FOTY 1978: Ali / Spinks

This is an entry in an occasional series of posts looking back at the Ring Magazine Fights of the Year from 1970 to 2009.

In 1978, Muhammad Ali defended his unified (WBC & WBA) Heavyweight championship against Leon Spinks in Las Vegas. Spinks came in as an underdog (with a 6-0-1 record) and shocked everyone by winning a majority decision (140-145 and 141-144, vs. one judge’s 143-142 for Ali). I scored it a bit wider (139-146), but recognize even the dissenting judge’s score as reasonable; there were a lot of close rounds in this fight.

This fight was arguably the high point of Spinks’ professional life. As for Ali, it was the penultimate fight to his legitimate career: only a rematch (which he would win) and an ill-advised 2-fight comeback (both losses) remained ahead of him.

Overview

The cliche about history repeating as farce might have some relevance here. This fight had more than a few echos of Ali / Frazier III. Ali was fighting a faster, more agile opponent whose goal was to close, trap, and attack, and Ali’s strategy relied upon a mix of tactics: circling and jabbing, trading, and the infamous rope-a-dope.

The outcome here would be different.

Reaction

The differences in this fight sprang from the facts that Ali was far over the hill, and that Spinks, for all his virtues, was no Joe Frazier. So you were left with a pale imitation of the great Ali / Frazier fights, in which Ali deployed the old tricks, but couldn’t make them stick even against a lesser opponent.

(I should add that I hate to run down Spinks, because he was a very good fighter in his own right. To give him his due, he was better at fighting on the outside that Joe Frazier ever was. Frazier, however, was one of the all time greats, and Spinks was not.)

All that said, the 15th round was a magnificent display of skill, endurance, and spirit, and the equal of any round in the Ali / Frazier trilogy.

Continue reading

Posted in Boxing | Comments Off

Six Word Stories: Orwell

Kinetic action replaced war. Orwell laughed.

Editorial note: This is really from reader Stephen; I just did a minor edit.

Posted in Six Word Stories | Comments Off

Hit Detection for Zoomed UIScrollViews

A reader writes (in reference to CATiledLayer Part 2):

I have a simple pdf that has a couple of graphics on it. For example a circle and a square. This pdf is within a UIView that “has-a” CATiledLayer like yours. If the circles center is at (100,100), I want to be able to “touch” the center of the circle and get back (100, 100) no matter what the zoom is. …

I have a UIGestureRecognizer and intercept a single tap and then look at the locationInView:. I have yet to figure out what to do to get back these coordinates.

Solution

Later, he wrote that he had solved his problem:

[E]ach UIView has a method called convertPoint:fromView: and convertPoint:toView: (from the View Programming Guide for iOS).
Amazing what happens when you read the docs closely!

So, if one makes sure to figure out the initial scale factors for the pdf or png used, you can determine exactly where (as in (x,y) location) the hit is regardless of a UIScrollView scale factor. In fact, the methods above ignore any zoom scale factors if your png is in a UIScrollView.

Alternative?

I had some difficulty trying to help solve this problem, for a somewhat interesting reason: I’d fumbled the re-creation of the problem in such a way that the problem didn’t exist. I was generating the correct numbers directly from locationInView:, so, naturally, all my attempts to manipulate them produced wrong answers.

I had attached my UIGestureRecognizer to the content view inside the UIScrollView, while the reader had (I believe) attached his to the UIScrollView itself.

So, I think an alternate solution to the stated problem is to simply attach the UIGestureRecognizer to the inner view. You can see an example of this here; the demo logs the world-space location of any tap to the console.

Posted in iPhone | Comments Off

Hyperventilating

The Japanese earthquake, tsunami, and reactor malfunction were undeniably unfortunate events, and one naturally feels sympathy and wishes the best for those affected by them. Nevertheless, some people have blown the whole thing out of all recognizable proportion. Consider this AP article.

Continue reading

Posted in Jack Handy | Comments Off

Vocabulary: NPE

To share something I learned today that, apparently, everyone else already knows: The “polite” term (i.e., the one its lawyers would use) for a patent troll is “a non-practicing entity”, or NPE. NPEs, that is, are entities that hold patents but engage in no business other than suing other businesses for infringing on them.

There’s an argument to be made that NPEs are nothing more than a reasonable response to the phenomenon of “defensive patents”: It’s almost impossible for a business to sue, say, IBM, because IBM holds so many patents than almost every business on earth is infringing some of them. If IBM were sued for patent infringement, it would simply turn around and countersue for infringement of its patents. Any business that wishes to sue a company with an extensive defensive patent portfolio must make a choice between being in the business of business, or being in the business of litigation. NPEs are just businesses consciously set up to make the latter choice.

You can also argue that NPEs represent an elegant market solution to the problem of monetizing intellectual property; instead of having to undertake lengthy and onerous litigation, the individual patent holder can simply sell out to an NPE once a patent can be shown to have value. In this way, it can be said that NPEs encourage the development of patentable technology.

You can argue those things, but they don’t seem persuasive to me. The existence of NPEs seems to me a symptom of a badly broken IP regime. I’m not sure how that regime could be fixed, but a reduction in the scope of patentable ideas and/or the time for which patents are granted seems a reasonable place to begin.

Posted in Jack Handy | Comments Off

Six Word Stories: Strike

Air travelers demanded a TSA strike.

Posted in Six Word Stories | Comments Off

Split Second

rap. photoThe rapatronic camera was developed by Harold Edgerton to perform ultra-high-speed photography. Specifically, to photograph nuclear explosions in their earliest stages.

The photo to the right depicts a nuclear fireball with a diameter of perhaps 20 meters. (We can estimate the size of the fireball because it displays the rope trick effect.)

You can see some more neat rapatronic photos here.

Posted in Jack Handy | Comments Off

FOTY 1977: Young / Foreman

This is an entry in an occasional series of posts looking back at the Ring Magazine Fights of the Year from 1970 to 2009.

In 1977 Jimmy Young fought George Foreman for 12 rounds in San Juan, Puerto Rico. No title was at stake. Foreman’s career was: after being outboxed by and losing a unanimous decision to Young, Foreman would retire from the ring for the next 10 years.

Overview

The pattern of this fight was simple: Foreman came forward, attempting to corner and land power shots on Young. Young looked to score points while maneuvering away from Foreman. The ebb and flow of the fight was even through the first 6 rounds. The tide turned for the last time in the 7th, after Foreman wobbled Young and battered him around the ring for the better part of 90 seconds. Once Young steadied himself, he began to win the fight against Foreman. His counterpunching grew more and more dominant, ultimately leading to a 12th round knockdown.

The major subtext of the fight was Foreman’s roughhousing, and Young’s incessant griping about it. Both fighters gave the appearance of feeling hard done by, but the dynamic seemed to favor Young. In the first place, Foreman lost a point for tactics which the referee saw as illegal. Potentially more seriously, his frustration might have caused him to become reckless in his attack, leaving himself more open to Young’s counters. (Foreman’s failure to get the KO in the 7th might have exacerbated this phenomenon.)

Reaction

This fight is a great demonstration of how a better boxer can defeat a stronger man — it’s a particularly good demonstration because Foreman was himself an excellent boxer. I agreed with the judges’ verdict, scoring it 115-112 for Young, but was more impressed with how completely Young controlled the last part of the fight; I believe that he would have gotten a knockout over 15 rounds. On this night, Foreman couldn’t come to grips with Young: He couldn’t corner him, couldn’t land consistently, and couldn’t avoid his counterattacks. Young was one of those rare fighters who could win a bout backing up, and it’s great to see him at his best.

In the 8th round, Cosell said this as the crowd chanted Young’s name:

That’s one of the things that’s so emotionally disturbed Foreman his whole career. “What”, he kept saying to himself, “do I have to do to be a crowd-pleaser? Why won’t they give me their cheers?”

Foreman ultimately answered these questions. When he returned to the ring 10 years later, he was a crowd-pleaser. And when he won a unified championship by knocking out Michael Moorer in 1994, everyone cheered.

For his part, Jimmy Young did not go on to enjoy much success. Although undoubtedly one of the best 34-19-2 boxers to ever fight, this bout might have represented his finest hour. Young fought many of the top men of his era, but always seemed to come up a little short: A disputed UD loss to Ali, a draw with Earnie Shavers, an SD loss to Ken Norton. But on this night, he was masterful.

Continue reading

Posted in Boxing | Comments Off

Six Word Stories: Misconception

“Salmonella is not transmitted by salmon.”

Posted in Six Word Stories | Comments Off

OpenGL ES 1.1 Demo

Not too much to say about this: It’s an OpenGL ES 1.1 demo. It draws and animates the Platonic solids (tap the screen to cycle through them). If you look at the code (most of the interesting stuff is in SolidsViewController.m), you can see simple illustrations of:

  • Camera setup
  • Animation
  • Matrix stack manipulation
  • Lighting
  • Triangle strips and fans

I don’t claim that anything here is done optimally, but it might serve to get you up and running with 1.1 if it’s been a while since you put a polygon on screen.

Garbage Code

There’s some extraneous OpenGL ES 2.0 stuff in the code because this demo was built on top of Xcode’s “OpenGL ES Application” template, and I didn’t feel like pulling the extra stuff. You can ignore it; it doesn’t do anything.

There’s also some unused code related to either setup (e.g., I turn on alpha-blending) or testing (e.g., the renderXxxxInnerRadius:outerRadius:explode methods). That stuff is just there for you to play with.

Posted in iPhone | Comments Off