As far as I know author Charles Murray is the only author who has to attempted to quantify human accomplishment and genius in the arts and sciences between 800 B.C. and 1950.
Given the incalculable amount of lost texts throughout the ages from civilizations like Sumeria, the Minoans, Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Greece, Rome etc., it makes the exercise seem almost futile.
Meh. Someone has to do it.
Murray took on the monumental analytical task in Bill James-esque fashion of explaining in about 500 pages his method and process as to how he arrived at a list of about (according to my count) 3391 significant figures in history.
How did the West become the titan among all civilizations? Specifically, how did it come to be dominated by but a mere four to seven nations?
It's a thoroughly invigorating journey, if one is predisposed to believe that all accomplishments are subjective and relative, it may be an eye popper indeed.
Based on his index of significant rosters, I simply broke down (much of which is already done in the book) the statistics by percentages. I was especially curious to see how countries did against each other. See it as "winning percentage" or "OPS" type of thing.
Just a small note, while Murray separates Rome and Italy (after all, though it's one civilization they can be viewed as two different entities. Some great Romans, like Seneca for instance, were from Spain), I grouped them together. Similarly, one I suppose, can keep Scotland and England separate but for our sake here they fall under Britain.
Let's begin.
In total numbers these are the nations that contributed the most significant figures:
1) Britain 549
2) France 548
3) Germany 538
4) Italy/Rome 453
5) United States 304
6) Austria-Hungary 118
7) Russia 116
8) Netherlands 101
9) Spain 83
10) Belgium 82
11) Switzerland 68
12) Sweden 43
13) Denmark 37
The rest is followed by Bohemia/Czech/Slovakia, the Balkans Norway, Portugal, Finland, Iceland. Note: If we tally up Bohemia/Czech/Slo. it would put them in 12th but it was considered independent in the book. Also, the Low Countries include both Belgium and the Netherlands. If we add the two, it places them as high as 6th. For most of the centuries, Italy and Germany weren't unified states marked by powerful kingdoms, city-states and principalities.
That all being accounted for, 72% of all European major figures come from the "Big Four." It shoots to 80% when you include the Austrian-Hungarian empire, the Netherlands and Russia.
In this light, now is a good time to mention the book does consider two other things: The first is the country in which major events took place (dominated again by the big four) and also plots where the origins (not where they worked or grew up) of significant figures come from. The major European regions are Ile de France, Southeast England, Tuscany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Bavaria, Venetia, Southwest England, Switzerland, Lowland Scotland, Lower Saxony, Saxony, Baden-Wurttemberg, Norteast Austria, the Italian Papal States, and Brandenburg. The major region for the United States, not surprisingly, is New England. America is still a work in progress.
Now each figure was assigned a number (anywhere from 1 to 100 depending how often they had been cited by sources and importance). For example.Newton was assigned 100 while Rutherford 89 who came in second.
I was interested to see was the average score per nation in the 12 categories: Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Technology, Art, Music, Literature, Philosophy.
Here they are:
Poland 21
Ancient Greece 21
Italy 15
Switzerland 15
Germany 14
France 14
Hungary 14
Netherlands 14
Britain 13 (Scotland 14)
Croatia 13
Denmark 12
Canada 11
USA 10
Sweden 10
Russia 10
Ireland 10
Austria 10
Surprised to see Poland top the list? So much for all those Pollack jokes. Impressive this may be, it's worth keeping in mind Poles were represented in just eight of the 12 categories. Ancient Greece made 10 of the 12.
Another example of a country cracking a decent score - Croatia - came from a sample of just three categories as they weren't represented in the others. Canada was represented in seven of the 12 and the USA 10. So while Canada scored slightly higher, the United States did produce more spread across more disciplines.
Only five countries scored in all categories: Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy - who outscored the previous four.
Next I looked at were Top 20 (240 figures) in each category.
In total numbers:
Germany 46
Britain 42
France 34
Italy/Rome 32
Ancient Greece 13
United States 10
Scotland 10
Netherlands 9
Sweden 7
Switzerland 7
Russia 4
Poland 4
Notice the significant drop off after the big four. Poland in particular seems to have taken a hit from the previous list. Percentage wise Germany led at 19% followed by Britain 18%, France 14%, Italy 13%.
Finally, which country had the most figures scoring 100?
Britain 4
Italy 2
Germany 2
France 2
Ancient Greece, Scotland, Switzerland, Austria 1
There you go.
***
Quick word on the concentration of where Western achievement took place. Notice it pretty much happened in five countries including Britain. Makes sense since information tends to spread about best in tight spaces. There didn't seem to be too much of an issue when it came to the sharing of knowledge between Continental Europe and Britain.
Which brought me back to a point made in Soccernomics. In attempting to explain why England seemingly under performed as compared to other big soccer nations, the authors concluded that in fact, England was performing well given its resources and circumstances. One of those circumstances said to handicap them was geography. Notably they were cut off from all the major tactical and philosophical (and dietary) advamcents stemming from Continental Europe.
Different story from what was discovered in our exercise above right? How could it have not been an issue in 12 major categories but was so in soccer? When one reads about soccer history it becomes clear geography is not the only reason. It was less of an obstacle to success and more of an issue Britain's parochialism as it willingly closed itself off to the rest of Europe. They just didn't believe they could learn from the likes of the Continentals.
It took Britain a long time to catch up if it did at all. It didn't seem to be the case when they were clobbered by Germany at the 2010 World Cup.
2012-03-06
Rise In Outbreaks Has A Root
One thing I've noticed in North America is the outbreaks in measles (Quebec), meningitis, whooping cough (California), influenza virus B to epidemic levels.
The reason is simple: More and more people (irrationaly) are choosing to not be vaccinated hence the rise of break outs.
The reason is simple: More and more people (irrationaly) are choosing to not be vaccinated hence the rise of break outs.
Cumulative History
If you're a believe in "cumulative knowledge" and "common experiences" then...
What do you get when you add up Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, Christendom (of which I will add the Magna Carta to), the Renaissance, and The Enlightenment?
The American Constitution and its framers.
That is not to say they incorporated everything from those cultures and events (Jefferson and Plato were pretty much polar opposites. But they all shared dedication in the pursuit of truth), they took and rejected what they needed and didn't find useful.
Of course, one can merely add the Constitution to the aforementioned and look for the "next big thing."
What do you get when you add up Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, Christendom (of which I will add the Magna Carta to), the Renaissance, and The Enlightenment?
The American Constitution and its framers.
That is not to say they incorporated everything from those cultures and events (Jefferson and Plato were pretty much polar opposites. But they all shared dedication in the pursuit of truth), they took and rejected what they needed and didn't find useful.
Of course, one can merely add the Constitution to the aforementioned and look for the "next big thing."
Well, I'll Be Damned
Heard on ESPN radio re the N.O. Saints headhunting story.
Specifically, a discussion with a baseball player who said player self-governance was part of his 18 year professional career. That pitchers would throw at a hitter, for example, for "showing them up" after hitting a home run:
"So, it really happens, huh?"
I hate it when a sports host plays the role of the completely clueless tool.
Like it's a revelation. "Oh, wow. You...mean...players try to hurt...you?" Insert Bambi eyes here.
Again, nothing was said that wasn't already known. It's a sub-plot within sports that always was and will always be a part of pro sports. Waste of air space.
Anyone who read about or just plain watched and/or played baseball knows the game within the game includes some nasty inside pitches and some form of intimidation. Nolan Ryan and Bob Gibson are just two examples of revered pitchers who had a nasty edge to their game.
Jesus me.
Specifically, a discussion with a baseball player who said player self-governance was part of his 18 year professional career. That pitchers would throw at a hitter, for example, for "showing them up" after hitting a home run:
"So, it really happens, huh?"
I hate it when a sports host plays the role of the completely clueless tool.
Like it's a revelation. "Oh, wow. You...mean...players try to hurt...you?" Insert Bambi eyes here.
Again, nothing was said that wasn't already known. It's a sub-plot within sports that always was and will always be a part of pro sports. Waste of air space.
Anyone who read about or just plain watched and/or played baseball knows the game within the game includes some nasty inside pitches and some form of intimidation. Nolan Ryan and Bob Gibson are just two examples of revered pitchers who had a nasty edge to their game.
Jesus me.
2012-03-05
Taking Charondas' Law Literally
"The manner of this legislator's death is deserving of mention. He had made a law that no man should be allowed to come armed into the assembly of the people. The penalty for infringement was death. He became the victim of his own law; for, having returned from pursuing some robbers, he entered the city, and presented himself before the assembly of the people without reflecting that he carried a sword by his side. Some one thereupon remarked to him, “You are violating your own law.” His reply was, “On the contrary, by Zeus, I will establish it”; and he slew himself on the spot."Now I know why Sicilians talk so much of honor! Well, back then, in those zany Ancient times, law and philosophy were taken mighty seriously.
Charondas as a legislator in Sicily. Such philosophical richness.
Except for those screwy Sophist scoundrels. Bleh.
Quote Corner With Goethe
"All intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again."Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Have we "maxed" out intellectually?
Is everything, so to speak, repackaged?
Of course, Goethe is one of the giants of German and world literature:
This year marks the 250th birthday of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Most Europeans know that he was the greatest of all German writers and poets and one of the giants of world literature. Less well known is that he was also a thorough-going classical liberal, arguing that free trade and free cultural exchange are the keys to authentic national welfare and peaceful international integration. He also argued and fought against the expansion, centralization, and unification of government on grounds that these trends can only hinder prosperity and true cultural development. Because of his relevance to the ongoing construction of Europe, I'd like to nominate Goethe as the European of the millennium...
Gregg The Bounty
Fine. Ok. It happens. We all know it does. Gregg Williams was doing this everywhere he went.
What I don't get is how it can can get by an army of sports journalists?
What I don't get is how it can can get by an army of sports journalists?
Of Redshirting And Birthdates
"Redshirting" may show positive results in the short term but there is no evidence it works over the long-term.
Just my impression here, but whatever "advantages" it may have in the near term may prove to be negligible over the long haul. Too many factors and variables come into play in life. There's no conclusive way to prove that because a parent redshirted their child it led to success later on in their lives - however you may choose to describe success.
One area parents are obsessed with is the notion of constructing "leaders" rather than letting them evolve naturally. But I'm not going to get into that now.
I can just see it now, people calculating to have kids in the winter. Imagine a world where no one was born in June!
***
Which made me think about sports and the book Outliers (which I didn't read. I read Tipping Point) by Malcolm Gladwell. It touches on the concept or idea of "cumulative advantages" of which "redshirting" is a part of.
First, another "True Story" installment.
My experience playing soccer began at five years-old. My "career" can be summarized this way: In the early stages, I was pretty much an average player. It was only when I turned nine or 10 did I begin to separate myself from my peers. By the time I was, 11 or 12 I was an elite player - often put in teams one year my senior - right until I tore my ACL at 15. I was just getting into my peak years before I even had a chance but even by 15 or 16 (I played competitively until I was 18) I observed a subtle reality. Namely, that while my skills were above average, physically I was below average.
I started to detect certain plays I got away with earlier were no longer plausible against guys equal or greater to my abilities. I started realizing my kicks didn't have the same power and that speed became a critical component of a soccer player. My running abilities were above average but not enough to overcome physical and height disadvantages. Where I managed was being able to outwit opponents with sleek passes and good mental judgment.
I remember distinctly when this happen. We were playing an elite squad from the South Shore and one of the players on their team was, loathe as I was to admit then, superior to me. No matter what I tried he was simply bigger, better and badder than I was. The team as well. Funny how that works. It was one of those "I guess it's over for me" epiphanies.
After 18 years old, I continued to play in various leagues but by the time I was in my 20s I was better prepared and conditioned to handle the opposition; including women. Cough.
I quickly figured out the players (like in a dance club. Cough) I knew were intelligent and gifted athletically and adjusted my in-game technique accordingly. For example, if I was coming down the left-wing and knew the right back was bigger and faster, I would look to draw him close and dish the ball off. Or, where I felt confident, I would attempt to deke him with a solid timing play. If I came up the middle and noticed the center back was average then my options to take advantage were greater.
The success of the play, of course, hinged on my strikers understanding how it was unfolding. More often than not, they didn't. You can go over plays but vision is subjective and very much in the eye of the beholder. I can count on one hand how many guys I played with where we were in sync. It doesn't happen often.
I was born in February.
Why mention all this especially my date of birth? Well, in Outliers, Gladwell alleges that being born early in the year (in the first quarter. In Canada, the cut off date for player eligibility in youth hockey is January 1) gives you an advantage early in life and those advantages accumulate over time possibly giving one a competitive edge to success. Based on this, he continues, it may explain why so many NHL players are born in the first quarter of a year.
Aside from my gaining zero benefit of being born in February (in the end, life gives you a reality check no matter what), I looked at the birth dates for each NHL team.
237 players out of the 734 active on NHL rosters were born in the first quarter of the year - or 32%.
I didn't check the rest of the months but already Gladwell's assertion is off to a good start. Only 68% is left for the rest of the months so the likelihood (and I will check this out eventually) of another quarter surpassing 32% is low.
Still, there are problems. Does quantity mean quality?
For instance, the Carolina Hurricanes have the greatest number of players with 15 out of 23 players born in the first quarter. And they ain't exactly a hockey powerhouse. But you know who are? The Vancouver Canucks. They have just five players born in the same months. Wo, what about the Detroit Red Wings? Don't they have 14 out of 24 born in those months? Yes they do! However, this brings up another problem with Gladwell's argument. The superstars. Specifically, the best players on each team. The majority of Detroit's top players (Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg for instance) were not born in the first quarter.
What about other stars? Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are summer babies. Same with Alexander Ovechkin.
For all I know, one of these years the reverse will be true. Maybe a team with 50% of its roster will have been born inside March. It still won't prove squat though.
.
Just my impression here, but whatever "advantages" it may have in the near term may prove to be negligible over the long haul. Too many factors and variables come into play in life. There's no conclusive way to prove that because a parent redshirted their child it led to success later on in their lives - however you may choose to describe success.
One area parents are obsessed with is the notion of constructing "leaders" rather than letting them evolve naturally. But I'm not going to get into that now.
I can just see it now, people calculating to have kids in the winter. Imagine a world where no one was born in June!
***
Which made me think about sports and the book Outliers (which I didn't read. I read Tipping Point) by Malcolm Gladwell. It touches on the concept or idea of "cumulative advantages" of which "redshirting" is a part of.
First, another "True Story" installment.
My experience playing soccer began at five years-old. My "career" can be summarized this way: In the early stages, I was pretty much an average player. It was only when I turned nine or 10 did I begin to separate myself from my peers. By the time I was, 11 or 12 I was an elite player - often put in teams one year my senior - right until I tore my ACL at 15. I was just getting into my peak years before I even had a chance but even by 15 or 16 (I played competitively until I was 18) I observed a subtle reality. Namely, that while my skills were above average, physically I was below average.
I started to detect certain plays I got away with earlier were no longer plausible against guys equal or greater to my abilities. I started realizing my kicks didn't have the same power and that speed became a critical component of a soccer player. My running abilities were above average but not enough to overcome physical and height disadvantages. Where I managed was being able to outwit opponents with sleek passes and good mental judgment.
I remember distinctly when this happen. We were playing an elite squad from the South Shore and one of the players on their team was, loathe as I was to admit then, superior to me. No matter what I tried he was simply bigger, better and badder than I was. The team as well. Funny how that works. It was one of those "I guess it's over for me" epiphanies.
After 18 years old, I continued to play in various leagues but by the time I was in my 20s I was better prepared and conditioned to handle the opposition; including women. Cough.
I quickly figured out the players (like in a dance club. Cough) I knew were intelligent and gifted athletically and adjusted my in-game technique accordingly. For example, if I was coming down the left-wing and knew the right back was bigger and faster, I would look to draw him close and dish the ball off. Or, where I felt confident, I would attempt to deke him with a solid timing play. If I came up the middle and noticed the center back was average then my options to take advantage were greater.
The success of the play, of course, hinged on my strikers understanding how it was unfolding. More often than not, they didn't. You can go over plays but vision is subjective and very much in the eye of the beholder. I can count on one hand how many guys I played with where we were in sync. It doesn't happen often.
I was born in February.
Why mention all this especially my date of birth? Well, in Outliers, Gladwell alleges that being born early in the year (in the first quarter. In Canada, the cut off date for player eligibility in youth hockey is January 1) gives you an advantage early in life and those advantages accumulate over time possibly giving one a competitive edge to success. Based on this, he continues, it may explain why so many NHL players are born in the first quarter of a year.
Aside from my gaining zero benefit of being born in February (in the end, life gives you a reality check no matter what), I looked at the birth dates for each NHL team.
237 players out of the 734 active on NHL rosters were born in the first quarter of the year - or 32%.
I didn't check the rest of the months but already Gladwell's assertion is off to a good start. Only 68% is left for the rest of the months so the likelihood (and I will check this out eventually) of another quarter surpassing 32% is low.
Still, there are problems. Does quantity mean quality?
For instance, the Carolina Hurricanes have the greatest number of players with 15 out of 23 players born in the first quarter. And they ain't exactly a hockey powerhouse. But you know who are? The Vancouver Canucks. They have just five players born in the same months. Wo, what about the Detroit Red Wings? Don't they have 14 out of 24 born in those months? Yes they do! However, this brings up another problem with Gladwell's argument. The superstars. Specifically, the best players on each team. The majority of Detroit's top players (Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg for instance) were not born in the first quarter.
What about other stars? Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are summer babies. Same with Alexander Ovechkin.
For all I know, one of these years the reverse will be true. Maybe a team with 50% of its roster will have been born inside March. It still won't prove squat though.
.
2012-03-04
Edge Canada
When it comes to maintaining some semblance of sensible governance, I must side with Canada over the United States. The Conservatives and their new "tough on crime" mentality is proving to be utter bull shit. I agree with everything the judge had to say in the article.
Basically, she said, chill.
There is a difference between being an idiot and being a criminal. Throwing this guy in jail would have indeed been incredibly ignorant on our part.
I don't want Canada turning into a nation thumping its chest declaring "wars" on everything like in the USA - a nation, as you all know, I respect and admire.
But this DEA kicking down doors killing innocents for drug possession is immoral garbage that only makes America less free and hardly does much to make Americans safer.
The Americans have been bitchslapping their Constitution for years; right up until Obama too. Canada at least is still respecting its own Charter.
Basically, she said, chill.
There is a difference between being an idiot and being a criminal. Throwing this guy in jail would have indeed been incredibly ignorant on our part.
I don't want Canada turning into a nation thumping its chest declaring "wars" on everything like in the USA - a nation, as you all know, I respect and admire.
But this DEA kicking down doors killing innocents for drug possession is immoral garbage that only makes America less free and hardly does much to make Americans safer.
The Americans have been bitchslapping their Constitution for years; right up until Obama too. Canada at least is still respecting its own Charter.
Dow Crosses 13 000
The Dow crossed over 13 000 for the first time since 2008.
But...
This article from The Advocate summarizes nicely why this may be a tad misleading.
S&P is considered to be more reflective of trading activity (more companies are listed), while the Russell Index is a composite of small-cap stocks to easily ignored.
But...
This article from The Advocate summarizes nicely why this may be a tad misleading.
S&P is considered to be more reflective of trading activity (more companies are listed), while the Russell Index is a composite of small-cap stocks to easily ignored.
7500 Killed In Syria According To UN
What a mess in Syria. A pure, sad, and all too typical disgrace.
Assad, the extremists, USA, Russia, China, EU Arab League - all have their own interests driving policy.
Assad, the extremists, USA, Russia, China, EU Arab League - all have their own interests driving policy.
2012-03-03
Men Bunch Of Babies
Women "dive" less than men in soccer.
"In the end, I think this study shows that women are less likely than men to fake soccer injuries," Rosenbaum said. "What isn't clear is if injury simulation is used to gain a tactical advantage. Only the players themselves know the answer to that question."
Actually, most of the fans probably know the answer, too.
Um. That's the exact reason why they dive. To get the call; especially in the penalty area.
True story.
In one game I was playing in a teammate fell hard to the ground in the penalty area. So much so I walked up to him to see if he was alright. As he lay face down with his face in his hands he peeked up at me and asked, "did he buy it?" I answered, "Yes." And up he came. We scored off the ensuing penalty and the game went on.
"In the end, I think this study shows that women are less likely than men to fake soccer injuries," Rosenbaum said. "What isn't clear is if injury simulation is used to gain a tactical advantage. Only the players themselves know the answer to that question."
Actually, most of the fans probably know the answer, too.
Um. That's the exact reason why they dive. To get the call; especially in the penalty area.
True story.
In one game I was playing in a teammate fell hard to the ground in the penalty area. So much so I walked up to him to see if he was alright. As he lay face down with his face in his hands he peeked up at me and asked, "did he buy it?" I answered, "Yes." And up he came. We scored off the ensuing penalty and the game went on.
Speaking Ill Of The Dead
Conservative website have been linking to reactions from liberals following the death of Andrew Breitbart. While it's true some people on various threads and tweets have shown their true colours, I have to say, I'm not too sure conservatives (as Breitbart allegedly did of Ted Kennedy) would behave if a liberal equivalent to Breitbart would die.
Over the summer I met Mr. Man of Roma.
Naturally, part of the conversation was reserved for history and culture.
Our friend of this blog tends to view (and please forgive if I awkwardly convey his thoughts) the countries that make up what is referred to as Mediterranean civilization not as independent countries per se (a mere nuisance) but part of a wider civilizational experience. That is, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece (perhaps even Turkey and North Africa?), when seen from the 'big picture', are but mere extensions or "roots" of Mediterranean civilization. They're essentially cut from the same fabric.
Man of Mediterranean!
I see his point. After all, I've argued in the past here that the United States, though a nation-state among many, is a torch holder of Western civilization at this stage of its evolution.
I don't know why I bring it up all these months later.
Naturally, part of the conversation was reserved for history and culture.
Our friend of this blog tends to view (and please forgive if I awkwardly convey his thoughts) the countries that make up what is referred to as Mediterranean civilization not as independent countries per se (a mere nuisance) but part of a wider civilizational experience. That is, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece (perhaps even Turkey and North Africa?), when seen from the 'big picture', are but mere extensions or "roots" of Mediterranean civilization. They're essentially cut from the same fabric.
Man of Mediterranean!
I see his point. After all, I've argued in the past here that the United States, though a nation-state among many, is a torch holder of Western civilization at this stage of its evolution.
I don't know why I bring it up all these months later.
In Search Of Naive Dreams
Let's see what happens when people take off their blindfolds when it comes to sports. Hm, let's see.
Ah. Revelations of the New Orleans Saints Bounty Head Initiative! Inspiring people everywhere since Katrina. We're mad and we're not gonna take it anymore!
Let's be clear on one thing though. There was a monetary incentive to hurting other players. A little different than a bunch of jocks getting worked up and going after someone.
That this happened in sports, let alone pro football, doesn't stun me in the least bit. I just wondered what took people so long to understand.
I don't condone it. In fact, I loathe it and turned me away from sports in the sense I wasn't interested in pursuing a career in that field. It's filled with dipshits.
***
True story.
During a high school soccer practice (ours was a dream team with four provincial players, one national and five AAA) our best player got a little annoyed with someone's boasftulness - a teammate keep in mind.
He flat out told me and another guy, "Watch. I'm gonna teach that guy a lesson."
I can still hear the crack of the slide tackle.
I wake up in the middle of the night sweating from a reocurring nightmare where the yelp of fawn resonates meekly after being seized by the vicious teeth of a ravaging wolf. I think it's related to that.
It was that vicious of a slide tackle.
Let's just say the kid wasn't bragging anymore.
My point is...it's sports folks.
If you don't want to believe this shit happens move along and find another hobby or interest.
***
As I've might have mentioned in the past, I had a bit of a temper. Not in soccer mind you strange enough. More in court sports like squash and tennis. I would hurl rackets, trash talk and even swear loudly.
I know, I know. Me. Little docile, blogging shitface,
Ah. Revelations of the New Orleans Saints Bounty Head Initiative! Inspiring people everywhere since Katrina. We're mad and we're not gonna take it anymore!
Let's be clear on one thing though. There was a monetary incentive to hurting other players. A little different than a bunch of jocks getting worked up and going after someone.
That this happened in sports, let alone pro football, doesn't stun me in the least bit. I just wondered what took people so long to understand.
I don't condone it. In fact, I loathe it and turned me away from sports in the sense I wasn't interested in pursuing a career in that field. It's filled with dipshits.
***
True story.
During a high school soccer practice (ours was a dream team with four provincial players, one national and five AAA) our best player got a little annoyed with someone's boasftulness - a teammate keep in mind.
He flat out told me and another guy, "Watch. I'm gonna teach that guy a lesson."
I can still hear the crack of the slide tackle.
I wake up in the middle of the night sweating from a reocurring nightmare where the yelp of fawn resonates meekly after being seized by the vicious teeth of a ravaging wolf. I think it's related to that.
It was that vicious of a slide tackle.
Let's just say the kid wasn't bragging anymore.
My point is...it's sports folks.
If you don't want to believe this shit happens move along and find another hobby or interest.
***
As I've might have mentioned in the past, I had a bit of a temper. Not in soccer mind you strange enough. More in court sports like squash and tennis. I would hurl rackets, trash talk and even swear loudly.
I know, I know. Me. Little docile, blogging shitface,
More Things Said In Sports That Annoy Me
Again, I pick on sports talk radio. Keep in mind the following belief is by no means restricted to the person in question - plenty of people take the same line.
I don't know why I don't name names. I just don't.
In discussing MLB's decision to expand the number of playoff teams, a heated discussion between two colleagues ensued. One took the side it was a ridiculous move thus furthering the pointlessness of what the regular season is about. Which, when you think about, is a valid point. THAT'S the point of a 162 game schedule. To weed out the contenders from the pretenders.
The other thought it a great idea since it makes things more fair for teams; especially those with small budgets. The usual complaint being that it's "unfair" that teams with big budgets can squander money on bad decisions while the smaller ones don't have that kind of luxury or leverage.
Then follows the usual "woe are the Tampa Bay Rays of this world" Old Montreal horse shit.
Fuck the latter opinion.
Yeah sure, it's "unfair" on some level but as anyone who has read Plato's The Republic, our existence is but a search for the optimum government providing truth, justice and fairness for sports teams.
It sucks for Tampa to be efficient with their resources and have to face the behemoth entities known as the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees but such is life. It's not like the latter two teams win every title every year.
There will always be "inequities" in life because, well, it's just the way it is. However, to correlate "payroll" with "dominance" is misleading. Payroll, or expressed differently having lotsa cash, doesn't automatically convert into victory. It's but a small factor into the overall activities of any organization.
"We determined that there is very little correlation between the winning percentage of the teams and how much their payroll was. From our regression data the value was 0.1832. This means there is only an 18.32 % correlation between the payroll of one team, and their winning percentage. The slope of the regression line was 0.00130. This data reveals that for every additional million dollars spent on payroll, team winning percentage increases by only .00130 or .13 %. From this data it is clear that paying the players more does not really lead to an increase in winning percentage. Additionally, it is clear that payroll alone is not the sole factor in creating and building a successful baseball team."***
Couldn't have said it better myself. Business is filled with cases with organizations filled with cash but still manage to fail.
The other thing to keep in mind is screw the Tampa's and their fairwearther fans of this world. It's not New York's problem they don't have a loyal and passionate fan base willing to fill the stadium while spending a pretty penny on merchandising.
Which brings me to my next point. What people who take the position of things not being fair don't quite get (or choose to ignore) is the great franchises in sports didn't become powerful evil empires because of money. They did by, you know, being better than everyone else.
By winning, you gain fans. By gaining fans you make more money. With the fan base and money you solidify your brand.
Ferrari offers a similar case.
Back in the 1990s, the hatred against Ferrari in Formula One racing had reached insidious levels pimped out by short sighted douches who failed to grasp that Ferrari was the apex of racing because it earned its way to the top. Forgotten was all the blood, sweat and tears of how Ferrari evolved from obscurity out of the wings of another legendary car manufacturer - Alfa-Romeo - into the most luxurious and recognized sports car entity in automobile history.
It was (and remains) the essence of racing. Get rid of Ferrari and you lose legions of fans across the globe. Funny how those anti-Ferrari voices are silent these days now that Ferrari isn't dominating F1. Thus further proving it's not "just" about money.
Finally, the argument is further put under stress when you look at teams like the Green Bay Packers and St. Louis Cardinals - hardly bastions of "big market" supremacy - have managed to forge iconic identities with winning traditions.
Teams will come and go each winning along the way. What doesn't change is the ability of teams like Ferrari, the Yankees and other teams like them to rise to the top again.
Live with it. Or better yet, be better than them.
***Philip Hawbaker, Mark Kaiser, Daniel Murray, University of Iowa. May 5, 2008. MLB Winning Percentage vs. Team Payroll.
I don't know why I don't name names. I just don't.
In discussing MLB's decision to expand the number of playoff teams, a heated discussion between two colleagues ensued. One took the side it was a ridiculous move thus furthering the pointlessness of what the regular season is about. Which, when you think about, is a valid point. THAT'S the point of a 162 game schedule. To weed out the contenders from the pretenders.
The other thought it a great idea since it makes things more fair for teams; especially those with small budgets. The usual complaint being that it's "unfair" that teams with big budgets can squander money on bad decisions while the smaller ones don't have that kind of luxury or leverage.
Then follows the usual "woe are the Tampa Bay Rays of this world" Old Montreal horse shit.
Fuck the latter opinion.
Yeah sure, it's "unfair" on some level but as anyone who has read Plato's The Republic, our existence is but a search for the optimum government providing truth, justice and fairness for sports teams.
It sucks for Tampa to be efficient with their resources and have to face the behemoth entities known as the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees but such is life. It's not like the latter two teams win every title every year.
There will always be "inequities" in life because, well, it's just the way it is. However, to correlate "payroll" with "dominance" is misleading. Payroll, or expressed differently having lotsa cash, doesn't automatically convert into victory. It's but a small factor into the overall activities of any organization.
"We determined that there is very little correlation between the winning percentage of the teams and how much their payroll was. From our regression data the value was 0.1832. This means there is only an 18.32 % correlation between the payroll of one team, and their winning percentage. The slope of the regression line was 0.00130. This data reveals that for every additional million dollars spent on payroll, team winning percentage increases by only .00130 or .13 %. From this data it is clear that paying the players more does not really lead to an increase in winning percentage. Additionally, it is clear that payroll alone is not the sole factor in creating and building a successful baseball team."***
Couldn't have said it better myself. Business is filled with cases with organizations filled with cash but still manage to fail.
The other thing to keep in mind is screw the Tampa's and their fairwearther fans of this world. It's not New York's problem they don't have a loyal and passionate fan base willing to fill the stadium while spending a pretty penny on merchandising.
Which brings me to my next point. What people who take the position of things not being fair don't quite get (or choose to ignore) is the great franchises in sports didn't become powerful evil empires because of money. They did by, you know, being better than everyone else.
By winning, you gain fans. By gaining fans you make more money. With the fan base and money you solidify your brand.
Ferrari offers a similar case.
Back in the 1990s, the hatred against Ferrari in Formula One racing had reached insidious levels pimped out by short sighted douches who failed to grasp that Ferrari was the apex of racing because it earned its way to the top. Forgotten was all the blood, sweat and tears of how Ferrari evolved from obscurity out of the wings of another legendary car manufacturer - Alfa-Romeo - into the most luxurious and recognized sports car entity in automobile history.
It was (and remains) the essence of racing. Get rid of Ferrari and you lose legions of fans across the globe. Funny how those anti-Ferrari voices are silent these days now that Ferrari isn't dominating F1. Thus further proving it's not "just" about money.
Finally, the argument is further put under stress when you look at teams like the Green Bay Packers and St. Louis Cardinals - hardly bastions of "big market" supremacy - have managed to forge iconic identities with winning traditions.
Teams will come and go each winning along the way. What doesn't change is the ability of teams like Ferrari, the Yankees and other teams like them to rise to the top again.
Live with it. Or better yet, be better than them.
***Philip Hawbaker, Mark Kaiser, Daniel Murray, University of Iowa. May 5, 2008. MLB Winning Percentage vs. Team Payroll.
Things Said That Annoy Me
I understand there's a lot of time to waste on sports talk radio but Jesus-me do I have to tolerate stuff like. I paraphrase a host asking a question to an expert:
Do you think a balance of good young skillful players with tough ones is a recipe for success for the Canadiens?"
No. Fucking. Shit.
Hockey, I thought, is but mixing skill with toughness.
Broadly speaking, since it was a broad question with no real end, isn't that, like, a recipe for success in most sports? Maybe even life? Talk about lazy "lemme waste time and try and sound smart in the process' journalism. All too prevalent these days.
Do you think a balance of good young skillful players with tough ones is a recipe for success for the Canadiens?"
No. Fucking. Shit.
Hockey, I thought, is but mixing skill with toughness.
Broadly speaking, since it was a broad question with no real end, isn't that, like, a recipe for success in most sports? Maybe even life? Talk about lazy "lemme waste time and try and sound smart in the process' journalism. All too prevalent these days.
2012-03-01
Investment Decisions Coming
My parents are divesting of a couple of their properties and with it will come a substantial amount of liquidity of which we will have to properly invest.
I haven't been following the markets all that closely these past few years but I have been getting the itch to get back into it. This family matter presents itself as the perfect pretext to do so.
The mandate is simple enough: Preservation of capital while generating income.
I do read up on various investment sites. Here's one of them: The Motley Fool.
I haven't been following the markets all that closely these past few years but I have been getting the itch to get back into it. This family matter presents itself as the perfect pretext to do so.
The mandate is simple enough: Preservation of capital while generating income.
I do read up on various investment sites. Here's one of them: The Motley Fool.
The Liberal Comeback
The Liberal set to launch on May 1.
We need more dedicated sites to keep the flame of intellecualism going. Not less. It's why I look forward to its relaunch.
Dissent, The Nation, Motherjones and others like them deserve to be read regardless if you disagree or not. After all, Ancient Greeek philosophy was to "seek truth."
We need more dedicated sites to keep the flame of intellecualism going. Not less. It's why I look forward to its relaunch.
Dissent, The Nation, Motherjones and others like them deserve to be read regardless if you disagree or not. After all, Ancient Greeek philosophy was to "seek truth."
Ethics Of Contraception
From the BBC.
I'm not passionate about it either way but I am suspicious of the "well it's better than abortion" argument; which strikes me as superficial.
Meh.
It's a little like when students who go on strike (as they plan to do here in Quebec. We have some of the lowest tution in the country and contintent) protesting tuition hikes claiming that society as a whole benefits while their education is subsidized.
There may be some truth in both cases but to the extent claimed? Not so sure.
I'm not passionate about it either way but I am suspicious of the "well it's better than abortion" argument; which strikes me as superficial.
Meh.
It's a little like when students who go on strike (as they plan to do here in Quebec. We have some of the lowest tution in the country and contintent) protesting tuition hikes claiming that society as a whole benefits while their education is subsidized.
There may be some truth in both cases but to the extent claimed? Not so sure.
Dying Young
I thought Carter dying at 57 was young. 43 is nuts as was the case with Andrew Breitbart.
My father-in-law was 72 when he died fter battling prostate cancer for nearly 14 years. Not that old either.
My father-in-law was 72 when he died fter battling prostate cancer for nearly 14 years. Not that old either.
Income Tax Calculator
I haven't done the exercise myself...mostly because it will make me nervous. I want to stay calm for The Office tonight. From The Sagacious Iconoclast.
I'll tell you what (please use Hank Hill voice here), one thing I never agreed with is taxes on investments you took a risk on. It's one thing to claim personal income taxes and all others but why tax income from investments? After all, as I said, you took the risk not the government, right? Is nothing sacred anymore?
Oh. Right. The roads. Got it.
It's March.
March on.
I'll tell you what (please use Hank Hill voice here), one thing I never agreed with is taxes on investments you took a risk on. It's one thing to claim personal income taxes and all others but why tax income from investments? After all, as I said, you took the risk not the government, right? Is nothing sacred anymore?
Oh. Right. The roads. Got it.
It's March.
March on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)