TwIsTeD Reflections

Sorry for the delay; the festive season realli kept me busy.

About a month ago, I had a great conversation with deb about altruism. She believes that there is no such thing as true, pure altruism. I did, or at least i thought i did. Throughout the conversation, I was convinced by her argument.

Firstly, altruism means to perform an act of kindness, without any wish to receive anything in return. In other words, to do something good with no real intention of getting any benefit.

I was thinking: surely there has to be an act of kindness that is burely benevolent. Human beings, by nature, are capable of both great good and great evil. I believe there are acts there are with purely evil intentions, like the intention to cause harm and suffering. So on the flip side, I believe that there has to be an act of pure goodness.

Of course, when thinking rationally, 'has to be' is the phrase that spoils most expectations. The things about good deeds is: there is always something beneficial that is reaped from it. always. And therefore, when one does perform a good deed, one expects some form of returns.

Am i confusing you? Let me try to explain using an example. When a man sacrifices his life for the country, he expects to receive some benefits in return. What sort of benefits would a man going to die expect? That his sacrifice would help his country in some way. That his sacrifice can perhaps bring a certain form of fame or martyrdom to his name. All these are actually selfish thoughts, but they do no neccessarily mean that they are evil thoughts.

Another example, perhaps, is the simple act of donation. So, what do we get in return? We donate in hope to make this world a better place for another. We donate to have that warm, fluffy feeling that comes with each benevolent act. We donate to show others that we are kind. All of these acts are selfish thoughts. Yes, i did type correctly. Hoping for a better situation for another and making an effort to help tt person is a selfish act.

The problem with our thinking is the thought: selfish=evil. We were brought up to believe that when we do something for another, a selfless act, is the right thing to do and the opposite, a selfish act, is not. But what we do not realise, as we depart from naivety, is that selfless acts are performed with the thought of selfish intentions. And selfish intentions does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing. You wish to help someone. That is something you want, and therefore a selfish thought. You reach out a hand to help that person. That is a selfish act for acting on the selfish thought.

You may start to wonder: why is this so? Because, I answer you, every good deed comes from within us, and it takes a good portion of self to perform that deed. Nothing to be ashamed of, just understand that there is no such thing as true altruist intentions.

Want to understand further of what I am saying? I recommend books written by Ayn Rand, a modern day philosopher. Go read books like Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

By the tone of my previous posts, I may seem to portray a certain arrogant attitude to some. Don't say I didn't warn you. However, I believe this post may throw a dose of humility into this blog.

Perfection is overrated. A perfect man, should such a being exist is most definitely a boring man, living in a mundane lifestyle. Imperfections are what make us what we are, makes us human, humbles us and teaches us values worth keeping. Love would not exist between two perfect beings, as true love is defined by the flaws of being. For example, to fall in love with a girl would require you to accept the flaws of the person, while to love a perfect being could very well be superficial.

Therefore, here are 10 of the most embarrassing problems with me, spoken as truthfully as I can.

1. Careless
If you saw me playing basketball or badminton, many would say that I'm agile and quick feet. Well, they will say that until I sprain my ankle. I have a strange sense of balance, which is exceptional when riding a bike, or on the court, yet downright clumsy when I'm on the ground. This has earned me a multitude of sprained ankles, sprained necks, sprained fingers... In other words, more injuries than i have joints.

2. Temper
I believe I had touched on this before. Let me elaborate. When I was in signals, I had physically engaged this pai kia platoon mate, because of mutual dislike, outside the camp. It earned me a bloody nose, but the matter was settled when fellow platoon mates pulled us apart. I have sincerely regretted that to this day. The reason for fighting? It was that, essentially, I didn't like his face. I never felt so disgusted with myself, fighting for such a low down reason. Of course, being the bastard that he is, I never apologised. Nevertheless, that was not even the full extent of my anger. And i never want to find out what that is.

3. Low will power
When I set my mind on something, anything, I will excel in it. Not a boast, just a fact. It has been proven in academics, in sports, in the arts. The problem is I'm not fond of putting my mind into something. To me, it takes extraordinary amount of energy, and the returns are never enough to justify that loss of energy. I know... excuses, yet it is one of my many fatal flaws. Im the kind that when I can see the end, it is no longer interesting and would cease any effort. This flaw has proven to be the most grievous compared to the rest.

4. Too much big picture
Similar to the the above, yet different. I remember an old Garfield comic, with Garfield commenting: Apathetic people are different from lazy people. Apathetic people don't care. Lazy people care, they just don't do anything about it. Yet laziness has never been a constant flaw. There are many times when I have put in the utmost effort, normally in the things I enjoy. Swimming, writing, basketball, tuition. These are just some of things I have put in, or used to put in, a lot of sweat and blood into. Yet, there are just times...

5. Details...
I just don't notice them. I'm a very big-picture kind of guy, which kinda explains why the means do not mean as much to me as the ends. Therefore, when it is time to micromanage, to zoom in and analyse, to notice the little things, I usually fail. I enjoy seeing life and purpose in the big picture that sometimes I forget, or forgo, the little things that make up that life or purpose, because of the seeming insignificance fo it. For example, studying for a test does not seem important since we are going to die anyway. I know, flawed rationalizing.

6. Disorganised
If you entered my room or seen my desk before it is cleaned up, or even my handwriting, you will understand. What most people don't know is that there is a method to my madness. Should you arrange or tidy up my room, I would find things harder to locate. In the chaos, there exist a routine and an order. My mom doesnt see it that way though.

7. Over-rationalising
I am normally a highly rational person, as a reader of my blog can attest. Sometimes, I take it over the top. The problem with rationalising is that it has to be conclusive, with no room for error. Sometimes, I make that error, and yet continue with the analysis, falling prey to obstructions such as assumtion, ignorance and bias. Rationality must be conclusive and exhaustive. At times, I find myself regretting for not taking a path into consideration. Chaos theory, perhaps, to some extent.

8. Low confidence
This may come as a surprise to some. My biggest critic is myself, as I have constantly questioned my actions. This is probably due to my scatter-brain, haphazard nature that has forced me into many mistakes. Therefore, I sometimes become cautious into making a mistake, damaging my confidence to some extent. This is also the primary reason why I am totally lousy at focus-based games, such as pool, archery, golf or even shooting the basketball. I have conquered and corrected a large portion of this flaw, but the foundation has been laid within me and will probably haunt me till the day I die.

9. Poor short term memory
I just have a lousy short term memory. I can forget what I'm about to say, what i was going to do, the name of the person I'm speaking with, even if the person just introduced himself to me. Thank god I have a girlfriend that has an excellent short term memory to help me in this department.

10. Socially awkward
This is the most embarrassing flaw, which i have saved for last: I can't talk to girls. There, out in the open. Before talking to the opposite sex, especially if she is attractive, I tend to stutter and panic. It doesn't help that I have flaws 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9. I have never confessed to a girl before, for if I ever did like a girl, I would have spoken very little, if ever, to her. Normally, speaking to the opposite sex, and to a lesser extent to guys, I have to plan what I say, which may backfire on me, as it did many times. This is different from when I'm online. Thank god for MSN.

11. Chinese
Sometimes I wish i wasn't born chinese. Nothing to do with chinese culture or roots or all that stuff. In fact, Im deeply fascinated with Chinese culture. Its just that, my aptitude in that language is disgustingly poor i might as well fill up the migration papers now... In bilingual Singapore, no less. To make things worse, people thinks that my standard in the language is actually lower than it alr is, no thanks to the fact that i sound like a foreigner when attempting to speak it. My comprehension for basic mandarin is actually not too bad, the problem is speaking from my end. It sounds... weird. So, when you are speaking mandarin to me, and i reply with a 'huh?', it is not that I dont understand, is that i genuinely didnt hear you. So try not to switch to English that quickly, alrite?

12. I can't take compliments well
You heard of people who cant take insults well, due to their temper? Yea, well, Im the total opposite. The problem in this social nightmare(to me) is how to respond to a "good job!" or a "nice pass!". Do I say "yea, i tink so too" and sound like an arrogant bastard? or do I say "nah, it was alrite" and sound like Im rejecting the compliment? It is a total dilemma to me. Normally, I just dip my head and mumble something, that may have the reaction of either of those 2 scenarios. Thing is: I love compliments. Like who doesn't, rite? But I seriously love all the ego-boosting flattery, fake sentiments or otherwise. So, if I respond to your compliments, please dont take it any other way other than a great, big "Thank you!"

13. Im fat
'Nuff said.

There you have it. As I'm typing this, Im positively red in the face, sheesh. I know it is 13 and not 10, but seems like I got more flaws than I would prefer. I never liked any of my flaws and have taken some measure to correct them, but we know that is difficult, isn't it.

When the Dark Knight movie was released, it left many of us in awe. We were stunned by the sublime combination of tension, psychological thriller and visual effects. In my opinion, it was the one true film that represented Batman perfectly.

I have always been a fan of Batman. He is the perfect human being, defeating villians with a mixture of cold, logical deduction, martial skills and money. No powers were required, unlike his outlandish DC heroes comrades like Superman or Wonderwoman.

But the main reason that so intrigued me was the use of psychology and philosophy within the comics and the Dark Knight. Batman was not the happy-go-lucky superhero that the previous films try to portray, blame it on sugarcoating for kids. He was an anti-hero, not unlike Venom form Marvel, Constantine from Vertigo's Hellblazer and Spawn from Image.

An anti-hero is one where the so-called hero will go through means that would most likely disagree with the majority of ppl in order to achieve their form of justice. Batman is supposed to be like that. He would use interrogation techniques that left villians with broken limbs, ignore traditional forms of law keeping like the police to investigate murders and basically willing to do anything at any cost to achiever his ends, unless it involved guns and killing.

In so doing, Batman puts forth numerous questions to our morality. From the latest film, questions such as 'Will you sacrifice a single life to save many?', 'Would you take away privacy, and in a larger extent freedom, of ordinary citizens to cope with terrorism?', 'Would you sacrifice your own life for others?' and 'What is truly incorruptible form of justice look like?' are asked. Such questions were bound to batman from the very beginning.

Another aspect of batman that I enjoy is the psychology involved. Any psychologist or psychology student should study Batman as a case study. Question: When was Batman truly born? Was it the time when Bruce Wayne witnessed the death of his own parents? or perhaps when he went around the world to study the meaning of Justice and Morality? Or even when he was training in the mountains?

Other issues within Batman and Bruce Wayne was which was the true essence of the character? The flamboyant Bruce Wayne or the cold, unfeeling Batman? This seems like split personality given form to me. Furthermore, after prolonged crimefighting, what will his psychological profile be like?

Batman accumulated numerous allies throughout his career. Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Batwoman, the Spoiler, Sasha Bordeaux, the Oracle and, of course, Alfred were just a few examples of allies that helped Batman almost exclusively. This however also brought more questions as the storyline goes on. Questions on how Bruce treats them: Are they considered family as he claimed? Or perhaps a small army? Does he seem them as troops or allies? Batman seems to understand that he is unable to fight crime and corruption on his own, yet prefers to be the loner that he is.

Of course, the questions of whether Batman is needed by Gotham or by Bruce Wayne is ever-present. In fact, it seems to be the main reason that prevents Bruce Wayne from having a sustainable love-life, even if the other party involved was fighting crime with him or not. Whether Bruce actually enjoys being Batman and fighting crime in the dark is without a doubt. The control of power in the night, armed with an arsenal of gadgets, Batman is perhaps a manifestation of Bruce's dark side. This question is pressed further by the numerous psychotic villians that seem to turn up. Many have questioned that perhaps it was Batman's presence that attracted these lunatics, such as Catwoman, the Penguin, the Scarecrow and most terrifying of all, the Joker. The eternal chicken-or-the-egg issue is a valid one, considering that Gotham never had such characters before the Dark Knight showed up.

I invite Janell, Teng Soong, Tannie and other psychology-loving friends to give me a comment or 2 on Batman. It would be fun to discuss this intriguing character.

Basketball is a strange game. It is a great game to watch, as everything is exposed to the viewer. Expressions are not covered by masks(unlike ice hocky, american football), player's build are exposed for all to see(unlike american football or waterpolo) and skill levels are obvious (unlike gymnastics or golf). Anyone can watch a basketball game and immediately pick out who is good and who is not, no matter what level it is played at(NBA, Olympics, neighbourhood court). Even if the person watching does not know a thing about the game.

Yet, at the same time, there is always more about basketball. No one has a complete or total picture of the game. Even the players themselves do not comprehend the game in its totality. The story of basketball cannot be told completely by statistics, unlike baseball or soccer. So while the game is being exposed to such an extent to anybody who watches the game, it seems that there is always more under the surface, like an iceberg. The simplicity, yet complex nature of the game is what makes basketball such a contradictory sport. Which may be the reason why I fell in love with it. Im equally contradictory.

Perhaps im confusing you. Let me try to explain. There are more factors within affecting the game of basketball than any other sport in the world. Lets go through some factors.

Pace
Bball is known as a fast paced game with points being scored in a hurry. However, the pace, while fast compared to golf or soccer, can change a great deal. In an NBA game a slow paced game can average as low as 70+ points to as much as 140+ points not including overtime. That is a range of almost 50 points. Almost half of what the NBA team average scores. No other sport is dictated by pace to such an extent, despite bball having the 24 sec shot-clock.

Range
What other sports has that much concerns of where you shoot from? The further you are from the basket, the harder it is to shoot. Yes, I do know that the same holds true for other sports. But what about the 3 point line? An additional point awarded for being that range, creating a whole new dimension of the game. Soccer do not award extra points if you fire in from half the field away, much as many would like to.


Fouls
Interpreting the rules of bball is an art form. Different people have different thinking of what the rules are. For example, the NBA hardly calls the traveling violation yet most school competitions are not as lenient. No other sport has that, other than the interpretation of diving in the penalty box in soccer.

Team vs Individual
Take 2 teams of any sport and put them head-to-head. Assume both team are of equal strength and talent. Can an individual just forgo the team concept and go solo against the other team and win? The answer is a big NO, except for basketball. There is a strange phenomena that can a player can just score, no matter what the defense does. Will it occur often? Nope. Bt it has happened numerous number of times to various players, regardless of skill level. Thus, it is entirely possible one man can win the entire team on his own.

I must elaborate on this further. Assume that one of the players is extraordinary while the rest are mediocre. Does he shoot a difficult shot, knowing that he has a higher chance of getting it than his teammate, even though his team mate has an easier shot? It is a problem that has plagued many great players(Micheal Jordan, Kobe). It seems that only in basketball does such a dilemma occur to such an extent.

Size
Does size affect other sports? Yes. Taller soccer players have a higher chance to header the ball, while wider waterpolo players have the girth to push around smaller players. However, in basketball, the size of the players greatly affects the game. Since the basket is put at a height, tall usually means an advantage while wider players can bully people in the post. Smaller sized players are normally quick and hard to keep up, while thin players have the finesse to squeeze through crowded spaces. In truth, no one physical aspect is better than the other. Tall does not mean you are better than shot, even with the same skills.

Offence vs Defence
Another age old problem in basketball. Why the argument, one might ask. Because, a game can be won when forgoing one or the other. A power offensive team can just overwhelm another team while playing little defence. On the other hand, tight D can constrict your opponents to the extent that they score less than you do, even if your offence is horrible. Of course you would want to be good at both. But that is seldom the case as offense and defence normally affects each other. A player focusing on defence does not usually have the same production offensively. So a focus on one aspect is usually required.

Complexity in Defence
In the world of defence, bball is more difficult to perform than any other sport. There is just too many factors to involve. Spacing, other offensive players, your own team mates, the restricted area (the dreaded 3 second rule), etc. It normally takes an NBA team years to formulate an effective defensive strategy, unlike the soccer premier league in England.


There are other factors; to write them all will make this a veeery long post, and it is long enough as it is. Other factors include numerous skill sets, positions of the players, strategies (both complex and simple), aggressiveness of the player, etc.

Im not writing this post to proclaim that basketball is the best sport in the world. That is up to the individual. IM just commenting that basketball is a diverse and complex sport, though it may seem relatively simple and straight forward to the average viewer.

To clear any misconceptions, I must state that I do not only enjoy the game of basketball. I love other sports such as badminton, soccer, waterpolo and swimming. But that exposure to other sports has me even more convinced of the diversity and complexity within the sport of basketball.

A basketball kaki is a friend whom you can expect to play with. It may not be a frequent thing, but they are the first people on ur mind when u just feel like shooting some hoops with someone. You might know him well, or you might not, it doesnt matter. With basketball as the common language, you are friends anyway.

Some historical background about the clique that i currently play with. In JC1 there was an inter-faculty basketball competition. Made out of players who are not familiar with each other, let alone play with each other, my team, called Tian Zui, lost in the first round and got kicked out(I was depressed for days). But there was unexpected side effect, it brought serveral players together as kakis.

Marcus and Teng Soong were in that team and we played with each other frequently after the competition ended. By pure fate, we ended up playing together with my primary school friend, and my shi fu in bball basics, Zhi Feng.

The 4 of us den started inviting more and more kakis, as our small basketball troupe started to grow. I'm going to do something fun for once in this blog. Im taking each of my basketball kakis and link them to an NBA player. Those who do not know the NBA, or just plain uninterested in basketball, is best to ignore this post.

So... Roll call!!

Name:Teng Soong
Nickname: Larry Birdman
Position: Small FOrward
NBA Player:



The best offensive player on our team, sans passing, the best i could come up with for him is Dirk Nowitzki.

Lethal from distance, with a nice soft touch. Avoids contact, uses finesse, have pathetic defense, poor rebounding for their height, and have a mean mid-range jumper. Difference in shooting range though(Teng is more mid-range while Dirk is a former 3 point champion).



Name: Marcus
Nickname: I have no idea. Someone please give him one. How about the 'Paddle':P?
Position: Center
NBA Player:



Tallest player on the team and part of the founding 4.

Strong rebounder with inconsistent offense. Brilliant one moment, cold the next. Both also enjoy the occasional mid-range jumper. Difference in height(Randolph is onli 6-9, below average for his position).



Name: Zhi Feng
Nickname: the Clerk
Position: Point Guard, Shooting Guard, Small Forward
NBA Player:



Hard to choose, but Jose Calderon is the best I can come up with.

Highly efficient with very few turnovers. Both have a devastating change-of-pace move and high on-court IQ.



Name: Wenhui
Nickname: Sleepy
Position: Point Guard, Shooting Guard
NBA Player:



Almost perfect fit with Monta Ellis.

A very stylish player, coming up with sometimes-impossible shots out of nowhere. Flashy passer with high turnover rate. Less-than-average 3 point shooter. Difference lie in mid-range shooting(Monta is usually lights out).



Name: Kai Jun
Nickname: Monkey, Froggy
Position:Point Guard
NBA Player:



A difficult choice. Was either Devin Harris or Jordan Farmar.

Quick point guard. Scores in a hurry and an above-average defender. Both have fantastic ball control. Biggest difference is that Kai Jun is left handed while Ellis is right handed.



Name: Benjamin
Nickname: Rubber-band Ben
Position: Center, Power Forward
NBA Player:



Our best rebounder by far.

Powerful rebounder despite small stature for their position. Consistent outside shot. Ben, however, doesn't block shots that often.



Name: David
Nickname: Medic
Position: Point Guard, Shooting Guard
NBA Player:



Best player on the team. Period. He might disagree with the selection though.

Game changer. Can switch on or off offensively whenever he wants to. Lockdown perimeter defenders. Emotional leaders on the court. Main difference lie probably in jump height.



Name: Jin Hui
Nickname: 3 step man
Position: Center
NBA Player:



Hardest for me to choose. Once compared to the great Charles Barkley. Can't really disagree with that. However, I'm using current NBA players.

Step 1: Pass the ball to him in the inside. Step 2: He pivots. Step 3: He shoots and scores. Elton Brand is almost automatic on the key, with a variety of skills and a dominant rebounder and interior defender. Difference lie in body type.



Name: Wee Cheng
Nickname: Backstabber
Position: Shooting Guard, Small forward
NBA Player:



Quickest hands in the team. He probably already stole your ball before you even realised.

Super fast hands. Great passer with a reliable jumpshot. Difference is greatest probably in the speed.



Name: Xinhe
Nickname: Starhub
Position: Point Guard
NBA Player:



Wish he was around to play more often.

Skilled at directing the offense. Quite slow for their position. Usually available for the outside jumper.



Name: Jia Hao
Nickname: Energizer Battery
Position: Shooting Guard, Small Forward
NBA Player:



Soft spoken but high energy.

Spark plug off the bench. Strong rebounder for his position. Very quick. Reliable jumper and aggressive defender. Differ most in aggressiveness.



Name: Wenjie
Nickname: Twister, Left-hand Hooker(what a horrible nickname)
Position: Point Guard, Small forward, Power forward, Center
NBA Player:



haha... my opinion of myself. Therefore, not accurate.

Versatile but weak-minded. Tend to enjoy being in the background, content with passing, playing defence or rebounding. Both left handed. Inconsistent Shooting. Difference lie most in height. (Lamar Odom is 6-11, above average for small forwards/power forwards).





So what do you think of my selections? Disagree? Lemme know. All comparisons are done in relative to the neighbourhood court. Like the NBA scaled downwards.

What is the first thing that comes to mind when the word 'philosophy' comes up? Most of us would probably think of old men with weird names, like Plato or Socrates, sitting together and coming up with troublesome questions such as 'what is the meaning in life?' or 'why does the universe exist?'

It is because of this reason which why majority of people tend to shun philosophy. It is viewed as a subject without any quantitative findings, which makes most students even more uncomfortable. To make matters worse, majority of the questions asked within the realm of philosophy seems to be without any answers, unlike, say, science.

That is where the concept of philosophy is wrong. Philosophy is not a subject, it is a way of life. The answers are simply not important, it is the questions that matter, and the pursuit of these answers. Or rather the emphasis on the journey, than the destination. You do not need to know who Democritus is to be a philosopher. If you are studying about Plato, you are studying history more than philosophy.

Science is also not different from philosophy; it is the result of it. Early scientist in ancient Greece, cradle of western civilization at that time, were mainly philosophers in pursuit for the answer. Rather than trust in mythology that was persistent at that point in time as the 'true' answer of existence, they investigated nature, and science was born. The word 'philosophy' itself means 'love for wisdom' in Greek.

Philosophy does not refer to set rules. The sentence that starts with 'My philosophy is...." in itself does not make any sense. Philosophy, in fact, ignores rules. It ignores general perception, it ignores other's opinions, it ignores lifestyles and upbringing. It teaches us to break these rules in order to find that 'true' answer, impossible to find as it may be, and be better for it.

So what do I mean by philosophy is a way of life? As I have said before, the essence of philosophy is to question. Question what? To question everything. From your existence to the universe, from why your younger brother is so irritating to Death. Everything. And in doing so, you will find more meaning in the actions you perform. Brushing your teeth every morning will no longer be a routine, it would become a quest. Studying for a test wont be just another necessary thing to go through, but a chance to gain knowledge. When each action has meaning to it, you will find that your life itself will have a purpose.

I'll bet many of you would half expect me to type 'Carpe Diem!', another famous philosophy, but what i have said is true. It is ironic that while searching for answers to those important questions, as silly as each question may seem, the answers probably lie in the search itself.

Furthermore, one would also enjoy a greater sense of calm. Minor troubles do not seem to hurt as much, in fact they seem rather petty, while the joys in life are enhanced. As your life is enriched, you will view the lives of others in a different light. If only we would simply question.

My love affair with strange sport of tossing an orange ball into a tall hoop started when I was 8 yrs old. My mom had bought a ball, knowing that she has to expose me to different sports to find my niche. It was a cheap, rubber ones, painted in red, white and blue. When I touched the ball, at that age, I felt like it was a part of me, instantly merging, integrating into my very being. I couldn't wait to test out the new toy.

My mom drove me down to a neighbourhood court, and watched quietly as i attempted to throw the ball in. The hoops seemed so tall, an unattainable goal. But it only made me more determined. Again and again, the ball went up. Some missed the rim totally, and some clanged hard off. And there were those oh-so-close shots that just wont go in.

I've seen people hit shots like it was nothing and I knew I was weaker in skill and strength. But hey, the ball nearly went in didn't it? That means I was nearly as good as them, doesn't it? That was how i thought of my skills when I reflected on the small shoot around. I had only needed to practise a bit more, before I will enter the league of the pros such as those in secondary school.

However, that, of course, was not going to the the case. I played ball constantly by myself after the first encounter, but never really found myself a good basketball kaki until I was Primary 5 when I met up with Zhi Feng. He taught me the basics, and we played together with Li wei, another classmate of ours. We progressed steadily; Zhi Feng went to the basketball team at the Chinese High, now called Hwa Chong Institution; I practiced on my own, since my own basketball school team's training clashed with my swimming training.

We became competent in the game. I rose to the top of the hierarchy in the neighbourhood court, using superior speed and height to beat most people. I then travelled around with a ball, looking for more and more people to play with or against. My dismal defence start to pick up as I went to courts in Hougang, Buona Vista, Ulu Pandan, Marine Parade, Bedok, Tampines, Jurong, Clemnti and countless other courts I cant remember where.

The people I played with were the best part. I saw gangsters that play with each other. I saw that they can be honest and caring, yet malicious and brutal. I met noobs and taught them what I knew. I was awestruck by girls with skills a thousand times higher than mine. I was stunned guys towering 2 meters above me. I met up with foreigners that have no language platform similar to mine except for basketball. I played one-on-one with blacks from the US and got elbowed, kneed left, right and center for it.

My brother, influenced by me and the stylish aspect of the game, joined in the fun. We had characterized 'hood players into different categories: Noobs, godbies, peers, god-pros and pros.

Noobs would be those with limited or no experience in the game. The causual players that are just in it for fun. Win or lose, it doesn't matter.

Godbies have limited-to-average experience on the court, and think they can beat anyone. They clothes are always stylish, and they always try to be the leader on the court, either by barking instructions or by trying to score the most points, usually trying to score against multiple opponents. Then enjoy bullying noobs on the court, for it makes them feel good about themselves. They wont take a loss for an answer, and would almost surely will blame someone else for it. As you can see, I hate this group the most, and they are, unfortunately, the predominant group in most courts.

Peers are people with decent standard, and choose not to brag about it. My favourite group to play with by far as the games are usually competitive and fun. They are usually willing to share the basketball and are not above taking any advice.

God-pros are the same as godbies, except that they are much better in terms of skill. they are the people who layup, shoot or dunk over your head, and would make sure you remember it. And you cant do anything about it cos they are usually just that good. The worst kind in all the groups, and thankfully not many.

Pros same as peers, except they are much more skilled. If a god-pro rubs his skill in your face, call a pro friend to help you trash the guy's ass, so you can see the look on his face.

Looking back now, it seems laughable that a small rubber ball was able to propel me into the world of 'hood bball. It is quite remarkable actually.