Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About denger

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

335 profile views
  1. This is my favorite argument against the push out point. I do like the continued action, completed takedowns and nearfall. I don't know if I like all that more than the strategic edge play of a push out, as action goes. I think it's just different. Cheers on a great point though, red blades.
  2. I dunno. Iowa could finally win a title again, and I don't think I could stand reading all the PSU complaints about it.
  3. I see your initial point HammerLock, but I think the growth of opportunities outweighs the preconceived boundaries. I teach at a small, DII, liberal arts university. We attract Olympic hopefuls in Triathlon and Swimming, but they aren't American hopefuls (maybe some Americans in triathlon are because there are so few opportunities). These international kids are a huge asset to our culture and classroom, and obviously they make huge contributions to our athletics programs. This is an apples to oranges comparison, but I think from the perspective of the university, it's a total win! We get more kids whose vision is to be the best in the world, and I certainly embrace that in my classroom. I think it's a more-is-better perspective as institutions of higher learning are concerned. As for the follow-up spin: Is that a Foxcatcher reference? I don't see it as a pay to play, or a special team operation. I think Michigan comes with solid international appeal, and it must have a robust staff working on all the complications that come with that. They have high academic standards, and guys like Coon are on the wrestling team. Any way you want to spin it, Michigan is doing a good thing for their student athletes. Whether it's good for USA Wrestling is a different discussion.
  4. I don't follow closely enough to make a great argument for this, but I hesitate to put any of the non-Olympic guys above the others - especially in this qualifying year. I'd simply take Eagle's list above and bump Yazdani and Uguev above Cox and Dake. It's not that I don't believe in our two gold-medalists, but I think their challengers were fewer.
  5. I've explained this several times to my outraged liberal friends (and I personally lean left): First, this should have been handled between the kid and his coach in October/November when the kid reported to practice. It's the coaches' responsibility to communicate the rules to the wrestlers, and the school's responsibility to procure proper equipment. The coach should have known from the beginning whether the equipment was legal. I suspect that the equipment was furnished by the kid and his family rather than the coach/school. Either way, this should be the first point of discussion. I don't know who usually pays for special equipment these days, but it seems to me that it's in the schools' legal interest to do so. Next, if there was an equipment problem, then it should have been handled after weigh-ins. If the kid had illegal hair and wanted to wear special equipment, then that should have been approved at the same time as skin check, etc., in a locker room out of sight, between the kid, the coaches and the ref. It seems to me that this is where the ref screwed up. Or, if it IS within the rules to get past this stage without addressing the situation, then a rule needs to change so it doesn't happen again. Honestly, I first explain to my outraged friends that mat-side haircuts have a longer history affecting white kids - think about the hairstyles of the 70s and 80s. Cultural norms aside, if the rule is interpreted objectively, then this was within the rules and not unprecedented. Whether there should have been a more culturally-sensitive interpretation is a different discussion. Whether the ref had demonstrated racist behavior in the past is also a different discussion. Whether the rule should be changed is also a different discussion. When viewed objectively, this action was discriminatory of hair but not of race, despite the optics. Rather, it shows how a lackadaisical approach to interpreting rules can meet an unfortunate outcome. It seems to me that the question is not about hair, natural state or whatever, but rather about equipment. I don't think a governing body can write rules about how people wear their hair without discriminating, so they should leave that alone. They can certainly write rules about what interferes with athletes' ability to compete, and the refs' ability to observe action - I'm thinking of Fix v Gilman and the no-call head gear grab: when challenged, the video evidence was not clear because Gilman's hand was not clearly visible within Fix's massive hair.
  6. Can someone please calculate what Michigan's team score would have been?
  7. Top 6 in the Olympic weights. We don't have any of those yet.
  8. When I was in HS in the 90s, our 160lber was probably the best athlete on the team. He liked to grab you by the junk and do other sexually suggestive things to express his dominance, probably to express his homophobia too and perhaps some curiosity. I was the 119lber and an inferior athlete, but it was clear to me that I had to fight him. I obviously didn't win that fight, but I gave it all I had, which was enough to catch the attention of some adults, and he cut it out. Bullies don't always need to be defeated, but we can probably all agree that they do need to be fought. Abuse happens when someone exercises their power over someone, and when it works it's because of the shame and isolation that a victim feels. It's easy to imagine that I would fight the doctor too, but he wasn't a peer, and he wasn't in a place where physical combat settles all scores. He wasn't a bully who needed a sock in his mouth, he was a serial sex offender who used his authority over student athletes. He was also an official of the university and operating out of an examining room where the students were isolated. I highly doubt that a physical altercation seemed like a viable option for the students who were being abused. Risk an assault charge? Risk losing your scholarship, place in your closest community and reason/means for going to university? I don't think so.
  9. I heard an NPR radio show several years ago about the theory/philosophy of trolling. I did some googling and couldn't find a link, sorry. Notable was the misnomer of the troll being the pest under the bridge shaking people down. Instead, "trolling" was derived from the action of dragging the bottom of a river to stir up the sediment. Though this action is usually done while looking for something very specific, other things can also be uncovered. In the case of internet trolling: biases, old sentiment, old ideas that were once laid to rest but again agitated. I can appreciate a good troll job.
  10. Mark Churella's wikipedia page says he qualified for the 1980 team. Team USA's page lists Chuck Yagla at 149.5lbs and Leroy Kemp at 163.
  11. Based on social media posts by my Evangelical friends, I'm pretty sure it's God's "Will" these days (capital W). I could be conflating His pronouns with His Intentions - I dunno, it's a living language, and I Hate to grammar shame...
  12. I think Cael's success is directly correlated with his excellent chin. It really can't get any better than it already is, so if something changes with his chin, then I think we see the decline. If he grows a beard, it's over. Double-chin, definitely over.
  13. I was shocked when Snyder won his first Gold. I won't be shocked by his successes ever again. If they meet, Snyder is the underdog. I happen to believe that he performs better that way.
  14. ...just wait till it's your turn to wear 4 layers of sweats and feed him another one...he ain't chewing through that!
  15. I remember three types of Old Guy. Only one of them was really bad, and one of them was really good. One was there objectively to wrestle and generally kick your ass. He wasn't necessarily a good wrestler but would give you an interesting look with the man strength backing up his unusual, perhaps outdated style. Second was there to please his sadism. He would claim to be "teaching" pressure points, etc., but he really just showed up to hurt and dominate people. He would leave thinking that the younger generation was weaker than his, conflating his decade of man strength with some sort of nostalgia for his glory days. All it took was for one tough kid to score on him, and he'd never come back! Third was someone who wished he was a coach but didn't have time to commit. He was like the first in that he was objective and not necessarily a great wrestler, but he would see the opportunity to teach and used his seniority to interrupt your bad habits and talk you through it. It was still going to be a tough day with this Old Guy, but you weren't going to get hurt...And you never knew if you scored on him whether it was legit or just a teaching moment, because it didn't hurt his pride.
  • Create New...