Thu 30 Nov 2006
(Crossposted from dcat.)
Last night Nate Robinson of the New York Knickerbockers attempted what would have been the dunk of the decade in a game. On a fast break, at full run, he bounced the ball off the free throw line and tried to follow his bounce with a monster dunk. Unfortunately he missed.
This is not the first time that dcat has seen such an effort. In the second round of the 1990 ECAC college basketball playoffs, in a game in which Williams was blowing out (I believe) Babson College, Williams senior (and at the time the newly crowned all-time points scorer for the Ephs) Garcia Major, who makes my all-time all name team, attempted the exact same dunk. Unfortunately, the nefarious Babson defender practically tackled Major before he could complete what was still one of the great athletic feats I have almost seen accomplished. By the way — Majors’ coach, Williams legend Harry Sheehy, was not thrilled with such self aggrandizement and benched Major after the failed dunk attempt, though it was pretty clear that Coach Sheehy could not remain angry for long. (It was Harry Sheehy, maybe the greatest basketball player in Williams history, whose record Major broke, and that record has subsequently fallen in the midst of Williams’ incredible late 90s-early 00s run.) You can see some of the stars of Williams basketball, including Major and Sheehy, here.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I never knew Garcia well (I took an English class with him my freshman year), but in my few interactions with him he was always a very good guy. And what a basketball player…The Williams-Amherst basketball game my freshman year in Lasell from the track was probably the most incredible athletic event I’ve ever witnessed in person. Chandler is a great facility, and probably better on a day-to-day basis, but the old gym was simply an unbelievable place to watch an important game. If I remember the year correctly, we played in the ECAC finals that year (1986-87) at Framingham State, and won a close victory. I can’t remember the seniors on that team, other than that they were very talented, and were able to integrate Garcia, and his prodigious talents, into the team. Can anyone from that era confirm my memory of winning the ECAC’s that year (or tell me I’ve completely lost my mind)?
December 1st, 2006 at 7:07 am
I’m not a lawyer & I haven’t bothered to read in to this law. But from a quick read of what’s been discussed here it seems obvious a lot of people are either stupid or just not thinking. As far as I can tell, the law doesn’t require that all entrances not accessible to the disabled/wheelchair be made non-accessible to all. Rather what it requires is that all entrances on a (renovated?) building be accessible to those who are disabled/wheelchair bound. Ergo, if a building doesn’t meet these requirements, the owners of said building have 3 options. They could upgrade entrances to make them wheelchair/disabled friendly. They can violate the law and risk being prosecuted or sued by a variety of people. Or they can just close the entrance which don’t meet the requirements. Some would call the third option the cheaters options or the poor-mans options, but whatever.
The reason for this law therefore is nothing to do with punishing everyone because of a minority. It has to do with setting a certain standard which must be met. I presume the reason for this law is to ensure that buildings are really accessible. If you simply require a building be accessible, then all the owners have to do is make one entrance accessible. Nevermind if this entrance is in a very bad place or the building is very large. Obviously you can make more complicated laws e.g. requiring a minimum percentage of entrances be accessible or a minimum percentage per distance between entrances. Or you can simply require the building have a good level of accessibility. Trouble is more complicated or poorly defined laws are more likely to have unintended consequences of fail to actually achieve their goals. They’re also likely to lead to a greater degree of uncertainty as to what is actually required. Perhaps most importantly, since this is the US we’re talking about AFAIK, they also mean there’s far more likely to be a bunch of messy and expensive court cases.
Now obviously this law does mean that everything including the disabled can be disadvantaged when the building owner chooses the ‘cheaters’ option. It also means greater cost for building owners. There are other issues to consider too. But I don’t really want to argue whether I think this law is good or bad. It doesn’t interest me that much. What I do think is that if people want to debate this law, they need to actually bother to try & understand what it actually requires and why it requires it. It might be acceptable in talkback radio or in a pub to talk about some made up law that doesn’t exist but IMHO debates between university students should be more reasoned and intelligent.
P.S. Another thing which a lot of people seem to be missing is that although in this particularly case the actions of your university may have benefited no one, perhaps because they’re cheapskates, it doesn’t mean this law is a bad thing. When you consider a law, you need to consider the law as a whole. Not just this one case. How many buildings are more accessible because of it? How many entrances have been upgraded by those who aren’t cheapskates? How often does this removing of handles/entrances rather then upgrading entrances occur? Etc…
December 1st, 2006 at 7:27 am
Garcia Major - Diego Garcia - Diego Rivera. I can’t sepatate them.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Frank — but have you ever seen any of them in the same room? I thought not.
dcat
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 am
Does anyone know what ever happened to Garcia Major or what he is doing now or where he is living? He was always a nice guy from my few conversations with him and man, what a basketball player.