"I have no desire to try to accumulate $10 million in the bank; I already have more money in my bank account than I know what to do with. I drive a used hatchback Nissan Versa and live on less than $25k a year. It’s not because I’m frugal or trying to save for some big purchase, it’s because the things I love the most in this world (reading math, doing research, playing chess) are very, very inexpensive."
Refreshing to see such a grounded athlete get press. I'm sure there are a lot of them out there, but typically you don't see a lot of stories about them.
“On the morning in 2011 when his $2 million signing bonus finally cleared, Norris was in Florida with the rest of the Blue Jays' new signees. All of their bonuses had been deposited on the same day, and one of the players suggested they drive to a Tampa mall. They shopped for three hours, and by the time the spree finally ended they could barely fit their haul back into the car. Most players had spent $10,000 or more on laptops, jewelry and headphones. Norris returned with only a henley T-shirt from Converse, bought on sale for $14. It's been a fixture of his wardrobe ever since.”
Truly a down-to-earth man. It would be easy for a person in his position to have fame and money go up to is head. But all the man wants to do is read books and play chess. Maybe more of us should be like him.
Reminds me of Grigori Perelman. Rejecting the fields medal prize money was an extraordinary powerful way to make his point that money is not everything in this world.
In fairness I didnt fully read the article, myself. If the quote was buried and GP thought it was a good idea to highlight it then I agree it was a good idea.
Time and time again I see people arguing on HN as if they haven't read the article. Is it just bad reading comprehension or is it that people read the headline and jump the gun?
I hear what's he's saying about the physical contact, and the feeling of dominating the player in front of you. My high school football coach use to say, on the football field you could measure yourself. You could see how tough you are, how strong you are, and if you have the mental toughness required to win. It's you versus the guy across from you.. There's not many chances in this world to test yourself like that. I think that's some of what he means when he says he's 'addicted' to the physical contact of football. I certainly miss that aspect.
What is "english boxing"? My quick search was inconclusive, my intuition would suggest it could either be a bare-knuckle, a humorous, or gentleman-like variant of boxing.
The timeline for me is clearly separated to "before the first punch to the nose" and "since that moment" -- and this description is similar to just about any other person practicing martial arts that I've talked to.
The first time you get your nose punched while boxing, you have no idea what hit you, or where you are, or where the floor is. It is very disorienting, and usually quite alarming. But that experience somehow reconfigures your brain, and all the times after that are "just" irritating or painful.
And I also remember, that following that day, a lot of things in life became much less intimidating and much more tractable. For me, it was a small, but memorable, "life changing experience"
Oh god, I remember the first punch to the nose. Nearly impossible to hold back tears. It didn't hurt nearly as much as I felt my pride was hurt, my emotions. I just could not deal with it. I didn't fall down or anything. But that feeling of being punched in the nose shook me to my emotional core.
My first night training Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was a similar experience. In BJJ you spar at 100%, because it's relatively safe to do so. You tap your opponent's body or the mat to signify submission. Tapping basically means 'you could have killed me'. Rolling with someone who is only one belt higher than me feels like drowning, and the first time your opponent takes your back and is choking you is the time when a lot of people panic. Learning to control my breath and the feeling of panic in order to fight to get to a better position has made a lot of other problems in my life seem small and insignificant.
I think it's actually a great experience. There's a feeling of being shaken to the core that you can't learn to deal with if you don't do this. Hard to describe, it's not just physical.
Gloves work surprisingly well. It took me four years of regularly (1x/week) sparring dudes 20kg+ heavier than me (40+ lbs) to get my first injury. And even that was just a small cut above the eye.
There's something to be said about experiencing the fear and pain of physical combat, something nearly every species on the planet (including our ancestors) deals with on a daily basis.
if by a 'real fight' you mean a ring fight or smoker match, then yeah I totally agree.
on the other hand, if you're referring to an unstructured 'street' fight, then I couldn't disagree more. there are too many variables that can't be controlled for, and is thus something I would strongly discourage.
Agreed. Do not under any circumstances get in a street fight. Especially if you're a trained fighter. If you lose, you will likely break your own bones because you're used to fighting with protective gear, if you win, you will likely go to jail because you will cause some serious damage.
There are so many times in sparring, especially with newbies, where you pull back your punch so you don't hit the opponent if they were too slow to cover up. In a street fight you wouldn't. That would end poorly.
The respective tests are as different as maths and literature though. In some respects, if you're not that bad, the adrenalin rush from vaingloriously crashing into superior opponents in a contact sport is a lot more satisfying than being effortlessly outpointed in a much more technical battle
I like finding out things like this about people. Very talented athletes who are also very smart are not as rare as people would think. (Anecdote warning) Many of the most talented athletes I know are very intelligent people. Here are some more examples of athletes:
I was never a pro level athlete, but I did play a very time consuming sport in college at a decently high level. Most people have no idea how hard it is for athletes, especially when getting a degree in something like engineering, or in my case Computer Science. During each spring semester, I missed roughly 30-40% of my classes because of travel. Some weeks I would be gone for 3 of the 5 days.
That was why I passed up playing Division I tennis in favor of my studies (math & physics) - in retrospect, I should have probably at least tried, since competitive athletics comes with people surrounding you who do their best to make sure you get your work done, and the intense exercise would have been great for me.
I have a lot of respect for college athletes who pursue difficult majors.
The greatest lie ever told is that athletes and rockstars are 'dumb'.
All serious musicians I know are nerdier than most denizens of /b/. You have to be if you have to devote 8+ hours to an instrument (in the case of athletes, that instrument is their body).
They just manage to do a very good job of masking it.
Honestly, I might have had a different career trajectory had I known that you could be nerdy and still be a cool rockstar or athlete.
Really, I relate "nerdiness" with any kind of deep interest or passion. Although, not every person who is stereo-typically "nerdy" enough to browse /b/ necessarily devotes their time to something productive: be that learning an instrument, training your body, hacking, or whatever. There's a distinction to be made between "stereotypical nerd" (Poor social skills, good with computer, basement dweller) and what I consider "actual nerds" (those with a passion or deep interest in something that they then attribute an ungodly amount of time to).
> There's a distinction to be made between "stereotypical nerd" (Poor social skills, good with computer, basement dweller) and what I consider "actual nerds" (those with a passion or deep interest in something that they then attribute an ungodly amount of time to).
Isn't that what most people consider the difference between "nerd" and "geek" to be?
most here probably want there to be as distinction between the 2(including me) because their personal identity is tied to being a geek. They see it as a badge of honour. Being a geek to them(me) means applying yourself to things that are important/interesting without caring if it's cool or effects your social life. However language doesn't work that way. So our(my) aspergerness gets lump with all. So even though i spent my weekends competing at ski races since i spent weekday excelling at math, programming, watching syndicated Star Trek, and generally making little eye contact and mumbling to myself. I get lumped as a nerd/geek with anyone that watches star trek and lacks social skills.
No, there's no real consistency in what people see the difference between those two being, or even in which, if any, has the more positive (or less negative) connotation.
> If you think an engineering degree is tough, try doing one while also training 30+ hours/week. ;)
At least it sounds like nice variety. It's probably easier to do 40 hours of study + 30+ hours of exercise a week, rather than 70 hours of studying medicine or whatever.
And Dolf Lundgren: degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to MIT, speaks seven languages (three fluently), twice European Heavyweight Kyokushin Karate champion, accomplished musician...
Definitely one of those examples of not judging a book by it's cover. People often assume big brutes are dumb, and that you can either be a big idiot, or a skinny genius. People rarely fit into molds as much as we like.
And I can completely relate to him. I'm an engineer, but I'm also 275lbs and grew up on a farm. I'm a volunteer firefighter and people are surprised when they meet me. Fellow firefighters are surprised when I tell them I write software, and fellow techies are surprised I kick down doors and enter burning buildings for free. But both of those things I enjoy immensely from different parts of my personality.
There is actually a subreddit for pointing out the various ways in which 'swole' people face oppression, and although the users are completely tongue-in-cheek with all their posts, it does highlight a lot of very real ways in which assumptions and public attitudes affect the lives of people who choose to devote themselves to cultivating a fit body.
I am hardly 'swole', being a average-build dude who sits in front of a computer for 12+ hours a day, with my only real exercise coming from using a bicycle for commuting, but I do think the subreddit is a great example of how people can channel oppression they face to derive humor and fuel for motivation to 'go harder'.
You might be interested to know that around 75% of the firefighters in the country are volunteers. EMS numbers vary, but many EMTs are also volunteer. It is much like the National Guard in that you must commit training time, and you have to train to the same level as a paid Firefighter/EMT and earn national certifications.
Generally large metropolitan cities are staffed with paid people full time, because they can't afford to gamble on Volunteers, but smaller cities rely on them heavily, smaller towns (10k people or less) absolutely depend on them.
If you're serious shoot me an email at jeremymorgan at gmail. It's very rewarding and chances are some agency nearby needs you.
While the topic of graph laplacians may sound obscure, there are a lot of direct applications to image segmentation, social network analysis, bioinformatics, etc.
I'm a fairly typical geek in almost all aspects of my life, but nothing beats the thrill of competing in Kickboxing competition and going one on one with another Martial Artist.
It's not even about winning, or dominating. Even when I get the seven shades of shit knocked out of me, I still feel that rush, and walk away with a smile on my face.
I would love to find out how he has the time to do research. I've always wanted to do research but after joining the industry I've convinced myself that I don't have the time, and will just save up and go back to school when I don't have to work anymore.
Yeah, it must be so hard. FWIW, I have a similar thing: I'm lucky enough to be doing a PhD by day, but I also wanted to stay involved with electronics. I've found it helped a lot to get involved in a community of people doing that stuff for fun.
I agree they can't, but you can exercise for a very long time.. Not only that, but after you're done it's rather difficult to study because you are so exhausted mentally.
I don't know much about football but I used to compete in badminton and played with many professional players. Most people playing internationally train 6 days a week, 3 times a day. Even when I was only training twice a day, after I was done I would not be able to do anything because of the fatigue, I'd probably just eat and sleep.
I feel much the same way about working nowadays; even though I do have some spare time where I'm not working, the time is less productive than if I were in school where I would be doing nothing but studying. I certainly still learn new things, but it takes me much longer because my mental state is not fresh.
I wonder if this would be alleviated by studying before work instead of after, though, which is something I'm experimenting with. The only issue is that I already have trouble waking up for work, and yet somehow am unable to sleep early despite being so tired.
I'm sure you know this, but that's a very dangerous mindset! People aren't meant to be compared; comparison implies a winner and a loser. The truth is that there are no losers here, just different people walking different paths.
While I agree, unfortunately life is very much like a competition. If there's a job opening many people may apply but likely only one person will get it. Or if a team has a limited amount to use for bonuses, some will get more than others. Or if you're in love, that other person may choose or another person to be their partner.
Whether we like it or not, we are constantly being compared, and there is indeed a winner or loser. I'd argue that we shouldn't try to trick ourselves into thinking that there are no winners or losers, but to accept that it is totally okay, and even good, to lose.
How do you know? Maybe the other person doesn't even get a bonus. And even if that's the case, the people who are eligible for the bonus are still being compared, which is the point I was trying to prove. You and everyone else is constantly being compared to others.
But if you'd like, we could consider another case where we have two employees who have the same position. Since we're on HN lets say we have two junior devs. If the company decides it doesn't need both employees, one of them will be laid off. Obviously the person in charge will have to compare the two and decide which one to let go.
One of my boyhood heroes was Frank Ryan, quarterback of the Cleveland Browns for their last NFL championship, and Ph.D. in mathematics (Rice University).
Good that you're not surprised. But there's a lot of people out there (and here in the valley) who subconsciously (or consciously) believe that if you're dark skinned with curly hair and athletic, then you're deficient in the intellectual arena, or worse, that you're a thug.
> why don't we congratulate everyone who publishes a math paper?
Because not everyone's story defeats a stereotype that is dangerous and damaging. I'm surprised that this has to be explained.
At the risk of stating the obvious: it's hard to excel at this level in two different skill sets that take concentrated effort over years to become proficient.
And he wrote some interesting stuff from personal experience on a topic of current interest, NFL brain injuries.
I wondered how widespread encephalopathy was amongst football players and wound up on this[0] wikipedia page regarding the list of players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
Didn't seem so much at first considering the number of players who've gone through the NFL but it was surprising how long I had to scroll to get through the list of players who are plantiffs in the lawsuit regarding concussion related injuries received while playing. The list is even incomplete and only contains less than half the actual number of players.
Also, a paper[1] I found via wikipedia references estimated an encephalopathy prevalence rate of 3.7% (and that's a conservative estimate according to wikipedia).
He's an offensive lineman. It wouldn't surprise me if there is less head trauma in that position than in others.
They make contact with other players with less time for anyone to get to full speed. The guys they're hitting aren't generally going in exactly the opposite direction, the way defenders' targets are. That contact is mostly on the body. And they aren't targets the way ball carriers are.
Also, they're some of the biggest guys on the field. That means they've got more neck muscle holding their head in place.
This is a crucial point. Much of the attention in the football world, in the past few years, has been on concussions—on diagnosing, managing, and preventing them—and on figuring out how many concussions a player can have before he should call it quits. But a football player’s real issue isn’t simply with repetitive concussive trauma. It is, as the concussion specialist Robert Cantu argues, with repetitive subconcussive trauma. It’s not just the handful of big hits that matter. It’s lots of little hits, too.
That’s why, Cantu says, so many of the ex-players who have been given a diagnosis of C.T.E. were linemen: line play lends itself to lots of little hits.
Depends on the position on the line. The interactive chart here [1] shows that concussions by position for one year. Tackles have a much higher incidence than the center, the guards or the defensive linemen. Wide receivers, running backs, the defensive secondary and linebackers have a lot more though. The guys on the line have so many more reps in games and in practices that the damage is of more of a chronic nature.
Ah, very interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that tackles (11) have almost twice the risk of guards (6) -- maybe they tend to get farther downfield on run plays? I looked through the 11 tackle concussions listed, and only one said what type of play it was (a run play); another one was from being kneed in the head.
Centers (3), OTOH, have by this estimate about half the risk of guards (6). This guy should move to center. That's where you want someone really smart anyway as centers have to set up blocking assignments at the line. Also I see the scouting report recommended him for center based on his body type and playing style.
They make contact with other players with less time for anyone to get to full speed. The guys they're hitting aren't generally going in exactly the opposite direction, the way defenders' targets are.
There's probably some truth in this, but as a guard, he has to pull and lead on outside runs occasionally. Plus there's always a chance of getting kneed in the head in a pileup. The risk is far from zero.
He may also be asked to play on special teams, where the risk is probably the greatest.
> He's an offensive lineman. It wouldn't surprise me if there is less head trauma in that position than in others.
I'd be very surprised if that was true. I got my bell rung more than a few times when I played in high school & college.
Keep in mind linemen are making intense physical contact every single play of the game. If it's a run play, it's unlikely receivers are getting knocked around, but linemen are.
I think it is more complicated than that, because the impact speed is important too. The linemen come at each other from close distances. So they may not build up as much speed, compared to a situation such as a linebacker with a running start towards a running back.
Impact speed is important to the effectiveness of a collision. That's why they train to maximize this speed. Saying "the speed isn't high" in a context where maximum speed is a goal isn't a very good argument for safety.
I mean, if I were an exceptionally speedy, brick-wall linebacker, I wouldn't get kicked out for causing extra concussions, I'd be given trophies and expensive contracts.
> Impact speed is important to the effectiveness of a collision. That's why they train to maximize this speed. Saying "the speed isn't high" in a context where maximum speed is a goal isn't a very good argument for safety.
I think you are conflating speed and quickness. Offensive and defensive lines rely on quickness (i.e., acceleration) to beat the opposing team and make a play, while other collisions (e.g., tackling) often involve speed.
I am not saying that linesmen should not be expected to sometimes suffer head trauma; I was just noting that how often a player runs into another player is not the only factor.
I'm not conflating anything, I'm using standard physics terms. If you want to trample over the defense you need momentum, which is a function of speed.
For the downvoters: this recent paper gives a thorough overview on the known effects of repeated head injury, and the currently available evidence: http://ge.tt/2Y9BoiC2
In summary, his choice of sport does increase the risk of neurodegenerative disease presenting as dementia in later life, and CTE in particular has a distinct neuropathology that distinguishes it from other presentations at autopsy.
HN had a story about a former football player that is now homeless because of traumas sustained during his football career. People seemed to agree with that article. But apparently not this statement.
I have a hard time reconciling this statement with all the ex-NFL players I hear about starting successful businesses and broadcast careers.
In fact, almost all the personalities on the FOX and CBS pre-game shows are ex-pros, and I find their abilities to reason and elucidate quite advanced, and they all admit to having many, many instances of head trauma in their careers.
This is a textbook example of survivorship bias. The commentators you see on TV are healthy, because if they were not healthy then they wouldn't be on TV. It tells you nothing about the incidence of unhealthiness.
Fair enough, although the OP was a comment about the seemingly inevitability of CTE for this math-loving lineman, and my comment was nothing but a foil against that particular POV.
Yes that's what I was saying. He definitely, without any hope reprieve, will absolutely have mush-brain when he retires. When I first joined HN, I found the literal-to-the-point-of-obtuseness attitude refreshing. But over time it has started to seem, well, obtuse.
That's what, 10 personalities out of the 3130 "former members" who are in the NFLPA? Most of the pre-gamers also played skill positions (taking fewer of the play-in, play-out repetitive hits of linemen and linebackers), played for better teams (more protection for quarterbacks on winning teams than the losers), and had roles (primarily quarterbacks) where they were already selected for a higher baseline of cognition and intelligence.
That's how I'd reconcile it. What you see on TV is not a random sampling, before you even get to the selection process of the networks to pick the best available.
You are certainly free to continue to do heroin as far as I am concerned. You are not free to rob my house because you destroyed your life, but if you can keep your shit together, do whatever you want.
If doing heroin was a spectator sport where competitors were highly paid and needed to be in peak physical condition and perform impressive feats in order to be the best at doing heroin, then this analogy might be slightly more relevant...
And in that case, if an "extreme heroin" player published a mathematics paper, I still would be impressed.
> then this analogy might be slightly more relevant
Agreed, football is worse: we actively encourage and reward modern day gladiatorial combat such that otherwise brilliant people feel the need to participate. NFL players publishing papers and having successful academic careers afterwards are not the norm.
You are being incredibly hyperbolic. There are issues with football, but equating the sport to actual bloodsport (or heroin use... really?) is a ridiculous stretch.
It really doesn't do anything to further the discourse.
I think that pivoting the framing from a known known (look at these guys who have brain damage and are killing themselves) to a known unknown (have we really accounted for all the variance?) is risky, because you're then flirting with confirmation bias.
I think that if one guy wants to fly through a canyon in a wingsuit, it's one matter. But when you have an entire nation cheering this behavior on, it starts to make us introspect and say... wait.. exactly how hedonistic are we? Is this really the kind of behavior we want to teach our children? The reductio is that it could lead to us selecting against ourselves, as a species. Go Team!
That's a really terrible analogy. Would you say the same thing about a desire to play chess or a desire to compete in the olympics? Would you say the same thing about a desire to write software? Heroin is pretty self-destructive, and you won't be admired for it or have a successful career at it. Football is different. It's a passion. It requires skill.
His argument that he keeps playing because he likes hitting people, is analogous to saying that I keep riding my bike downhill because I like the high.
Oh. I get it. We're supposed to be judgemental and look down on him for doing what he likes. Like we do with people who do drugs. Because this is hacker news, and anyone who does anything physical or competitive is not like us, right?
"I have no desire to try to accumulate $10 million in the bank; I already have more money in my bank account than I know what to do with. I drive a used hatchback Nissan Versa and live on less than $25k a year. It’s not because I’m frugal or trying to save for some big purchase, it’s because the things I love the most in this world (reading math, doing research, playing chess) are very, very inexpensive."
Refreshing to see such a grounded athlete get press. I'm sure there are a lot of them out there, but typically you don't see a lot of stories about them.