Jump to content

drag it

Members
  • Content Count

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

drag it last won the day on April 15 2019

drag it had the most liked content!

About drag it

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks for posting, very helpful since it allows us to declare this the undisputed world champion pathetic excuse for sportsmanship, and to move on to the next topic since this performance cannot be topped.
  2. I thought that was a short list "worst loser" but did not have the same reaction to the Kendall Cross OTT loss mentioned in other responses. Kelber was bad. Brands wrestled a bad match, got smoked by a guy he probably should have beat (and had before), then pouted and wouldn't shake hands while storming off. Cross seemed different to me. You had two amazing wrestlers going at it for the very highest of stakes (in reality an Olympic gold vs nothing) in a thrilling battle beginning to end. Terry clawed his way back in the match after the big early throw but ran out of time and then, just emotionally spent, literally crawled off. I thought it was sad and poignant, but not a "worst loser" or even really a "bad loser" moment. Terry actually tapped Cross on the last couple of breaks in what looked like respect. And after time ran out, Cross, out of pure respect to Brands's heart and sympathy for his devastation, tried to touch Terry's face, which Terry brushed away lightly but didn't freak out on him.
  3. He was phenomenal, so explosive and aggressive, as a freshman, just kept attacking and attacking with so many different ways to score. Then every year after that he got more conservative. It reminded me of Delgado, these California Perry recruits who won their first championship attacking relentlessly, then got much more tactical and less aggressive when they won their second championship, then lost their edge. Delgado was brutally criticized for his cautious style in his second championship (junior) year which was really bizarre because as a sophomore his stated strategy was to shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot some more. The contrast was best illustrated by his two Big Ten titles: 2013, endless attacks vs McDonough, takedowns all the way to the end, with his home crowd going nuts; 2014, a truly dreadful snooze fest, 11 minutes of wrestling without a takedown with Megaludis taking all the committed shots, Cael in the corner wondering what had happened to wrestling, the crowd booing, and Megaludis shouting and threatening him during and after the handshake. Martinez wasn't as extreme but the conservative transformation was pretty similar.
  4. I predict Va. Tech -- wrestling considerations trumping geographical preferences. Real bummer for NU if he goes through with it. Storniolo and his assistants have done a great job rebuilding from the program implosion a few years back and as of March 9th were set up for two years of Rivera and Deakin being NCAA top seeds, but now between the virus and the transfer the team won't get a shot at all those points either year.
  5. This is a thoughtful post and a very well constructed ladder. My only disagreement is with the period. I think that if the weight works for Nickal, he could have an outside shot at beating Taylor. I'm not a Nickal fan,, but he is uber talented, knows no limits, has a knack for rising to the occasion, and knows Taylor well. Plus I think the one year delay is very fortuitous for him as he can use it to his advantage as a wrestler who has consistently demonstrated a great capacity for growth.
  6. Fair enough. Totally understand why you posted, and agree that everything about the du Pont cluster#%@! was astonishing. I just think it's better to let this aspect of du Pont go and focus on more recent events and/or situations where the alleged discrimination is not inextricably linked with an overriding insanity.
  7. I'll help what you see as your argument by reporting that it looks to me like the case was settled. The docket references settlement discussions and then eight days later recites that the case was dismissed. To me, however, this doesn't make any of this any more relevant or helpful to the discussion, for all the reasons discussed by many above, which goes to your other point which I'll agree with -- I do fervently wish I had never opened and subjected myself to this thread.
  8. We know that du Pont technically discriminated against them on the basis of their race, don't we? As others have explained, he removed everything and person with a black exterior from his property. I didn't dispute that technical point and it wasn't my (and others') problem with the discussion. I disagree that I was required by good faith to acknowledge that several of the people who were discriminated against because of the color of their skin sued this highly unstable person, just as I didn't need to recite that Nancy Schultz sued (and got a settlement for a reported substantial eight figure sum) for driving up to her husband, pointing a gun at him, and firing several bullets into him in order to kill him. A fact in support of an established point is no more relevant than the established point. My stated concern in my post was the overall relevance and helpfulness of the topic of the post in the greater context of the very, very real issue of the experiences of black U.S. citizens, in this case wrestlers. For instance, the original post gave as a rationale for dredging up the quarter century old du Pont mess in the context of the current political and social upheaval the failure of the wrestling governing bodies to make du Pont "face any consequences for" his discrimination against black Foxcatcher wrestlers. But in your post reacting to mine, you said that "I think USA Wrestling did the best they could under the circumstances." My (rebuttable) presumption is that they botched du Pont on many levels, but regardless, if you do think they did the best they could, why have we gone through the rancor of this post's discussion when the governing bodies' handling of the situation was a, if not the, stated news hook for raising the topic? There was a perfectly good original post regarding black wrestlers' experience. It's essential to have the discussion about race and wrestling. And I could think of other, relevant topics for specific discussion that might merit a new thread, such as the experiences of black coaches, or how our greatest black wrestlers' accomplishments are viewed compared to white peers. I think there are focused, tough, relevant questions that could be asked on those subjects that might be provocative without being needlessly inflammatory. But for the reasons I gave earlier, I believe that this thread was unhelpful and impeded rather than fostered the conversation about race in the wrestling community.
  9. I respectfully suggest that this was not a helpful stand alone topic. There was already an important thread on the board which has generated a lot of replies on the very important, timely, and necessary topic of the experience of black wrestlers -- which has been marked by a history of substantial overt and subtle discrimination, just like other sports and the rest of American life. The Dupont mess is so complicated and nuanced that this thread turned into an unhelpful, irrelevant diversion. As pointed out, Dupont's central and overriding problem was indisputably a terrible mental illness. This manifested itself among other things with a bizarre aversion to all things, including humans, that had a black exterior. Do we really need to try to figure out if this deeply ill man was also somewhere on, and if so, at exactly what spot and when he arrived there, the spectrum of racism? Isn't it pretty clear that the entire Dupont affair was poorly handled by wrestling governing bodies? And is it really necessary to point out that he treated both (white) Schultz brothers more poorly than anyone else, including by intentionally shooting and killing one of them, such that a major movie and documentary were made on the subject? At this transcendent moment in our history, we need our public discourse, in order to help better our society, to have relevant focus while avoiding inflammatory sideshows.
  10. Pat is fabulous. Great voice, describes the game beautifully, has this terrific way of telling you how the play is likely to end up just through the lilt of his voice. Even though the Cubs TV announcers are quite good, I will often sit outside and listen to him paint a verbal picture on the radio even when I could watch on TV just because it reminds me of being a kid long ago and only having radio access to some games. And he has for decades been unfailingly patient with ex-player color commentators who really have no business on the merits doing major league broadcasts (Santo then Ron Coomer, a very pleasant guy who adds nothing to the listener's understanding of the game). To get back to the post topic, Ironside is definitely more proficient and gives more insightful information than those guys, but his habit of yelling, screaming, emoting over the play-by-play, often just when the listener most needs to hear the description clearly, rings a bell with any Cubs fan.
  11. You don't find this to be a professionally done call of one of the biggest plays of the season?
  12. I try to listen to the PSU and Iowa broadcasts when I'm not at a TV, or if I can sync them up over the TV broadcast. It's cool listening to people who regularly broadcast matches. Byers' (PSU) style isn't my usual preference, but the PSU folks love him and he does a great job at what he does. I would prefer it if he rationed the histrionics -- such as for his call of the Joseph pin of IMar, which was extraordinary. I really enjoy Grace's play by play on the Iowa broadcasts (him as one man in the booth, which happens on occasion, is great, too). He's got a nice low-key style, gives the information you need, and you know when he gets worked up it's important. Grace is also a good fit with Ironside, who is not, um, low key. You do have to love the Ironside passion, though, since you absolutely understand where it comes from and how genuine it is. As a Cubs fan, he reminds me a lot of Ron Santo, former top of the line player for the team he is broadcasting and no broadcast polish at all, just a pure homer who will literally just shout something unintelligible at the most important point in the broadcast.
  13. I think but am not sure that Johnson is the one who used Silver Fox. I think Gobbons is very good. He has a good low key manner, doesn't talk too much, imparts his substantial knowledge in simple terms, and is reliably on point in his predictions. By contrast I find Johnson to be too verbose, he dumps data like crazy in a way more suited to a message board than a fast paced live broadcast. I think ESPN would be much better served by swapping those two for the big NCAA broadcasts.
  14. He did. But he wasn't close to winning that match. By contrast he lost to Russell twice in OT in Russell's two title years. First time in the semis in the very controversial match where it looked like Marion had the TD but it wasn't called perhaps because of Russell's reputation for his incredible "gyro"; no replay yet and this match often credited with helping to change that. Second time in the final in a tight and exciting low scoring match. Exciting when Marion got his escape at 59 seconds of riding time. All this is assuming my memory still works, which is a big leap of faith.
  15. Nice addition. Marion was probably the closest to winning a title of anyone on the list. Two OT losses to Russell, one of which had one of the most controversial calls of the decade. Graff probably second closest, needed an escape to win in OT; instead got put on his back.
×
×
  • Create New...