The $1M shot that changed sports contests(espn.com)
espn.com
The $1M shot that changed sports contests
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/36146138/million-dollar-shot-michael-jordan-chicago-bulls-1993
145 comments
I love this.
Objects are created to better our lives. Not the other way around.
It's like Cameron's dad in Ferris Bueller's day off.
Objects are created to better our lives. Not the other way around.
It's like Cameron's dad in Ferris Bueller's day off.
[deleted]
I think its pretty amazing that, assuming its true (and I have no reason to think this is a lie so far) that the team (and specifically, Michael Jordan, who alone had enough clout to shame anyone into paying) were adamant about Calhoun being made whole. Such a great moment where celebrities actually shine.
And such a great story overall. I feel Clarence also made the absolute best out of all of it, the money, the legacy, the signed now family heirloom basketball.
Whole story is wonderful
And such a great story overall. I feel Clarence also made the absolute best out of all of it, the money, the legacy, the signed now family heirloom basketball.
Whole story is wonderful
Jordan is a famous gambler so it makes some sense that he would be morally offended by attempts to avoid payment.
Jordan also had an exceptional understanding of his personal brand by that point.
It was his court, his team (the Bulls), his stadium, his fans, that were all in part being represented by that event happening. Its an ownership mentality that has rewarded Jordan extraordinarily well throughout his career.
His reputation and brand were all associated directly to whatever was happening to the Bulls franchise and happening in that stadium (which includes the fan experience). Now, Jordan might not notice if something trivial happens in regards to the fan experience, but something big enough to make the nightly news (and for which he was there when it happened anyway), he's going to take notice.
If they don't honor that, it reflects poorly on the Bulls franchise. This was a Bulls fan making a life-altering one in a thousand shot on Jordan's court. Jordan's on video celebrating with the guy. The fans, broadly, are going to be largely ignorant of the ins and outs of what was going on with the payout - what the fans know, is someone hit that shot and is getting screwed, and that it was a promotion that - as far as the average fan understood - was being put on by the Bulls. When it comes to brand, it doesn't only matter what's factually correct, Jordan understood perception. If that guy gets screwed out of his money, it might as well be the Chicago Bulls doing it (even if they put out press releases trying to disassociate in regards to responsibility).
When Jordan gets to the point and asks the winner: did you get your money? What he meant is: did those rat bastard businessmen pay you, because if they didn't, it reflects poorly on me, my team, my franchise, and I take that personally.
It was his court, his team (the Bulls), his stadium, his fans, that were all in part being represented by that event happening. Its an ownership mentality that has rewarded Jordan extraordinarily well throughout his career.
His reputation and brand were all associated directly to whatever was happening to the Bulls franchise and happening in that stadium (which includes the fan experience). Now, Jordan might not notice if something trivial happens in regards to the fan experience, but something big enough to make the nightly news (and for which he was there when it happened anyway), he's going to take notice.
If they don't honor that, it reflects poorly on the Bulls franchise. This was a Bulls fan making a life-altering one in a thousand shot on Jordan's court. Jordan's on video celebrating with the guy. The fans, broadly, are going to be largely ignorant of the ins and outs of what was going on with the payout - what the fans know, is someone hit that shot and is getting screwed, and that it was a promotion that - as far as the average fan understood - was being put on by the Bulls. When it comes to brand, it doesn't only matter what's factually correct, Jordan understood perception. If that guy gets screwed out of his money, it might as well be the Chicago Bulls doing it (even if they put out press releases trying to disassociate in regards to responsibility).
When Jordan gets to the point and asks the winner: did you get your money? What he meant is: did those rat bastard businessmen pay you, because if they didn't, it reflects poorly on me, my team, my franchise, and I take that personally.
This assumes too much about Jordan's psychology. Yes, he was aware that a great deal of money was riding on his image, and he was could be very shrewd and even his cynical when it came to business, viz., his remark that "Republicans buy sneakers, too." But this picture of Jordan as ruthless utility-maximizer and PR savant doesn't square with other things he's done, such as the raw spectacle he made of himself in his Hall of Fame induction speech. The man does not think like normal people.
Gambler? Yes.
Pay on time? No.
Jordan's dark side includes people accusing him of millions in unpaid golf debts, bookies showing up dead with handwritten checks from Jordan, and the mysterious circumstances about his dad's murder.
Pay on time? No.
Jordan's dark side includes people accusing him of millions in unpaid golf debts, bookies showing up dead with handwritten checks from Jordan, and the mysterious circumstances about his dad's murder.
The most interesting thing about this story isn't the shot, it's his son at college.
> "Tutoring?" Calhoun said. "I'm struggling to learn everything myself. How can I teach others?" Siniak thought this would give Calhoun an extra nudge to learn the material and boost his own command.
Siniak recognized something in Calhoun, and got him to excel by giving him more responsibility; not less. People often are good at being load-bearing, but if you never give them a load they never realize it.
> "Tutoring?" Calhoun said. "I'm struggling to learn everything myself. How can I teach others?" Siniak thought this would give Calhoun an extra nudge to learn the material and boost his own command.
Siniak recognized something in Calhoun, and got him to excel by giving him more responsibility; not less. People often are good at being load-bearing, but if you never give them a load they never realize it.
> "Tutoring?" Calhoun said. "I'm struggling to learn everything myself. How can I teach others?"
I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but teaching something to another (at a level I understand) has really helped me grasp some things better.
The military uses an approach like this called "see one, do one, teach one"
I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but teaching something to another (at a level I understand) has really helped me grasp some things better.
The military uses an approach like this called "see one, do one, teach one"
My understanding of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu really shot up once I started teaching.
Teaching forces you to put things into words that you only had an implicit understanding of prior. It reinforces your existing knowledge and forces you to seek answers to questions you didn't know you had.
Teaching forces you to put things into words that you only had an implicit understanding of prior. It reinforces your existing knowledge and forces you to seek answers to questions you didn't know you had.
> "Teaching forces you to put things into words that you only had an implicit understanding of prior. It reinforces your existing knowledge and forces you to seek answers to questions you didn't know you had. "
Bears repeating! When node was originally released years ago, I decided to force myself into public speaking because I knew it was a weakness of mine. I also wanted to learn node, so I signed up for a code camp talk on "real-time" websites with node and websockets. Previously I had "learned" languages like Pascal, C++, C#, Python, etc. But I'd never had to learn those languages to a point where I could explain them in simple terms. The fact that I was going to be presenting on the topic took me to depths of node that I hadn't had to explore with other languages. There's a big difference between being able to leverage a closure effectively and being able to communicate what a closure is and how and when it's useful and when to avoid it. I've been a fan of public speaking and mentoring (and node) ever since.
Bears repeating! When node was originally released years ago, I decided to force myself into public speaking because I knew it was a weakness of mine. I also wanted to learn node, so I signed up for a code camp talk on "real-time" websites with node and websockets. Previously I had "learned" languages like Pascal, C++, C#, Python, etc. But I'd never had to learn those languages to a point where I could explain them in simple terms. The fact that I was going to be presenting on the topic took me to depths of node that I hadn't had to explore with other languages. There's a big difference between being able to leverage a closure effectively and being able to communicate what a closure is and how and when it's useful and when to avoid it. I've been a fan of public speaking and mentoring (and node) ever since.
Funny you mention that; my son and I trained together and we would drill at home. Common stuff that noobs need, like side control escapes etc. it was amazing how much more sense it made live after “teaching” him at home.
Same. I'm finally at a level where I feel comfortable showing some moves, and it makes me get a deeper understanding of even 'simple' moves.
I don’t think I truly understood calculus until I TA’d it in grad school.
it is not the load bearing or responsibility. it's simply another way to approach the material. teaching someone forces you to organize your thoughts and also consider questions you may not have thought of yourself.
montessori uses this to let older kids teach younger ones. and many others take advantage of it too.
i wish this was more commonly known
montessori uses this to let older kids teach younger ones. and many others take advantage of it too.
i wish this was more commonly known
I recently saw a video about this in /r/Documentaries on Reddit. He Made A Million Dollar Shot And They Didn't Want To Pay Him - https://youtu.be/Lk4N2epJzgg
The ESPN predates the YouTube video (April 11th vs July 14th)... possibly the inspiration for the video. Still a neat watch with other background information about how the insurance factors in.
The ESPN predates the YouTube video (April 11th vs July 14th)... possibly the inspiration for the video. Still a neat watch with other background information about how the insurance factors in.
Interesting, this video has been consistently pushed to me by the YouTube recommendation algorithm for the past 3 weeks. It looks like the recommender pressure is so strong it's influencing HN headlines.
It's also the #2 post on www.reddit.com/r/all: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/15kg058/til_...
Is there some kind of coordinated push to get this story out everywhere?
Is there some kind of coordinated push to get this story out everywhere?
I think instead it's that of the tens thousands of people who saw the video recently, maybe one of them posts it on reddit, and another posts it on HN.
This is a common phenomenon, exactly like how the kid making the shot made similar contests more popular.
This is a common phenomenon, exactly like how the kid making the shot made similar contests more popular.
Its an interesting story that checks some boxes (michael jordan is still 11/10 popular, big organization refuses to pay, etc)... and the story is fairly brief... and has a good ending. I think the algorithm is just doing its thing.
Probably more like a burst of views on a video boosts it in the algorithm.
Which causes more people to watch it, which increases the odds someone posts it to a different site and also increases the odds someone on that third site has already seen it and comments, etc. etc. A big surge in one site can affect multiple sites pretty easily, especially if they share a large proportion of their user base and/or users can easily bounce between them even if they're not regular users of one or the other. It's kind of tin foil hat territory to assume it's a "coordinated push" and not just how "the algorithm" + the internet works in general.
Indeed, it's not called "viral content" for nothing!
It's an interesting story. Either OP watched the documentary and then posted the story, or an acquaintance of OP watched the documentary and then sent the article to OP.
The way that title is worded reeks of very low quality “chum” articles. Can’t put my finger on it but there’s a very distinct clickbait style that I deliberately avoid.
The video is an illustrated and narrated version of the article. The article is shown in the video.
I particularly like this section:
> The first thing out of Jordan's mouth? "Did you get your money?" Jordan asked.
> Calhoun said yes, and Jordan told him something that caught him off guard. "We made them give it to you," Jordan said. "We were upset that they were trying to not pay you."
> ...
> As they got to a set of doors, Calhoun knew Jordan's car was waiting for him on the other side. He asked whether Jordan would sign his ball, and MJ said no, that he had to stick to his principle of no autographs at his kids' stuff. "Bring it down to my steakhouse and drop it off, then I'll sign it," he said.
I'm not sure why, but I like the idea of a larger-than-life sports star being so stubborn in his convictions, being adamant that a regular person should get his fair due but also not bending his personal rules for him. I have to imagine that sticking to your principles helps stay grounded when you reach that level of fame; moving too far in either direction and you either lose your sense of self or you lose your values.
> The first thing out of Jordan's mouth? "Did you get your money?" Jordan asked.
> Calhoun said yes, and Jordan told him something that caught him off guard. "We made them give it to you," Jordan said. "We were upset that they were trying to not pay you."
> ...
> As they got to a set of doors, Calhoun knew Jordan's car was waiting for him on the other side. He asked whether Jordan would sign his ball, and MJ said no, that he had to stick to his principle of no autographs at his kids' stuff. "Bring it down to my steakhouse and drop it off, then I'll sign it," he said.
I'm not sure why, but I like the idea of a larger-than-life sports star being so stubborn in his convictions, being adamant that a regular person should get his fair due but also not bending his personal rules for him. I have to imagine that sticking to your principles helps stay grounded when you reach that level of fame; moving too far in either direction and you either lose your sense of self or you lose your values.
It's also pretty important that he stick to those rules because if he bends them once and it becomes known he would get all sorts of people who think they have a similar good reason for Jordan to break his rule. It honestly might also be an agreement with the school to avoid attracting a circus every time he goes to his kids' games, if he did turn it into an Event it might be necessary for the school to ban him from events for safety.
It's pretty scammy the way these contests advertise a jackpot when the net present value of 20 annual payments of $50k is ~$625K with 5% interest. In a world in which they can make interest of 5%/year, they only need to pay the winner the interest on the prize amount.
You shouldn't be allowed to advertise anything but the present value of the cash amount.
Yeah, it's a long way from the "he won $1m" headline to the reality of "he won $38,000 a year".
[deleted]
On the other hand, spreading it out means paying less in taxes. Still, it almost certainly does not make up for losing the compound interest.
Probably in many cases, but that depends on the winner's income, etc.
If I remember correctly (not a lawyer) gambling winnings ( inc lottery) are not taxable in the UK. Not that I ever won anything.
Correct. Indeed, even things treated as gambling aren't taxed, such as financial spread betting.
(Apparently this makes sense because if gambling wins were to be taxed then gambling losses should also be deductible, and since gambling is inherently a losing proposition, the tax authorities would lose more than they gained. I don't really buy this argument since they could just tax winnings and offer no deductions, but hey ho.)
(Apparently this makes sense because if gambling wins were to be taxed then gambling losses should also be deductible, and since gambling is inherently a losing proposition, the tax authorities would lose more than they gained. I don't really buy this argument since they could just tax winnings and offer no deductions, but hey ho.)
> I don't really buy this argument since they could just tax winnings and offer no deductions, but hey ho.
I don't think this would make sense. If I walk into a casino with $200 and then proceed to lose $100 and win it back 10 times, then I lose it all and walk out, that tax law would say I had "won" and had to pay taxes on $1,000 even though any reasonable person would say I had actually lost $200.
In practical terms, I think it would absolutely ruin gambling addicts. This makes it effectively impossible to actually net profit, and I'm doubtful they'll stop.
I don't think this would make sense. If I walk into a casino with $200 and then proceed to lose $100 and win it back 10 times, then I lose it all and walk out, that tax law would say I had "won" and had to pay taxes on $1,000 even though any reasonable person would say I had actually lost $200.
In practical terms, I think it would absolutely ruin gambling addicts. This makes it effectively impossible to actually net profit, and I'm doubtful they'll stop.
but in the US it is taxed? i don't know how, I assume it's based on what you walk out with. or maybe just the big winnings? i don't know.
They are taxed, but losses are deductible. It's taxed basically the same as everything else. At the end of the year you tally your earnings and losses, subtract the losses from the earnings and pay taxes on that amount or $0, whichever is higher (i.e. you can't deduct more losses than you had in winnings).
I googled because I was curious and found an article about it [1]. It's similar to PayPal/Venmo/etc. Once your winnings meet certain criteria, the casino has to give you an IRS form (W-2G) and they presumably send another copy to the IRS.
The withholding part isn't super clear, but I guess under some circumstances they also withhold 24% of those winnings to pay federal taxes.
1: https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/income/other-income/gambl...
I googled because I was curious and found an article about it [1]. It's similar to PayPal/Venmo/etc. Once your winnings meet certain criteria, the casino has to give you an IRS form (W-2G) and they presumably send another copy to the IRS.
The withholding part isn't super clear, but I guess under some circumstances they also withhold 24% of those winnings to pay federal taxes.
1: https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/income/other-income/gambl...
Spain had this: Tax winnings but not deduct looses. It creates situations like these: https://www.chess.com/news/view/francisco-vallejo-chess-tax-...
> He called his treatment by the authorities "disgusting" as the administrators were aware that he actually made a loss, but nonetheless they claimed almost all of his savings. "Nobody is responsible for such craziness."
Welcome to the modern Western society, in which employees have been reduced to litigation-avoidance automatons. No wonder so many people hate their jobs, stripped of any power to help or even just follow common sense.
Welcome to the modern Western society, in which employees have been reduced to litigation-avoidance automatons. No wonder so many people hate their jobs, stripped of any power to help or even just follow common sense.
Well the bettor losses are income to the book so they could be taxed there. The interesting thing there is if the book and the bettor are taxed at different rates.
I know in some lotteries and sweepstakes they tax the pool, and so the winnings are tax free to the winner and the taxman invisibly still gets his cut.
I know in some lotteries and sweepstakes they tax the pool, and so the winnings are tax free to the winner and the taxman invisibly still gets his cut.
Yes. The government actually owns a bank, NS&I, that offers a special account "premium bonds" that effectively pays interest in the form of winnings from a lottery which make it tax free.
if I were to try paying my taxes that way, I'd end up in prison.
Gambling? Misleading? Surely not :)
If you want a shorter version before committing to the submitted article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calhoun_Shot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calhoun_Shot
Anthropic's Claude summarized this, too (the article was too long for ChatGPT):
In April 1993, Don Calhoun made a miraculous full-court shot during a Chicago Bulls game to win $1 million. He was an average office supply salesman but felt calm and destined to make the nearly impossible shot.
The shot went viral and sparked a boom in in-game contests at sporting events. Companies like SCA Promotions started insuring these big-money contests, which remained popular crowd pleasers.
Calhoun initially feared he wouldn't get the money because he had played some college basketball recently. This violated a common rule that contestants couldn't have played the sport recently.
The Bulls held a press conference saying they would pay Calhoun the $1 million regardless of the insurance outcome. Later, Michael Jordan privately told Calhoun that the Bulls players had pressured the insurance company to pay him.
Calhoun got Jordan to sign the winning ball years later after persistence. He kept the autographed ball not as a collectible but for his kids to play with, symbolizing how the shot changed their family's trajectory.
The $1 million was paid out as $50k checks over 20 years. It provided a nice supplement to Calhoun's middle-class lifestyle but did not make him wealthy. The experience and memories were priceless.> In April 1993, Don Calhoun made a miraculous full-court shot during a Chicago Bulls game to win $1 million.
Wrong. It was a three quarters court shot (behind the penalty line of the other half of the court).
Wrong. It was a three quarters court shot (behind the penalty line of the other half of the court).
Not wrong. Misses the last act (Clarence II).
Kinda fascinating, it almost surgically removes the entire human interest angle which is the soul of the story that makes it land so strongly. This summary is flat and boring, like a summary of a quarterly SEC filing.
Anthropic more than the other three really tries quite hard to depersonalise and dehumanise their LLM. It must be particularly important to them.
Mission accomplished I guess? Utterly soulless and boring - for a computer no less - but if that’s what they wanted, sure.
Yeah, I suspect your result is exactly what they want. I don't know if they fully realise that people don't want that, but they will eventually.
Eh, they seem to have a holier than thou attitude, I’m sure the Know What’s Best.
Trivia: Bob Hamman mentioned in the article is the famous professional Bridge player (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hamman).
Interesting how the game and his profession is about managing odds of uncertain events...
Interesting how the game and his profession is about managing odds of uncertain events...
As an aside bridge is a really amazing game, quite worth the effort to learn.
It is an amazing game but it is very hard to find young people willing to devote 40 hours to become even slightly proficient at the bidding systems. I've currently designed a card game that aims to have "a lot" of the complexity of Bridge but with simple bidding system. It has been going well in testing thus far.
To find young players, try posting something with college math departments. I met the most young local bridge players through the area community college.
I'm interested in trying your game if testing is open. I find simpler trick games (hearts, euchre, spades, some branded card games like The Crew) get people ready for simple bidding using bridge rules, but they don't do anything to teach the concept of using bids to communicate beyond the bid's face value.
I'm interested in trying your game if testing is open. I find simpler trick games (hearts, euchre, spades, some branded card games like The Crew) get people ready for simple bidding using bridge rules, but they don't do anything to teach the concept of using bids to communicate beyond the bid's face value.
I've put my contact info in my profile temporarily .. Email me and we can set something up!
Thanks. Sent!
How does it differ from, say, Euchre or Kaiser?
Like contract Bridge, there is always a Dummy which adds a lot of strategic depth. The Dummy is played via a very simple automata that players can leverage against the other players. This game is not teams, but is basically everyone against the Declarer. It also contains a doubling step pre-play that pulls in some of the strategy of vulnerable/double/redouble from Bridge. It uses a larger deck size similar to Bridge so you have a lot of information about what remains when trying to make your contract and make others miss theirs.
Title is a lot less interesting than story.
Here's a great YouTube video on the same story: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lk4N2epJzgg
I block all youtube channels with that stupid checkbox next to it from my search results. you can do the same by adding this ublock origin filter:
youtube.com##ytd-search :is(ytd-video-renderer, ytd-channel-renderer):has(.badge-style-type-verified)
youtube.com##ytd-search :is(ytd-video-renderer, ytd-channel-renderer):has(.badge-style-type-verified)
While I mostly agree, especially that I've scrolled past this video's clickbait thumbnail and title before, I suggest using this tool: letsblock.it/filters/youtube-channel
Instead of blanket filtering verified accounts, I spent a few minutes one day plugging in all the obnoxious channels that show up on YT's homepage when signed out.
Instead of blanket filtering verified accounts, I spent a few minutes one day plugging in all the obnoxious channels that show up on YT's homepage when signed out.
Why?
[deleted]
that was a really well-written piece too!
[deleted]
bglazer(7)
hk__2(9)
This whole contest sounds like a racket trying to get money from the Bulls. The Bulls were selling out games left and right back them. They didn't need to spend money on these contests to get butts in seats after all the money they spent on Jordan (to get butts in seats). The fact that they try to renege on the payout on any little technicality shows it's all a con.
If you had read the article, you would have learned that the purpose of the half-time contest was to keep people entertained during halftime.
This is, in fact, a thing most basketball teams still do during halftimes as part of a regular halftime entertainment rotation.
This is, in fact, a thing most basketball teams still do during halftimes as part of a regular halftime entertainment rotation.
Why would they choose to run it then? No one forced them lol
Yeah, I wonder, too. There's plenty of possible reasons that involve someone in the Bulls front office having more budget than sense at best or getting a kickback at worst, but I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure the people selling the game gave a hard sell.
> The ball had grown to mean so much to him. It wasn't the signatures, or that he thought the ball might be worth something like $20,000 ... The ball became a family heirloom over the next three decades. But not in the way you'd expect. Calhoun never locked it up in a vault or even put it in a protective case in the house. He left it in the basement of his house, and Clarence and Calhoun's other three kids would dribble it and throw it around. He wanted his kids to be able to touch and feel something that had altered the trajectory of their family.