Showing posts with label biggest turnarounds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biggest turnarounds. Show all posts

Thursday, May 26, 2011

There's no doubt about it, women are far more visually inclined then men are.

I regret to inform you all that women at the gym are beginning to check out my butter. Shocking though that may be, it is true. Yesterday morning, I weighed in 253.6. I have lost more than 76 pounds, but I am not yet near my ideal body weight or composition.

Still, I have transformed enough to see a 180 degree turn around in the attitudes of women.

Today at lunch, I got the clearest indication of that fact. As always, I traveled to the Thousand Oaks 24 Hour Fitness to perform my mid-day aerobic workout. After finishing with the finger-print reader, I move to my first workout station: the tread mill. Two 20-something females were walking on a pair of my favorite machines. I naturally needed to walk past them to reach one of the unused machines.

As I walk by, the 24ish brunette looks me up and down like I am smoldering pork chop fresh off the grill. This was a barefaced look of hungry lust, executed with impunity. That was quite a shock to my system. So much so, I didn't do anything about it. I was just too flabbergasted.

About 40 minutes later, she chose the Lifecycle to the left of mine, this despite the fact that there were 4 open cycles to my right. With my peripheral vision, I caught her checking me out a couple of times. The Bio-Anthropologists I studied with at UCLA would tell you she got that close so she could smell me. Whether she understood that consciously would cause an argument amongst them. Still, they would agree she got that close to evaluate the chemical contents of my sweat.

I think any 44.7 year old man would be surprised to note a 24ish brunette giving him a hungry look, but it is much more so in my case. Such looks have been few and far between in my largely overweight lifetime. Just 5 months ago, I weighed in at 330 pounds and the looks of unmitigated contempt were both visceral and palpable.

There have been a few borderline cases in the past couple of weeks, but this was the first unmistakable case. There have been a few strange cases at work, but I won't go there or mention that stuff. There was a strange honking incident a few weeks back, but I am still not quite sure what that was all about. This event today was the first indisputable and unmixed look of lust I have seen on a woman's face in quite some time. It's probably been 11 years to be frank with you. I was probably 33 the last time this happened to me.

Surely, this has to be considered a 180 degree turn-around. I'm in the midst of a turn-around almost as big as the 1999 Rams.

Now this 24ish brunette would not compete with the Taurus gallery I posted on this blog a few weeks back, but she was not ugly either; not by any stretch of the imagination. This was a reasonably good looking woman. Of course, if you know anything about the Thousand Oaks area, you know it is pretty affluent sector of Los Angeles county. These are not poor women from a disadvantaged family backgrounds in this gym. All the more reason to be shocked and stunned.

I have been cogitating this event all afternoon folks. After kicking this can around for hours, I have definitely reached a conclusion that is sure to be controversial. Women are far more visually inclined than men are. There is no doubt about it. Women are more inclined to visual attraction that guys are.

For many of you, this will seem like a completely counter-intuitive statement. Surely you have heard women complain about how shallow men are, making choices based exclusively on looks. Surely you have heard it said that women must spend unlimited amounts of resources making themselves beautiful because men demand it. Surely you have heard it said that men fall in love their eyes while women fall in love with their ears.

I want you to know that all of these statements are absolute balderdash.

Most men I know rate women exclusively on the basis of how sexually inclined they are. A hot woman is not necessarily a beautiful woman. A hot woman is a woman who will bed down with you for the night. I know guys who declare themselves to be 100% dawgs. They openly say that they do not care if the woman is ugly or not. They will put a bag over her face if necessary. If she is ready and willing, she is a sexy catch.

I have frequently been horrified by some of the ugly women described as "hot" by large numbers of guys I know. She's only described as hot because she is perceived as ready and willing. Physical beauty has little or nothing to do with it.

Guys are far less visual than women are.

I have never heard women evaluate a guy in this manner. I have never heard a woman say a guy was sexy based on whether or not he was willing to bed down for the night. Neither have I heard a woman say she would be willing to put a bag over his face if necessary; he's sexy if he's ready for action. Quite the contrary. All guys are presumed to be ready and willing. He's only hot if he is good looking.

This is only true because women are far more visual than guys are.

When a woman is evaluating whether a guy is hot or not, it is 100% about good looks and dress. Whether he is a catch or not depends on economic factors, but heat is determined 100% by looks. Many women have a tough time concealing their contempt for fat or ugly guys. Most would never be willing to date a fat or ugly guy... unless he was extremely rich or powerful. Even in the case of wealth, it would be distasteful to date a fat or ugly guy.

This is because women are far more visually inclined than guys are.

Now, some fellows are are able to overcome disadvantages in the looks department with brilliance and comic wit, but it ain't easy. Such fellows will freely tell you they had to overcome considerable disadvantage. One of my favorite actors, James Woods, is full of stories about this kind of thing. Through confidence, daring, willingness to play odds, and not being particular, he became known as something of a ladies man in Hollywood. Still, he will tell you that most women were not particularly inclined towards him as a man of marginal looks. He had buddies who were far more successful than he, expending far less effort. This is because they had the advantage of good looks.

Let's understand one thing about a woman's drive towards beautification: It is entirely internally driven. She beautifies herself because she wants to look great. It makes her feel great to look great. You can't tell her good looks aren't important. She just knows they are. She does it more to compete with her friends and rivals than for the sake of any guy. She gets a bigger kick out of a look of envy from an ugly girl than she does from a look of lust on the face of an ugly guy. That much is certain.

Women are far more visual than guys are. They visually judge each other, and they visually judge guys.

Truth be told, most women know they can get a guy--almost any guy--anytime they want. It is just a question of whether she is willing to loudly signal that she is ready to go. That's not what women are after as they compete relentlessly with each other to be the most beautiful. Nope, she is just expressing that powerful aesthetic drive that dominates her soul.

The drive towards aesthetics is everywhere in the female soul. Only women insist on a match set of kitchen knives so everything is color-coordinated. Only women describe a website as lousy based on its look vis-a-vis it's functionality. Only women describe a car as good or bad based on it's look first and functionality second.

Women are far more visually inclined than guys are.

I was fortunate that I was not born both fat and ugly. I am all the more fortunate that I have good healthcare coverage that was willing to pony up for gastric bypass. I am blessed with great drive and work ethic in the area of physical training. This is what did it for me in Football, Karate, Power Lifting and in my Army life.

Still, the transformation I have experienced in the past 5 months has already made it extremely clear to me that women do indeed make choices with their eyes. They are stereoscopic color vision animals that receive 85% of their sensory input from their eyes. Five months ago, I couldn't buy anything but a contemptuous look. Now I am getting a few lusty looks.

Looking down the corridor of time, I know I will hit my first major weight goal sometime in early July. At that point I will weigh about 24 pounds less, and I will have a higher lean weight also. My estrogen levels will be lower. My testosterone levels will be higher. My health will be better. I will be stronger. My pheromones will be more powerful. I will buy my first set of new clothing.

Just as surely as I am sitting here, I know for a fact they will be after me at that time. The few warning signs I have seen recently forecast a flood.

I say that without the slightest degree of ego or narcissism. It's more like shock, awe, and disbelief. If you knew me, you would know the word narcissist does not describe me in any way shape or form. I may be intellectually arrogant, but self-loathing rather than self-loving on the physical front.

As I sit here and ponder this astounding reversal of fortune, I can only conclude that women are far more visual than men are.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Which teams are most likely to turn it all around in 2009?

As we all know, Miami, Atlanta and Baltimore all experienced miracle filled revivals in 2008. All three of those teams went from worst to first... or second. The Ravens finished second in their division but finished higher than either Miami (whom they stomped) and Atlanta (who got jacked by the Cardinals).

These are all truly amazing stories. It used to be rare when a team like the 49ers in 1981 and the Rams in 1999 turn it all around in just 1 season and win the Super Bowl. Well... it still is rare as hell. In fact, these are the only two teams ever to do it.

Just yesterday, I intercepted a few interesting communications between some big shots. These are fellows who write for Yahoo! and ESPN.com. They have their little secluded and confidential meeting places on the web where they can speak to each other as fellow experts without noise from partisan idiots. They were working through some serious research problems. Which teams have a serious chance to turn it all around in 2009 in the same manner as Baltimore, Atlanta, and Miami?

They quickly eliminated certain contenders such as Cleavland, New Orleans, Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Washington. These are all easy picks. None of those teams should have finished at the bottoms of their respective divisions in 2008. They are all much better than that. Granted, it will be a shock if Cleveland takes the central away from Pittsburgh and Baltimore, but it is not that big of a stretch. It is not unthinkable. The same goes for Buffalo and Jacksonville. New Orleans & Jacksonville are both long overdue for great things.

I was quite shocked by what I read on the posts. When asked to pick a far-stretch guess who they picked?
  1. Houston
  2. Kansas City
  3. St. Louis
This will bring great cheer to the hearts of those who live in Missouri for sure.

I considered Houston a cheaters pick because they were 8-8 last year and finished #3 in the AFC south. They were not at the bottom. The argument went like this:
  1. Houston is still a new franchise.
  2. They have no winning tradition yet
  3. They are expected to finish dead last in what should be the toughest division in football in 2009. Nope it ain't going to be the NFC East in 2009.
  4. With all due respect to Larry Fitzgerald, the Titans have the finest receiver in the league in Andre Johnson.
  5. They have a lethal defensive end in Mario Williams.
  6. They have a rookie of the year candidate in Brian Cushing
  7. If Houston defeats Jacksonville, Indianapolis, and Tennessee for the South Crown, it will be a monumental achievement nobody expected.
It is an interesting case. Certainly, the Texans were no pushovers in 2008. They ripped up some unexpected victims for sure *Denver*. They have been getting better and better every year. They were executing like a machine last year. If Indianapolis falls down in their coaching transition (as expected) and if Tennessee's defense comes unglued without Albert Haynesworth (as expected) then it is a shootout between Jacksonville and Houston.

Of course, most people don't see it that way. This is why it would be so shocking if it does go down like this.

So why Kansas City?
  1. Because they have been drafting extremely well now for 3 years.
  2. They have a fantastic offensive mind in Todd Haley, and he is a he is tremendous disciplinarian also.
  3. With a good, young, mature quarterback in hand, they should be a hell of a lot better in 2009.
  4. Denver has collapsed.
  5. The Raiders ain't going to be much better.
  6. San Diego is long overdue and should be a hell of a lot better. Unfortunately, they have been going backwards not forwards.
  7. Nobody has confidence in Norv Turner. Great coordinator. Terrible head coach.
  8. They have a relatively open road to recovery.
This is an interesting argument. There has been little or no joy in Missouri for two years now. Maybe there is reason to crack a slight smile.

The last one really caught my eye. Of course, you know I am a 29-30 year fan of the Rams. Ever since SB XIV against the Steelers. So why are you picking my team guys?
  1. The Seahawks are not going to be much better this year. They entered a rebuilding phase last year. It was not a simple injury situation as people thought. Nobody believes it, but is true. Expect things to be as bad or worse in 2009.
  2. The Cardinals are going to be cut low by the Super Bowl jinx. If Warner gets hurt, it is quarterback transition time, which is seldom smooth. Just look at Green Bay last season.
  3. The 49ers do not have a quarterback. Despite the tremendous force of their great coach, they are still among the worst run organizations in the league.
  4. The Rams offensive line is not as bad as people claim it is (HA! I dispute that!). The off season upgrade to the Center and Left Tackle will be sufficient.
  5. They've got the second best running back in the league in Steven Jackson.
  6. They still have a former pro bowl QB in Bulger.
  7. The Wide Receivers are the key weakness.
  8. The defensive talent is good.
  9. Spagnuolo will fix the defense with scheme alone.
  10. Spagnuolo was the pick of the litter in terms of Head Coach material... until Shanahan got fired.
The last five points I can agree with. Those are basically objective fact. Everybody knows Steven Jackson has been amazing running behind piss-poor blocking. Bulger has been to the Pro Bowl twice. The defensive talent is far better than anybody knows. Spagnuolo can fix the defense with scheme alone. Spagnuolo was indeed the pick of the litter

I have to dispute some of these points. I don't know that the Seahawks are rebuilding just yet. It might be. However, I could just as easily see them getting up off the carpet and giving the Cardinals hell for the division. Much depends on Jim Mora Jr. We'll see how he does in his second go round as a head coach with a much better organization behind him.

The Super Bowl losers jinx is real and powerful and effective. No team has lost the Super Bowl and then immediately won the Super Bowl the next year except the Miami Dolphins of 1972. They were also the only undefeated team in the history of the game. That includes you New England. Statistically speaking, the team that looses the Super Bowl doesn't even make it into the playoffs the next year. That includes you New England. This is a ghastly thing to face down if you are the Cardinals.

However, objectively speaking, if there were any team likely to bust that jinx I think it is the Cardinals. I do not believe they were a fluke. I believe they are loaded with talent. I think they may have quietly had the best draft in the NFL. People are going to be eating shit when Chris Wells wins Rookie of the Year in 2009. I believe that team flamed-on last year. I think they are truly committed to going back and winning this year. They may not do it, but they have to be the prohibitive favorite to win the West.

An injury to Warner would be a setback, but I for one, do not believe that Leinart is a busted pick just yet. This is one of the most infuriating subjects for me. I am infuriated for both QBs in this dilemma. Everybody keeps asking why Matt hasn't moved out that old man Kurt. Do you realize that is a two time league MVP (and Super Bowl MVP) you are talking about? This is the man who just led them to within 3 minutes of the world championship. This is the QB with the second highest all-time efficiency rating in history behind Steve Young. Yep, the stats say he is better than Joe Montana.

When Leinart has been allowed to play, he has shown flashes of brilliance. The problem is he can't yet inspire enough confidence in his head coach to sit-down a future hall of famer. That is tough to do.

I'm a little worried about the 49ers, but maybe that is just a legacy thing. Singletary is perhaps the most respected dude in the league right now. That is true for good reason. I am concerned that he is rapidly whipping the bums into shape and making them a military force. Still, it is an objective fact that they do not have a QB. That will place serious limitations on their prospects.

Finally, there is the issue of the Ram offensive line... What have I been saying all along here? What have I been harping on? The Rams have had the worst OL in professional football two years running. Yes, we did upgrade the Center and the Left Tackle positions, and these are the two most important positions on the line. Yes we should be better. But who is going to play guard?

They say bums off the highway can play guard. I don't believe it. You need men like John Hannah, Gene Upshaw, Russ Grim, Dennis Harrah, Larry Little, Mike Munchak, and Tom Mack to get the job done right.

Anyway I am glad to see my Rams got mentioned =))