Tweet
Originally posted by tornado
View Post
-
Djokovic is well known. Almost everyone that pays attention to sports should at least recognize the name. He's been the #1 tennis player in the world for almost the entire last year. Those other two are not well known by me (I had heard of them after looking them up).I can do all things through pasta, which strengthens me. -
well - maybe but he has NOT been marketed at all in the states and is still pretty unknown to all but avid sports or tennis people....
...I have four teen aged kids who buy stuff that athletes endorse...and none of them has a clue who Djokovic is -Comment
-
Time's list isn't very accurate (it's mostly to sell magazines), but it's in the world and not just the US.Originally posted by tornado View Post
He's not currently as well marketed as Nadal or Federer in the uS. People that watch sportscenter, PTI, or ATH would definitely have heard of him. Djokovic is a monster right now. He's won 4 out of the last 5 majors. Tennis is much bigger in other countries as well. As big as soccer is in the world, most people in the US were likely completely unaware of Messi until recently.I can do all things through pasta, which strengthens me.Comment
-
This is true. The only reason why he isn't as big in the states as Nadal and Federer is because he signed with Sergio Tecchini for his apparel (I play tennis on a regular basis and I've only seen their clothing a few times). Want to know who sponsers Nadal and Federer, that's right NIKE. NIKE is going to cram whatever star down your throat.Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster View PostWell let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said..."I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."Comment
-
I think the Time list was slanted towards what they define as influence - via some vague social, ethnic, or diversity factors - thus so many people of widely varying ethnicity, disabled, etc....
sort of a politically correct list of people who might be influential...
BUT the people who truly have enormous commercial impact are totally ignored like Kobe, MJ, Tiger Woods, Favre, Rogers, ARod, Pujols, Melo, etc....
BUT - the very reason someone would ever consider paying those people MILLIONS is BECAUSE they REALLY are
INFLUENTIAL - that's the very definition of commercial success - influencing people ...right?
...not just defining "influential" as somewhat influential in someone's mind........
The list would vary tremendously from person to person depending on what you mean by "influence"...
PS -- did you read some of the other names on the Time list like...
Erik Martin, "Anonymous", Narendra Modi, Asghar Farhadi, Imran Khan...and those names are the top five.
The first even minimally recognizable name to anyone at all isn't on the list until spot #9 (Jeremy Lin) and my guess
that this poll was taken a few weeks ago and already Lin's name if the poll were repeated would have plummeted!
Even "LMFAO" and "KONY 2012" (the name of a YouTube video) make the list ahead of truly influential people such as Rick Santorum, Queen Elizabeth, Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, and the Ayatollah..
Comment
-
I don't think that at all. If the reader doesn't know those names and understand their importance and influence it is speaking far louder about the reader than the magazine. There are a lot more people in the world who aren't upper middle class midwestern white males... As a matter of fact that socio-economic group is incredibly small. This list tries to understand that. Is it perfect? No. But Jeremy Lin is without a doubt more influential in Asian countries than Kobe Bryant is here. I can speak of this personally as I've seen it first hand, and it's really not even close.Originally posted by tornado View PostComment
-
It's really funny that you have Erik Martin and Santorum in the same paragraph. Martin was voted in and definitely included ahead of some more worthy people. Reddit has started to become influential over the last couple years, and it's really hard to pick one person to include on the list. It might be better to just include Reddit. Some recent and old examples:Originally posted by tornado View Post
I can do all things through pasta, which strengthens me.Comment
-
My only strong thought about it all is that influence is not necessarily directly tied to fame. You can have influence without others recognizing you.
Obviously though, for athletes, influence and fame are closely correlated. Which is why someone like Yani showing up on that list is weird, and Novak is borderline at best. Has he really surpassed Federer and Nadal off the courts? On the courts, he has, of course. I think t has a point here, although I don't think the reason behind it is PC-ness as suggested.Comment
-
well I doubt anything said or referenced is gonna change opinions...but if there is even a single objective or definable measure of "influence"Originally posted by amckillip View Post
that would place an obscure Oriental woman's golfer so far ahead of Tiger Woods that he doesn't even appear on the list -
then why can't even ONE person tell me what that measure is - and why in the hey would anyone pay Tiger $40 million for endorsements when for a tiny fraction of that they can hire this completely obscure yet supposedly more "influential" Yani Tseng.
Obvious facts alone define this case closed...
And how can you measure the "influence" Lin has vs. Kobe?.....as I can cite sources that say the opposite and say that one billion Chinese are more influenced by Kobe.
The bottom line is everyone's entitled to their opinions about who is influential or popular - but if someone is PAYING an athlete for his influence - then it's QUITE easy to see who they pay the most to because they HAVE the most influence - and it sure is NOT Yani Tseng.Comment
-
So, based on your arguement Matt Cain is more influential than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees? What about Joey Votto? POB is more influential than Jeremy Lin too? Dwayne Wade is more influential than LeBron? Rashard Lewis is more influential than DWade, Lebron, and Dirk?Originally posted by tornado View Postwell I doubt anything said or referenced is gonna change opinions...but if there is even a single objective or definable measure of "influence"
that would place an obscure Oriental woman's golfer so far ahead of Tiger Woods that he doesn't even appear on the list -
then why can't even ONE person tell me what that measure is - and why in the hey would anyone pay Tiger $40 million for endorsements when for a tiny fraction of that they can hire this completely obscure yet supposedly more "influential" Yani Tseng.
Obvious facts alone define this case closed...
And how can you measure the "influence" Lin has vs. Kobe?.....as I can cite sources that say the opposite and say that one billion Chinese are more influenced by Kobe.
The bottom line is everyone's entitled to their opinions about who is influential or popular - but if someone is PAYING an athlete for his influence - then it's QUITE easy to see who they pay the most to because they HAVE the most influence - and it sure is NOT Yani Tseng.
If you want to talk only endorsements and not Salary than I'm supposed to believe Phil Mickleson is second influence to only Tiger. And Kevin Garnett is more influential than Tom Brady and as influential as Peyton Manning? Or could it be that Tiger and Phil make so much money in endorsements because the group of people they influence is the upper middle class white male and happen to play a sport that is ingrained in business culture so everyone drops $1000 on a set of clubs, plus shoes, oh and golf shirts, and Golf bags, and balls, etc. Lionel Messi isn't even close in endorsements compared to Phil Mickleson, and yet he is easily more well known the world over, but he's known in European and South American countries where endorsement deals are not nearly as large.
To assume that endorsements is a measure of anything more than marketing influence is incredibly flawed logic IMO.
BTW Dale Earnhardt Jr. gets almost as much in endorsements as Peyton and Brady combined...
Comment
-
I never mentioned any of those names so it's quite a stretch to just assume what I think about people I have never expressed an opinion on....
but seriously one can find a lot of criteria to use if assessing influential...
maybe hire a polling firm to do some surveys, or check google searches or hits, or jersey sales for the athletes, or the ratings for TV & movie people, etc...
But if you do any of these things, you'd find that most of the names on tha list are actually QUITE obscure, and if barely anyone in the world even know the names or what they have done, then just how influential can they possibly be?
But if or when I express an opinion I generally do, and am, always willing to back it up with solid reasoning - not just nebulous and vague opinions as many do - especially those who made this Time list.
And would allow anyone who wants to disagree and have their own opinion...
Like I said - I would love to know what if any criteria or reasoning one uses to determine "influential" - and if completely unable to provide an answer or simply avoid doing so - than I will draw my conclusions that the Time list is pure speculation based on nothing whatsoever objective or measurable.
As I said - everyone is entitled to opinion but if you state something as authoritative as the Time people generally do - then why not back it up?
The Christian Science Monitor asked the people at Time what were their criteria and they declined to provide anything...so CSM concluded this was all just unscientific fluff and opinion.
The Time author did say
"we try to choose those people whose influence is both lasting and, with a few notable exceptions, laudable"
..Seriously?? They even ADMIT that almost nobody in the galaxy knew who Jeremy Lin was a couple months ago - and he's faded tremendously from the sports pages in rapid fashion since this list was constructed...so if there's an absolute POSTER-boy for non-lasting fame, it looks like Jeremy Lin may be the top vote-getter, yet this author still put him at the top of the list of "most influential" - so just how incredibly hypocritical can that be?
In fact - I am not the only one puzzled over many of the choices on the Top 100 -- many, many articles from all over the world are stumped & pondering just how the heck some of these choices were made...so I am not alone in doubting their list - i was just one of the first to do so..
My guess is that at least 75 of the 100 people on this list (Claire Danes, Christian Wiig, Chelsea Handler, Louis CK, Raphael Saadiq, the designer of Kate Middleton's dress..) will be all but unknown and require a google search within a couple years...
..while really influential people like Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, A-Rod, Aaron Rodgers, and even the Pope will all be just as influential to the next generation as well...
Last comment - just go back to the Time list for 2011 or 2010 and see how many of those names are totally gone, inconsequential, or unknown...you literally have to do some digging and look them up because their "influence" has been so incredibly minimal or non-existent!
..and one can easily see that what Time is trying to accomplish is a list not of influential people but of people THEY believe SHOULD BE more influential, but whom most of the world has ignored or have no clue who they are - Geoffrey Canada, Joe Biden, Matt Damon, Sting, Patti Smith, Joe Scarborough, Kim Clijsters, Ben Stiller, Ricky Gervais, and just about every obscure choice after #50 from 2010 or 2011
but one that was on past lists Mark Zuckerberg, is oddly gone this year even though I suspect he's had & still has more influence than just about anyone on the current list.
Also - TV and Hollywood-types make up an astounding 20-25% of each year's lists...and their influence is at most quite minimal worldwide and quite transient.Comment
-
I do think there's one interesting correlation that's being made between fame and influence. Again, I think it's a mistake to say that someone isn't influential just because no one knows who he/she is. I'll borrow Erik Martin as the example to use - No one has any problem arguing Reddit is influential, and he's responsible for it existing, so he himself is influential, without anyone knowing who it is. Same argument can be made about Facebook and Zuckerberg, although obviously thanks to the movie, more people do know who he is.
Of course, in sports, fame and influence are closely correlated though. Which goes back to the original point t made about the athletes who made the list, which I actually agree with.Comment
-
I definitely agree - and even people who have died can be extremely influential (Jesus, Mohammed, even Einstein...) so why are they not included on the list?Originally posted by TheAsianSensation View PostComment
-
Well I think they're obviously going for influence within the past year and trying to guesstimate a change in impact from year to year.Originally posted by tornado View Post
I'm really starting to think about this more. There's a lot of criteria that can be used, but it feels like some kind of formula that can include everything and weight them against each other seems rather impossible on paper. I want to criticize Time for having no rhyme or reason to it, but I don't know what exactly they should be using.Comment
-
OK - a resurrected thread from 3 years ago - but I think the initial question posed by the author of this thread can be answered...Originally posted by jasonpeoria911 View Post
Did or do we have a Jeremy Lin on our bench....
a guy just sitting there getting no playing time that actually could help us tremendously if he just got a little chance to play?
The answer as we now look back from 2015 is YES!
We had such a player - a guy who literally wins games for the head coach, a guy who is our best low post guy, a guy who independent broadcasters claim is the Player of the Game and if you go back and listen to a replay of last night's broadcast - they talked endlessly about how they like Nate Wells and how much he's gonna help Bradley next year (if he's here)..
So - yup - we had a Jeremy Lin hiding on the far end of the bench all along and now he's finally able to help us get a few wins - in fact he's largely responsible for the only two wins we have since January!
Over the past SEVEN games we've averaged just 48 points per game in the 40 minutes of regulation..but Nate is averaging about 7.5 ppg over that span - so he's doing his part! None of our other post guys ever come close to getting 7-10 points per game!
Comment
Comment