jerryskids

Certainly if you look at the top coaches all time in any pro sport, or D1 football and basketball, the ranks are not filled with former all stars and HOFers. I probably personally experienced it the most in the martial arts, where the first thing students brag about is "my sensei is a world champ!" OK... how is he at teaching? Does he understand the work involved to succeed, or does he just say "break board." When I did TKD, our chief master was, quite honestly, not the toughest of guys. But he was really smart, an engineer by training who decided to pursue a life passion. He went on to get a PhD in education. He wasn't the greatest martial artist, but he was very analytical, and very good at breaking down movements and finding areas to improve. He actually makes most of his money these days contracting with other studios to teach them how to teach. And teaching them how to run a business, which most of them suck at, but that's a different topic.

Rusty likes to dehumanize a former POTUS with derogatory nicknames. It's part of what makes him morally superior to the rest of us.

Doesn't matter. Biden is proposing it, and it probably has the word "border" in it somewhere. Good enough for Rusty, it should be good enough for all of us center-right conservatives.

Discussion on how HOF players did as coaches. Spoiler: not that well. https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/5mg8vg/how_hall_of_fame_players_did_as_head_coaches/ Being great as a player doesn't translate into being great as a coach. Here is the inverse data: winningest coaches of all time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coach_wins_leaders Mike Ditka at #34 is the first HOF player on the list. Forrest Gregg at #64 is next.

I missed that you selectively quoted part of my post. To these points, yes, to some extent, although it doesn't make you good at it. Certainly not one of the 32 best at it. In hindsight, I should have stuck with the management side of the argument.

Is a woman, I presume. These deceptive thread titles are focking hilarious, aren't they?!

Well you aren't Rusty And you haven't manned up to who you are. So I'm going with pretend centrist Gutter who gets a woody trolling here all day

Wrong. It specifically has to do with lack of talent. Just bow out, Gutter, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong

RiP Herbert Coward, dummy?

Your misleading headlines consistently suck ass.

True, although it depends on the position. Some positions are more cerebral than others. Does playing football teach you how to manage 70-ish elite athletes, and more support staff? Deal with the media, fans, team execs? Are those skills more important than the 40? There used to be an expression: those who can't, teach. The idea was that those who struggled physically understood the work that went into to achieving excellence better than those who were naturally physically gifted. I guess that isn't true anymore.

No, it doesn't make sense. What is it about the ability to run a 4.4 40 directly correlates to coaching acumen?

I'm not sure I see your distinction. Yes, the elites want to reduce YOUR freedoms, but not THEIRS. There are plenty of ways in which their behaviors would skirt reductions in general freedoms. They fly to Davos on private jets, and get into SUV caravans, so that they can meet to discuss restrictions on you in the name of saving the planet. They shut down the public schools during Covid, but their kids still got educated. They shut down the economy, but they still got expensive dinners and salon jobs (not trying to pick on Cali Dems here, just things that leapt to my mind).

Thanks for the response. I would argue that several items in the OP are examples of luxury beliefs and environmentalism. Outlawing gas stoves is of little importance to the rich; they can get the latest induction cooktops (which rock btw!). Same with gas cars: they can go buy a Tesla or other electric cars. There are other luxury beliefs which Henderson describes in earlier works, things like single parenthood. White liberal elite women are at the forefront of pushing for it, but statistically, they tend to not actually BE single parents: they get married and raise traditional families. LGBTQ rights are somewhat by definition luxury beliefs. As I've stated here before, third-world countries don't have the luxury of such beliefs, as they need people to have lots of babies because many of those die and those who don't are needed to work the farm, much like in the US 100+ years ago. That doesn't make those beliefs bad per se, but they are indeed reserved for cultures with the luxury to support them. As to whether or not you should care, that's up to you of course. But these are the people who generally set policy, and they don't like you having freedoms:

Hates America. Don't know why.

OK. I will start with discussing this blog post, which is very relevant IMO to the OP. It is about "luxury beliefs," and I am a big believer in this phenomenon with the rich elite. The text intersperses with graphics too much for me to copy/paste it here, so I'll just provide the link. https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-struggle-for Thoughts?

I'd like a conversation. I find the data in the OP disconcerting, but not surprising. I'm an honorary member of the Ivy League alumni association. Although technically my school wasn't an Ivy, they let folks like me hang with them. I can tell you with no reservations: in the model of Brave New World, they consider themselves the Alphas, and people like myself and folks from other private (read: exclusive, expensive, come from rich stock) institutions the Betas. The rest of you mooks are Gammas or below. They hold you in disdain, and think you are incapable of tying your own shoes without their guidance. They view their role as saving the world from your (not you personally, the collective Gamma "you") idiocy. If you are interested in this conversation, let me know and I'll continue.

Born in NE PA, in the area of the Office. Coal mining and manufacturing area, until it wasn't. Four years in college in the Bawstahn area. Phoenix area since graduation. It occurs to me that next year I'll have been here 36 years, twice as long as PA. Yet I still feel I'm "from" PA in a way.

Yeah, I think they figure (probably correctly) that they can make us a non-signature and we'll still have the most attendees, who will all have a great time. It may eventually come back to bite them, but for now they'll milk it. This tourney really should be a bucket list item for golf fans. It's unlike any other. Basically there is a big party and a golf tourney breaks out.

Again, nuance is your mortal enemy. I believe that somewhere between one extreme (the Feds were completely uninvolved) and the other (the Feds coordinated the whole thing) is the truth. I'd like to judge Trump based on the actual truth, not the kangaroo court that it has been to date. I realize that these words are lost on you, but I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'd rather the Repubs push other candidates. But I also don't these shenanigans on a former POTUS and presumptive candidate. You seem peachy with them; you do you, I guess.

Sure, I'll do it. I definitely want to do the WM as well. Figuring out my schedule/days attending right now.

Not at all. This was all hashed out back at the time, and you weren't around, so I won't bother to go back and reconstruct all the details. My personal objection with the 1/6 committee was that it wasn't a "truth seeking" committee, it was a one-way kangaroo court. They carefully culled the most damning of video, conveniently leaving out video of, say, guards at one entrance pulling up a bar to allow in a well-behaved crowd, then turning their backs on the crowd with no fear for their safety (left-leaning posters like @Fnord, I believe, agreed that this was troubling and should be investigated). So basically, I entered today thinking that we have not been given the entire story on what happened that day. And learning that the committee Hillary'd a bunch of data just before the transition, well, that goes to support my belief, wouldn't you say?

Apparently English is not your first (or any) language, as my entire final sentence is in opposition to this post. Then again, you consistently successfully defend your crown as the King of No Nuance, and this is no exception.

What, you too? A total inability to fathom something? I can fathom evidence of feds in the crowd. I'm not even saying they were stirring the pot (although I could fathom it), but just that they were there.