I love this quote from the post: "If Ron’s awake, he’s working. He can be at a party, in his pajamas, or at the Super Bowl. Ron is always on the job and the network is always on." That's the world I come from. You have to work your balls off to succeed (as I discuss in tip #6 here: http://bit.ly/5Gccio). Fuck this part-time shit that Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson (at 37signals) are pitching. Ask Larry Bird or Michael Jordan if they worked part-time on their basketball skills?
You know, there's probably a whole class of professional athletes that have a hard time supporting themselves. I don't have the numbers, but I'd expect that most minor-league players don't make remarkable salaries, but they continue for a chance to make it to the major leagues.
Maybe they're not working hard enough. Larry Bird and Michael Jordan both said they were the first to the gym and the last to leave. My point here is simple: there are no shortcuts to success (other than rare exceptions).
"We're sitting here, and I'm supposed to be the franchise player, and we're talking about practice. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, but we're talking about practice. Not the game that I go out there and die for and play every game like it's my last, but we're talking about practice, man! How silly is that?"
I'm not sure why SWalker is being downvoted (unless it's just for his tone). We really need to clarify criteria/comparisons here. Iverson should not be compared to MJ or Bird (IMO), as 37signals should not be compared to Google.
If you want to be the next MJ, Bird, Rice, or Google, you better be working hard... I don't understand why it's trendy to believe otherwise (assuming SWalker is being downvoted in disagreement).
But working hard isn't ever enough to reach the pinnacle of achievement. I could have worked my ass off at basketball, from age 3, and I would have never been an NBA player. Someone with more natural gifts than me, but fewer than Michael Jordan, might work hard his whole life and only brush the minor league/NBA border.
Probably, but you'd be surprised. I don't know if I would say Charles Barkley was "naturally talented" at basketball--his body type was all wrong, especially since he played in the era before everyone bulked up--but he worked his ass off and became one of the greats.
Same thing with Jim Courier in tennis. He became #1 in the world in tennis by working harder than anyone else. He didn't have half the talent or strokes of some of the other guys, but he just worked his balls off. It's the same story in just about every profession: the guys who work the hardest are the guys who climb to the top. Sure there are exceptions, but this is the general rule. Cheers, Scott
Sort of. The minor-league baseball player example is sort of an anomaly - there are certainly baseball skills that one can improve with hard work, but there's not much you can do that will allow you to see the ball out of the pitcher's hand any better. One of the main benefits Barry Bonds saw from the HGH usage was that his vision was markedly improved, and if you can tell which pitch is coming by how the seams are spinning from further away than everyone else, it gives you a very distinct advantage.
A counterpoint to your Michael Jordan example: Michael Jordan, the minor-league baseball player.
Crudely worded and some unnecessary finger pointing here, but your point is correct, to some extent.
As they say, it's 99% perspiration.
As far as DHH and JF pitching a part-time work ethic, I think you missed the point. DHH frequently talks about his building of Basecamp, and he said that you don't NEED to be working 90 hours a week to make a successful product. Since DHH only had 10 hours a week that he could use to work on Basecamp, he advocated for making every single minute count.
not sure my post is inconsistent with anything here. all i'm saying in a nutshell is (i) create a competitive environment, (ii) be disciplined, (iii) work hard, (iv) diligence the guys on the other side of the table and (v) get a good lawyer/advisor to watch your back. yes, i tried to mix-up the tone for venturehacks. thanks, scott
i agree, but i think you need a good lawyer (without a vested interest) to watch your back when you're doing deals. a good lawyer can also help you think through some of the key business issues. cheers, scott
As a corporate attorney representing entrepreneurs, I generally agree in principle with Jason’s position that it is "inappropriate and predatory" for angel groups to charge entrepreneurs fees to pitch them; however, I think it is important to distinguish among the different angel groups and their respective practices. Indeed, if (i) the fees are reasonable/de minimis and are adequately disclosed and (ii) the angel group is providing a legitimate service to entrepreneurs, there may be compelling reasons to support such a fee-based service. That’s why I have strongly recommended in a recent blog post (see http://bit.ly/hAYeu) that Jason Calacanis and John Dilts (the founder and President of Maverick Angels, LLC and an attorney) meet face-to-face and have a live debate (in the great American tradition), which can be shown on the web to all interested parties via ustream. Many thanks.
Thanks Brandon - excellent point. Indeed, Chris Dixon addressed this issue in a recent post here: http://www.cdixon.org/?p=702. Moreover, I made a similar comment to your solid interview with Andrew Warner on mixergy.com (http://bit.ly/dVkS1):
"Lesson #3: understand the deal terms and run models as to what happens under various scenarios. Fenwick & West puts out a quarterly survey of market deal terms in venture capital financings (see, e.g., http://www.fenwick.com/publications/6.12.1.asp?...). At a minimum, the entrepreneur should understand what is "market" and how each deal term plays out in a liquidation. For example, in Q1 ’09, participation only occurred in 51% of the Silicon Valley vc deals and 40% of those were capped."
