Hammerlock3

I'd say many of those have a sterile feeling which robs them of their humanity, but have enough nuance to justify existing and are not merely propagandist attempts to prevent people from actually thinking about issues. We both mentioned "pro-choice", thats got to be the best example. You could argue for literally any behavior based on being in favor of people being able to make decisions, plus it ignores the right of fetish to make a decision ever, so it someone makes no sense either externally or within its own rule set.

I assume this is because it's risen concurrently with the idea that victim hood is virtue and "weak makes right" attitude.

i actually appreciate that they don't belabor that point, because unless you are talking to the dorks who run the olympics no one is on the other side of that argument. I just don't appreciate them substituting vapid opinions about that could apply to every weight (save heavyweight). Anyone that statement is not intended to contradict you I'm just making myself clear. Yeah Nomad is cringy result of a modest intellect willfully trying to be interesting.

i'm not implying he said that. I'm saying that as long as we have this few weight classes people are going to struggle and it has nothing to do with 57k being too low.

i describe the debate as non-existent because the problem is that they're are too few weights, which no one is arguing about, not that 57 is too low.

if you mean that cael is too dumb to be aware of gable's impact on college wrestling and his own style then I resent the implication.

Pyles statement made about as much sense as saying we shouldn't have a lowest weight class. He was just trying to act like he was on the right side of a non existent debate that kept Vito out of the trials. Pandering to the moment doesn't get more vapid.

based on what

i wouldn't put a lot of energy into vindicating your avatar.

go over the none wrestling topics page and you'll forget about being called a troll real quick.

Ramos been mentioned?

Its not that there is no drama, its that PSU's reputation is so sterling that if we could see Cael's run of the mill clashes with the admins people would run with them like the titanic just hit the iceberg.

is this a joke

As far as sunshine and roses go, backstage is ugly EVERYWHERE, but i don't disagree at all, PSU doesn't have a financial hold on Cael. I'm pretty sure I saw their AD at big tens and he loves that team. I thought he was a goofy dad until i realized he was engaging with every kid.

As alluded to above, someone like JRob is hard to get into the conversation, but i don't think its because of his coaching quality. Taylor's value as a coach is exaggerated by the aspects of college wrestling that aren't making the sport better (not his fault or a reflection on him). The importance of recruiting and NIL money make having a huge name as a head coach very important. For instance, would you rather have Taylor or Cunningham? As a coaches coach, Cunningham is the obvious choice, as someone who needs to sit down across some big wig potentially get millions of dollars out of them, or someone who can show up in your living room and get whatever they want, its taylor.

they oil companies pay no taxes at all?

heard they have one guy who puts in a lot. pretty sure iowa raises more via what you would call fundraising.

i would refine that statement a bit. "PSU's" warchest is a function of eccentric donors not administrative decisions. I agree that someone buying cael would be the equivalent of musk buying twitter, but its not Penn state who they would be bidding against.

really who?

sense I think I've distilled the thought I'll just put it here. Pyles annoys me because for someone in his position he should be at least one of three things and probably two: 1) A person of encyclopedic knowledge of high school, college or senior level wrestling. He doesn't have any of that. He has a good general knowledge base, but compared to say Willie's knowledge of highschool wrestling, or Jason Bryant's general knowledge he's far behind. 2) Someone with interesting and occasionally valuable insights into the sport itself. His commentary is incredibly banal, he's not very articulate, and he relies on existing narratives when he should be focusing on the narratives that arise within the flow of individual matches. The last one is why I like DC and JB, they're pointing out aspects of tactics and gamesmanship. 3) Someone with inside knowledge. This one gets very annoying because he is constantly referring to athletes by their first names as if they're cronies, yet news never seems to break on Flo first. It gives the vibe that if he knew something interesting he wouldn't ever report it. I wish I could couch it in a way that's not essentially an attack on someone for doing their job, but we're a niche group of people who love the sport, and this is the place to voice such concerns.

no problem

I see what you mean, and i'd even say fair enough to the idea I'm overly cynical about pyles, because as I said I think he thought it was a slam dunk like everyone else but he had to pad out his video somehow. So I'm giving him a test he can't really pass.

i wasn't even replying to you

yeah but at the time Pyles said it was going to be scott and was wrong. The fact that he padded out the video like he always does with lame talk half this forum could have done off the cuff doesn't mean he had inside knowledge or made a smart prediction...