Here's something you might be interested in.
A few blogs ago, someone posted about me always thinking I'm right. And, I immediately thought of the Holly Hunter line in Broadcast News. She's disappointed that her friend and co-worker Albert Brooks doesn't get to do a live news feed. He's so much more qualified than William Hurt, who is the new guy and isn't very smart. She knows he'll be in over his head. But the boss wants Hurt. Hunter tries explaining why he isn't qualified and why Brooks is. They're at a nice dinner party and he sarcastically says, "Ya know, it must be great to be right about everything, and to know everything."
There's a slight pause as Hunter has a sad look on her face, but replies, "No, it's awful."
Such a great line. And, I'm feeling that way right now with a few arguments I'm having with friends. Both of them racquetball partners of mine.
One of them, the argument goes back to the election. I was asking an Off the Cuff question about what people thought of the results. I was asking people outside of the LA Fitness in San Marcos (and when I started taking pictures, it freaked out the manager there, who said that was prohibited).
My racquetball guy got into an argument with an old military person, who was confused as to why black republicans would've voted for Obama, just because of the color of his skin. I said I could understand that. And, I made the mistake of saying, "If you go back about three elections...if Colin Powell had run for President, I'm guessing 80 to 85% of the African-Americans that are democrats would've voted for him."
Well, this set my racquetball partner off. He said, "Powell would've only gotten about 3% of the black vote if he ran. Blacks are generally democrats, and they don't care about the color of the persons skin. [yeah? tell that to the OJ jurors] They want to vote for who they think is best for the job, and that would be the democratic candidate." I couldn't stop laughing. And, I couldn't convince him he was wrong. But the simple fact is, he is wrong.
As proof of this, I brought up three famous African-Americans. All of them are republicans. They voted for Obama, a democrat. He said, "Well, that's just three people. And because Bush messed things up so bad."
And, I don't really think there's anything wrong with an African-American going against his party, because they feel that having a black president accomplishes so much more. For them to be able to tell their kid, "You can some day be president," or whatever.
We argued it for a month and although he's wrong, he doesn't realize it. And there's no way for me to prove it.
Another guy I just started playing racquetball with, we got into a bit of a debate. It started with a professional female racquetball player that lives in town. Her name is Jackie. I asked if he knew her and he said he did. He mentioned her having surgery and we talked briefly about her. I asked him if he beat her when they played, and he said he didn't. I was surprised, as he's the best racquetball player I've ever seen. He said, "Josh...she's a professional!"
I wasn't sure if at this point, he was taking offense to this, thinking I was implying he shouldn't have lost to a woman.
I believe at one time she was the #1 ranked female player in the world. But somehow, this became an argument about female athletes vs. male. I told him that the top couple female racquetball players probably couldn't beat the top 100 men. He thought that was insane, saying "It doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. It's not like boxing, where strength plays a factor. In racket sports, it's the accuracy of the shot."
And, that's a decent point. Although, he's completely wrong.
I brought up tennis. I said there was no way Venus or Serena Williams, who were regarded as the two top female players, would've been able to beat any man in the top 500. He disagreed.
And, he talked about a 70-year-old that once beat him. And how women can beat men.
I tried explaining that Jackie could probably beat every guy she plays in the LA Fitness. But I'm talking about other professional men players.
I contend if there was no difference, men and women would play each other at the professional level.
I started doing a little research, and found that the fastest serve hit by a man was 150 miles per hour. A woman (one of the Williams sisters), was around 125.
I also found that they both had said they could beat lower ranked men. And both of them played a man in the 200 rankings, and got smoked.
I think any man in the top 500 would smoke them. My girlfriend thinks merely the top 20 or 30 men could beat them and after that, it would be competitive.
But, for older people that remember Bobby Riggs playing Billie Jean King...Riggs had been a top ranked player back in the day, but was in his mid-50s. He talked about how men could beat women, and played King, the top ranked woman. She beat him, but it was a close match. Now, if that was such a close match, and he was in his 50s, where would he have been ranked among the men? Would he be in the top thousand? Surely not the top 500, at 54 years of age. And he almost beat the #1 woman.
I didn't realize, in my research, that he did beat the #1 ranked woman a few years previously.
I was a high school basketball player, and I played against women in the WNBA and held my own. And, I have no doubt that any male college basketball player, would easily be able to handle themselves in the WNBA.
Yet, people debate these things. And they think I'm arrogant for not agreeing with them, when the simple fact is, I'm right.
When I'm proven wrong, I admit it. And I don't continue to argue them point. I just wish others extended me the same courtesy.
A few blogs ago, someone posted about me always thinking I'm right. And, I immediately thought of the Holly Hunter line in Broadcast News. She's disappointed that her friend and co-worker Albert Brooks doesn't get to do a live news feed. He's so much more qualified than William Hurt, who is the new guy and isn't very smart. She knows he'll be in over his head. But the boss wants Hurt. Hunter tries explaining why he isn't qualified and why Brooks is. They're at a nice dinner party and he sarcastically says, "Ya know, it must be great to be right about everything, and to know everything."
There's a slight pause as Hunter has a sad look on her face, but replies, "No, it's awful."
Such a great line. And, I'm feeling that way right now with a few arguments I'm having with friends. Both of them racquetball partners of mine.
One of them, the argument goes back to the election. I was asking an Off the Cuff question about what people thought of the results. I was asking people outside of the LA Fitness in San Marcos (and when I started taking pictures, it freaked out the manager there, who said that was prohibited).
My racquetball guy got into an argument with an old military person, who was confused as to why black republicans would've voted for Obama, just because of the color of his skin. I said I could understand that. And, I made the mistake of saying, "If you go back about three elections...if Colin Powell had run for President, I'm guessing 80 to 85% of the African-Americans that are democrats would've voted for him."
Well, this set my racquetball partner off. He said, "Powell would've only gotten about 3% of the black vote if he ran. Blacks are generally democrats, and they don't care about the color of the persons skin. [yeah? tell that to the OJ jurors] They want to vote for who they think is best for the job, and that would be the democratic candidate." I couldn't stop laughing. And, I couldn't convince him he was wrong. But the simple fact is, he is wrong.
As proof of this, I brought up three famous African-Americans. All of them are republicans. They voted for Obama, a democrat. He said, "Well, that's just three people. And because Bush messed things up so bad."
And, I don't really think there's anything wrong with an African-American going against his party, because they feel that having a black president accomplishes so much more. For them to be able to tell their kid, "You can some day be president," or whatever.
We argued it for a month and although he's wrong, he doesn't realize it. And there's no way for me to prove it.
Another guy I just started playing racquetball with, we got into a bit of a debate. It started with a professional female racquetball player that lives in town. Her name is Jackie. I asked if he knew her and he said he did. He mentioned her having surgery and we talked briefly about her. I asked him if he beat her when they played, and he said he didn't. I was surprised, as he's the best racquetball player I've ever seen. He said, "Josh...she's a professional!"
I wasn't sure if at this point, he was taking offense to this, thinking I was implying he shouldn't have lost to a woman.
I believe at one time she was the #1 ranked female player in the world. But somehow, this became an argument about female athletes vs. male. I told him that the top couple female racquetball players probably couldn't beat the top 100 men. He thought that was insane, saying "It doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. It's not like boxing, where strength plays a factor. In racket sports, it's the accuracy of the shot."
And, that's a decent point. Although, he's completely wrong.
I brought up tennis. I said there was no way Venus or Serena Williams, who were regarded as the two top female players, would've been able to beat any man in the top 500. He disagreed.
And, he talked about a 70-year-old that once beat him. And how women can beat men.
I tried explaining that Jackie could probably beat every guy she plays in the LA Fitness. But I'm talking about other professional men players.
I contend if there was no difference, men and women would play each other at the professional level.
I started doing a little research, and found that the fastest serve hit by a man was 150 miles per hour. A woman (one of the Williams sisters), was around 125.
I also found that they both had said they could beat lower ranked men. And both of them played a man in the 200 rankings, and got smoked.
I think any man in the top 500 would smoke them. My girlfriend thinks merely the top 20 or 30 men could beat them and after that, it would be competitive.
But, for older people that remember Bobby Riggs playing Billie Jean King...Riggs had been a top ranked player back in the day, but was in his mid-50s. He talked about how men could beat women, and played King, the top ranked woman. She beat him, but it was a close match. Now, if that was such a close match, and he was in his 50s, where would he have been ranked among the men? Would he be in the top thousand? Surely not the top 500, at 54 years of age. And he almost beat the #1 woman.
I didn't realize, in my research, that he did beat the #1 ranked woman a few years previously.
I was a high school basketball player, and I played against women in the WNBA and held my own. And, I have no doubt that any male college basketball player, would easily be able to handle themselves in the WNBA.
Yet, people debate these things. And they think I'm arrogant for not agreeing with them, when the simple fact is, I'm right.
When I'm proven wrong, I admit it. And I don't continue to argue them point. I just wish others extended me the same courtesy.