Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Fair enough--I support getting the calls right as well. That said, I do think it opens a can of worms given that coaches only get a select number of challenges and given that, in this case, the table overturned the call of a highly qualified official (which may or may not have been challenged). I'm not looking to belabor or argue the point really--I think there's some genuine gray area here worth thinking about.
  2. I think that's a good point. Still I wonder (with no dog in the fight): how does the coach's challenge circumscribe what gets reviewed? In this case: if Zain's corner challenged a possible exposure that occurred within the final 10 seconds (which I'm interpreting the challenge to be), why would the refs go back and reverse an earlier call, even if technically part of the same sequence? Maybe I'm not clear on where the points came from specifically. EG: if they came from that final/final flurry, then the timing of the brick seems well within reason. But, if they came from the earlier 2/2 flurry, and accepting the possibility of continuous action,I still would like to know what discretion refs have, beyond a specific challenge, to give/take points in that way.
  3. Sorry if this has been brought up, but in one of the FLO videos, the announcers say that Zain's corner was challenging exposure at the end of the match (not the earlier 2/2 call). If that's the case, there's going to be leniency on whether the brick comes after the buzzer, because some flurries, etc., simply happen at the end of the match. The question for me is why the other sequence got reviewed at all if it wasn't technically what was being challenged. (I don't know the rules well enough to answer that myself.) If it were completely at the table refs discretion, rather than a direct challenge from Cael, the '5 second' question is beside the point--the brick basically just opened the door for the refs to review an earlier call that doesn't seem to be have been challenged by either corner. Again, sorry if this has been covered or if I'm missing the point.
  4. Bo definitely shoots/goes to both sides. A well-rounded technician!
  5. I appreciate your perspective, and I think I follow, but I wouldn't say that a premise needs to be true or false (at least in the social world). They can also be starting points for deliberation that we can show to be more or less valid in a particular time and place. In this case, even looking beyond the woman shown, we can verify that a black man was escorted from the building by authorities. And, if the original post (by Jetlife Dre) has any validity, which I realize would be difficult to verify, there are other instances that do suggest race has been an issue in this particular community--and ways, specifically, that signify intent (e.g., racial slurs). All that said: the media environment makes it very difficult to get at the reality of situations like this, and ultimately, it's difficult to know what 'really' happened. It's still worth discussing in my mind.
  6. I think I get what you're suggesting, and I agree that it's a complicated subject. I also agree that it's super-heightened right now for other reasons, which makes it even more difficult to discuss without getting into a shouting match. That said, I don't think it's counterproductive to engage with these issues in a civil way and see if we can learn something from them, whether personally or as a community. This forum doesn't have to represent the same sh*t show we see on other parts of the web--maybe we can do better.
  7. It's possible to have informed, reasoned discourse without grounding it in empirical data. One premise here is that this incident is an instance of racism--or at least racial tension--and that it's a conversation we should be having in the wrestling community. You don't have to agree that the premise is true, or that we should be having this conversation--but your disagreement doesn't make the premise false, and it doesn't mean that the conversation shouldn't be taking place. Try policing less and reasoning more.
  8. Micic controlled the match, as he should have, given his talent, experience, and weight advantage. It certainly could have been worse:
  9. In my experience, the people may know, but the people don't care.
  10. It seems like Bono can develop talent (see Gross). If he can get a core of high-level recruits, no telling what can happen. Nice coaching staff, too.
  11. This is actually a pretty interesting question. FLO offers a great service in terms of giving the wrestling community access to almost every part of the sport; it's an exciting time to be a fan. One downside in my mind is that the 'total coverage' approach gives people the impression that we deserve all the information all the time. Why not Tweet two top-level D1 coaches and simply demand information? I mean, a wrestling journalist/traveling videographer is on equal footing with a guy who has spent his life working to obtain an HC position and all the responsibilities that implies, right? On a personal level, and since it's the big example this week, I was really looking forward to seeing Lee and Rivera go at it. Even planned my Sunday around it to some extent. The reality, though, is that I would have looked forward to that match anyway, without FLO blowing it up for the purpose of building hype. I get it--you gotta make money--but they're the one's who treat it like PPV match, as if they have any say, at all, over the people involved (whether wrestlers or coaches). To their credit, the guys at FLO bring visibility to the sport, which is a good thing, but they act and communicate as if they are a governing body rather than a corporate enterprise. They create these narratives well ahead of time--usually in house, and in many cases without direct input from parties involved--and then somehow, we find fault when the 'reality' doesn't come to fruition. Again, I'd be disappointed anyway if a potentially exciting match didn't happen, without FLO telling me how coaches are killing the sport. That said: I'm a subscriber, and I'll keep tuning in because I love wrestling--but I don't think FLO deserves access to wrestlers or coaches any more than wrestlers and coaches (free men and women, all) are willing to give.
  12. Thought Picc looked pretty good--some things would have to go the right way, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him wrestling on Saturday night in March.
  13. Gomez is lots of fun to watch--can be dangerous upper body but also gets to the legs. I appreciate the wide open style, even if it bites him once in a while.
  14. I don't see it as calling out Nolf so much as committing to his vision--namely by making it public within a community that will (dang sure) hold him accountable to it (allheseesisgold). Nowhere to hide, and all eyes on the prize. I say good for him.
  • Create New...