Greatest. Tennis. Match. Ever. As a new father I have about 10 minutes to spare, so I’m going to blog about what’s been on my mind — last night’s EPIC Aussie Open Final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. The two fighters went toe-to-toe like to heavyweight sluggers, absorbing killer blow after killer blow in read more...
8 Seconds I recently read an article which said that the average person spends 8 seconds looking at the front cover of a book and 15 seconds on the back. If the book doesn’t grab their attention then they move on to the next book. For me, 8 seconds is a long time. When I read more...
Update: new pictures added! The Parthenon at the Acropolis! When I told my friends I was heading to Greece for a week and that I had allocated 2 full days for its capital, Athens, the response I got was not overly enthusiastic. They told me there wasn’t all that much to do, and a single read more...
Note: Huge shoutout to Sydney artist Hubert Widjaya for providing the wonderful artwork for this post. See below for a casual chat we had about the film following my review. I’m not ordinarily a fan of musicals, especially ones that look like they are riding the wave of a popular trend to make a quick read more...
Anthony Mundine hits Daniel Geale on the fist with a perfectly timed chin
In one of the most shocking and disgraceful decisions in boxing history, Anthony “The Man” Mundine was blatantly robbed in Sydney last night against Daniel Geale in their high-anticipated rematch. Despite dominating the historical 12-round championship fight (that was not reported by any mainstream media outside of Australia), Mundine suffered his fifth career defeat with scores of 117-111, 117-111, 116-112, all in favor of reigning IBF Middleweight champion Geale.
A shattered and bewildered Mundine fled the Sydney Entertainment Center as soon as the decision was announced, but after finding time to compose himself later in the evening, told reporters what everyone clearly knew — he was robbed.
“I walked straight into an ambush, that is the best way I can sum it up,” he said, fighting back tears. “I obviously had to knock him out. I knew that, I said before the fight that the only way they were going to beat me is if they rob me, but I didn’t think it was going to be so obvious and I didn’t think it was going to be so blatant, as blatant as the headbutts and elbows I was constantly getting away with during the fight.”
Mundine said he intentionally took all those stinging jabs and crushing body blows from Geale because he believed demonstrating his endurance and “ability to take a punch” was going to impress the judges more than landing any meaningful punches of his own.
“I knew I had to prove to the judges I didn’t have a glass head after two previous incidents that didn’t reflect too well on me,” Mundine explained, referring to this:
and this:
“Both those incidents were intentional, though,” he added, “because no one would agree to fight me if they knew how unstoppable I truly was.”
Mundine didn’t think his second fight with Geale was even close, and said he believed every boxing expert and audience member who thought Geale easily won the fight had obviously been bribed. Either that or because “they hate me for all the racist, inflammatory, nonsensical, moronic and boneheaded things I have said throughout the years,” he said.
“I thought I was dominant enough to get the victory,” Mundine said. “Honestly, I thought it was eight rounds to four — all day. That is why I was so buoyant after the fight but they took my fourth world title off me, man.”
Mundine explained that he only “acted like I was losing” all throughout the fight because he didn’t want to appear too cocky, unlike Geale, “that shameless showboater,” he said. “My corner was only pretending to be desperate but we really thought we had the fight in the bag all along. I only acted like Geale’s punches hurt me because I felt sorry for him after I accused him of being a fake Aborigine and said those insensitive but true things about his wife and kids.”
Mundine even claimed that his corner secretly applied make-up in between rounds to make it look like his face was bruised and swollen from Geale’s punches. “I decided if I was going to be the good guy I was going to go all in,” he added.
The man who calls himself “The Man” said the reason why his face and body language were so convincing was because he got acting tips from his good buddy Russell Crowe in exchange for giving Crowe singing lessons for Les Miserables.
Crowe, who was ringside, tweeted after the fight: “Geale v Mundine, bullshit biased commentary, bullshit biased result. Nobody won that fight. 15 rounds next time.” He later clarified that he didn’t think the fight was “actually a draw” as the tweet suggested and said that if 15 rounds was good enough for him in Cinderella Man, based on a true story set in the Great Depression, then it would be good enough for Mundine-Geale III in 2013.
Crowe then directed reporters to this award-winning article which showed what a true stand-up guy he was.
Sonny Bill Williams, another truly stand-up fellow who walked out on his footy team midway through a season for more money overseas, didn’t just believe, but actually thought Mundine won the fight when the decision was announced, tweeting last night: “Hanging out with @Anthony_Mundine celebrating a victory.”
Williams was stunned when told later that Mundine in fact lost the fight. “I thought when they said the winner was ‘still the IBF champion of the world’ they were referring to Choc. I didn’t realise Choc has never held the IBF title. In any weight class. Ever. It was still a good night out though.”
Mundine admits had he pressured Geale more he might never have left the fight in the hands of the judges. “If I would have put the second and third attack, now I kick myself, I probably would have knocked him out,” he said. “That is how dominant I was. I was hitting him hard with all parts of my body and I was hurting him. My cheekbone was doing serious damage to his left jab and I think my ribs might have even fractured his right fist.”
What a fight, what a stunning KO! This was an outcome few people saw coming, but boy was it a glorious finale to a rivalry between two ultimate warriors. In their fourth and best fight, Juan Manuel Marquez KO’d Manny Pacquiao with a crushing right hand counter at full force that connected flush on the Filipino’s chin with a second left in the sixth round, sending Pacquiao crumpling to the canvas like a sack of potatoes. It was every bit as devastating as the Pacquiao punch that KO’d Ricky Hatton or the Sergio Martinez punch that KO’d Paul Williams. I’m not sure if there was a count but it didn’t matter because Pacquiao was out cold for several minutes afterwards, though fortunately he was eventually able to get up and congratulate his conqueror.
It was a remarkable action fight full of twists and turns. Pacquiao (who weighed in yesterday at the welter limit of 147 pounds) started out the aggressor and most probably took the first two rounds by landing more punches and more effective punches than Marquez (143 pounds). The lead left hand proved effective for Pacquiao while Marquez appeared willing to spend more time to figure things out, using body blows to try and slow his opponent down and set up power shots up top.
It turned out to be the right strategy for Marquez, as just when it appeared Pacquiao might start cruising to a points victory, Marquez turned the tables in the third round with a huge overhand right after a body feint than floored Pacquiao for the first time in their four fights. It was a demonstration of the kind of power that the “new” Marquez possessed at welterweight, and it showed that his muscles were not just for show.
Pacquiao got up and survived the round, and it seemed like Marquez might begin to overpower the Pac-man. But instead, Pacquiao was able to find his legs and gutted out a fourth round that could have gone either way.
In the fifth, Pacquiao grew even more aggressive and evened the tables with a straight left hand that struck Marquez on the chin, forcing the Mexican to land his glove on the floor. The knockdown was not a devastating one but it showed that Pacquiao still carried some sting in his punches. As expected, Marquez came back valiantly with some big blows of his own, until Pacquiao unleashed a punishing right hook that clearly hurt him. This time, it was Marquez that had to hang on until the end of the round, and to his credit he did so fighting out of the corners.
Things looked great for Pacquiao for most of the sixth round as he busted up Marquez’s face with more sharp punches, widening the gap on the Compubox scores (which Pacquiao dominated 94 at 37% to 52 to 21%). He appeared to be hurting his opponent and even prompted suggestions that he might finish Marquez off soon.
But I don’t think it was a lucky punch that turned out the lights for Pacquiao because Marquez had clearly been timing that right hand counter all night, and he just happened to land it perfectly. Pacquiao was getting confident and perhaps a little careless, and it was obvious he was trying to finish off the sixth round on a strong note. And so when Pacquiao lunged forward with a right hand with a second left in the round it played right into Marquez’s hands. The Mexican warrior craftily evaded the blow and launched a beautiful right hand that connected right on the button – from behind you could see the crushing force jolt Pacquiao’s cranium. He collapsed face first to the canvas and seconds later Marquez was celebrating on the corner post.
What a sensational, action packed fight. No matter who you were going for, you have to admire the skills and hearts of the two fighters. It certainly lends credibility to the argument that Marquez is the better fighter and has been all along, or at least the suggestion that Marquez is Pacquiao’s kryptonite.
I’d prefer to see the two of them fight someone else now or retire. In the aftermath of the KO there were immediate rumblings about a fifth fight, but I think Marquez has nothing left to prove against Pacquiao. Yes, Pacquiao was winning the fight up to that point (leading 47-46 on all three scorecards and probably would have gotten the sixth round too had the fight not ended there) and had hurt Marquez, but that KO was a perfect ending to their rivalry — there could not have been a more definitive conclusion after so many close fights. If they keep fighting, when will it ever end?
This whole time boxing fans were thinking Floyd Mayweather Jr was Pacquiao’s fated rival but as it turned out Marquez held that role all along. I guess now we will never see Mayweather-Pacquiao, but at the same time I don’t think too many people care anymore after being jerked around for so many years. Pacquiao said immediately after the fight that he is not going to retire and is going to come back, but I think it’s a good time for him to hang up the gloves. No shame in going out on a punch like that from an opponent like Marquez. But on the other hand, if they fight again, I’m pretty sure I’ll be watching.
As for me, I was wrong again in my prediction. From now on I’m going to live like this guy.
The fourth fight between Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez on Saturday night in Las Vegas is what it is. No one (other than the people making a lot of money from it) is “excited” about it. Sure, it’ll likely be a close, exciting fight, like the previous three times they met in the ring, but will it really “settle things once and for all” like the fighters and promotions claim? Wasn’t that what the third fight was supposed to do?
Pacquiao-Marquez is a strange rivalry. Trilogies usually have one guy winning and first fight, the other guy winning the second, and then a third fight to determine the ultimate victor. In this case, Pacquiao is officially undefeated against Marquez after three fights (going 2-0-1, although the first fight, a draw, would have gone Pacquiao’s way had one of the judges scored round 1 correctly and given Pacquiao a 10-6 round instead of a 10-7 round after he dropped Marquez three times), but many experts and fans believe Marquez won all three.
So what does this fourth fight achieve? It won’t change the results of the first three bouts. Maybe Pacquiao will knock Marquez out. Maybe Marquez will finally get the victory he deserves. Or perhaps, there will be another controversial decision. Then what? Are we going to see a fifth fight?
Even Pacquiao’s trainer, Freddie Roach, has said it before: that Pacquiao and Marquez could fight each other a hundred times and it will be close and controversial every time. Should we believe anything different will happen this time?
Interestingly, when I looked around online for predictions, boxing experts and writers are predicting a close but uncontroversial Marquez decision. The reasoning is that after the outrage surrounding fight no. 3, which many felt Marquez won comfortably, the judges will be, consciously or subconsciously, influenced to favour Marquez in their scoring. These are, of course, the same people that predicted Pacquiao would steamroll Marquez and knock him out in their previous fight.
There are other factors too. Marquez is looking huge, buffed and cut, meaning he has transitioned to welterweight extremely well and appears to have added power without losing much speed. Pacquiao, on the other hand, hasn’t looked impressive since he beat Antonio Margarito more than two years ago (and hasn’t knocked out or even knocked down an opponent since Miguel Cotto a year before that). He’s obviously slowing down and appears to have lost the devastating form that took him to the very top of most pound-for-pound lists, they say. All other things being equal, the logical outcome is a Marquez points win.
The few that are backing Pacquiao insist he is a different fighter and will finally knock Marquez out. They say Pacquaio had leg cramps last fight (and that he won’t have them again this time), he was distracted (watching a Boston Celtics game before the fight) and his personal life was in complete disarray (his marriage was on the rocks and he was gambling, philandering and drinking).
I’m not sure I buy all of that because we never hear any of the negative stuff about Pacquiao until after his fight or just before his next fight to explain lacklustre performances. It just comes off like a poor excuse. And let’s not forget, Pacquiao supposedly turned his life around prior to his previous fight with Tim Bradley, and he lost that one (though to be fair, everyone apart from the judges thought he won, albeit not very impressively).
Pacquiao supporters also point to suggestions that Marquez, wary of the judges, will be going for a knockout himself and negate his biggest strength: counterpunching. That’s unlikely to me, because he’s a counterpuncher by nature. Marquez said it himself that he will be more aggressive but won’t be looking for the KO, though if the opportunity presents itself he would go for it.
What holds more water is the way Freddie Roach has been talking about Pacquiao. Freddie talks up Pacquiao’s conditioning and form before every fight, but this time he seems genuinely excited. He was eager to point out how Pacquiao has knocked down his sparring partners four times during the camp, which has not happened in a long time. That means a lot more to me than all that religious awakening stuff.
And I also haven’t forgotten that Marquez is 39 years old. Granted, he’s aged well and is no ordinary 39-year-old, but there is a chance his counterpunching reflexes and speed are just that little slower than last time.
So how do I see the fight panning out? Honestly, I don’t know. Conventional wisdom suggests another close fight, one that could go either way. Everyone is guessing that it will either be a clear(er) Marquez decision or a Pacquiao KO. Given that I’ve been wrong in just about all my boxing predictions ever, I thought I’d go out on a limb and guess something different from the mainstream. Accordingly, my prediction is that Pacquiao will shock everyone and win a clear cut decision. I don’t think he will knock Marquez out, but I do believe there could be knockdowns and there will be punishment.
More surprising than the 138-point game by Jack Taylor game has been the overwhelming negativity directed at the jaw-dropping performance from the 5’10″ guard from Grinnell College in Dallas.
For those unfamiliar with the feat, Taylor, a sophomore who actually played lacrosse last year, scored 138 points in Grinnell’s high-octane 179-104 victory over Faith Baptist Bible in an NCAA Division IIII game on Tuesday night.
Taylor had struggled with his shot in his first two games of the season, but on this night he hit 52 of his 108 shot attempts (!!), including 27 of 71 from three-point range (!!!). He was also 7 of 10 from the free throw line. He played 36 out of a possible 40 minutes.
To rationalize how the feat was possible, know that Grinnell coach David Arsenault employs a crazy offensive and defensive scheme designed to maximize opportunities to score a lot of points — for both sides. Players are told to shoot quickly and frequently and the team employs a high-risk, high-reward full court trap for the entire game, which often means certain players rarely even cross the half court line on defense. Arsenault’s teams have led the nation in scoring in 17 of the last 19 years at any college level in America. Taylor’s teammate, Griffin Lentsch, scored 89 points in a game last November using the same system.
In this particular game, Taylor started off cold, but he was encouraged to keep shooting and by halftime he had 58 points (his previous career high was 48 points in high school). Sensing something special was happening, his teammates sacrificed their own shots and kept feeding Taylor the ball, much like Wilt Chamberlain’s teammates did on the historic night the Stilt scored 100 in an NBA game (and probably slept with his 20,000th woman on the same night). Taylor eventually caught fire like Katniss Everdeen and scored 28 consecutive points at one point before finishing with the incredible record which shredded the previous NCAA high of 113 by Bevo Francis in 1954.
Admittedly, there are a lot of people amazed and impressed by the performance, including NBA superstars like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony. But the praise has been overshadowed by the vitriol directed at Taylor, his team, his teammates, his opponents and his coach.
Here are some of the more common complaints.
He took 108 shots and 71 three-pointers in a single game with zero assists! What a hog!
Yes, Taylor took an insane number of shots. But how else would you expect someone to score 138 points? By standing around? By passing his teammates the ball? They were the ones who kept feeding Taylor the ball and encouraging him to score as many points as he could. He would never have managed it if they didn’t keep passing the ball to him, setting screens for him and getting him extra possessions with their full court trap.
The fact that he was able to take so many shots in 36 minutes is impressive in itself. It’s not like he tries to do this every game. It was just one of those nights where he was given free reign to launch. Basketball is a team game where everyone has a role. Taylor’s role on this night was to shoot as much as he could. He did it with the blessing and support of his coach and teammates.
In Chamberlain’s 100-point game, Wilt took 63 shots but had 32 free throw attempts, while Taylor only had 10. Chamberlain also played 12 more minutes. In Kobe Bryant’s 81-point game, he played 42 minutes and took just 46 shots, but had 20 free throws attempts. And remember, Taylor scored 38 points more than Chamberlain and 57 points more than Kobe. Scoring 38 or 57 points in a single game is impressive enough, let alone 100 more than that. Wilt’s career average is around 30 points a game. Kobe has only scored more than 57 points four times in his entire career.
Zero assists? Big deal. Wilt and Kobe only had 2 assists each in their historic games. Plenty of guards at the elite level have recorded zero assist games, and none of them have ever scored 138 points.
He didn’t even shoot 50%! Anyone who takes that many shots can score 138 points!
This just shows a complete lack of understanding of basketball. 52 of 108 from the field is 48%, a rate which most basketball players at any level would take on any given night. The same goes for his 38% (27 of 71) shooting from three-point range (Reggie Miller, regarded as either the best or second best three-point shooter of all-time, averaged 39.5% from the three-point line for his career). They are not amazing percentages for a player having the game of his life, but they are certainly respectable, especially considering how many of his shots were jumpshots and not layups.
I’d also differ on the argument that anyone who takes that many shots can score 138 points. In an empty gym, maybe, but not in a proper game. If it were that easy and common we wouldn’t be talking about it.
Great scorers might be able to score that many points on that many shots against the right opponents, but the bigger difficulty is actually being able to attempt that many shots in a 40-minute game. I don’t care what anyone says, taking a shot every 20 seconds for 36 minutes straight while running around is extremely difficult to do regardless of the opponent.
His opponents were crap; my high school team could have beaten them
This may be true, but it’s been greatly exaggerated. The inept Faith Baptist may be 0-5 on their season but they are still a college basketball team in the NCAA (albeit Div III). No one is saying they are North Carolina, but let’s not pretend this was Michael Jordan dominating in the mentally challenged midget league. Taylor wasn’t playing in a backyard comp against his baby sister — he was playing in a proper game against an opponent deemed good enough to be in the same league. Let’s not forget, Faith Baptist scored 104 points of their own, which means at the very least that they are not complete amateurs and were competing.
Yes, your high school team might have been able to beat them, crush them even. But could anyone on that team score 138 points against them?
His opponents didn’t play any defense
Another myth espoused by haters who likely didn’t even see any game footage. They weren’t exactly good defenders but from what I could tell they sure tried. It wasn’t like they were daring him to shoot and allowing him open jumpers or offering a layup drill all night. They weren’t inviting him to put up 138 points and embarrass them, if that’s what anyone is suggesting.
The vast majority of Taylor’s shots were at least semi-contested or made in traffic. Most of them were made off the dribble in isolation situations. At times Faith Baptist double and triple teamed him and there’s no denying that Taylor made a bunch of difficult shots.
It’s sad that any time a player has a great offensive game critics are quick to blame the defense rather than give credit to the offense.
His opponents should have “done something about it”
It’s frightening how many people say Faith Baptist should have put Taylor on his backside or tried to cause him physical harm by attempting to score so many points on them in a game that was probably settled by halftime. This is not the bush league and the name “Faith Baptist” should have suggested that such tactics were unlikely.
“I will tell you, we tried,”said Faith Baptist coach Brian Fincham. “I’m not going to be cheap and foul or hit somebody. That’s not the type of program we’re going to be. But I’m proud of my guys and the effort they put in. Jack just had a great night.”
Some say it’s not a classy thing to run up the score against a hapless opponent, but it’s happened countless times before and no one ever scored 138 points.
“I wasn’t going to take a guy out who was in the zone,” Grinnell’s Arsenault said in defense of letting Taylor run wild. “I’ve never been in the zone like that, and if I was I certainly wouldn’t want my coach to end it for me. So we just let him go.”
Perhaps Faith Baptist could have slowed down their offense and run out the clock to minimize Grinnell’s possessions, but that was their choice to make. You can’t fault Grinnell or Taylor for making the most of their opponent’s strategy.
David Larson’s 70 points on 34 of 44 shooting was more impressive
Some critics have gone as far as to say that David Larson from Faith Baptist, who scored 70 points on 34 of 44 shooting against Grinnell on the same night, had the more impressive performance.
No it’s not.
First of all, his team got trounced. While Larson, who played all 40 minutes, scored at a much more efficient percentage (77%), the majority of his baskets came from close range after Grinnell’s high-risk full court press broke down (and broke down often). In fact, Larson’s performance was much more like an undefended layup drill than Taylor’s.
Oh, and by the way, Taylor almost doubled Larson’s point output.
So what? He wouldn’t score 10 points in the NBA!
By far the dumbest comment I’ve seen, and I’m surprised how many times I’ve come across something like it the last few days.
No one with half a brain is saying this guy is a future NBA star. No one’s even saying he’s the second coming of Jimmer Fredette. He’s going to have his 15 minutes of fame and that’ll be the end of it. But what is wrong with that?
Taylor’s 138-point game is what it is — a once-in-a-lifetime freakish occurrence where everything fell into line at the right place at the right time. It was the culmination of coach Arsenault’s system, Faith Baptist’s less-than-stellar defense and refusal to slow the game down, Taylor’s teammates and coach helping him along the way, and of course, Taylor catching fire like he has never before and probably never will again. But most record-setting performances in basketball are a combination of circumstances, luck and skill, and I don’t see why this was any less amazing just because it happened in Div III of the NCAA.
Perhaps Kobe said it best: “I don’t care what level you’re at. Scoring 138 points is pretty insane.”
LeBron said he couldn’t even do it in a video game, noting that he would have to mess with the rules and ratings and sliders to be able to accomplish it.
Accordingly to Taylor’s critics, however, it was nothing special. I’m not sure what would impress them. Perhaps it needs to be an NBA player who shoots 70% from the floor while racking up a triple-double and hits the game winner as well — in addition to the 138 points, of course. Then again, my guess is even then it will never be enough for the haters.
I’m not saying Taylor should start being compared to Wilt or Kobe or even Tyler Hansbrough, but I think it’s unfortunate so many people are so quick to shoot down what is clearly a remarkable achievement which should be appreciated and respected, in context or otherwise.
The added security is a hassle — unless you have a press pass
November 9 & 10
The 18th National Congress is officially underway, and my days generally involve running around between my hotel and the media center at the aptly named Beijing Media Center Hotel. You would think they’d put the media center somewhere convenient and close to the Great Hall of the People. but it’s about 6 subway stations away.
The rich international news agencies generally have their own cars and drivers or get special shuttle buses directly to the venue from their hotel, but cheap news agencies like the one I work for force us to catch the subway.
On Friday, I moved back to the hotel I was originally supposed to stay at (but was cancelled at the last minute). It’s part of the same chain but it’s more convenient, newer, brighter and cleaner — although it’s also a little smaller.
Anyway, not much to blog about since I’ve been spending most of my time attending press conferences and writing articles, so I’ve decided to share some of my random observations of Beijing.
Here goes:
Beijing’s subway system is utterly insane. Off-peak here is like peak time in Sydney and Taipei. I’ve never had so many bodies pressed against me at once, and definitely never so many bodies that smell like they haven’t showered for some time. People have to prepare about 2 stops in advance to make their way through to the door so they can get off.
Red lights don’t count for cars here for some reason. Everyone seems to have accepted this fact, even the traffic cops and pedestrians.
Red lights don’t count for pedestrians either if enough people can cross the road at the same time. Dozens of people just naturally form groups of their own and cross together at the same time, blocking cars that should have the right of way. Strength in numbers. It’s awesome.
Taiwanese people have got nothing on the Chinese when it comes to picking their noses on public transport.
I am always thirsty in Beijing. I have about 4 litres of water a day and I’m still thirsty.
The Oriental Plaza Mall across from when I am staying is huge — it stretches between two subway stations (Wangfujing and Dongdan). Think about that for a second.
There is a serious phlegm problem in Beijing. People are constantly hocking phlegm wherever I go (in fact I can hear it outside my window as I type this), though to their credit there are significantly less spitting noises that follow. It must be something in the air or the food because I’ve been experiencing a significant rise in phlegm myself.
There is no concept of lining up in China. I often see massive crowds of people and I think something must be going on, but they’re actually all just trying to get to the ticket machine at the same time. Years of fighting for survival can do that to people.
The Beijing Media Center Hotel really sucks. The internet there is slow and many websites don’t work. The wi-fi is completely unreliable. I would believe it if someone told me that the Chinese government giving foreign journalists shit internet on purpose so they can’t send their articles back home to get published.
Security is heavy right now at subway stations and near tourist spots in Beijing but you can get away with most of it if you have a press pass (they just let you through without checking most of the time). Makes me worry that someone is going to make a fake press pass. They fake everything here, so surely a press pass is not that hard.
I can’t get out of my head the recording of the English announcer’s voice from the escalators at all subways stations on line one. “Please stand firm, and hold the handrail,” she says. But it sounds like “Please stan-fer, and ho-de-han-ruil” — with a Frank Constanza kind of halting rhythm. I love it.
Beijing (and I assume all of China) has really awesome NBA coverage, with multiple live games and replays throughout the week. The best part is that during timeouts and breaks they almost always show highlights of other games around the league. It’s one continuous NBA-rama here.
From my very limited interactions with taxi drivers in Beijing I have concluded that they are the nicest in the world. The other night I had real trouble getting a cab to go to a journalist function, and I finally managed to hail one down — but it was heading in the wrong direction. The driver was so apologetic that she would have to find somewhere to do a could of U-turns and despite me saying it was perfectly fine since I was the one that chose a cab in the wrong direction she just wouldn’t stop apologizing. And when I arrived at my destination I tried to give her a one yuan tip, but she wouldn’t take it no matter how hard I tried. Are they polite or just crazy?
I like to write about stuff. Books, film, food, travel, games, sport, whatever. Currently working on a few books. Hoping to finish one some day. Maybe.
