Foley's Friday Mailbag for 11/2/18

[Tom McAndrew]

DT gets mentioned twice, and a Q & A about Cenzo Joseph

For those keeping track, this is week 109, and despite promises he tweeted, no response to Flo's article about Olympic reffing corruption from Foley.

Mike C is back in good graces, as he got 4 of the 11 questions.

You can access this week's Mailbag at THIS LINK

 

[nerfstate]

Wow, lots of love for our guy. I still have a hard time putting DT ahead of Sadulaev in a p4p list, but maybe @ChristianPyles is rubbing off on me. 110% with DT as wrestler of the year though.

 

[CowboyUp61]

I tried to back into it for you, Tom. Seems he was pretty impressed with this year, but no comparison like I asked for.

 

[CoastFan]

The mention of Alexander Karelin was interesting. He led the Russian Olympic delegation for the opening ceremonies on at least two occasions. He held the Russian flag in one hand, with his arm completely outstretched parallel to the ground. He held that for the entire time it took to circle around. The show was intended to intimidate certainly.

Up to the Olympics, Karelin had not had a single point scored against him in over eight years I believe. He was blessed with enormous strength, using his "gut- wrench" to lift opponents off the mat to turn them. That's a considerable feat when those heavyweights are doing everything they can to remain sprawled on the mat face down.

Then there was Rulen Gardner...His victory was every bit as much of an upset as that legendary victory of the American ice hockey team over the Russians.

 

[dunkej01]

I have tried in the past to submit question to TR regarding first the UWW comments, then when he didnt answer, I asked if he was aware of Toms tracking. Could a couple you fine folks send him questions about this? its high time he acknowledges Toms work here, speaks up or we start a new count of .....how many weeks he dodges us.

Dont bother sending them in as Mike C.....that wont work, he knows that guy

 

[nitlion6]

Not wanting to get scolded, but best P4P does imply if both competitors weighed the same and competed head to head number 1 would most likely beat all others listed below #1. Right?
Or have I missed the point of P4P comparisons?

 

[nerfstate]

Not wanting to get scolded, but best P4P does imply if both competitors weighed the same and competed head to head number 1 would most likely beat all others listed below #1. Right?
Or have I missed the point of P4P comparisons?

I’d say that’s conventional wisdom, but that hardly helps us understand Foley, who has a woman at #1 p4p. So he’s saying she’d beat a 50kg version of Sadulaev and David Taylor. I don’t feel like I’m channeling Bobby Riggs when I dismiss that notion utterly. Not to say Yui isn't a freak in her own right, but c'mon.

 

[nitlion6]

I’d say that’s conventional wisdom, but that hardly helps us understand Foley, who has a woman at #1 p4p. So he’s saying she’d beat a 50kg version of Sadulaev and David Taylor. I don’t feel like I’m channeling Bobby Riggs when I dismiss that notion utterly. Not to say Yui isn't a freak in her own right, but c'mon.

He has 3 women listed with no Dake nor Cox to just list 2.
Not taking anything from anything accomplished by the women athletes, but if they were 3 of the 10 best wrestlers on the planet they would have been on their men's teams winning gold medals.

This actually in my mind belittles both the women's and men's accomplishments.

 

[Used2BEerie]

He has 3 women listed with no Dake nor Cox

Kind of redundant don’t you think?

 

[El-Jefe]

Not wanting to get scolded, but best P4P does imply if both competitors weighed the same and competed head to head number 1 would most likely beat all others listed below #1. Right?
Or have I missed the point of P4P comparisons?

The point of P4P is to generate discussion and/or controversy.

I’d say that’s conventional wisdom, but that hardly helps us understand Foley, who has a woman at #1 p4p. So he’s saying she’d beat a 50kg version of Sadulaev and David Taylor. I don’t feel like I’m channeling Bobby Riggs when I dismiss that notion utterly. Not to say Yui isn't a freak in her own right, but c'mon.

There's no understanding Foley. More accurately, there's no point in attempting to understand Foley.

 

[nerfstate]

There's no understanding Foley. More accurately, there's no point in attempting to understand Foley.

With Foley, I feel like I’m always waiting for the punchline, yet it never comes...

 

[El-Jefe]

With Foley, I feel like I’m always waiting for the punchline, yet it never comes...

Foley is the punchline.

 

[dmm53]

Wow, there is such vitriol, anger, and often outright hatred directed toward Foley. And it's pretty evident from reading this and other fora over many years that it is to a very great extent because the largely conservative wrestling community doesn't like, appreciate or even simply tolerate his more occasionally invoked liberal or progressive politics, his embrace of cosmopolitanism and women in wrestling, or his often fair challenges to points that some in the folkstyle community take to be near sacred. The guy is intelligent, well-educated, and well-traveled. He also knows wrestling and other sports pretty well, whether you agree with him or not on particular claims or perspectives. I don't hear the same venom or sarcasm directed at the more right-wing wrestling commentators and posters (who far outnumber those from the other side of the spectrum) and whom one could easily call out by name. Foley was asked a simple question and gave a reasonable response even if you can argue with his ordering. He prefaced his remarks by saying "The limitation of this list is that it's three separate styles and only 10 spots, so by default I'm not including anyone who didn't win the world title in 2018. I think that is pretty obvious reasoning, but it may need to be stated so that nobody feels the need to write that Kyle Snyder (USA) should be included in front of someone on the list." Some of the above comments are too inane and undeserving of a reply. Others completely misunderstand what P4P reasonably means or might mean (and, yes, there are contested views of this term or category). Further, it was Foley's passing opinion, not an official or unofficial ranking. Every week, this thread is predicated on a jab and "joke" that has long run its course in counting the number of weeks since he didn't respond to a question or so-called promise. It's not who is beating Nico in the room, but who isn't beating up on a guy who is in another virtual room (forum). What if this was done similarly for all the other nonsense that occurs and all the other columnists (wrestlers, coaches, fans, and the like)? Maybe its better not to feature or read his column if you think he is always or too-often off base. To his credit, he brings a wider international and sometimes historical perspective that is lacking in other places. He is willing to comment on other martial arts and also on women's wrestling. It might be worth considering giving the guy a break or at least focusing on more fair and reasonable forms of defensible criticism. As it stands now, it is mostly *ad hominem* attacks that are hurled toward him or the column. It's a bit growing old.

 

[Dogwelder]

Wow, there is such vitriol, anger and often outright hatred directed toward Foley. And it's pretty clear from reading this and other fora over many years that it is to a very great extent because the largely conservative wrestling community doesn't like his more liberal or progressive politics, his embrace of cosmopolitanism or women in wrestling, or his often fair challenges to points that some in the folkstyle community take to be near sacred. The guy is intelligent, well-educated, and well-traveled. He also knows wrestling and other sports pretty well, whether you agree with him or not on particular claims or views. I don't hear the same venom or sarcasm directed at the more right-wing wrestling commentators and posters (who far outnumber those from the other side of the spectrum) and whom one could easily call out by name. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Foley was asked a question and gave a reasonable response even if you can argue with his ordering. He prefaced his remarks by saying "The limitation of this list is that it's three separate styles and only 10 spots, so by default I'm not including anyone who didn't win the world title in 2018. I think that is pretty obvious reasoning, but it may need to be stated so that nobody feels the need to write that Kyle Snyder (USA) should be included in front of someone on the list." Some of the above comments are too inane and undeserving of a response. Others completely misunderstand what P4P reasonably means (and, yes, there are contesting views of this term or category). Further, it was Foley's passing opinion, not an official or unofficial ranking. Every week, this thread is predicated on a jab and "joke" that has long run its course tool in saying it has been X number of weeks since he didn't respond to a question or so-called promise. What if this was done similarly for all the other nonsense that goes on and all the other columnists or wrestlers, coaches, fans, and the like? Don't feature or read his column if you think he is off base. To his credit, he brings a wider international and sometimes historical perspective that is lacking in other places. He is willing to comment on other martial arts and also on women's wrestling. It might be worth considering giving the guy a break or at least focusing on more fair and reasonable forms of criticism. As it stands now, it is mostly *ad hominem* points that are hurled toward him or the column.

Hi dmm, that was a lot of words just to get to your main, reasonable point: “it might be worth considering giving the guy a break.”

After consideration, I’ve decided to continue to bust the guy’s balls a bit more, maybe until week 400.

 

[nerfstate]

Wow, there is such vitriol, anger, and often outright hatred directed toward Foley. And it's pretty evident from reading this and other fora over many years that it is to a very great extent because the largely conservative wrestling community doesn't like, appreciate or even simply tolerate his more occasionally invoked liberal or progressive politics, his embrace of cosmopolitanism and women in wrestling, or his often fair challenges to points that some in the folkstyle community take to be near sacred. The guy is intelligent, well-educated, and well-traveled. He also knows wrestling and other sports pretty well, whether you agree with him or not on particular claims or perspectives. I don't hear the same venom or sarcasm directed at the more right-wing wrestling commentators and posters (who far outnumber those from the other side of the spectrum) and whom one could easily call out by name. Foley was asked a simple question and gave a reasonable response even if you can argue with his ordering. He prefaced his remarks by saying "The limitation of this list is that it's three separate styles and only 10 spots, so by default I'm not including anyone who didn't win the world title in 2018. I think that is pretty obvious reasoning, but it may need to be stated so that nobody feels the need to write that Kyle Snyder (USA) should be included in front of someone on the list." Some of the above comments are too inane and undeserving of a reply. Others completely misunderstand what P4P reasonably means or might mean (and, yes, there are contested views of this term or category). Further, it was Foley's passing opinion, not an official or unofficial ranking. Every week, this thread is predicated on a jab and "joke" that has long run its course in counting the number of weeks since he didn't respond to a question or so-called promise. It's not who is beating Nico in the room, but who isn't beating up on a guy who is in another virtual room (forum). What if this was done similarly for all the other nonsense that occurs and all the other columnists (wrestlers, coaches, fans, and the like)? Maybe its better not to feature or read his column if you think he is always or too-often off base. To his credit, he brings a wider international and sometimes historical perspective that is lacking in other places. He is willing to comment on other martial arts and also on women's wrestling. It might be worth considering giving the guy a break or at least focusing on more fair and reasonable forms of defensible criticism. As it stands now, it is mostly *ad hominem* attacks that are hurled toward him or the column. It's a bit growing old.

1. I think its fun to pick on him.
2. I think he can take it.
3. Not everything is politically motivated (and it's dangerous to make assumptions about people's politics based on their opinions around a sport).
   
4. The regular, systemic Russian corruption of the sport should be an extremely high priority for someone like TR--unless it happens to be the hand that feeds you. Hmm--this is a motif I'd think from your posts, you'd probably be behind.
5. Lighten up man, the season is almost here!

 

[El-Jefe]

1. I think its fun to pick on him.
2. I think he can take it.
3. Not everything is politically motivated (and it's dangerous to make assumptions about people's politics based on their opinions around a sport).
   
4. The regular, systemic Russian corruption of the sport should be an extremely high priority for someone like TR--unless it happens to be the hand that feeds you. Hmm--this is a motif I'd think from your posts, you'd probably be behind.
5. Lighten up man, the season is almost here!

Add to this:
6. Professional Journalist Foley routinely says things that are easily disproven by Google.
7. Professional Journalist Foley lived in Chicago for years and yet never once went to Iowa City.
8. Among many, many stupid comments: Foley said Iran is safer than Iowa.
9. Foley routinely stereotypes his political opponents as a convenient scapegoat. For example, conservative rural folks are not the ones blocking their daughters and neighbors from having PIAA women's wrestling. Foley could recognize their shared interest and be a uniter, but he's intellectually lazy.
10. Foley said a female wrestler is PFP better than Sadulaev and Taylor.
11. Foley was (is still?) a paid employee of UWW, and it shows in stupid comments like NCAA Tournament seeding should be like UWW seeding -- plus his long-running refusal to live up to his promise to comment about Rio reffing.

Etc., ad nauseum.

Foley has done many great things in researching and writing about the sport in the past, especially various styles in other countries. That's in the distant past. The fact is that he is intellectually curious about other countries (which is good), but intellectually lazy about and stereotyping of America (which is unprofessional).

I love the sport and believes it deserves better than him. Someone who is a professional.

If someone reads Foley and doesn't think the sport can and should do better, IDK what to say.

BTW, I have no clue what Josh Lowe's politics are (other than he votes straight line Ohio State) -- but the sport can and should do better than him too.

 

[RoarLions1]

As little or as much as my opinion matters, I would like to see this whole thing stop. It's run it's course, and there's nothing to gain, absolutely nothing imo.

The season is upon us, petty bickering about someone else's words isn't a worthy discussion after doing it now for, what, 2 years?

Disclaimer: Only got to sentence two of dmm's rant, but did read most other posts.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

Wow, there is such vitriol, anger, and often outright hatred directed toward Foley. And it's pretty evident from reading this and other fora over many years that it is to a very great extent because the largely conservative wrestling community doesn't like, appreciate or even simply tolerate his more occasionally invoked liberal or progressive politics, his embrace of cosmopolitanism and women in wrestling, or his often fair challenges to points that some in the folkstyle community take to be near sacred. The guy is intelligent, well-educated, and well-traveled. He also knows wrestling and other sports pretty well, whether you agree with him or not on particular claims or perspectives. I don't hear the same venom or sarcasm directed at the more right-wing wrestling commentators and posters (who far outnumber those from the other side of the spectrum) and whom one could easily call out by name. Foley was asked a simple question and gave a reasonable response even if you can argue with his ordering. He prefaced his remarks by saying "The limitation of this list is that it's three separate styles and only 10 spots, so by default I'm not including anyone who didn't win the world title in 2018. I think that is pretty obvious reasoning, but it may need to be stated so that nobody feels the need to write that Kyle Snyder (USA) should be included in front of someone on the list." Some of the above comments are too inane and undeserving of a reply. Others completely misunderstand what P4P reasonably means or might mean (and, yes, there are contested views of this term or category). Further, it was Foley's passing opinion, not an official or unofficial ranking. Every week, this thread is predicated on a jab and "joke" that has long run its course in counting the number of weeks since he didn't respond to a question or so-called promise. It's not who is beating Nico in the room, but who isn't beating up on a guy who is in another virtual room (forum). What if this was done similarly for all the other nonsense that occurs and all the other columnists (wrestlers, coaches, fans, and the like)? Maybe its better not to feature or read his column if you think he is always or too-often off base. To his credit, he brings a wider international and sometimes historical perspective that is lacking in other places. He is willing to comment on other martial arts and also on women's wrestling. It might be worth considering giving the guy a break or at least focusing on more fair and reasonable forms of defensible criticism. As it stands now, it is mostly *ad hominem* attacks that are hurled toward him or the column. It's a bit growing old.

Dude, give me some paragraphs or something. I gave up after the first couple of sentences.

 

[86PSUPaul]

Yeah, I only read the first few sentences, skimmed after that.

 

[dmm53]

I've made my points. I stand by them. Not going to get into a back and forth dogfight on this particular issue or make a further defense of Foley (whom I don't know) at the moment.

Yes, paragraph breaks were in order. I've written enough books and articles to know that. And, yes, an exciting season is upon us. Let the games (matches) begin . . .

 

[nerfstate]

I've made my points. I stand by them. Not going to get into a back and forth dogfight on this particular issue or make a further defense of Foley (whom I don't know) at the moment.

Yes, paragraph breaks were in order. I've written enough books and articles to know that. And, yes, an exciting season is upon us. Let the games (matches) begin . . .

I'm not interested in tit for tat either, but I am going to call you on the "vitriol, anger, and hatred" thing. There is a tremendous amount of that to go around these days in general, but for the life of me, I can't find any evidence of it in this thread. You admitted somewhat to a conditioned response "over many years of fora reading" or whatever, but good columns invite argument. I bet you enjoy a good David Brooks thrashing now and again.... Is Foley a good columnist? Are hits on the website the measure of good? I don't feel like answering those questions.

 

[dmm53]

It's not about keeping track of weeks. That's not the real problem. I get it: that's just a kind of running joke and quixotic attempt at accountability from afar. And, personally, I would like to see the UWW, WADA and other agencies go after the Russians and hold them fully accountable.

Foley, however, has been repeatedly called "communist", "socialist", "idiot" and many, many other names; most much worse than that. They are largely ad hominem attacks. And that has been occurring for years. I was referring to multiple fora (forums) over an extended time period. But if you look back on the comments to his own columns each week, there is indeed frequently vitriol and venom.

I'm not going to go back through this forum to locate those remarks, but one easily could.

(I don't usually agree with David Brooks, but he is thoughtful, reasoned, civil, and learned so I listen to him and read his columns.)

 

[Dogwelder]

Whenever everyone gets done with the long posts, can we get back to laughing at Foley?

 

[smalls103]

Wow, there is such vitriol, anger, and often outright hatred directed toward Foley. And it's pretty evident from reading this and other fora over many years that it is to a very great extent because the largely conservative wrestling community doesn't like, appreciate or even simply tolerate his more occasionally invoked liberal or progressive politics, his embrace of cosmopolitanism and women in wrestling, or his often fair challenges to points that some in the folkstyle community take to be near sacred. The guy is intelligent, well-educated, and well-traveled. He also knows wrestling and other sports pretty well, whether you agree with him or not on particular claims or perspectives. I don't hear the same venom or sarcasm directed at the more right-wing wrestling commentators and posters (who far outnumber those from the other side of the spectrum) and whom one could easily call out by name. Foley was asked a simple question and gave a reasonable response even if you can argue with his ordering. He prefaced his remarks by saying "The limitation of this list is that it's three separate styles and only 10 spots, so by default I'm not including anyone who didn't win the world title in 2018. I think that is pretty obvious reasoning, but it may need to be stated so that nobody feels the need to write that Kyle Snyder (USA) should be included in front of someone on the list." Some of the above comments are too inane and undeserving of a reply. Others completely misunderstand what P4P reasonably means or might mean (and, yes, there are contested views of this term or category). Further, it was Foley's passing opinion, not an official or unofficial ranking. Every week, this thread is predicated on a jab and "joke" that has long run its course in counting the number of weeks since he didn't respond to a question or so-called promise. It's not who is beating Nico in the room, but who isn't beating up on a guy who is in another virtual room (forum). What if this was done similarly for all the other nonsense that occurs and all the other columnists (wrestlers, coaches, fans, and the like)? Maybe its better not to feature or read his column if you think he is always or too-often off base. To his credit, he brings a wider international and sometimes historical perspective that is lacking in other places. He is willing to comment on other martial arts and also on women's wrestling. It might be worth considering giving the guy a break or at least focusing on more fair and reasonable forms of defensible criticism. As it stands now, it is mostly *ad hominem* attacks that are hurled toward him or the column. It's a bit growing old.

spare us all.

it has nothing to do with politics.

 

[dmm53]

spare us all.

it has nothing to do with politics.

Spare us your naïveté. And perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Dogwelder]

Spare us your naïveté. And perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect.

All right, let’s stop with the malapropos name calling. It’s already been decided. Foley will have to endeavor to persevere. The other stuff should wrap up.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I see Cael still hasn't done a Flo documentary.

 

[horraybeer]

Spare us your naïveté. And perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Your confusing smalls103 with T. Foley.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

Spare us your naïveté. And perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Your confusing smalls103 with T. Foley.

I'm confused... who is the dumb one, who isn't as smart as he thinks he is? Or who is the smart one who is overestimating the other's dumbness?

 

[lockhavenlion3]

It's not about keeping track of weeks. That's not the real problem. I get it: that's just a kind of running joke and quixotic attempt at accountability from afar. And, personally, I would like to see the UWW, WADA and other agencies go after the Russians and hold them fully accountable.

Foley, however, has been repeatedly called "communist", "socialist", "idiot" and many, many other names; most much worse than that. They are largely ad hominem attacks. And that has been occurring for years. I was referring to multiple fora (forums) over an extended time period. But if you look back on the comments to his own columns each week, there is indeed frequently vitriol and venom.

I'm not going to go back through this forum to locate those remarks, but one easily could.

(I don't usually agree with David Brooks, but he is thoughtful, reasoned, civil, and learned so I listen to him and read his columns.)

i get you 53. and i'm willing to give up communist & socialist.

 

[Dogwelder]

I'm confused... who is the dumb one, who isn't as smart as he thinks he is? Or who is the smart one who is overestimating the other's dumbness?

Good questions. Also, who is the voice of reason defending a columnist from ad hominem attacks? And who is calling a columnist dumb with very little provocation? #hairtriggernamecalling #adhominemisokaywhenIdoit

 

[Cali_Nittany]

All right, let’s stop with the malapropos name calling. It’s already been decided. Foley will have to endeavor to persevere. The other stuff should wrap up.

 

[smalls103]

Spare us your naïveté. And perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect.

lol. you're telling the people on this board what they think and why and I'M THE ONE that thinks he's super smart. lmao.

i'm friends with Foley, and yet i have no problem telling him when i think he's wrong.

believe it or not, the people on this board and others that read his column might have a little bit of critical thinking ability.

if you think they simply disagree with his political bias (which, btw, is 100% ok), you're using it as a crutch. all you have to do is look at their complaints - which often revolve around his WRESTLING takes.

why on god's green earth is it possible for fans to disagree w/ my wrestling takes because they don't believe they're accurate, but with Foley, it's b/c of his politics.

if you think there aren't holes in some of his (and everyone's) wrestling takes, you need to follow more wrestling.

don't over think this. you're hurting yourself.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

lol. you're telling the people on this board what they think and why and I'M THE ONE that thinks he's super smart. lmao.

i'm friends with Foley, and yet i have no problem telling him when i think he's wrong.

believe it or not, the people on this board and others that read his column might have a little bit of critical thinking ability.

if you think they simply disagree with his political bias (which, btw, is 100% ok), you're using it as a crutch. all you have to do is look at their complaints - which often revolve around his WRESTLING takes.

why on god's green earth is it possible for fans to disagree w/ my wrestling takes because they don't believe they're accurate, but with Foley, it's b/c of his politics.

if you think there aren't holes in some of his (and everyone's) wrestling takes, you need to follow more wrestling.

don't over think this. you're hurting yourself.

Damn smalls, you're up late. Thank you for giving us paragraphs. And italicized, capitalized bold print as a bonus!