Jump to content
ChaosLex

Iowa wrestler cites conscience/faith in defaulting state match (rather than face girl)

Recommended Posts

Never won the states...I wish... just a Baltimore County champ. But yeah the headlock was to get it over with quickly. Instead of doing a single leg takedown, in which there's a good chance your opponent can get to his/her stomach, I chose to lockup with her. I had three moves I liked whenever I could or was forced to lockup.

1. Ankle pick- liked to pull the opponent toward me and when he took one big step in my direction, change levels and pull the ankle skyward. I loved this move actually. Still think it's the prettiest takedown in the sport.

2. Duck-under- get your opponent moving in a circular motion then pull his head down while shooting under his opposite arm and take him down from there. You have to use your left arm to pop his right arm up and give yourself the opening, then use his neck as a lever.

3. Headlock- the easiest way to get your opponent on his back from a neutral position. But you're right it's not a move that'll usually work past the first couple rounds of a tourny. The better wrestlers can feel it coming since it's a basic move. You have to really set it up nice to catch a good wrestler in one from my experience. I actually used to use the headlock a lot early in tournaments against low seeds. It helped to save energy and not show any more moves to other kids in my weight class.

Damn... now I really do feel like Al (Polk High 4 TDs) Bundy lol. As for the subject at hand, I have no problem with what he did but could never do it myself. Like Scottie said there's too much training and pain involved to get to that point and take a moral stand. Guess I'm too selfish that way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't see how not wrestling her is a sign of respect. If anything it's just the opposite. Besides, it's not foreplay. It's competition. She's not hoping to get him to cop a feel, and he's not going to do that. But if he respected her he would have treated her like any other athlete and tried to beat her. Instead he prematurely decided she wasn't his equal on the mat.

You could also draw parallels to the way Muslim and Arab men treat women in the middle east, though even I won't say it's the same thing. But ultimately I don't see it as honorable, even if he didn't ask for and try to exploit the attention he got from it.

This explains why I got kicked off the wrestling team in the 8th grade.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL...so it's okay for someone to take a stand on their own personal beliefs, but as soon as it involves religion/faith it's "time to mock"? But I'm sure if he were holding out until Tibet were free or our country put an end to off-shore drilling, it'd be okay? It's okay to take a stand as long as it's something YOU deem worthy and it's non-religious, right? The hypocrisy is DELICIOUS, Mark. Thank you. Thank you for being soooooo open-minded and respectful of the beliefs of others just like you'd expect in return. This REEKS of, "Please, be open-minded, as long as it doesn't conflict with what I believe. Thanks!"

By the way...the kid wasn't using it as a get-out-of-jail free card. He made the choice, the sacrifice, based on his personal beliefs. If you'd ever wrestled or parented a wrestler, you might better understand what a HUGE deal this is. Wrestling takes a level of commitment and conditioning that's unparalelled in other sports. Even at the Junior League level, kids ages 6 and up spend between 6-12 hours per week working out, practicing for the weekend's tournaments, dual meets, etc. For a kid to forfeit for ANY reason is unfathomable to wrestlers, coaches, and parents alike. The kid should be commended for not compromising his personal beliefs and values to avoid being mocked and ridiculed by open-minded, progressive folks like yourself.

Nope. Kid should have kept his mouth shut. You don't want to wrestle a girl? Here's the entire statement: "I have chosen not to do this. I have my reasons and they're none of your business." And anybody who thinks not wrestling is gonna save Tibet or stop offshore drilling hasn't yet learned to follow the money and is just roadkill waiting to happen, anyway. Don't play the religosympathy card. Just do or not do whatever it is you're going to do or not do. The explanation is either going to be sad or funny...or both.

And how far would your sympathies extend if--instead of playing the "Jesus doesn't want me to wrestle girls card"--he was playing the "I need to shoot my sister because she want's to date out of the faith" card or the "yeah, she's 16 and I'm 50, but the seventh wife has to be a low-milage vehicle" card?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. Kid should have kept his mouth shut. You don't want to wrestle a girl? Here's the entire statement: "I have chosen not to do this. I have my reasons and they're none of your business." And anybody who thinks not wrestling is gonna save Tibet or stop offshore drilling hasn't yet learned to follow the money and is just roadkill waiting to happen, anyway. Don't play the religosympathy card. Just do or not do whatever it is you're going to do or not do. The explanation is either going to be sad or funny...or both.

And how far would your sympathies extend if--instead of playing the "Jesus doesn't want me to wrestle girls card"--he was playing the "I need to shoot my sister because she want's to date out of the faith" card or the "yeah, she's 16 and I'm 50, but the seventh wife has to be a low-milage vehicle" card?

0MQi4.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to point out that the kid is the son of a minister and is homeschooled. This suggests that his family does have strong beliefs, strong enough to not enter their son in public or private schooling. So I don't think he's playing "the religion card" in any way.

Also, according to the article, he refused to wrestle her 3 years earlier with presumably a lot less on the line. If anything it would've been hypocritical of him to wrestle her now just because it's the state championships. Even the girl's father respected his decision saying "I sincerely respect the decision of the Northrup family especially since it was made on the biggest stage in wrestling".

Lastly, I highly doubt a kid who was 35-4 would duck an opponent who was 20-13 just because he was afraid to get beat by a girl. Even in a time in this country where it seems like so many things aren't tolerated, after re-reading the article, I just can't see this as one of them. His stance seems genuine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. Kid should have kept his mouth shut. You don't want to wrestle a girl? Here's the entire statement: "I have chosen not to do this. I have my reasons and they're none of your business." And anybody who thinks not wrestling is gonna save Tibet or stop offshore drilling hasn't yet learned to follow the money and is just roadkill waiting to happen, anyway. Don't play the religosympathy card. Just do or not do whatever it is you're going to do or not do. The explanation is either going to be sad or funny...or both.

And how far would your sympathies extend if--instead of playing the "Jesus doesn't want me to wrestle girls card"--he was playing the "I need to shoot my sister because she want's to date out of the faith" card or the "yeah, she's 16 and I'm 50, but the seventh wife has to be a low-milage vehicle" card?

In the same way you're free to stretch this story to the degree that this kid was trying to make himself some sort of martyr (which he clearly wasn't), he's free to publically cite his spiritual beliefs as his reason for bowing out. The difference between the two of you is that HE did it with humility and without disparaging the young woman involved. You, on the other hand, are making it absolutely clear your disdain for organized religion while using very little tact and respect.

He didn't say, "Jesus doesn't want me to wrestle girls." And comparing his principles to an extremist Muslim belief? You're ridiculous. What this kid did was a billion times less harmful to humanity and a billion times more inoccuous than that.

Last but not least, let's not forget that this kid didn't start a petition or protest or solicit officials to forbid girls from competing in the tournament. He respectfully bowed out, was asked by members of the media why he did it, and answered honestly, and in the statement released to the media, he didn't quote scripture or mention a single religious deity. Not even the girl to whom he forfeited nor her coach took offense to it.

Stretch it all you want, presume to know what a high school kid really should have said, but saying he played the religiosympathy card and even remotely comparing what he did to a Muslim honor killing is shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same way you're free to stretch this story to the degree that this kid was trying to make himself some sort of martyr (which he clearly wasn't), he's free to publically cite his spiritual beliefs as his reason for bowing out. The difference between the two of you is that HE did it with humility and without disparaging the young woman involved. You, on the other hand, are making it absolutely clear your disdain for organized religion while using very little tact and respect.

He didn't say, "Jesus doesn't want me to wrestle girls." And comparing his principles to an extremist Muslim belief? You're ridiculous. What this kid did was a billion times less harmful to humanity and a billion times more inoccuous than that.

Last but not least, let's not forget that this kid didn't start a petition or protest or solicit officials to forbid girls from competing in the tournament. He respectfully bowed out, was asked by members of the media why he did it, and answered honestly, and in the statement released to the media, he didn't quote scripture or mention a single religious deity. Not even the girl to whom he forfeited nor her coach took offense to it.

Stretch it all you want, presume to know what a high school kid really should have said, but saying he played the religiosympathy card and even remotely comparing what he did to a Muslim honor killing is shameful.

The problem I have with it is that to me, in my opinion, he's using his religious belief to disrespect this girl. I don't care that her father said he respects the decision, ultimately he's not giving her the respect of equal competition because he believes that god would not want him to lay hands on a girl, or whatever, it tells her that his religion does not allow him to treat her as an equal.

I don't subscribe to all the hyperbole in this thread regarding religious convictions, but it's very easy to see how religion (like any extreme belief system) can devolve into asinine practices.

Any extreme belief should be exposed for what it is. PETA goes too far, the NRA goes too far, some religions go too far. This of course is all my opinion, but when you take a belief so far that you can't even understand a contrary argument, or even allow for one to be made, you need to rethink yourself.

This kid should have wrestled. If I were this girls father I would have been pissed. If my daughter chooses to participate in a mainly male sport, I would want her treated as an equal. If this were a case where he was playing football and refused to play on Sunday, the only damage is done to him. I have no problem with that, but here he's making it seem like she is less than him, and I have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I have with it is that to me, in my opinion, he's using his religious belief to disrespect this girl. I don't care that her father said he respects the decision, ultimately he's not giving her the respect of equal competition because he believes that god would not want him to lay hands on a girl, or whatever, it tells her that his religion does not allow him to treat her as an equal.

I'm not taking a stance on the "should/shouldn't have wrestled" issue; however, I think you have it backwards on this paragraph. This God person everyone keeps referring to does not want him to lay his hands on a girl because that would be disrespectful to her. You know, because of the underlying fact that guys always want to "lay hands" on girls--this creates boundaries for those that need it. It is not because "God" believes women are dirty or not worthy of touching. She's being elevated, not denigrated. I do believe that separation tends to lead to "separate, but not equal," but not in the context of contact sports.

And more general to the thread, of course the girl and father don't care. Since this kid can't wrestle a girl without his onesie getting too tight, she a champion! :2yay-thumb: (I keed!)

Edited by JDubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not taking a stance on the "should/shouldn't have wrestled" issue; however, I think you have it backwards on this paragraph. This God person everyone keeps referring to does not want him to lay his hands on a girl because that would be disrespectful to her. You know, because of the underlying fact that guys always want to "lay hands" on girls--this creates boundaries for those that need it. It is not because "God" believes women are dirty or not worthy of touching. She's being elevated, not denigrated. I do believe that separation tends to lead to "separate, but not equal," but not in the context of contact sports.

And more general to the thread, of course the girl and father don't care. Since this kid can't wrestle a girl without his onesie getting too tight, she a champion! :2yay-thumb: (I keed!)

There is a whole lot of slippery slope ahead when you start to make choices for someone else based on what you think they want or deserve. My contention is that she's not being elevated at all. Remember when women were discouraged to work because they were too special and had a calling to be at home? If a woman wants to be treated equal, isn't it true that if you don't treat her equal it's disrespectful? I would have thought that we've come along far enough when it comes to equal rights that this wouldn't be a question. I don't care what your extreme belief is, or where it comes from, if it justifies your mistreatment of another person, it's wrong. Even if it's a contact sport. I know that my wife likes me to buy her flowers, but she also likes knowing that I'll ask her to help me move the couch because she's so strong. She would be offended if I didn't ask her because she would think I didn't believe she was strong enough. I think that's what is happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. Kid should have kept his mouth shut. You don't want to wrestle a girl? Here's the entire statement: "I have chosen not to do this. I have my reasons and they're none of your business." And anybody who thinks not wrestling is gonna save Tibet or stop offshore drilling hasn't yet learned to follow the money and is just roadkill waiting to happen, anyway. Don't play the religosympathy card. Just do or not do whatever it is you're going to do or not do. The explanation is either going to be sad or funny...or both.

And how far would your sympathies extend if--instead of playing the "Jesus doesn't want me to wrestle girls card"--he was playing the "I need to shoot my sister because she want's to date out of the faith" card or the "yeah, she's 16 and I'm 50, but the seventh wife has to be a low-milage vehicle" card?

Wow..just wow. If I could take 50 rep points for this gibberish I would. Did you just compare what this boy said to radical Muslim violent beliefs?

You want to be an atheist, fine. But your outright hostility towards any kind of religious beliefs just shows your intolerance and honestly, your lack of humanity.

I honestly had to read that garbage twice just to make sure you actually wrote that drivel.

BTW, I didn't read one time where the kid was looking for sympathy. Honestly, I don't even agree with the kid but the one thing I will do is RESPECT his decision. Afterall, the only person he hurt was himself since he lost out on a chance for State championship.

I certainly respect him a lot more than I respect you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I have with it is that to me, in my opinion, he's using his religious belief to disrespect this girl. I don't care that her father said he respects the decision, ultimately he's not giving her the respect of equal competition because he believes that god would not want him to lay hands on a girl, or whatever, it tells her that his religion does not allow him to treat her as an equal.

I don't subscribe to all the hyperbole in this thread regarding religious convictions, but it's very easy to see how religion (like any extreme belief system) can devolve into asinine practices.

Any extreme belief should be exposed for what it is. PETA goes too far, the NRA goes too far, some religions go too far. This of course is all my opinion, but when you take a belief so far that you can't even understand a contrary argument, or even allow for one to be made, you need to rethink yourself.

This kid should have wrestled. If I were this girls father I would have been pissed. If my daughter chooses to participate in a mainly male sport, I would want her treated as an equal. If this were a case where he was playing football and refused to play on Sunday, the only damage is done to him. I have no problem with that, but here he's making it seem like she is less than him, and I have a problem with it.

I think there are two distinct issues of respect here. The first being whether you think the decision itself respects the girl. That is controversial and up for debate and due to be criticized. He obviously thinks he is being respectful, while others think he is being disrespectful by not treating her equally. Personally, I'm on the fence on this one, but I probably lean towards the side of saying that it's disrespectful by not treating her as an equal.

The second respect issue is how he went about making the decision and explaining it. I think it's very hard to argue that he was anything but respectful in doing so. He made his decision to withdraw, he gave his reason, and he accepted all of the negative consequences. He didn't preach, he wasn't self-righteous, and he didn't say that his view was the only one or even the right one. People are going to disagree and controversial decisions are going to be made, but it always helps when said decisions are made respectfully. You can't fault the kid here.

FWIW, this is coming from a distinctly nonreligious person who disagrees with the kid's rationale.

Edited by CrimsonTribe

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.

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.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Seems like a fun spot to put this.  Of course this is very early in the contract.  
    • It’s an aspect of the Anthropocene. In the old days it rained, it created a swamp, you went home. Now we have to interpret the degree to which our ability to stop the swamp from happening was within our control or not. A hurricane: official game. A gear on your retractable dome fails: suspend the game. Your grounds crew pulls a Three Stooges: ???
    • o    BALTIMORE O RIOLES TBD Alexander Miller Cobb - RHP )) (1-1, 2.51 ERA)   PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES TBD Zachary Harrison Wheeeler - RHP )) (2-0, 2.08 ERA) ) *   * )) Leads the National League in Winning Percentage (1.000)   https://www.mlb.com/starting-lineups   o
    • How does your analysis square with this language that suggests that a mechanical failure that is the but for cause of a game not resuming does not result in a suspended game? “If a game is halted by weather, and subsequent light failure or an intervening curfew or time limit prevents its resumption, the game shall not be a suspended game.”  
    • That’s actually pretty clear, points for you!
    • The weather clause only "trumps" the equipment malfunction clause in the sense that, IF the equipment didn't malfunction (or was unintentionally used improperly), THEN the equipment malfunction clause isn't grounds for suspending the game anyway. If the equipment malfunction (or unintentional misuse thereof) IS the proximate cause (the most direct event) of the game being unable to be completed today, then the rule kicks in and the game is suspended.  Think about it this way: "But for" the grounds crew's failure to use the tarp properly, the game would have resumed less than an hour after the rain started, because there wasn't enough rain to call the game under "normal" circumstances, because a reasonably deployed tarp would have kept the infield playable after a small amount of work on it after the rain. There is no amount of rain that can fall in 15 minutes that would prevent a reasonably competent 21st century grounds crew from successfully using a tarp or other device (e.g. closing a roof) to prevent the field from getting so wet that the game can't be resumed the same day. The only way the Orioles should've been entitled to a 5-game win today is if the rain was so persistent, or the volume of it so high, that despite correct procedures being taken, the amount of time required to wait out the rain and then make the field playable would've been unreasonably long in the judgment of the umpires. But that didn't happen, so one of two things should have happened today: either (1) the grounds crew correctly deployed the tarp, and we resumed the game about an hour later, or (2) the grounds crew did not correctly deploy the tarp, and we resume the game another date.  Seems perfectly straightforward to me. This is how law in the US works, by, the way. If someone punches you in the face, you can't then fall on the ground and decide to intentionally roll around in a bed of nails, then sue for both the punch and the injuries from the nails. The guy who punched you is responsible for the punch, but not for you deciding to roll around in the bed of nails.  Here is the precedential case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.
    • There's a whole discussion in the last few pages of the game thread.  Rules have different things to say about games where the weather says you can't resume, or games where non weather causes like electrical or grounds crew failures.  All the specific rules are quoted there, and they are hard to interpret.  Go there for the gory details if you want.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...