Jump to content

John Morgan

Members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by John Morgan


  1. 3 minutes ago, John Morgan said:

    My post is in relation to your comment to another poster..."Is there any reason why you also don’t trust medical professionals and science?"   The interview is by Dr. Johnson interviewing Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FCCP, FAHA, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA Internist, Cardiologist, and Epidemiologist.   They are medical professionals referencing science.  Feel free to research and listen to Dr. McCullough in multiple interviews.

    Sorry, meant my posts to be for Wamba.


  2. 47 minutes ago, pawrestler said:

    Against my better judgment what are these supposed to prove? 

    The ‘The Truth for Health Foundation’ gets a number of things wrong in the vaccine section alone:

    ‘the vaccine doesn’t protect against variants’ is false 

    ’no reduced spread’ is certainly debatable 

    ‘no reduced hospitalizations or deaths’ is false 

    They hammer home ‘it’s experimental / not FDA’ approved but then talk about Regeron as an alternative (despite being experimental) and now Pfizer is approved….

    They seem to have very little knowledge of the mRNA vaccine research at least recently. Comparing AIDS and covid isn’t really apples to apples.

    There isn’t really anything cited in this at all either just broad statements…

    The doctors cited in this don’t seem to have any research program — a foot and ankle doctor shouldn’t be cited as a vaccine or IDD expert. 

    I find it kinda fascinating that one of the skepticisms against the vaccine is that you can’t hold the makers responsible yet here we are with a 20 pdf riddled no citations and really no expertise on the topic with errors giving advice…

    Most amazing to me is this document discourages vaccination yet the vast majority of their advantages to home care are actually achieved with the vaccine, definitively! 

    My post is in relation to your comment to another poster..."Is there any reason why you also don’t trust medical professionals and science?"   The interview is by Dr. Johnson interviewing Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FCCP, FAHA, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA Internist, Cardiologist, and Epidemiologist.   They are medical professionals referencing science.  Feel free to research and listen to Dr. McCullough in multiple interviews.


  3. Hi Wamba,

    This is why there is a debate...because of these medical professionals and science.  

    3 hours ago, wamba said:

    Interesting, thanks for sharing at least. Is there any reason why you also don’t trust medical professionals and science?

    I’m not judging you just trying to find out why someone doesn’t trust recommendations of medical professionals and scientists who go through not only incredible rigorous education and who also deal with scientifically proven facts through a peer reviewed system.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWBC-JX6lsg

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.52/r9v.b25.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CovidPatientTreatmentGuide-TFH-7-31-2021.pdf

     


  4. The reason the US wrestlers get beat is not because of conditioning, athleticism, or toughness.  It is usually because they are not as experienced and get out of position or attempt a technique when not in the proper position and thus vulnerable to giving up points.  What needs to be taught is good positioning on the feet and on the mat, then the proper techniques to perform from those positions.  Then repetition, repetition, repetition.  Most wrestlers dont' know the proper position, nor the proper technique, and many don't have the time to devote to the repetition because they go back to Folk or Free and lose the momentum.  

    Amos is a good example.  Are the World GR guys better athletes?  Better conditioned?   Or are they just tougher than Amos?  None of the above.  

    The U.S. can be a powerhouse in GR with the proper elements in place.


  5. 27 minutes ago, Lurker said:

    I’m gonna play the game, why not, hear me out. 
     

    The main thing about weights in the Olympics appears to be gross total of bodies. I personally like this games’ smaller bracket. What about taking that another step, in the spirit of compromise…

    Cut the bracket again to 8, and go back to ten weights. That’s actually a net decrease of 16 athletes per style, but obviously an increase in of four weight classes. That increase creates opportunity windows for more countries to qualify and to medal. The qualifying would be top two at world. Winner of each continental. Top two at last change qual, with a true second. 
     

    Argument could be made for 12 man bracket. That makes an even swap of total qualifiers. I personally don’t like it because I want to keep an even balanced bracket. When we are narrowing it down it really is even more “very best of the best” and I don’t want anyone to have the advantage of a bye after weigh in at the Olympics. An argument to that, could be that top four getting byes gives more incentive to get to the ranking series events, and it’s a good argument. I just prefer even bracket all things considered. 
     

    What would we think about something like that? 

    I like the concept.  i would say keep the total # of wrestlers the same at 96 but spread across 8 weight classes with 12 competitors.   Could still have a 16 man bracket but the top 4 seeds get a bye to the round of 8.  This would eliminate some of the drastic weight cut from the "tweeners."


  6. 1 hour ago, GoNotQuietly said:

    "Criteria to consider a wrestler as passive: • Evading attacks without counterattacks • Grapping opponent wrists without starting an attack • Attacking without any direct contact with the opponent • Regaining initial position right after beginning an attack • Fake attacks (Simulation) • Evading into and maintaining in the passivity zone • Avoiding the Wrestling in the center of the mat • Fixing his opponent in the passivity zone • No hooking despite good position • Defensive wrestling"

    Unless I am misinterpreting this, which is always possible since a lot gets lost in translation with UWW rules, and from what I have heard from various refs, moving from a superior position to an inferior position is a form of passivity. It doesn't often get called, because someone is usually doing something more apparent (head down, backing up, blocking), but it is part of what they are supposed to look for all else being equal.

    As to how much smaller, I think that just using the beginning of the passivity zone as OOB for greco would be fine.  That way you don't have to change all the mats.

    Thank you for doing the research.  Is this for GR or both GR and FS?  There are a number of points to consider but I don't see specifically anything that says removing an under hook is passive.  Maybe "hooking" is meant the same as "under hooking?"  Who knows. 

    Regardless, I don't see referees knowledgeable enough to make these calls anyway.  It seems they are trained to mandate a "passivity" call within seconds and then award a followup point.  I believe the purpose of this is to ensure there are no ties after regulation so heaven forbid, there would be an overtime.  

    Anyway, I appreciate your perspective but I don't agree because I don't want GR to become a form of sumo.  Rule making does matter in how the wrestlers compete and from what I see there is less risk taking today.  


  7. 3 minutes ago, GoNotQuietly said:


    But it’s already a form of passivity in the rules. So you don’t need another rule for it, just actually enforcing that one. Problem is, there are only a couple refs in the country who may be able to call that with appropriate nuance and the rest would be a mess.
    Since it’s easier to circle in in GR, we should make the mat smaller. Welcome to the team.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Pulling an under hook out is already a form of passivity in the rules?  I don't recall this.  Because it is easier to circle back in does not mean the circle should be smaller.  How much smaller should it be?  I'm not sure what team are you referring to?  


  8. 11 hours ago, GoNotQuietly said:

    And what happens in Greco when people push too much? Boring stuff or exciting stuff?

    What rule could you possibly use to force people to get bodylocks from UHs (I don't agree that this is the only purpose of an UH)? It is passive already in the rules, but only one factor which goes into that call.

     

    going for a body lock is not the only purpose of getting an UH of course.  There are many moves from here but if you watch a number of guys they actually don't try for much but rather pull the under hook out when the other wrestler engages.  I am just saying this a form of passivity.

    Regarding the push out in GR I don't mind the rule in this style.  Since you are standing more straight up, it is easier to circle back in than going straight out of bounds.  


  9. 22 hours ago, GoNotQuietly said:

    We have talked about this many times, but I 100% think smaller circles would solve most of the problems with Greco. That said, I mostly agree with LJB that Greco is actually pretty sweet as is, despite the USA being atrocious at it.

    In GR, smaller circle is not the answer as that only encourages more pushing.  One element of the sport that is missing is the importance of the under hook and then the purpose of it.  The purpose of the UH is to get closer to the body for a feet to back move.  If one wrestler pummels like heck to get the UH and then PULLS the UH out, this is a form of stalling/passivity that the referees do not call.  Thus, the pummel matches vs body locks.  I think putting in a rule to prevent this would encourage more body locks and ultimately the throws.


  10. On 8/3/2021 at 8:14 AM, Coach_J said:

    Obvious many of you have never defended a seasoned opponent's rib-crunching gut wrench.  More to that than "stalling."  Defending a legit wrestler's gut-wrench in greco is one of the hardest things you will ever try (harder than in FS, where you can use legs to offset the torque).  My first month overseas I could barely breath because my ribs were so trashed from learning how to defend a gut.  Those of you who think it is just "stalling," go to the nearest room where they train GR and FS and let's see how long you defend a gut using your "stalling" technique.

    The top guy should never get to your ribs...that is a sin.

    https://studio.youtube.com/video/2qJ6GdUSdJ4/edit


  11. 3 hours ago, Lurker said:

    This ^

    Even when you do get a stipend, particularly on international trips, you definitely come out of pocket more than you put in. God bless our USAW officials. They get a ton of **** for being volunteers (mostly by people who wouldn’t dare put a whistle around their neck) 

    The wrestlers (probably 95%) are volunteers too.  I don't have a beef with USAW officials as they are just following the rules of FILA (now known as UWW).  My position is we don't need three officials for a match.  They cut wrestling weight classes because the Olympic Event was getting too big but we still have three officials for every match.  NCAA seems to do just fine with two.


  12. I've refereed a ton of matches and an astute ref who stays well positioned and understands what is going on will jump in immediately when they see the wrestler become defenseless.  If the ref has never wrestled they may not recognize the position or the position as potentially dangerous and not respond quick enough.  I did not see the Jones/Lamont match but from your description the ref should have been all over that like white on rice.  In the Zahid match I saw the move...it was a legal front headlock (had the head and arm) with a lot of pressure causing Nate to pass out.

    I am not sure of how the scoring should go but I would think the way they scored the Zahid match would be more accurate as Jackson was defenseless during the subsequent turns. Lastly, I think they would allow the match to continue once the choked out wrestler is ready.  Otherwise, it may end up in more wrestlers trying to choke out the opponent just to get the win.


  13. Just now, southend said:

    A loss is a loss. In the scheme of things, in this situation, not too meaningful. As was the win, it counts, but the prize was not for first. 
    The results ,go on all their respective resumes for bragging rights. 

    And of course, top 3 are National Team Members for a year...monthly $ stipend, first to get invitations to overseas international competitions, etc. 

×
×
  • Create New...