly against Magic's Lakers). If you put them on the same team they definitely win more than eight titles but nobody gives a shit because they did it against a Sidney Moncrief led Bucks team, an Alex English led Nuggets team, and a Rockets team on which Rodney McCray was the second best player. I'm not sure that competitive balance would produce any classics.


What LeBron fails to grasp is that some titles mean more than others. A seven-game series usually means more than that of a four-game series because that means the title was earned rather than given. And where you win a title often means the most. It would have meant a lot in Cleveland. Ten years from now few people will be able to name three members of the 2003 Florida Marlins World Series Champions who snapped a five-year World Series drought. However, most good sports fans will probably still be able to name at least eight members of the 2004 Boston Red Sox team that broke at 86-year drought. One title in Cleveland probably equals about three in Miami who are in the midst of a four-year drought. This contrast highlights the two biggest problems for LeBron. #1- This isn't "his team". #2- "His team" couldn't win the big one. Let's address these separately.

This is Dwayne Wade's team and all of Miami knows it. Where as LeBron will be forever villainized in the city that drafted him Wade is now Miami's most beloved athlete of all time. Not only has he won them a title but he also brought in Big Papa Pump and made them the center of the sporting universe. Also, however many titles LeBron wins in Miami...that number will always be one less than Wade. So LeBron will have to live with the fact that Wade is the ringmaster of this three ring circus. That is something Magic, Bird, and Jordan never had to deal with even when they all played for the Dream Team. They would defer on certain plays but they all always thought that any team they were playing on was their team. On the plus side we now know what Scottie Pippen with two MVPs would look like.

However, even more damaging than his relationship with Miami is his relationship with Cleveland. He will forever be known as not being able to get it done in Cleveland. Great champions have to be able to win with the team that drafted them. Russell, Bird, Magic, and Jordan all did it. Sure Kareem left the Bucks but he gave them a title before doing so. Kobe was drafted by the Hornets but was part of a draft day trade so for all intents and purposes the Lakers are his original team. Shaq and Barkley both left their original teams without a title to move on to bigger things but both did so with the understanding that they were the best player and only superstar on their new team. LeBron now looks like the guy who tucked his tail and ran because he wasn't good enough to get it done in Cleveland. You can bemoan the supporting cast all you want but they had the best record in the league two years running. Superstars are the ones who kick it into the next gear during the playoffs and some true superstars (Kobe, Rondo, Howard, and Nash) did. His refusal to dance with the one that brought him will hurt his legacy in the end. Let's talk worst case scenario for LeBron. If the Cleveland rejects that he leaves behind make the Playoffs without him it will be the most damning thing of all. He should be praying that the Cavs flirt with the all-time loss record. Even if Cleveland snags an 8-seed it will say that LeBron wasn't the difference maker that everybody thought he was.

Cavaliers fans are the new Cubs fans. Cleveland hasn't won a sports title since 1946 and I'm not totally convinced that they really want for that streak to end. Suffering has become such a staple of who they are as a sports city that if they lose that part of their identity they'll be devastated. Oh, I know they think they want to win but they don't show it. They are to me the most annoying sports fans out there next to Cubs fans. I know most people hate Lakers fans and Yankees fans and Patriots fans because there winning ways have made them bloated with arrogance. And don't get me wrong, I do dislike all of these fans. But there is nothing that I find more annoying or perverse than fans who routinely whine about their teams losing ways and misfortune as a coping mechanism. My freshman year a die-hard Cubs fan from down the hall started sobbing on the floor in front of my dorm when they were eliminated on the last day of the season. He kept wailing that the Cubbies were killing him. I told him to get out of my doorway. As he sobbed at my feet I informed him that he was scratching my sneakers and that I had a date with destiny and no time left in my busy days to wipe tears from my shoes.

The point here is that I now view Cleveland fans the same way that I view that Cubs fan. Quit your whining! What the hell are you doing to make your city a winning city? Cities need to be viewed as a viable destination for an athlete and a lot of that has to do with the fans. Just because your city hasn't won a title since FDR's last term doesn't mean that you have to have such a defeatist attitude. And never ever rip your team just because they are performing poorly. You will never hear me say a bad word about Xavier basketball. Coping mechanisms are for losers. And losers are for Cleveland so apparently it's a perfect match.

Showmanship is clearly a lost art in the NBA. You can say many things about "The Decision". You could say that it was pompous and you'd be right. You can say that it was ill-advised and tawdry and you'd be right. You can say that it was ruthless and inconsiderate of the city of Cleveland and you'd be right. But I will say that it is boring as fuck and true dat! When I heard that LeBron was going to get an hour long special on ESPN I thought that we would be able to see how far this man had come as an entertainer. He had already shanghaied the sporting news for the summer of 2010 and this was going to be his Grand Finale. I didn't watch it but I considered DVRing it. And boy am I glad that I didn't. This guy is the Sultan of Suck. Pompous, tawdry, and ruthless I can forgive. But I really don't want to forgive boring. You had an opportunity here, son. I expected you to fill the 59 minutes and 55 seconds that you weren't telling us that you were taking your talents to South Beach with something more interesting.


Build your brand by showing off some of your stand-up comedy skills or do some man on the street sketches where members of your entourage go out and interview fans of all your perspective suitors. Do something other than jaw on and on in a dull, staged interview. This is why the dunk contest is all but dead...the NBA's premier talent have no sense of showmanship. Chad Ochocinco put on a full hour show...and nailed it! You have never even been the most entertaining person on any of your teams. Shaq VS. was ten times better than "The Decision". And I would definitely rather see an hour long D-Wade and Barkley Fave Five commercial because those guys are hilarious.

Summer Tennis Report

It's been an auspicious summer for tennis. Given the fact that Wimbledon was disappointing because for the first time in four years we didn't have an epic 5-set barn burner in the Gentlemen's Final this summer was salvaged by several other great matches and a solid hard court season leading up to the US Open which is currently running. Let's take a look my five highlights and lowlights from this summer of tennis:

The Lowlights - Booo!

5. All good streaks must come to an end.

I am referring to multiple streaks that ended this summer during June's French Open. The first was Roger Federer's epic streak of 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances. I don't think this is a streak that will never be broken but I do think that it is an impressive one considering Ivan Lendl is in second place with 10. Only two other people (Lendl and Pete Sampras) have cracked ten consecutive quarterfinal appearances of which Roger's active streak is at 25. The man's consistency was sickening. This is a record that won't be touched for a long time (if ever) because only Rafael Nadal is good enough to attain it and the way he treats his knees won't allow him to even play in 20 consecutive Grand Slams.


The other major streak that went down at the French Open was Justine Henin's record of 40-consecutive sets won at Rolland Garros. This streak was less shocking when it came to an end because it was A) a harder streak to maintain, B) a match against the always tough and tantalizingly hot Maria Sharapova, and C) held by a player who had just come off of a two year retirement and had a little rust. That being said this is an amazing streak. She won three consecutive French Opens from 2005-07 and won the last two without dropping a set while stomping over tennis greats and a slow of women ranked at least #3 in the world including: Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova (twice), Maria Sharapova, Nadia Petrova, Mary Pierce, Anastasia Myskina, Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Jelena Jankovic, and Ana Ivanovic. Whenever somebody wins a Grand Slam without losing a set it's a masterstroke. To do it in back to back years is legendary. This is a feat that has never been replicated on the men's side and in the Open area has only been achieved by Steffi Graf at the Australian Open in 1988 and 1989 (and even she didn't make it to 40 straight sets). Streaks were meant to be broken but it's still sad to see them go.

4. The Nadal-Berdych Wimbledon final.

This is probably just a case of me being spoiled. Tennis players, fans, and writers alike have often considered the Gentleman's Final at Wimbledon to be the crown jewel of tennis and it has been fairly hard to disagree with them over the last three years as we got to see back to back Federer-Nadal five set classics including what many consider to be the greatest match of all-time in which Rafa finally toppled Roger on his third consecutive try with a 9-7 doozy of a fifth set. Then when Rafa had to pull out of Wimbledon last year Andy Roddick stepped up and challenged Roger in a 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14 showdown in which he served his first 37 games without being broken. This only added to a legacy that includes several other history book matches including the back-to-back Bjorg McEnroe classics in 1980-81 and just about any final featuring Goran Ivanisevic including his classic 1992 final with Agassi, his 1998 final with Sampras, and what I consider the greatest match ever his 2001 slugfest with Patrick Rafter.

This match just failed to live up to that. I watched Nadal work Berdych all over the court and straight set his way to victory without even so much as a tie-breaker. Even during Federer's five straight Wimbledon domination streak we didn't see a final this lopsided. Since the 1996 Wimbledon final between Richard Krajicek and MaliVai Washington at least featured a hot female streaker, the Nadal-Berdych match can only compete with the 2002 Hewitt-Nalbandian final and the 1997 Sampras-Pioline final as the most boring Wimbledon Men's final of the last 25 years.

3. Injuries on the women's side.

You'll notice a lack of upcoming highlights on the women's side due mainly to the fact that this summer has been very injury-prone for them. We've been without #1 Serena Williams and former #1 Justine Henin at this year's US Open. Both the Williams sisters were missing from Cincinnati due to injuries and big-time players like Maria Sharapova, Kim Clijsters, and Caroline Wozniacki have also missed time with injuries. #10 ranked Agnieszka Radwanska is the only currently top 10 ranked player who has not missed time this year with injury. Injury problems have forced former #1s Ana Ivanovic and Dinara Safina out of the top 50 in the rankings and have become such a serious problem that the WTA is adjusting the schedule for next year to make it less demanding. While this might help combat the rash of injuries this is a huge blow for the women's game.


If you read my last blog you may remember that I ranted about Dinara Safina being ranked #1 when Serena Williams currently held three of the four Grand Slams. I stand by this rant. If an entire stadium assumes that the #2 or #3 player is going to destroy the #1 player in a match then your ranking system sucks. However, the Williams sisters skipping the Cincinnati Masters has made me reconsider my stance slightly in terms of how rankings should be tabulated. Fans want to see the top talent go at each other in every major tournament. These tournaments come around but once a year and fans who choose to attend don't want to miss the chance to see their favorite players. I think the Grand Slams do need to be waited heavily but I am now firmly on the side of mandating attendance by top players at Masters events. I would like to see a ruling that if you don't attend the Masters event prior to a Grand Slam due to injury or resting you cannot attend that Grand Slam. I'm fine with more rest to prevent injuries but the four Grand Slams and eight Masters events are must attends to protect the integrity of the competitive balance in tennis.

2. Bad post-match interviews.

I love tennis but it's interviews are just so boring. It's a two-way street. Tennis commentators don't know how to ask questions and tennis players don't know how to answer them. There is only one exception on each side: John McEnroe and Novak Djokovic. This was never more evident than at the US Open. With record-breaking heat during the early rounds every single player was asked about the heat and you kept hearing the same boring answers. Until Novak stated that the shade that came for the final set of his first round match felt like sleeping with his girlfriend. The crowd roared loudly. But they asked the question two hundred more times the rest of the tournament and no male player jumped on the chance to say that the shade or a big win or great shot felt like sleeping with Novak's girlfriend. There are some other decent personalities. Ana Ivanovic is delightful and perky, Marcos Baghdatis at least tries to give interesting perspectives, and Mardy Fish is slightly humorous and relateable, but I probably wouldn't tune into Leno to Ferguson for any of them.

We need more dynamic personalities in the sport. John McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Goran Ivanisevic, and Patrick Rafter were all great interviews. Even former female stars like Jennifer Capriati, Monica Seles, and Lindsey Davenport was good with a microphone. Roger Federer is informative and well-spoken (in every frickin' language) but he is too gracious. I want more bad-ass personality like the kind the McEnroe or young Agassi brought to interviews. And Nadal is just not good at interviews in the slightest. This is the reason that I think he isn't as big a star as Roger despite being #1. He doesn't even know how to kiss up to home crowds (especially Americans) the way all other great players do. Players like Federer, Roddick, and Djokovic have a way of making fans feel important. And let's tell Hannah Storm to vary her questions. She asks the same set of three or four questions to every player she interviews. And let's just teach Andy Murray how to have a conversation. Forget showmanship in his case. Baby steps.

1. No American men in the Top 10.

I attended the Western and Southern Financial Group Masters a few weeks ago and this tournament had the dubious distinction of being the only one during the Open Era of tennis in which there were no American men in the Top 10. I got to see all of the top Americans play but I still haven't seen a Top 10 American man play in person since Andre Agassi defeated Tommy Haas in Los Angeles back in 2004. Also, for the second year in a row an American man has failed to make the Quarterfinals at the US Open. As a hardcore fan of all things USA this hurts me a little. It's understandable because being good at tennis goes against the flow of American culture in the 21st Century. With the advent of MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter we have become a very social people and we find our young athletes flocking more towards team sports where they can both receive athletic accolades and foster relationships with teammates. This helps explain the lack of American single standouts on the men's side despite our continued success in doubles (which has that team dynamic). It also explains why the women's side is so barren with the exception of the Williams sisters who have had each other to lean on in terms of dealing with the loneliness and monotony that comes with singles tennis.

It isn't just tennis. The reason that this phenomenon hasn't been seen in golf yet is because golf stars tend to be older. Wait until the current young generation reaches their 30s. You'll see that the top young talents are from the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan...not America. This is a frustrating turn of events for a die hard fan of America. But with technology bringing about the globalization of sports and Americans realizing that the greenest pastures lie in dominating sports that the whole world hold sacred, such as soccer and tennis...I expect this trend to change in our favor.

The Highlights - Woo Hoo!

5. Lleyton Hewitt returns to the winner's circle.

Everybody wants to see great champions in action and at their best and for those of us that have grown up in the Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal era of tennis Lleyton Hewitt was merely a memory of a once-great champion who played with the same sort of injury-invoking fury that Nadal plays with. He hadn't been a relevant player on the scene in several years and had taken a huge drop in the rankings when he was playing. It was nice to see him experience something of a comeback during Wimbledon last year during which he made some noise but this summer he won his first meaningful tournament in around four years when he defeated the mighty Roger Federer in the Gerry Weber Open.


This and several other solid performances allowed him to be seeded at all four of this years Grand Slams which had not been the case the last two years. I'm really glad I got to see him play in Cincinnati because the legendary Aussie has to be considered one of the greatest Davis Cup players of all-time and has a unique style which has been praised by peers such as Andre Agassi and Roger Federer. His baseline counter-puncher style of play has really not been effectively utilized by players since and it's good to see that it still holds up. He's not as big or powerful as other players but he is an excellent shot selector and might be the hardest player to ace in the history of the game.

4. Superpowers teaming up.

Sure I don't like it when LeBron, Wade, and Bosh do it because they lack respect for competitive balance. However, I was more than a little amused when #1 Rafael Nadal and #2 Novak Djokovic teamed up to play doubles at the Rogers Cup in Toronto. It was something that hadn't happened since 1976 and I appreciated the novelty of it. I liked it because it brought interest to the doubles game which could use more fanfare. It did not, however, upset the competitive balance because what most people don't realize is that doubles and singles are totally different games. Nadal and Djokovic got beat in the first round by a couple of unheralded Canadians. This is part of the reason that I think Roger Federer is so remarkable. The man stepped in and won the Olympic gold medal in doubles with Stanislas Wawrinka without playing doubles with any semblance of regularity on tour since 2000-01. Doubles doesn't always get the respect that it deserves so it is always appreciated when highly touted singles players enter the draw to help divert the spotlight over towards doubles players.

3. America rises again.


It's been very nice to see America pull out of it's swan dive. Following the men's drop out of the Top 10 for the first time they've already mounted a comeback. Andy Roddick and Marty Fish both thrived at the Cincinnati Masters vaulting Roddick back to #9 and Fish up to #21. This means that there are four Americans seeded in the top 20 at the US Open for the first time since 2001. Mardy Fish and Sam Querrey are playing the best tennis of their lives. Only two players have won four ATP titles this year. One of those is #1 Rafael Nadal and the other is American Sam Querrey with victories over the likes of Andy Murray, Andy Roddick, and Novak Djokovic. John Isner, Sam Querrey, and Marty Fish all have Top 10 potential as Fish and Querrey have no points to defend for the rest of the year. I also thought that young Ryan Harrison showed promise, though it greatly worried me that he blew three match points to lose his third round match.

American men are also getting more versatile in terms of the courts they can play on every country has their specialties. Nobody was surprised when Nadal, a Spaniard, started to dominate clay courts like countrymen and other latinos such as Juan Carlos Ferrero, Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, Gustavo Kuerten, Carlos Moya, Sergi Bruguera, Andres Gomez, Guillermo Vilas, and Andres Gimeno. However, people were surprised when he became the first Spaniard or latino of any nation to win Wimbledon (grass) in the Open Era. So you can imagine that I was very excited to see that Sam Querrey and John Isner set up the first All-American final on clay since Agassi and Courier played in the French Open back in 1991.

The women are also looking up as well...in doubles at least. American women have been represented on all four current Grand Slam doubles champions with Vania King breaking through to win at Wimbledon. Liezel Huber and Bethanie Sands-Mettek are also playing quite well and when Serena and Venus get healthy again they are of course the best in the world. Carley Gullickson has likewise brought home Grand Slam bacon for American doubles with her American male partner Travis Parrott. Our doubles dominance (with the Bryan brothers making up the best male team in the world) helps prove my theory that Americans being bred to excel at team sports.

But never fear, singles is looking up for America too. It might take a few years for our solid young crop to develop but solid results in Boys and Girls tournaments by players like Sloane Stevens, Denis Kudla, Andrea Collarini, Beatrice Capra, Ester Goldfeld, Chase Buchanan, Raymond Sarmiento, and Lauren Davis leave hope for the future. Until then we will have to be encouraged by strides being made by young American talents such as Sam Querrey, John Isner, and Melanie Oudin and hope that they can become noisemakers on the big stages.

2. The Isner-Mahut Triathlon Match at Wimbledon.


This was a match unlike anything we are likely to see again. It had me coming back to the TV three days in a row to follow the enthralling action. It shattered at least a hundred tennis records. Leaving both playing time and total aces so far in it's wake that they will likely never be eclipsed. You can add the second most aces ever in a match to the third most aces ever in a match and that combined total doesn't touch this match. They were going at it for over 11 hours. It wasn't always the highest level of tennis but the their ability to just keep going for that long is an accomplishment in itself.

They broke the scoreboard. An IBM programmer had to re-program it for the third day so that it could go as high as it did. They went through a rotation of 28 ball boys because the length of the match was too exhausting for the ball boys and ball girls. It took John Isner 183 games to win this one match. It took Rafael Nadal 169 games to win the entire 2008 French Open. But statistics don't do this match justice. It was so intense in terms of dehydration and muscle fatigue that it may have shortened both players careers by about six months. If that is the case at least they are legends now.

1. The S&W Masters in Cincinnati.


Possibly my favorite thing about living in Cincinnati is that it is one of only four cities in America that gets to host a major tennis tournament for men and women every year. I have been to the S&W Financial Group Masters the last few years and it is a tradition that I hope to keep of going every year. It is awesome. I went on Wednesday which basically means I get to see everybody. I didn't get to see a lot of marquee match-ups but I got to see a lot of tennis and all of the stars. How many tournaments allow you to say that you saw the top 4 ranked players in the world and Andy Roddick all on the same Centre Court in the same day?

Not to mention that all the best matches are on Court #1. Everybody is looking to Centre Court for the great matches and thus I was able to sneak away and sit in the front row of Court #1 for the two best matches of the day: Mardy Fish vs. Fernando Verdasco and Lleyton Hewitt vs. Robin Soderling. It is so much better to be able to watch tennis in person, especially when you are so close to the court. You realize things that don't translate on television. Things like how much Mardy Fish sweats (a lot), that Verdasco curses in English for some reason, or that Anna Chakvetadze does not get the credit she deserves for being a hottie little sex minx and that Robin Soderling does not get the credit he deserves for being a hideous gargoyle.

The other great thing about live tennis that you aren't likely to see on TV are the tremendous arguments that can happen between players and officials. Sure Roddick and Serena have gotten into it with officials in recent years but Hawk Eye has all but eliminated the John McEnroe tirades that made tennis so great to watch. Luckily Hawk Eye is only on Centre Court so if you watch matches on other courts which television often doesn't show you can still see some great throwdowns. Fernando Verdasco must have dropped half a dozen F-bombs while he ranted at the chair umpire for what was probably a pretty bad call. The days of "You Cannot Be Serious!" are still out there, you just need to go have a look for them in person.