Deion Sanders Leaves Jackson State For Colorado: What Does This Mean

     Deion Sanders becoming the coach of Colorado has made huge news, and caused some debate on whether he was a sellout or not.  That's what I hear anyway, because it seems to me like most people think it was a good move for him.

    Sanders did make the right move.  Going to Colorado has given him a huge salary, as he signed a deal with a base salary of 29.5 million over five years, plus incentives.  His 5.9 million per year in base salary is a lot more than the 300,000 he was getting at Jackson State.  Colorado also gives Deion a much higher ceiling in terms what can happen in the best case scenario.  For him to see how far he could go in coaching, he had to leave to coach at a higher level.  Jackson State was simply too small for someone as big as Coach Prime.  That is part of why this a bad sign for HBCUs, and those that were hoping that this would lead to some revolution in college football.  Deion didn't just leave for a power five school, but he left for one without a recent history of winning.  Colorado has been really bad since the mid 2000s, and Sanders will face an uphill climb trying to turn it around.  A team that was 1-11 last season. Still even a low level Power Five school like Colorado is well ahead of the best HBCU.    How could some people expect Deion to stick around out of some loyalty to the race, when Colorado gave him a much better opportunity for a lot more money?  How can that be expected of other coaches, and if how are HBCUs going to be at a similar level to the top college football teams.  Part of the backlash from Sanders leaving is JSU, are from people who had unrealistic expectations.  Most people knew he was going to leave for a Power Five school, and he wasn't going to stay at Jackson State for the long term.

    As far as his chances of success, I'm not that sure of that.  While at Jackson State Deion a huge advantage in recruiting.  He made Jackson State a go to spot, as he brough extra attention, and some of his celebrity friends to see the team.  He made Jackson State an attractive option for many black football players, and he was going against a bunch of schools, but most fans don't care too much about.  He won't have that same edge in the Pac 12, where there are other programs who will offer players a great opportunity to set themselves up for the next level. How successful can Sanders be without that huge recruiting edge?

Wrestlemania 38 Attendance

The WWE lies about their Wrestlemania attendance every year.  Before the COVID period they would announced a huge attendance number to break the arena  record.  The WWE Key Performane Indicators (KPI) gives this away every year.  While some think that their KPI only shows paid attendance averages, it's interesting that the KPI, itself, doesn't say paid attendance.  The WWE's second quarter this year had 55 shows with an average attendance of 6800.  Then there is the 4900 average for the shows other than Wrestlemania, at least that's what I think that is supposed to be.  Going off those numbers, not knowing what the actual average is, that would mean a total of 374000 fans for the 55 shows, and 259700 if you exclude the two nights of Wrestlemania.  That would mean a total of 114300 for the two nights of Wrestlemania, and an average of 57150.  The WWE announced 77899 for the first night, and 78453 for the second.  Based on the KPI these numbers aren't just a little off.  They are way off.   The 156352 total for the announced attendance is well above the 114300 estimate from the KPI.  In 2020 Wrestlemania took place at the WWE Performance Center.  Last year only a small portions of the seats in Raymond James Stadium were available.  Since they could get closer to capacity with this year's mania, they may have badly wanted to put out a huge number.  If I assume that the averages listed in the KPI are to the nearest thousand if the 6800 was rounded down from close to 6850, and the 4900 was round up from 4850, it would still mean less than 120000 fans totals fans, and an average of a little under 60000.   This past Wrestlemania took place at AT&T Stadium, which was home of the previous biggest lie for Wrestlemania attendance.  The WWE claimed an audience of 101763 for Wrestlemania 32, but their KPI for that year suggest an actual attendance of about 79800.  79800 is a lot closer to the 80709, that the Arlington Police said attended that Wrestlemania, than the WWE's number.  I don't know how much the mainstream respects the WWE's numbers, because the WWE values what they think.  You can have a bunch of people using legit information, and knowing that the WWE lies about their attendance, but if ESPN, and other outlets keep treating their numbers as legit, they may mean a lot to their public image.

Source   https://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/press-releases/2022/q2-2022-kpi.pdf

Stupid Backlash Aimed At Ricky Gervais

 A few days ago, I read something that said Ricky Gervais made transphobic jokes.  I was thinking about what did he say?  We it really transphobic?  We've seen Dave Chappelle called transphobic, and homophobic for making jokes that were neither.  I went and watched Gervais' new comedy special, Super Nature, on Netflix.  It was very funny, like his others, and those supposed transphobic jokes, weren't at all transphobic.  Compared to Dave Chappelle's jokes, which as I said weren't transphobic, Ricky's jokes were kind.  Unlike Chappelle he seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt and referred to trans women, as being women.  This despite the fact that you can't change your biological sex.  He said nothing mean spirited.  He made a point about the changing of standards, and how that could affect you reputation years from now.  I guess not enough Social Justice Warriors, have faced that circumstance for them to learn about it.  A lot of these Social Justice Warriors are just assholes, using their causes to be assholes for what they feel are the right causes.  

  How far will things go?  What little jokes will be considered transphobic next?  What about those people calling Gervais transphobic?  Why isn't there pressure on them to actually prove that his jokes were transphobic?  If those jokes were as bad as the critics pretend it was, it shouldn't be that difficult to explain.   You can be for trans rights, and still disagree with certain things that are generally accepted in the movement.   In the current time, so many people seem to take that approach.  You disagree on a little something, and you are the enemy.  It's going on across to board in both political parties, especially the Democrats now, and many in other movements.  

The Gervais backlash hasn't been great thus far.  Not as bad as the backlash Dave Chappelle got, but the fact that he's getting this backlash at all, for the jokes he made is a bit scarry.  There may be nothing short of bowing down, or shutting up, that would be good enough to satisfy many of these SJWs.  Many of them would have it no other way.

When The Hitman Met Sugar Ray: Looking At The Scoring Of The Bout

You might know the story.  Thomas Hearns was "well ahead" of Sugar Ray Leonard, when Leonard came back to score a TKO in the 14th round to win their welterweight unification in 1981.  That was way back when only 2 santioning bodies had recognized world titles.  The WBA, and the WBC.  Most people had Hearns ahead in the fight by decent margins going into the 14th round.  After the fight was over Don Dunphy briefly protested the stoppage, and said that Hearns was way ahead.  The judges had Hearns up by margins of 4, 3, and 2 points.

 There was also a strong minority that saw the fight the other way.  If you watch the HBO broadcast they describe the fight as being a close fight in the 12th round, and that's the round before Leonard scored his  knockdown.  I read an article from Sports Illustrated written just after the fight which the author, Pat Putman thought that Leonard was ahead.  He criticized the judges scoring, criticizing them for giving Leonard the same 1 point edges in the 6th, and 7th that they gave Hearns in the first two rounds, in which neither was landing much.  The commentator for the British broadcast of the fight also thought the Leonard was ahead.  So let's dig into the scoring controversy.

The big controversy from the fight's scoring is that none of the judges gave Leonard a two point round in either the 6th, or the 7th round.  I gave Leonard a 2 point edge in the 7th because he dominated Hearns from beginnng to end in that round.  The 6th is a tougher argument for a 2 point round since Hearns was doing okay before he was clocked with a little more than a minute left.   The 10 point must scoring is far from perfect, and lack of decimal points leaves you with less scoring options.  No way that Hearns should've had the same 2 point edge in the first couple rounds that Ray got for the 6th, and 7th combined.  Imagine if the fight wasn't stopped, and Leonard dominated the 14th, and 15th without getting a two point round in either.  Hearns would've won a majority decision, and people would've lost their minds.  The scoring controversy would've been even greater, but considering what little Hearns had left in the 14th, he was going to the canvas if the ref didn't stop it

If you look at the fight as a whole it's obvious to me that Ray got the better of Tommy.  He won the big rounds.  He had him hurt bad in the 6th, and 7th,  knocked Hearns down in the 13th, finished him off in the 14th.  Hearns didn't have any rounds in which he was that dominant.  Despite his punching power, the most that Hearns appeared  to have Leonard hurt was when he caused him to slightly buckle in the 12th.  Still you don't score boxing by looking at the whole fight.  It is scored on a round by round basis, and despite the fact that Ray clearly hurt Hearns more over the course of the fight, Hearns won more rounds.  Some give him all of the first five rounds, and out of those 5 Leonard's best case for winning a round was the 3rd.  Outside of the 4th where Hearns punished Leonard at the end of the round, he wasn't winning the rounds by much, but he was winning them.  Leonard came on big in the 6th, and 7th, and though his momentum slowed he the 8th, he did enough to clearly win the round in my book.  Rounds 9-12 saw Hearns regain his footing.  Outside of Leonard hurting Hearns late in the 10th.  Hearns was getting the better of Ray.  If you give Hearns the first five rounds, and then round 9-12, it's tough to argue that he wasn't ahead by a good distance.  

I had once scored the fight and had Hearns up 124-121 going into the 14th.  I gave Hearns the first five rounds, then gave Leonard rounds 6-8, with 7 being a two point round, gave Hearns 9-12, and Leonard 13, and 14, with a two point round for knockdown round in the 13th.  After thinking about it I switched around my scoring of the 3rd round, and gave it to Leonard, because Leonard landed the cleaner, harder punches.  That would change the score to 123-122 Hearns, and with Leonard dominating the 14th then the idea of Hearns being way ahead is out of the question based on how I scored it.  You could also make the argument for the 6th being a two point round, and possibly the 13th being a 3 point round.  Even with the original 3 point margin Hearns wouldn't have had it wrapped up if he stayed up.  Leonard could've easily been on his way to, at least, a two point in the 14th, and who knows how bad the 15th could've been had Hearns got there.  

ON TOP OF THE WORLD - Sports Illustrated Vault | SI.com  The SI article while you can still read it for free

Cancel Culture vs Dave Chappelle

 Dave Chappelle has been in the news lately.  His Netflix special "The Closer" has  gotten a lot of attention from the gay, and transgender communities.  There have been talks of cancelling Chappelle, and there was walkout of Netflix employees, but they aren't going to be effective at canceling Dave Chappelle.  

Chapelle has a couple serious protections against being canceled.  For one he's black.  He's also a black comedian that can be seen as pro black.  A lot of his jokes have been about white people, or about what he feels are issues of racism against black people.  The majority of the black community is more than willing to stand with Chapelle, and in order to effectively "cancel" him you got to get the black community to turn against him.  Even if Netflix let go of him, which they haven't indicated they are going to do, he can still make a pretty good living off of his popularity in the black community.  Not to mention his popularity with people of other races.  He walked away from a 50 million dollar deal with Comedy Central, and was able to comeback, and build up momentum before  he even got his Netflix deal.  Having the deal certainly helps but he can do quite well without it.  If anything people might feel that it backs the opinion that LGBT people are more protected than black people. 

Also because Chappelle is a relatively left leaning popular black comedian some of those same buzzwords that seem to be so effective when used against white people, especially heterosexual white males, aren't going to be nearly as effective.  I read a comment from some idiot on twitter who reacted to Jon Stewart defending Chappelle, by saying that they expect that from a cisgendered white male.  They also has numerous positive responses.   Imagine a black comedian defending Chapelle, and someone who isn't black saying that they expect that from a cisgendered black male.   You can't just use a bunch of buzzwords to get the black community to turn against Dave Chappelle, or to get those supporting Chappelle to shut up. It just isn't going to work.  Dababy hasn't even been cancelled.  Not with the black community anyway, and he said things that were much more homophobic than what Dave Chappelle got in trouble for.  

I had already watched all of his last two specials on Netflix, and took the time to watch is 2017 special to see what else he may said that offended people.  Some of this jokes about trans people would be enough to disgust most homophobes such as saying that Cat. Jenner should spread the lips for a nude pic for Sports Illustrated.   Stick, and Stones was the comedy special in which it got really big, but I don't remember any mean spirited transphobic jokes.  The Closer takes on a more serious tone, and that's part of the reason I don't like it as much as Sticks, and Stones.  He did make a false equivialance in bring up homicide involving DaBaby because that was self defense, and the media has certainly shown that they care greatly about the deaths of black men, when they are killed by people who aren't black.    He did say he was TERF, but he also said that he was a feminist, which he obviously isn't.  He was just poking fun at the dictionary definition of a feminist.  He said gender is real, which it is btw.  Why can't someone recognize the reality of gender, and still agree with someone's right to change up their body to look like a member of the opposite sex.  One of the big problems with social justice is that it doesn't leave much room for middle ground.  If you are on their side then you need to go all the way.  Overall it stoked the fires even more than the previous specials, and it was supposed to.  This was his chance to address to controversy, and I didn't expect him to back down.

 Black people in general don't really like the gay movement.  Yes there are some of us who support, but for the most part that is not the case.  No other race is more against it than black people.  Among no other race is being gay, or trans as controversial as it is in the black race.  To get Chappelle cancelled you've got to convince black people that what he said, which wasn't even homophobic, is that bad to turn against him.  That isn't going to happen.

Should We Pretend Flo Jo Wasn't On Steroids? Why?

 Claire Lehmann caused a stir on black twitter by saying that Shacarri Richardson, and Florence Griffith Joyner used steroids.  She used strong hair, and nails as evidence, and a little more than that with Richardson's, association with former steroid user Dennis Mitchell.  The nail, and hair argument are really strange.  Richardsons nails are probably fake, and her hair definently is.  

When it comes to Richardson there isn't great evidence of her steroid use.  She could be on steroids.  She an elite runner, and her 10.72 is one of the fastest 100 meters ever for a woman.  Still what she has done could be done naturally.  When it comes to Flo Jo, though, the evidence of her steroid use has been evident, and generally accepted among track, and field fans for years.

Before 1988 Griffith Joyner was a good runner, but not special.  She was better in the 200 than the 100, and even won a silver medal in the 200 meters in the 1984 Olympics.  In the 100 she consistently ran around 11 seconds when she was at her best, and she had a career best of 10.96 going into 1988.  In the 200 meters she was usually running around 22 seconds at her best.  

Things changed in 1988.  Her look changed.  Take a look at her before 1987, and you will see a woman that looked very feminine compared to how she looked in 1988, or even late 87'.  By 88' she gained quite a bit of muscle, she got more ripped.  Gone was the more natural looking physique that she had at her first Olympics.  Flo Jo had become ripped.  You could see the drastic difference in her legs, and arms.  She also got some noticable facial hair.  Calling her facial hair a five o'clock shadow might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it was a noticable amount of hair that she struggled to cover with makeup.  Her facial structure also changed, as her jaw line became sharper, and more pronounced.  To go along with that, her voice got deeper.

Then there are the changes to her performance.  Going into the year her best time in the 200 was 21.96 from late 1987 in World Championships.  Before 1987 her best time was 22.04.  She beat that time 5 times in 1988.  In the Olympic semifinals she broke the world record by running a 21.56, and in the Olympic finals she destroyed that record with a 21.34.  Before her the record belonged the Heiki Dreshsler, an East German Woman, that admitted to using steroids, though she said that she didn't do it knowingly.  Even with East German women, notorious for steroid use, weren't close to what Flo Jo was.  

Her biggest advancement was in the 100 meters.  Like in the 200 meters she became unstoppable.   Her world record of 10.49 had a controversial wind reading, and it's accepted that it was windy, and that 0.0 m/s(meter per second) wind  reading for the race was a malfunction.    Even when you consider that, her 10.49 was still very impressive.   Going into the year her best time was 10.96, and adjusting for wind, and altitude her best race was 11.06 into a nice headwind, which adjusted equal 10.93.  In 1988 she beat that out 8 times.  Those races include the controversial 10.49 at the Olympics trials, which if I estimate a 5.2 m/s wind like the wind reading for the 9.78 that Carl Lewis ran the same day, still comes out the an adjusted 10.72.  3 of her other wind aided races were also better, adjusting for wind, than her previous best entering the year.  Those are a 10.60 at those same trials with a 3.2 m/s tailwind, a 10.70 in the Olympic semifinals with a 2.6 tailwind, and Olympic winning 10.54 with a 3.0 m/s tailwind.  She had 4 wind legal times which were more impressive than the best she previously did, and 3 that were clearly better.  There was the 10.89 she ran in San Diego, a 10.70 in the semifinals of the Olympics trials,  her "real world record" of 10.61 in the finals of the trials, and a 10.62 in the Olympics quarterfinals.  That means that in 8 of the 12 races she had in 100 that year, she was better adjusting for wind, and altitude, than she ever was before.  It's similar in the 200 meters.  It wasn't just that she was better than she was before, it was how much better she was, and how consistenly she was better.  This wasn't a one race aberation.  She went undefeated in both the 100, and 200 meters in 1988.  Now there are difference adjustments made for wind and altitude, and my numbers come from here Wind/Altitude correction in the 100m sprint (lmu.build).  You can get slightly different numbers from here Wind Calculator (maximmoinat.github.io).  It's just a wind calculator but since neither her best races before, or any of her 1988 races were run at high altitude, that not an issue.  Whatever the data, she was obviously a much better runner in 1988 than she was prior.

Joyner went through drastic changes in her physcial appearance, and her perfomance in 1988.  This happened in her late 20's, as she was 28, so this isn't some young athlete going through natural maturation.  Sprinters aren't supposed to get drastically better at that age.  The timing of her retirement was also suspicious.  After Ben Johnson's positive test for steroids in 88', there was a lot of attention arounds steroids in Track, and Field, and her abrupt retirement lead some to believe that she was avoiding more stringent test.  

Her death in 1997, which was caused by an epelictic seizure, doesn't need to be factored in a evidence.  The evidence from her change in look, and performance from 1988 are strong enough indicators.

Flo Jo's IAAF profile, where you can see all of her career results

Florence GRIFFITH-JOYNER | Profile (worldathletics.org)

                                                           

                                                      \

This Shit Is Crazy

 

I don't watch a bunch of basketball now.  At least not the current product.  Maybe it's advancedbeyond me.  I spend a good amount of time watching old sports games on youtube.  Right after the death of George Floyd, television became really annoying.  You just couldn't avoid the BLMpropoganda.  This made me less likley to watch basketball, though I do watch so important games.  Now in March of 2021, things have calmed down, but not enough.  I watchted much of  the NBA All Star Game, and, man, is the Social Justice shit heavy.  They needed to tell us about the money going to HBCU's.  They had students from Clark University singing the Black NationalAnthem, which was probably called the Negro National Anthem when it was made.  There was pandering during the game, and then the damn commercials.  They just kept it going, to the point that it became really agitating.  A watch some of the game on mute.   Back in the day the NBA on NBC would would announce that money would be sent to the United Negro College Fund in the name of the player  of the game.  ESPN has been a Sports, and Social Justice Network, going back to at least the 90's, so this shit isn't new, but it's just crazy now.  They don't give you a break.  It's like they believe it's their God given mission to throw this shit in your face, and force you to accept it.