Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fletcher

Deadspin article

Recommended Posts

Well-written article on Robles on Deadspin.com. The writer is not afraid to address the non-PC possibility that his disability could have had some hidden advantages (though I'm not posting this to resurrect that tired debate). I also didn't realize what a tough family situation he had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well-written article on Robles on Deadspin.com. The writer is not afraid to address the non-PC possibility that his disability could have had some hidden advantages (though I'm not posting this to resurrect that tired debate). I also didn't realize what a tough family situation he had.

Link, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

I put the same question to Tom Brands, knowing that Iowa had been Robles's dream program. He fumbled through a couple of thin excuses, then suddenly erupted: "Are you looking for a fight?" Thanking Brands for his time, I turned to walk away. "Hey!" he barked after me. "Hey! That's off the record!"

 

Okay, Iowa apologists: go ahead and explain Brands actions here. Can't even respond to a question from a journalist without turning to intimidation and acting like a jackass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the article:
I put the same question to Tom Brands, knowing that Iowa had been Robles's dream program. He fumbled through a couple of thin excuses, then suddenly erupted: "Are you looking for a fight?" Thanking Brands for his time, I turned to walk away. "Hey!" he barked after me. "Hey! That's off the record!"

 

Okay, Iowa apologists: go ahead and explain Brands actions here. Can't even respond to a question from a journalist without turning to intimidation and acting like a jackass.

 

Oh goody another one of these guys :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow .. very well done. He describes wrestling very well IMO ... "The Scramble" .

 

Typically, a wrestling match begins with a series of skirmishes, starting from the neutral position. Grapplers paw and push, cuff and tug one another until one senses he has unbalanced his opponent enough to create an opening, and then lunges at one or both of his legs. The lunged-at wrestler tries to sprawl his legs away or, if he cannot, gives them up and counter-attacks with his upper-body. This begins the "scramble"—a battle of vectors, inertia, and angular acceleration, alternating between strained counterpoise and flashes of explosive motion, as each wrestler tries for a takedown.

 

 

McDonough hurried to the locker room, accepting no handshakes and no applause. There is no second place for Iowa wrestlers. I wonder if he kept his 2nd place medal?

 

I like Smith's comment. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well-written article on Robles on Deadspin.com. The writer is not afraid to address the non-PC possibility that his disability could have had some hidden advantages (though I'm not posting this to resurrect that tired debate). I also didn't realize what a tough family situation he had.

 

I really like his writing style ... very good, and clear, even to a non-wrestling person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the article:
I put the same question to Tom Brands, knowing that Iowa had been Robles's dream program. He fumbled through a couple of thin excuses, then suddenly erupted: "Are you looking for a fight?" Thanking Brands for his time, I turned to walk away. "Hey!" he barked after me. "Hey! That's off the record!"

 

Okay, Iowa apologists: go ahead and explain Brands actions here. Can't even respond to a question from a journalist without turning to intimidation and acting like a jackass.

 

Oh goody another one of these guys :roll:

 

Except Smith was asked the same thing and didn't feel the need to react that way.

 

Last year I chased down John Smith, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and Oklahoma State's head coach since 1992, to ask him why, for heaven's sake, he hadn't recruited Robles to Stillwater. I reminded him that Robles had won a high school national championship after wrestling for just three and a half years. "We ended up not going that route," Smith drawled, looking sheepish. "It was a mistake. I shoulda went that route."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great read! That writer should be our head wrestling writer. Other writers should follow his style! I truly think that their writing style would draw big with non wrestling public to our wrestling world!

 

I'm surprised and disappointed with Tom Brands though.

 

However, his mother would be able to see all of his matches. So, its a sorta blessing for both.

 

I feel bad for him for losing both fathers. I don't understand this since his mother is very gorgeous lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well-written article on Robles on Deadspin.com. The writer is not afraid to address the non-PC possibility that his disability could have had some hidden advantages (though I'm not posting this to resurrect that tired debate). I also didn't realize what a tough family situation he had.

 

:lol: is this legal ?? "was forced to give up his position :lol: or risk serious injury :lol: " :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the article:
I put the same question to Tom Brands, knowing that Iowa had been Robles's dream program. He fumbled through a couple of thin excuses, then suddenly erupted: "Are you looking for a fight?" Thanking Brands for his time, I turned to walk away. "Hey!" he barked after me. "Hey! That's off the record!"

 

Okay, Iowa apologists: go ahead and explain Brands actions here. Can't even respond to a question from a journalist without turning to intimidation and acting like a jackass.

 

How do you know what BRands said when the writer oh-so-unbiasedly says Brands "fumbled through a couple of thin excuses" instead of telling us what Brands said? It could just as easily mean that Brands gave his reasons, the reporter chose to ignore them or dismiss them as "thin" and attacked Brands on the issue, and Brands questioned whether the guy was looking for a fight on the issue when he had already answered the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know what BRands said when the writer oh-so-unbiasedly says Brands "fumbled through a couple of thin excuses" instead of telling us what Brands said? It could just as easily mean that Brands gave his reasons, the reporter chose to ignore them or dismiss them as "thin" and attacked Brands on the issue, and Brands questioned whether the guy was looking for a fight on the issue when he had already answered the question.

 

There are literally zero questions a reporter could ask a coach where an acceptable response is "Are you looking for a fight?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know what BRands said when the writer oh-so-unbiasedly says Brands "fumbled through a couple of thin excuses" instead of telling us what Brands said? It could just as easily mean that Brands gave his reasons, the reporter chose to ignore them or dismiss them as "thin" and attacked Brands on the issue, and Brands questioned whether the guy was looking for a fight on the issue when he had already answered the question.

 

There are literally zero questions a reporter could ask a coach where an acceptable response is "Are you looking for a fight?".

 

maybe tom needs anger management but i'm sure as heck not gonna tell him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the article:
I put the same question to Tom Brands, knowing that Iowa had been Robles's dream program. He fumbled through a couple of thin excuses, then suddenly erupted: "Are you looking for a fight?" Thanking Brands for his time, I turned to walk away. "Hey!" he barked after me. "Hey! That's off the record!"

 

Okay, Iowa apologists: go ahead and explain Brands actions here. Can't even respond to a question from a journalist without turning to intimidation and acting like a jackass.

 

How do you know what BRands said when the writer oh-so-unbiasedly says Brands "fumbled through a couple of thin excuses" instead of telling us what Brands said? It could just as easily mean that Brands gave his reasons, the reporter chose to ignore them or dismiss them as "thin" and attacked Brands on the issue, and Brands questioned whether the guy was looking for a fight on the issue when he had already answered the question.

Why do you identify the author as a reporter when the article makes it clear that he's a psychiatrist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know what BRands said when the writer oh-so-unbiasedly says Brands "fumbled through a couple of thin excuses" instead of telling us what Brands said? It could just as easily mean that Brands gave his reasons, the reporter chose to ignore them or dismiss them as "thin" and attacked Brands on the issue, and Brands questioned whether the guy was looking for a fight on the issue when he had already answered the question.

 

There are literally zero questions a reporter could ask a coach where an acceptable response is "Are you looking for a fight?".

 

Sure there are. You're predeciding that the question was asked as if Brands was challenging the psychiatrist (my apologies to Hurricane) to a fight. He could have simply been questioning whether the person was not interested in an actual answer, but just wanted an argument instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure there are. You're predeciding that the question was asked as if Brands was challenging the psychiatrist (my apologies to Hurricane) to a fight. He could have simply been questioning whether the person was not interested in an actual answer, but just wanted an argument instead.

 

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure there are. You're predeciding that the question was asked as if Brands was challenging the psychiatrist (my apologies to Hurricane) to a fight. He could have simply been questioning whether the person was not interested in an actual answer, but just wanted an argument instead.

 

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

 

That's what I would say if I knew I had no substantive response as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure there are. You're predeciding that the question was asked as if Brands was challenging the psychiatrist (my apologies to Hurricane) to a fight. He could have simply been questioning whether the person was not interested in an actual answer, but just wanted an argument instead.

 

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

 

Whatever keeps you occupied when you arent living under your bridge trying to capture little children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee Van dude... you are right. This writer really seems like the real confronting type... going around picking fights with calm, reasonable people like Brands.

Yup... you sure figured him out didn't you.

What a Tool.

 

Oh, I'm sorry, how well do you know David Merrill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also doesnt say when he asked Smith or Brands this question. What if it was right after the 125 lbs final that night with McDonough right next to him when this guy asked Brands? How would Smith respond to the same question right after his wrestler was beaten by Robles with the kid right next to him?

 

Too many people believe everything that they read or hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...