Sports Hop 5/29

June is nearly here. Here we go:

1. Greg Popovich wants “some nasty”

Spurs Head Coach Greg Popovich generated a sensation when, miked up during a time out, he told his team he wanted some “nasty”, following that up with the statement that “each round gets harder.” The Spurs rallied and slammed the door on the Thunder.

I love this type of story, especially because Greg Popovich is a great coach. He doesn’t like individual awards, and the only reason he accepted his coach of the year award this year was because Tim Duncan insisted he do so. So, when he tells his team to play tough, to get tough, and to rally, he says it less like a coach and more like a member of the team; with players, we talk about team leaders; for the Spurs, their number one team leader is their coach.

2. The Heat beat the Celtics

Amidst several technical fouls, the Heat beat the Celtics. However, unlike previous series, there isn’t the feeling of finality that comes after game one. I’ve said before that a series ain’t over until it’s over, and this series ain’t over, especially since the Celtics really know what they are doing.

3. The Miami Dolphins on Hard Knocks

Reportedly, the Miami Dolphins will be the team documented on HBO’s Hard Knocks this season. Other teams in consideration were the Atlanta Falcons and the New York Jets, both of whom (again, reportedly) declined the offer. The question has been raised about whether or not the Dolphins’ season will be intriguing and exciting enough, especially in comparison with the 2010 Jets’ season.

One reason that the Dolphins were picked has to be that it is the 40th anniversary of the 1972 Dolphins perfect season, but part of it has to also be that Hard Knocks likes to pick teams that are under the radar from time to time; the season with the Kansas City Chiefs is reflective of that. That said, they should have gone with a team that would have generated more buzz; unless, of course, all those teams declined the offer.

4. Pau Gasol: Running with the Bulls? (HINT: probably not)

Pau Gasol, currently with the Los Angeles Lakers, reportedly wants to play with the Chicago Bulls. While this sounds good, the devil’s in the details; should this trade work out, one of the two teams will clearly come out ahead (on paper anyway). There isn’t a way to make this work, in any serious way, unless a third team becomes involved.

I don’t know what prompted Pau to say this, by the way. I also don’t know if he would stay with the Lakers, or if he has mentally severed ties there. It is something to keep an eye on, but until I hear that both teams are interested, I don’t consider it anything more than a pipe dream.

5. Serena Williams gets bounced out of the French Open in the first round

For the first time in her Grand Slam career, Serena Williams lost in the first round. It was in the French Open to an unseeded challenger whose name I don’t know. The state of woman’s tennis is looking bleak, for the American audience in particular. The Williams sisters seem to be on the brink of retiring, with the sentiment that both of them may retire at the 2012 Olympics, although it is doubtful we will be hearing anything solid on the topic for a while.

Everytime I root against the Williams sisters, I was always wrong, one reason why I became indifferent to women’s tennis. Serena, who has had, shall we say, anger management issues on the court, is not playing well, and also for the first time, it can be said that she is clearly sliding out of her prime.

In coaching news….

The Los Angeles Clippers (also known as the other LA basketball guys) have decided to retain Vinny Del Negro as head coach for next season, a decision made public today.

Good. For all the faults the Clippers have, many of the issues surrounding their play cannot be attributed to coaching. Blake Griffin is a beast, but he needs to toughen up and take better shots. Chris Paul is an exceptional player, but he can’t fill every void his teammates create. Del Negro had limited time with the players who were on the roster coming into the season, and that didn’t include Chris Paul. Imagine what he will accomplish with his power duo, a full training camp, and a season not forcibly shortened in the name of money-grabbing.

Furthermore, it is nice to see the Clippers recognize Vinny Del Negro’s accomplishments in the proper context. The Clippers’ overwhelming lack of playoff success for the duration of its franchise history is not a secret, and it’s nice to see the ownership there recognize that Del Negro did the Clippers and their fanbase a huge service by winning a playoff series. Rather than saying, “you were given championship material and failed to make anything of it,” they are saying “you did good; give us better,” and it rallies the fanbase, the team, the coaches, and unites them to do that much better.

Well, that’s all folks. Thanks for reading. See you next week.

Is network programming doomed?

Network television (ABC, CBS, NBC, and later on, Fox) once dominated television, for the primary reason that it was the only thing on. It was on this golden era of network television that we had The Andy Griffin Show, Happy Days, M*A*S*H, and so many more shows we all remember. However, the advent of cable, and the beginning of what has become an unending increase in channels, led to competition for the television run of movies, as well as sports, and finally, original programming.

Original programming from cable outlets, including paid cable like HBO and Showtime, was inevitable; The Sopranos, Sex and the City, more recently Dexter, Game of Thrones are great examples, and now the tables have turned where much of the best original programming is coming from channels a little further down the cable guide: AMC came out swinging with its first original series, Mad Men, since followed up by The Killing amongst others; their director for programming made the statement that they thought “quality would overcome commercial appeal.” USA had huge hits on their hands with Psych and Burn Notice, which prompted them to begin development of more series (Royal Pains, In Plain Sight, Necessary Roughness, et cetera). Finally, the big cable outlet is, surprisingly, Comedy Central, which outside of South Park and The Daily Show, may not have had a ton of success, but has been agile enough to roll with the punches, and make quick adjustments when series fall.

Even genres that once seemed like they wouldn’t fall into cable have started trickling down there: late night shows, which had always been on networks, landed in the cable arena with Lopez Tonight, which was soon joined by Conan, following Conan O’Brien’s rough departure from NBC; previous to his landing on TBS, Conan was looking at doing a show on FX; indeed, all his offers landed in cable, rather than network.

So why have cable programs had such success? Well, let’s obvious things out of the way: not all cable shows have been successful; AMC was dealt with its first bad blow with Rubicon, a conspiracy-themed show; FX has had a few bad outings, and as I said above Comedy Central could fill a stadium with the shows they’ve cancelled. Networks haven’t had a horrific run of bad luck; NCIS, NCIS: Los Angles, the CSI franchise, House, and others have been successful (and for the record, not all of them are police procedurals, my mind is just blanking right now; more of them are, though, then not). Both network and cable use reality shows as cheap fill-ins, and in some cases, they rely on them too much; and those bounce either way.

However, the reason I ask if network programming is doomed is for the same reason the good original programming is starting to shift to cable. Actually, make that reasons. For starters, cable has greater flexibility when it comes to content; Michael Gladis, who played Paul Kinsey on Mad Men‘s first three seasons, remarked that they should get away with a little more stronger language, though not necessarily that much. A lot of cable shows deal with topics that might be considered way too hot for network; Nip/Tuck dealt with dark threads over the course of the series that I find difficult for NBC or Fox to air. The big daddy of the hot content discussion is definitely South Park, which pushed the envelope in so many ways that a traditional network executive would have needed five pages to fill out the reasons why they were canceling it.

One other reasons why cable has been so successful is that they let their shows mature a little before canceling them, or at a minimum, air their full seasons before they do so. This arises largely because of necessity: they do not have mid-season replacements to call up, and in some cases, critical acclaim helps to slowly build an audience over the span of the season, something networks don’t have time for. By contrast, the carousal of canceled shows on networks can leave you dizzy; six bad outings for a new show and you’re done.

Which brings us to the third reason: expectations are usually lower, ratings-wise. A great example is Conan; the ratings on Conan O’Brien’s current show are lower than they were on The Tonight Show, the reason for his departure (when you dig into it), but TBS signed off, saying that they are quite pleased and look forward to him being on the air for a long time. Syfy’s Battlestar Galactica (2004) never generated huge ratings, but was successful enough with its core audience that is secured its own ticket to run as long as it wanted; the only network show that can really say that is 24.

The problem plaguing network shows is largely that, in the name of being innovative, they come up with shows that are not necessarily easy to sell. Remember The Event? They tried to drum up suspense by not telling you too much of what it was about; well, for me at least, that made it unappealing; at least with some shows the basic synopsis is readily available. Cable networks really can’t afford to do that, and why would you? A paragraph describing the show sells the show, or at least perks interest in it. Okay, I’m picking on one show’s failure too much. How about the concepts that sound great, but you can’t help but imagine stall in execution? There are tons of those.

By contrast, AMC has never produced a show that you couldn’t describe in a paragraph; hell, try a sentence. Mad Men is about Don Draper and his co-workers working, not only in the advertising world of the 1960s, but the changing times in which they live and work. Not only that, but the concept works, and you can see it (as it has) working for years.

So, is network programming doomed? I suppose that depends on where they decide to take it; police procedurals and forensics have been in for several years, but it’s become obvious that that train is nearing the end of its run, and that’s where the networks have been making bank for the last decade or so. NBC lost a major franchise with the demise of Law & Order; they bounced Law & Order: Criminal Intent to USA, where it had success, and ended in the manner best for it, something it likely wouldn’t have been granted had it remained on NBC.

Network programming is doomed if they don’t start appreciating the intelligence of their audience. Although the shows on cable are not necessarily what I would call cerebral, they do appreciate that the audience has intelligence and, more importantly, that it is functioning. Burn Notice and Mad Men both have multiple threads, both character and plot, that require some intelligence to tie together, and in many cases, reward the audience that connects the dots. Game of Thrones, on HBO, is in many ways inaccessible without being able to put two-and-two together, but it makes up for that by being incredibly compelling.

So, all things considered, I’d say cable and network are about even right now; trouble for cable is that fifteen years ago they were way, way ahead.

Sports Hop 5/22/2012

This week’s big sports stories:

1. Stan Van gets sacked… and the GM too

I wanted, wanted, to kick off this week’s edition with the LA basketball teams both going down, but the Orlando Magic just wouldn’t allow it. A few months after Magic center, and centerpiece, Dwight Howard reportedly asked for his coach to be fired, Stan Van Guny was. This time, though Otis Smith, the general manager, was also fired.

This move makes it doubly clear that the ownership in Orlando is doubling down on Dwight Howard, and that is a horrible idea. The only reason Dwight Howard agreed to return last season was that he did not like being trade fodder for the whole season, and wanted the trade deadline to come and go without him having to move. While Stan Van is not the league’s best coach, he at least knows what he is doing, something that cannot be said of all head coaches in the NBA. The only upside to this move is that next season, should the Magic, with a coach and GM who meets Howard’s approval in, stink it up, Howard will be tarnished, and maybe that’s the whole point.

2. The Lakers down to the Thunder; the Clippers get swept by the Spurs; the Kings on the brink

Jim Rome said that we focus too much on glamor teams when they lose, and not the victors, and that is true. As such, I will merge both together here, and throw in some NHL while I’m at it. The Lakers went down, 4 games to 1, and the reason is obvious: the Thunder were the better team, and the Lakers are just too dysfunctional. You can blame the new coaching staff and the new system. You can blame Kobe and/or Pau Gasol and/or Andrew Bynum. It doesn’t matter now; someone has to fix the team before Kobe’s era passes, and diagnosing that problem is their job.

The Clippers went down hard to the Spurs, but considering their more humbling pedigree, I chose to give them more credit. Blake Griffin is still young, and he is still gelling with Chris Paul (remember, it was a shortened season). While expectations against the Spurs were low, it should be remembered that the Clippers won their first playoff series in several years, and that unto itself, makes this a huge year for them.

Finally, the Kings are fighting for survival. Good luck to them; I normally wouldn’t care, but no city deserves to have three teams go down in less than a week.

3. The Western Conference Finals

The young Oklahoma City Thunder will be marching against the older and far more experienced San Antonio Spurs. To paraphrase John Wayne in The Cowboys, it’s the battle of muscle versus experience; in that film, by the way, the experience triumphed.

This series is one of those where both teams are playing at the top of their game, both are coming off series in which they dominated, and both teams have every reason to feel good about themselves; the Thunder because they are fulfilling the promise they began fulfilling last season, and the Spurs because they know this could be their last rodeo, so they intend to make it one worth remembering, with rings.

The matchup is one of those that I daren’t try to predict; I just want it to be an incredible series.

4. The Rogers Clemens trial

The Clemens trial continued today, with a juror… hang on, haven’t we done this before? NEXT!

5. The Big 12-SEC Big Time College Bowl Game

A lot was made a few days ago when the Big 12 and SEC pledged that the winners (or other “deserving” teams in the event one or both of them were in the BCS 4-team playoff bracket) would meet in a bowl game, starting in 2015. Most commentaries stated that this would prompt another round of conference realignment, leading to mega-conferences, which Kirk Herbstreit had said would doom the NCAA as a whole.

Catch your breath? Yeah, me too. In any event, this potential game, which some people say may never actually come to pass as things develop over the next few years, will be a centerpiece of the New Years bowl games, likely the primetime equivalent to the Rose Bowl.

As the world turns…

The Cowboys and the Redskins both lost their appeals this week, regarding their overspending during the 2010 uncapped season, and the resulting cap punishments that were handed down by the league. As a result, all other teams, except for the Saints and Raiders, who also overspent, but not as badly, will receive extra cap room in both the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

However, what I don’t understand, and what I need someone in the NFL to come out and say, is why overspending in the uncapped year was wrong in the first place. The Cowboys, Redskins, Saints, and Raiders were not actually violating any rules at the time; the exact opposite, they were acting in the rules that had been put in place by then-in-place CBA. The whole point of the uncapped season was that ownership would no longer have the negotiating point with players, “well, that salary would adversely effect our salary cap situation.”

The worst part is that the NFL, by rule, could not legislate this, and as such, I do not know how they can punish a team for this; I really don’t understand how an arbitrator can look at this situation and say “yeah, this seems fair.” Even if the owners had a verbal agreement, we live in a society where lawyers can crawl out of the woodwork for literally anything; a second year law student can argue how wrong the NFL is here, and to more people than not, she or he would probably make sense.

What astounds me even more with all this is the lack of presence with regard to the Player’s Association; you’d think an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the rights of the players, especially in regard to contracts and money, would take serious offense to any insinuation that a team, with no limits, would be punished for serious spending on players. Again, don’t they have a lawyer who can prove this is also a labor issue?

I know I’m ranting now, but this is one of those things that annoys me; a team getting punished for doing nothing wrong, not just in the context of the rules, but in the context of the lack of rules that existed at that point.

Sports Hop: 5/15 edition

Jumping across leagues and sports, here we go:

1. Bosh out indefinitely; does LeBron deserve a pass if the Heat go down? 

In short, no. For his legitimate value to the Miami Heat, and it is substantial, the Heat tend to ride on the shoulders of LeBron James and Dwayne Wade, and this is largely by design. One reason why Chris Bosh is so effective is that other teams focus on the two of them. The difference between Bosh and [insert random Miami Heat player name here] is that Chris Bosh has incredible talent; on a normal team, he would be better guarded and not have those openings.

However, one element that cannot be ignored is that great players put their teams on their backs and lead them to the promised land. It’s why we idolize Michael Jordan so much; he took the talent around him, made it better, and won titles. If LeBron plays awesomely great, and the Heat lose, then, and only then, does he deserve a pass; history tells us that when the Heat are struggling late in games, LeBron is hard to find; if he plays well through those, then the team gets more of the blame. Otherwise, he will get more of the blame. Oh yeah, one more thing, the Bosh injury means nothing with regard to this; this is what happens no matter what.

2. Donovan McNabb to your team? 

Donovan McNabb is working out, working with a quarterbacks coach, and his former coach Andy Reid is speaking highly of him to the rest of the NFL. Will he get a place on another roster?

McNabb’s problem is that right now teams are flying high off of the draft; do they need another backup QB? Why for the older McNabb when you can go for a younger quarterback, like the Buffalo Bills did? I’ll tell you why: if McNabb is content to be a backup (and by content, I mean we don’t hear about him complaining), and is willing to mentor a young starting quarterback (unlike, say, Brett Favre), then a lot of teams might be interested in having him come on board.

However, he needs to (according to analysts) work on his behavior and motivations in meetings, learning schemes and playbooks; things done behind closed doors that are more academic. Devotion to that will get him a long way.

3. Lakers go down hard to the Thunder; series over? 

No. Kobe Bryant is aging, but he will not take that lying down. Until the Thunder have won, I will not say the series is over, because Kobe has a drive and desire to win that is, frankly, unparalleled in the NBA, largely because he wants that sixth ring to help set him apart from other Laker greats and to tie him with Jordan. Pau Gasol, Metta World Peace, Andrew Bynum, and the rest of the team don’t want to be remembered as having been blown out of the water by the Thunder either.

I am not dismissing the Thunder; they are a mighty team, and the favorites to win the series. I simply think it’s too early to start digging the Lakers grave. I honestly believe that while the Thunder are hungry, the Lakers will not giving them a place at the table without a fight, and I think a lot of people are dismissing the Lakers way, way too early.

4. The Rangers vs. the Devils: a hostile rivalry renewed

Compared to the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, these teams really do not like each other, and yay, they are playing in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I really don’t follow hockey too much, but I can tell you this is one series I will be interested in watching, especially since the Rangers have won two straight series in the seventh game.

Now, having been raised in New York, I have a bias towards these type of series; however, this goes beyond that; this will be an epic matchup of two teams who really do not like each other.

5. Wes Welker and 9.5 million reasons

Wes Welker seems to be coming close to the idea of remaining with the Patriots, and according to the man himself, he has 9.5 million reasons to do so, referring to the tender offer the Pats have offered him.

However, money is only part of it. I mean, really, think about it. Remember the whole incident with Rex Ryan and the foot fetish video? You really think most coaches would have stood for the psychological warfare Welker engaged in afterwards? No. Belichick, for we all know, may not have liked, but he let it slide, probably because he fell out of his chair laughing the first time he heard it.

We’ve seen a lot of players leave the Patriots for more money, and doubtless what they viewed as greener pastures. What do those guys have in common? None of them repeated that same success elsewhere. Welker knows if he wants money, he has to perform, and if he wants to perform it’s extraordinarily stupid to leave the team with the best quarterback. Pats fans may remember his drop in the Super Bowl, but most of them have moved onto this season, and so has he.

My final thought: 

The flopping issue in the NBA has become an epidemic, and the fallout from it is likely to be huge, especially in light of two words: the Olympics. American basketball will likely take a knock or two if American players pull that crap on the international stage. Worse, though, is that it threatens the integrity of the game of basketball; you know it’s bad when NBA Commissioner David Stern calls it a “legitimate concern,” meaning that it is a very, very serious issue and his office is petrified about the negative effects it is having on the game.

Now, I posted an article about it onto Facebook with the open-ended comment “I don’t know how to legislate against this,” to which a friend of mine responded “yellow cards.” Now, I’m not sure if he was saying this in jest, but regardless, I think this is a great idea, provided that a few things happen alongside it:

1. The NBA needs to assign an additional official who will be sitting at the scorer’s table (kind of like the replay official in the NFL), who will review the replay of potentially nasty hits. S/he will review the tape, and if they view it as flopping (meaning that the player’s movement after the hit seems disproportionate to the   energy transfered by the hit itself), then the foul that actually occurred will be enforced; if it was called a flagrant-2 and it’s actually a flagrant-1, then it is called a flagrant-1. I recognize this is subjective, but then again, it’s a start.
2. A player who flops in such a manner to draw a worser call (like a flagrant) will be given a yellow card. Yellow cards will not be grounds for ejection; rather, after four, six, and eight yellows the player is fined, after ten the player is suspended, and for every third yellow afterward the player is both fined and suspended. Such fines will be pre-determined.
3. The league can rescind a yellow card (like a technical foul); a player may appeal the yellow card.
4. The player will be informed of the yellow card when it is given; arguing with the official can be grounds for a technical foul. Same applies with coaches.
5. Players may be given more than one yellow card in the course of a game; however, the player will be permitted to finish the game if one of the yellow cards will result in a suspension. Should the player be given sufficient yellow cards for multiple game suspensions, then they will be suspended for the appropriate number of games afterwards.
6. Yellow cards given in the regular season will not apply for the postseason; however, in the postseason, the parameters for fines and suspensions will apply as thus: fines for the second, fourth, and sixth; suspensions for every second yellow afterwards.

Now, this is just an idea, and I recognize that it’s pretty harsh; however, it’s one way of dealing with the issue. I don’t know how to implement a system like this, and implementation is the most important step; however, I trust that somewhere deep inside NBA headquarters, in a secure room that requires going through ten doors, each with their own seven-digit passcodes, fingerprint scanners, and DNA readers, someone is working on this problem.

The Avengers: Did it live up to the hype?

*****WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!!! WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!!!****
This blog entry contains spoilers from The Avengers; if you haven’t seen it yet and you read it, and it ruins the movie, it’s your own damn problem.  

Several years ago (okay, roughly ten or so), Marvel comics went rogue, creating its own film studio, and coming up with a daring, ambitious plan: run through their superhero characters that they retained film rights to (more on that later), introduce them in small groups (title characters plus supporting characters), then combine them for a super-sized blockbuster the likes of which the entertainment industry hasn’t seen in a long time.

First came Iron Man, then The Incredible Hulk (both a sequel and reboot to Hulk), Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: the First Avenger. However, you know all this already, and beyond that, you know how obvious the tie-in threads to get to The Avengers was; Captain America gets frozen for seventy years being the big one.

Onto more serious matters, I get that part of the film was trying to get the characters to forge a serious bond and put their egos aside, but I think they took it too far; you have a fight scene between two of them with the bad guy sitting on a cliff, and no one looking after him. An argument that occurs between all the main characters that is obviously pointless, feels more like filler than film, even though I know it wasn’t. I think they were trying to hit the point, but they hit it so hard, so many times I was quite happy when it was over.

Of course, the team does come together, after a dramatic and vicious fight that tears away at the fabric of SHIELD. Joss Whedon, whose style I don’t always like, did one thing right: he turned the team from being a SHIELD team to more being a rogue one; they leave without clearance, operate without clearance, and resolve the situation, you guessed it, without official clearance from the SHIELD Council. Even better, you sense that that’s what Nick Fury wanted all along, since let’s face it, Tony Stark doesn’t play too well with others, and Hulk, well, he is good at smashing; even Captain America has a bit of a problem with authority. Again, though, it’s a refreshing touch: Captain America shifts from his ultra-patriotic stance to one a little less rigid, and Tony Stark seems to mature a little, both in domestic bliss with Pepper Potts, learning to work with others, conceding leadership to Capt. Rogers, all this shows how he is growing into the hero people expect. I highlight those two because they are the both the most obvious, and the best examples.

I feel, in a sense, like Loki was made too powerful in the beginning, and the invading army was too overwhelming. When things look that grim, and you know the film will likely be ending on an up note, a lot of the darker, grimmer aspects seem unnecessary. I thought that Loki getting the crap beat out of him by the Hulk was brilliant, as it was not only funny, but ensured that the finale of the last action sequence would not trying to finally beat him; the seemingly sacrificial move by Stark was instead, and was probably the most rewarding part of the film.

I thought the film also made good use of Nick Fury; Fury, who had previously been relegated to bit parts, is revealed to be both calculating, and in a twist, he becomes more human, by realizing that humanity has to grow and mature beyond what we think and do now. Other highlights include Gwyneth Paltrow reprising her role as Pepper Potts, where it becomes apparent that she is letting some of Tony Stark rub off on her, and as result their relationship works great; Stellan Skarsgard, who I’ve yet to see give a bad performance, is brilliant as Dr. Selvig; and Clark Gregg gives a great and humorous performance as the doomed Agent Coulson, who is fleshed out quite a bit, including being a Captain America fan.

I describe the film as being great summer fun, but not a film that will be contending for any Academy Awards, and that’s all we expect from it. I think that I let my expectations get in the way of fully enjoying the first few minutes of the film, and had to learn to just leave my expectations at the door. Quite frankly, I think that it is easier to enjoy a film that does not present itself as being big and grand, but rather just an entertaining feature.

I also enjoyed the fact that, with a few small exceptions, all the characters we deal with are people we met previously in the Marvel cinematic universe; we are not saddled with Steven Rogers new girlfriend; hell, with the nice development of the Potts-Stark romance, we don’t have to deal with the characters’ personal lives too much (aside from the plot-relevant Loki-Thor familial issues), which in an ensemble piece is usually a good thing.

The pacing of the film suffers from the lack of action in the second half of the first act and most of the second, and suffers further more from the prolonged action sequence that dominates the third act. There just wasn’t enough movement in the plot (again, fighting between characters holds it up) in the lull between action sequences to keep it up.

The film holds together through the lull long enough for the characters to click, start working as a team, and work together to beat the bad guy, which is all we really want, right?

The film, amusingly enough, doesn’t just serve as a sequel to the Marvel films, but it opens a wide door for all the projects to come:

• The SHIELD film gets an investment through the SHIELD council and their questioning of its leadership.
• Tony Stark is made more human, a setup for Iron Man 3 due out next year.
• Captain America’s adjustment to modern society sets the stage for a potential second Captain America film
• And, of course, the supporting cast all get a nice bump, such as Black Widow, who is in talks for her own spin-off film

So, the question I asked: does it live up to the hype? I say yes. It was definitely worth the ticket price.

 

Boxing: A Deep Problem

I admit that I am biased against boxing in favor of the UFC and mixed martial arts. However, a recent episode of Rome, Jim Rome’s new show, revitalized my interest in the continuing decline of a sport that was huge for the entirety of the 20th Century, and has been in sharp decline for the last twelve years.

Jim Rome and his two reporter guests were discussing the recent bout between Floyd “Money” Mayweather, Jr. and Miguel Cotto, in which Mayweather won by unanimous decision. They were responding (it’s a live show) to a tweet that asked if Mayweather looked human, to which the one analyst said “it’s not about him being human: [the real story] is about the state of boxing.” A small discussion about the decline of boxing resulted, and they moved on.

This got me thinking (a dangerous pastime I recognize): the problem with boxing is far deeper than anyone in the sport wants to admit, and it is certainly deep enough for me to reassess my opinion on the state of the sport: barring a major change, it is doomed. Not doomed as in it will be wiped out, but rather doomed in the sense that it will become a back room sport, not widely viewed, with only a select few holding any interest in it.

Boxing’s decline can be traced back to the late eighties and early nineties. The face of boxing, and voice, was Iron Mike Tyson, and he let you know that not only was he the face of boxing, but that he was the champion and no one would stop him. That brash, loud attitude made him an attractive fighter to watch, and made boxing bouts with him a hot ticket. While his opponents may have been vocal, they were not as vocal, and as a result I look back on them as being relatively quiet, although I have no doubt that is not entirely true.

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. enters the scene here: boxing is still king. As he ascends, though, the sport starts to falter, lose market share to MMA, and becomes increasingly relegated behind it. It’s not just Mayweather: all major boxing contenders and champions now came of age when boxing was huge, and the problem, the deep-seated problem, is many of them do not realize how wrong that mentality is.

Mayweather reportedly spurned Manny Pacquiao’s offer to split profits from their proposed mega-fight evenly, saying that “he should take what I give him,” an attitude that Miguel Cotto was more than willing to have. Now, we can dispute whether or not Mayweather is the bigger draw, but this idea that the sport of boxing can endure without the mega-fight (and its place, fights considered by almost everyone outside and inside of the boxing community to be lesser) is crazy; as if to make things worse, it’s only the start of the rebuilding process.

Yeah, that’s right: boxing needs to begin doing a serious reboot and rebuilding process, but it’s so conservative it likely won’t do it. A mega-fight between Mayweather and Pacquiao would generate buzz, but the only way it helps the sport rebuild is to have the lower cards be perfectly chosen: you need to have young, hungry fighters, who want a shot at the title; you need seasoned champions, who boxing fans will recognize and cheer for; in short, it needs to be a celebration of boxing’s history and its future; hell, two fights in the undercards should be made up of guys who could potentially contend for the crown Mayweather and Pacquiao are fighting for.

That’s just the start. The sport needs to modernize; you want to compete with the UFC, boxing needs a more central authority, and a streamlined organization at the top; matches need to have more standardized rules (i.e. identical parameters for ring-size, match duration, and all referees need to be appointed to the fight by the aforementioned proposed central authority organization); finally, the boxers need to be professionals, treat their sport with the respect it is due, and stop acting like immature children; some of them act like sons of millionaires not aware that their parents lost everything when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.

Now, looking at the UFC, I will admit that Dana White can be a real jerk at times, but at a minimum, having a centralized authority ensures that there is a pace that works for the sport: if you win the title, you will defend the title in six to nine months time; in any fight, you do not have the option of who you fight, rather you just have to beat him, there is no alternative; finally, drug testing is mandatory and not up for negotiation.

Now, while I may not be able to identify all of the UFC champions, I have the desire to look them up, learn about them and their styles, and potentially watch the fights. In boxing, it’s a different story: fewer people know who the heavyweight champion is right now (especially compared with the mid-20th century); fewer people are interested, and still fewer people are likely to care about the buildup and buy the match.

Boxing needs to look deep down into itself; it needs to rebuild, reorganize, change its attitude, and get rid of the prima donnas that are dragging it down.

MAD MEN, “At the Codfish Ball”

Mad Men is a drama, not a comedy. However, a few episodes come along which are funnier than your average Mad Men showing, and this was one of them. Ranging from Roger’s references to his LSD trip, along with his insistence that everyone else try it, to (again of course) Roger turning Don’s daughter into his date and co-conspirator, there are a lot of great quotes and lines, more than any episode in recent memory.

Notably, the episode features the full-scaled return of Sally, who has been unfortunately underused in this season; her scenes with her father, and Megan, are extraordinarily well-done, especially since the show finally begins to address that she, in the midst of the show, has grown into a lovely young woman, something the show addressed quite well. I love the character development: the growth of her relationship with her step-grandmother, the continuing insinuation that her relationship with Betty is quite strained and she prefers Megan and Don to the house in Rye. I must say, though, that Megan’s choice of dress for Sally, a nice blouse with a short skirt, makeup, and boots, and Don’s reaction (“take off the makeup and the boots”) are reflective of her and his taste, respectively.

And after much build-up, we finally meet Megan’s parents. Her father, who is either a Marxist, communist, socialist, Maoist, or something along those lines, does not like Don (apparently he can’t marry a woman without her father taking a dislike to him), although we find out that Megan had other ambitions, and her father dislikes Don for giving her a shortcut to the front of the line. Apparently, family dysfunction does exist north of the border: the father apparently is having an affair, and the mother, played greatly by the incredible Julia Ormond, retaliates by, well, you can imagine, with Roger Sterling.

Don, meanwhile, is given an award by the American Cancer Society, and then is told that apparently he alienated some of them, and so they won’t be doing business with him. However, the night is not a total loss, as Roger and Pete work the room to try to acquire new business, with a greater emphasis on “try” than anything else.

Peggy moves in with her boyfriend, a sign of the times that they chose to live together without getting engaged or married, something new at the time. Of course, Peggy’s mom hates it, which is line with anything Peggy does that’s slightly counterculture.

One great plotline I was glad to see finally resolved with the successful pitching of the Heinz account, which came out of an original idea from Megan, who finally makes her bones in the business with a successful idea. She also reads, quite well, that Heinz intends to fire them, and to make the pitch at dinner.

The episode, in a weird way, harks back to the first season for me: a good sense of levity, a nice dynamic between the characters, and a subtle acknowledgement of the times, without getting too heavy handed about it. The characters exist in the world, and their lives reveal a lot about it. The changing social norms (co-habitation, growing acceptance of divorce, fashion trends, growing power of women) are counter-balanced by the forces of stagnation, exemplified by Don and Roger, although both seem to be moving slowly.

My grade: 4.6/5.0