'What If?' Series #3 - George Foreman wins 'The Rumble in the Jungle'

I was not yet born when the classic battle between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman took place in Zaire in 1974. But I happened to first catch the match on ESPN Classic many years ago. It was a bout that always intrigued me because many thought that Foreman had a chance to defeat "The Greatest." What I saw was a fight where Foreman tired himself out and eventually Ali was able to knock him out in the eighth round. But what if Foreman had executed a more solid strategy and overcame Ali?

While Foreman would go on to achieve a great name for himself in the world of boxing, it is interesting to think of what would have happened if he remained undefeated and successfully defended his world championship. He had come into the fight with wins of Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. A win over Ali would have perhaps allowed him to remain undefeated for quite some time. And perhaps we would have even seen a rematch between Foreman and Ali. I believe Foreman losing the championship and never receiving a rematch from Ali took something away from him and stopped the awesome momentum he had before.

When Ali was defeated by Frazier in 1971, it was his first defeat. It was the same Frazier that Foreman dominated to become the heavyweight champion. Had Ali lost to Foreman, perhaps more people may be talking about Foreman today rather than Ali. I believe that win by Ali over Foreman established that he was still a major player in the boxing world. Had he been defeated, it is questionable whether he would have ever regained the heavyweight championship again. And perhaps, the "Thrilla in the Manila" may have never happened. That battle with Frazier in 1975 and the punishment that both men took was likely the beginning of the end of Ali's career.

While reflecting back on this bout, I find myself remembering just how big heavyweight boxing was during the 1970s. Today's heavyweight division is nowhere near that today as unless Floyd Mayweather is part of a card, not many other boxers are drawing the way guys like Ali, Foreman and Frazier did years ago. What do you think?

Loving sports history,

LandoRigs

'What If?' Series #2 - The Lakers defeat the Bulls in 1991

The 1990-91 NBA season was seen as the year when former Chicago Bulls great Michael Jordan finally emerged as the new leader in the pro basketball world. Before the end of this season, the NBA had been ruled by former Los Angeles Lakers icon Magic Johnson and Boston Celtics legend Larry Bird. Between the two players, they won 8 NBA championships (Johnson 5, Bird 3) from 1980-1988. They also, along with Julius Erving, spearheaded an entirely new awareness of the NBA that brought the game to levels of popularity it had never seen. Going into the 1990-91 season, Jordan was starting to be recognized as one of the NBA's elite players but didn't have a championship to go with his growing resume.

In what was a fitting NBA Finals matchup for that season, the Bulls took on the Lakers in the NBA Finals. After losing the first came to L.A., Chicago came back and took four straight to win its first NBA championship.

But what if instead of Jordan and the Bulls making history, the Lakers found a way to outlast the Bulls and win it all? Would it have changed the entire landscape of what we knew as NBA basketball in the 1990s? The answer is no.

If the Bulls would have been defeated by the Lakers, knowing Jordan's competitive nature, he would have come back stronger and more focused than ever in the 1991-92 season. So the 1992 and 1993 championships still would have went to Chicago. But here is where it gets different. If Jordan only won back-to-back championships instead of the three-peat we all know from 1991-93, would he have left to play baseball? In my opinion, I don't believe he would. He would have looked to three-peat in 1994, which means that Chicago would have likely crossed paths with the Houston Rockets in the NBA Finals. These two teams might have even played each other for the championship in both 1994 and 1995.

Where things could be more different is that after winning three or four championships in a row, perhaps Jordan would have taken a break from the game in 1996 or 1997. Or he might have stayed to see if he could close out the decade with seven or eight titles.

Whatever the case may be, Jordan would not have denied championship glory even if he lost in 1991. He was too good and he had too talented of a team for that to happen. What are your thoughts?

Reminiscing is fun,

LandoRigs

'What If?' Series #1 - Super Bowl XXV

To this day, my heart goes out to the man in the picture to your left. His name is Scott Norwood, a former placekicker for the Buffalo Bills in the 1990s. No matter what his accomplishments were in his profession, what most people will always remember when they hear his name is his missed field goal at the end of Super Bowl XXV that led to a 20-19 victory for the New York Giants that season.

As I thought about that game, it made me think just how different the NFL history of the 1990s might have been if the Bills were able to win that first of four consecutive appearances in the Super Bowl. What if the kick was good and Buffalo brought home its first Super Bowl crown in a 22-20 thriller? Just what if?

Buffalo had all the talent to be Super Bowl champions on a number of occasions in the early 90s. I remember Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Kenneth Davis, Andre Reed, Don Beebe, James Lofton, Bruce Smith, etc. But when they lost to the Giants, something happened. The next three times they played in the Super Bowl (vs Washington and vs Dallas twice) they did not even come close to winning. In fact, the three games weren't even competitive. Yet when AFC battles were on the line, the Bills were able to overcome the John Elway-led Denver Broncos, the Joe Montana-led Kansas City Chiefs, the Warren Moon-led Houston Oilers and Dan Marino-led Miami Dolphins. Those were impressive, hard-earned victories, especially the comeback against the Oilers. But when Buffalo played in the Super Bowl, it was as if they were a completely different team.

I would go so far as to say that if Buffalo had beaten the Giants, they may have also beaten Washington and may have taken one of two against Dallas. It is very possible because the idea that they had won the big one would have given them the confidence to get at least another title. With each loss in the Super Bowl, their dreams of becoming champions only seemed to become further and further out of reach until things just completely disintegrated within the organization. The Bills have not been anywhere near the Super Bowl after their last loss to Dallas in 1994. Buffalo has only made four more playoff appearances since with its last playoff appearance coming in the 1999 season. We are currently in 2014. Yikes!

So just a little something for sports fans to think about. We'll be having more 'What If?' posts as a weekly feature going forward. This could be fun.

Enjoy life,

LandoRigs

Defending Stephen A. Smith

There is a lot of controversy surrounding Stephen A. Smith, who is one of the hosts of ESPN's First Take. On Friday's show, he was speaking on the recent news surrounding the two-game suspension of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice. As part of his perspective, he talked about the need for there to be awareness regarding how certain behaviors may provoke domestic violence.

Instead of listening to what Smith was saying, many people immediately took what he said to mean that he was somehow condoning domestic violence or that his perspective of "provoking" meant that he felt that women who are victims of domestic violence are somehow deserving of it. Unfortunately, they were not listening to the point that he was trying to make. This seems to happen a lot when issues are addressed in the mainstream media. People get up in arms with wild emotion instead of really stopping and trying to understand what the other person is saying.

Smith repeatedly said that he did not condone domestic violence. I believe him. What he was alluding to is that sometimes domestic violence can be in response to domestic violence and there are situations can indeed can be prevented from escalating to a boiling point. This is actually true. The side of domestic violence stories that seldom are dealt with is the reality that sometimes the victim was once themselves the perpetrator of domestic violence and abuse. This is no way means that all the victims were once perpetrators, it just points out that some are.

Let me give you an example. One day, we hear about a man who commits an act of domestic violence on his wife. We condemn the act and rightfully so. But what we don't recognize and talk about is the fact that the man's wife constantly committed acts of domestic violence against her husband for years. She verbally, emotionally and physically abused her husband on a regular basis. Because the public only zeroes in on the man's act, nobody is addressing the woman's destructive behavior in this situation. She is viewed as being completely innocent. As a result, she will take these same destructive behaviors into her next relationship and the same situation will be more likely to repeat itself. This is a problem, especially for her own well being.

We have to look at this as a big picture and see all the possible elements at play here. Otherwise, destructive behaviors that need to be addressed will not be addressed. As I point these things out, please understand that this is no way condones ANY act of domestic violence. It is all wrong. But abuse of any kind from anybody, both male and female, is also wrong. And the public needs to stop acting as if it is only women who suffer this type of abuse because research would show that is not the case. The public perception is slanted towards believing domestic violence is solely a female victim epidemic. The truth is that it affects both genders significantly. Check out my recent post entitled THE OTHER SIDE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

It is very sad that Smith has to constantly explain and even apologize for his words when there was nothing wrong with what he said. Perhaps in the context of the Ray Rice story it was not the wisest move but he was not and is not condoning domestic violence. What he was pointing out is that there is a cause and effect. A person who constantly yells at and beats on their spouse may one day be on the receiving end of such abuse from the very person who was once the victim. It doesn't make it right and I don't believe it to be right, but it is likely to happen. Let's consider that.

There are plenty of times I disagree with Smith on his perspectives. He is very outspoken and strong about his opinions. But the criticism that has been sent his way has been, in my opinion, unfair. At the end of the day, he believes just like I believe, domestic violence is WRONG!

Just my two cents,

LandoRigs

Laughing Out Loud #1

With all of the heavy topics I've been posting on lately, I've decided to include a weekly video that will just allow everybody to ease up a bit, have a few laughs and put a smile on our faces. This week's video is from "Dude Perfect" on YouTube and is just good clean comedy about fun stereotypes in pickup basketball. Especially if you're a sports guy, you'll get it. Enjoy and have a fabulous weekend!

Stay cool,

LandoRigs

The Other Side of Domestic Violence

So the latest controversy coming out of the NFL is that Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice has been suspended for two games as a result of a domestic violence incident that took place months ago where a camera caught him punching his then fiancee in an elevator and then another camera caught him dragging the same woman by the hair as they got off the elevator. It has raised the ire of many as they feel that the NFL isn't sending a strong enough message against domestic violence behavior of its players. On this note, I wholeheartedly agree.

But each and every time I seem to hear about domestic violence, what bugs me is that I typically hear of a one-sided, one gender focused cause that negates what is happening with the other side and gender. The Obama Administration came out with a public service announcement a couple of years ago that spoke against violence against women and included professional male athletes.

 

While taking up a cause for violence against women is a great endeavor, the fact of the matter is that male victims have been far too overlooked in this regard. If you consider the statistics, you would actually find a very comparable amount of men suffer domestic violence at the hands of women to the women who suffer domestic violence at the hands of men. I won't post the stats here as a Google search of "domestic violence against men" would yield more than enough results to show that many men also are victims as well. 

My question is why leave the men out when so many are going through this? Is it because it is more acceptable in our society for women to be both emotionally and physically abusive to men and supposedly, men are just supposed to take it? A very chilling segment done by ABC News years ago shows that this ideal may play a part in the way some people think about domestic abuse.

So what is the solution to this? Domestic violence shouldn't be acceptable towards any gender. We should have enough respect for each other that we don't have to resort to such abuse. As a rule for humanity, no person, whether male or female, should ever have to endure the horror of domestic violence. And we need to stop talking about it as if it only affects women when the truth is very different.

Another perspective that doesn't get much play is that sometimes domestic violence can be in response to abuse. For instance, a man could be committing domestic violence against the same woman who repeatedly committed violence against him. Or vice versa. In no way is domestic violence in response to domestic violence excusable but I do believe some consideration needs to be given in these situations. For some men and women who constantly throw abuse towards their partner, they may well be on the receiving end of abuse themselves. I don't condone any of it, but it is simply more of a cause and effect. More should be encouraged in the area of people respecting others in general, and perhaps, some of these ugly situations can be avoided. For example, if a woman is always verbally and physically abuse to her husband and one day the husband decides to physically abuse her, she is not innocent. Indeed it isn't right that she was physically abused by her husband but we also must recognize the abuse from her end as well. There can't be a double standard in this, otherwise we are encouraging abusive people to continue to be abusive to the ruin of themselves and their victims.

Domestic violence against men is nothing to laugh at. There are true gentlemen out there that don't want to respond with violence towards their wives or girlfriends and feel stuck. These men need more understanding and encouragement rather than belittlement and mockery. Abuse doesn't make anyone feel good, regardless of your gender. We should be more compassionate regarding this painful reality for many people.

So the next time that you hear of a domestic violence situation and automatically assume it is just women who go through it, think again. It is a human problem.

We'll do this again,

LandoRigs

When is the Last Time You've Laughed?

I absolutely love to laugh. In fact, I just happen to naturally laugh multiple times on a daily basis. Anybody who knows me knows that I am very silly and I enjoy that part of being me. One of the reasons I believe I can smile every day is because of the fact that I laugh a lot. I've come across people in my life that seem so intense and so serious and I wonder how can they really be happy being that way. Their faces are so stoic and they don't find anything to be funny. In my opinion, they need to laugh more.

If you have found yourself being way too serious lately, it is time for you to laugh. One of my favorite memories was when my childhood friend was coming out of the hospital after getting surgery for a hernia he had. I drove him back home and spent the day with him just so he would have some company as he recovered. The poor guy didn't have his urinating function for a while and even though I knew he was in great discomfort, we found a way to giggle about it. Later that day, we went to see Rush Hour 2 at the local movie theatre. I felt so bad for my friend because he wanted to burst out laughing so much but he couldn't and that made the overall experience hilarious. We still laugh about that to this day.

Because we've known each other so long, he also knows the time when we were both in elementary school and my mom used to send me breakfast pockets to eat before I went to school. I didn't like them and instead of telling my mom that, I kept a collection of breakfast pockets in my backpack until they started smelling everything up. My mom was getting complaints from school and one day told me to empty out my backpack. When I did, a bunch of molded breakfast pockets were unveiled. When my mom asked me why I did it, I had a stupid look on my face that was probably classic. We still laugh about that too.

Stop taking life so seriously. Not laughing is not a sign of maturity. It is a sign to you need to loosen up and start enjoying life a little more. It is okay to laugh. Doctors will even tell you that you should laugh. If you're not laughing daily, make it your mission to do so. Everybody is going to find different things that are funny for them. Find that out for yourself. Just keep it good-natured.

And now, I leave you with something that has me laughing to tears every time I see it. A much needed JaVale McGee clip to make sure I get my daily dose of laughter in:

Laugh this weekend,

LandoRigs

Why the Hate?

 

I don't get it. The more I think about it, the more I just really don't get it. LeBron James returns to Cleveland and all seems right with the sports world. Yet, there are people who still find a reason to criticize and hate on the man.

James has carved a tremendous and impressive legacy during his decade-long tenure in the NBA. MVPs, check. NBA championships, check. Scoring titles, check. One of the best players of all time, check. Perhaps the most impressive part about James is the fact that he has improved pretty much in all facets of the game over the course of his career. Even with all that, he has been a good ambassador for basketball and has stayed out of trouble.

But people want to criticize that he went to Miami to team up with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh to win his championships. Even old-time NBA players voiced their displeasure with James' DECISION back in 2010. But how can Magic Johnson even compare his experience to James when the Lakers had other Hall of Fame players (Kareem, Worthy, Wilkes, McAdoo) on that team with him? Even though Magic had good leadership ability, the fact is that he was surrounded with players who would have been Hall of Fame players regardless of they played with him or not and that actually toned themselves down to fit the Lakers' style of play. What Magic had, James never had in Cleveland. The only Hall of Fame level player he had was Shaq, who as already in the twilight of his career. And can we really compare Mike Brown (who I really like as a coach) to Pat Riley in the coaching department?

Let's go to Larry Bird. His leadership ability is also heralded in basketball lore. Yet he had a coach named KC Jones, who is a Hall of Fame player but truthfully should have also been a Hall of Fame coach. Robert Parish, Kevin McHale and Dennis Johnson all are Hall of Famers. Johnson actually had won a championship before even coming to the Celtics with the Seattle Supersonics in 1979. Once again, James did not have this type of roster support and coaching staff in Cleveland.

Lastly, we'll talk about Michael Jordan. On his championship teams with the Bulls, Jordan played alongside Hall of Famer Scottie Pippen, Hall of Famer Dennis Rodman and tremendous role players such as Horace Grant, B.J. Armstrong, John Paxson and Steve Kerr. Not to mention, that he also had Hall of Fame coach Phil Jackson at the helm for all six of those championships. Once more, not anything near what James had in Cleveland.

Then I find myself reading posts from people on Facebook complaining that James went back to Cleveland because of the letter owner Dan Gilbert wrote when he left. Whether these people realize it or not, what they are saying is that they don't approve of James and Gilbert sitting down like two grown men and burying the hatchet. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing? I just don't get it.

It's late at night and I know I'm sounding preachy in this entry but I'm flabbergasted by this whole thing. I understand why people were upset with James when he left for Miami amidst a media circus frenzy that he embraced and supported. But this was different. The way James handled himself this time showed his maturity and what he has learned over the past few years. But some people were too busy hating in order to see it.

Haters are gonna hate. I still don't get it.

Time to get some sleep,

LandoRigs

Happy for LeBron

LeBron James is a Cleveland Cavalier once again!  Link to ESPN.com article

Well, in case you haven't heard, reports are swirling about that LeBron James is returning to the Cleveland Cavaliers. ESPN and other sports networks have been on the story with speculations and predictions ever since the 2014 NBA ended. Now we finally have our answer and I am happy for him.

But as James heads back to Cleveland, I am reminded at how everything broke down in 2010 when he decided to leave the Cavaliers for the Miami Heat. James and the sports media turned his announcement into a circus, Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert wrote a nasty letter about James and the Cleveland fans burned their former hero's jerseys at will. What I hope is that all three sides (James, Gilbert, Cleveland fans) have learned from that experience and are able to see where they all were at fault. I would hate to see a repeat if James' were to go to another team when he becomes a free agent again.

That being said, I am thrilled to see him make a choice that was best for him. He has been one of the hardest working players and has improved over the course of his career. If anyone has earned the right to choose what he wants for his career, James certainly has earned that right. All I ask is that the Cavaliers change their jerseys back to the way they were when James was on the team the first team because those jerseys since have been hideous. :)

Same bat time, same bat blog,

LandoRigs

Really ESPN?

With so many people online praising the latest "The Body Issue" from ESPN magazine, I just may be one of the few that takes exception to the annual issue and that constantly asks the question of, "What's the point?"

ESPN has been a staple in sports media since its inception in 1979. Shows like SportsCenter and NFL Primetime, First Take and Numbers Never Lie are still among my favorite sports shows of all-time to this very day. They've done a fabulous job resurrecting Monday Night Football, provide outstanding coverage for college football and basketball and I recently enjoyed their coverage of the World Cup to this point. In my opinion, there is a lot that they do right.

But when it comes to this annual "body" issue, truthfully, what does this have to do with sports? I realize that when "The Body Issue" was first released in 2009 that it was supposed to be ESPN's answer to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. But what do things like that have to do with sports, other than to provide an opportunity to show skin? Of course, there will always be an audience and a chance to make money off that sort of thing. But it is really necessary to go completely nude with only the main private parts not showing? Where is the appropriateness in that?

My Christian beliefs may be playing a big part in why I feel this way. In the bible, after Adam and Eve sinned, God provided the couple with animal skins to clothe themselves and clothing has been an integral part of most societies ever since. Consider what happened in the incident of Noah, when one of his sons saw him naked and was cursed. His other sons rushed to over their father and make sure not to look as they covered him. Other accounts show in so many words that it is only appropriate to see one's spouse in the nude. That's what I go by in my personal life.

Whether a person is a Christian or not, I would imagine if most of us saw a person in the nude on the street, even with their lower extremities covered, we would be appalled. I think if ESPN wanted to do a "body" issue, there is definitely a more tasteful way to do it.

More to come,

LandoRigs