Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
best hot take sports artist in the game. But also - you should engage with the video instead of using other stuff hes said that you may have disagreed with to avoid it.
Not getting those 4 minutes back (edit - presumably it's kind of old based on how they both look and also that Phelps ended up with several additional medals). Nick Wright is always talking shit or giving a semi-controversial take about something. That's what he does. Sometimes more knowledgeable athletes take him to task. First, the topic is fair but also ridiculous (is Phelps the greatest Olympian athlete) which presumably is why Cowherd had him on for that discussion. I'm struggling to find a reason to care what Nick Wright's opinions on swimming events are. Very few swimmers are masters of all strokes, so for Phelps' ability to compete and win medals for 2 of the 4 major strokes is already impressive. But that already destroys his initial point. He doesn't have individual medals for anything but butterfly and freestyle which are not the same thing nor a good example of what he compared - "100 yard... he got to run it and then they tell him, 'hey you can win another gold running it backwards. Then you could win another skipping..." But those examples are just given to justify the opinion he's presenting. Sprinters, like swimmers (shorter distance swimmers), can also run additional distances or do hurdles if they want. Also relays which both sports have. Gymnasts also can compete in multiple single events (6 I think) and team competition beyond that. They can't make the argument that parallel bars are the same as a balance beam or floor exercises either.
It's not even an argument for me. Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of all times. Does that make him the greatest Olympian athlete ever? No. It's just that he's got the most gold medals. He's the greatest swimmer (shorter distance Olympic swimmer anyway) ever, but it's not really arguable who is the greatest Olympic athlete ever because there is no right answer. Some might argue that decathletes are the best, others may point to marathon runners or distance swimmers or extreme athletes and what some of them can do. It boils down to being an argument for argument sake where there's no provable answer (which Nick does allude to early but still argues his point anyway). It's no different from people propositioning that "x' sports team or athlete in "y" year is the greatest team or individual from that sport ever. Look, I get into some of these discussions with my more jock-oriented friends from time to time. So I'm not immune to arguing an unprovable point either. But that's what it is.
There is no right answer… worst words ever written. Its an opinion, obviously.
There are factually more realistic ways for swimmers to medal than runners, and more humans run than swim. Both are very compelling points that are fun to think about and apply to other sports. Especially the second one. It helps me contextualize how impressive certain feats are in ways I hadnt before.
Saying “idk why id care about what nick weight says” is just… why care about what anyone has to say. He makes those athletes look like idiots routinely. Just because you played a sport doesnt make you most qualified to report or commentate on it. And it sometimes causes these guys to be blinded into thinking kyrie irving is a top 20 all time player or whatever. “Shaming the source” is the most inforoo tactic of all time in these conversations.
track and field is not a sport. it's athletics/elements of other sports. NFL combine is all "this guy has this vertical and this guy has a 4s 40 yard dash" but no one is calling that a track and field meet!
Okay I'll say it: it's time for a Coachella cum leak, even if its just a dribble. GV can only give us blue balls so many times before someone blows a load so messy that it scrambles the lineup placements.
Not getting those 4 minutes back (edit - presumably it's kind of old based on how they both look and also that Phelps ended up with several additional medals). Nick Wright is always talking shit or giving a semi-controversial take about something. That's what he does. Sometimes more knowledgeable athletes take him to task. First, the topic is fair but also ridiculous (is Phelps the greatest Olympian athlete) which presumably is why Cowherd had him on for that discussion. I'm struggling to find a reason to care what Nick Wright's opinions on swimming events are. Very few swimmers are masters of all strokes, so for Phelps' ability to compete and win medals for 2 of the 4 major strokes is already impressive. But that already destroys his initial point. He doesn't have individual medals for anything but butterfly and freestyle which are not the same thing nor a good example of what he compared - "100 yard... he got to run it and then they tell him, 'hey you can win another gold running it backwards. Then you could win another skipping..." But those examples are just given to justify the opinion he's presenting. Sprinters, like swimmers (shorter distance swimmers), can also run additional distances or do hurdles if they want. Also relays which both sports have. Gymnasts also can compete in multiple single events (6 I think) and team competition beyond that. They can't make the argument that parallel bars are the same as a balance beam or floor exercises either.
It's not even an argument for me. Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of all times. Does that make him the greatest Olympian athlete ever? No. It's just that he's got the most gold medals. He's the greatest swimmer (shorter distance Olympic swimmer anyway) ever, but it's not really arguable who is the greatest Olympic athlete ever because there is no right answer. Some might argue that decathletes are the best, others may point to marathon runners or distance swimmers or extreme athletes and what some of them can do. It boils down to being an argument for argument sake where there's no provable answer (which Nick does allude to early but still argues his point anyway). It's no different from people propositioning that "x' sports team or athlete in "y" year is the greatest team or individual from that sport ever. Look, I get into some of these discussions with my more jock-oriented friends from time to time. So I'm not immune to arguing an unprovable point either. But that's what it is.
There is no right answer… worst words ever written. Its an opinion, obviously.
There are factually more realistic ways for swimmers to medal than runners, and more humans run than swim. Both are very compelling points that are fun to think about and apply to other sports. Especially the second one. It helps me contextualize how impressive certain feats are in ways I hadnt before.
Saying “idk why id care about what nick weight says” is just… why care about what anyone has to say. He makes those athletes look like idiots routinely. Just because you played a sport doesnt make you most qualified to report or commentate on it. And it sometimes causes these guys to be blinded into thinking kyrie irving is a top 20 all time player or whatever. “Shaming the source” is the most inforoo tactic of all time in these conversations.
So is defending a source for not that much of a reason. He does make points from time to time when I watch him. But he also gets shot down on the regular too. No issue with the idea of you being able to contextualize anything. But calling there’s no right answer “the worst words ever” when there isn’t one is kind of doing the same thing you are being critical of. You may feel like the 1965 UCLA Bruins are the best team in college basketball history. Maybe the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins were the greatest NFL team. Probably a lot of people do. But it just comes down to being an argument for argument sake. It’s okay to have an opinion on anything. But there’s not always going to be a right answer when subjectivity, speculation or supposition is an inherent part of the crux. It’s really pretty simple to deduct that it’s impossible to know or there is no right answer if there isn’t or you can’t possibly know. Shit doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
There is no right answer… worst words ever written. Its an opinion, obviously.
There are factually more realistic ways for swimmers to medal than runners, and more humans run than swim. Both are very compelling points that are fun to think about and apply to other sports. Especially the second one. It helps me contextualize how impressive certain feats are in ways I hadnt before.
Saying “idk why id care about what nick weight says” is just… why care about what anyone has to say. He makes those athletes look like idiots routinely. Just because you played a sport doesnt make you most qualified to report or commentate on it. And it sometimes causes these guys to be blinded into thinking kyrie irving is a top 20 all time player or whatever. “Shaming the source” is the most inforoo tactic of all time in these conversations.
So is defending a source for not that much of a reason. He does make points from time to time when I watch him. But he also gets shot down on the regular too. No issue with the idea of you being able to contextualize anything. But calling there’s no right answer “the worst words ever” when there isn’t one is kind of doing the same thing you are being critical of. You may feel like the 1965 UCLA Bruins are the best team in college basketball history. Maybe the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins were the greatest NFL team. Probably a lot of people do. But it just comes down to being an argument for argument sake. It’s okay to have an opinion on anything. But there’s not always going to be a right answer when subjectivity, speculation or supposition is an inherent part of the crux. It’s really pretty simple to deduct that it’s impossible to know or there is no right answer if there isn’t or you can’t possibly know. Shit doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Dude arguing opinions is fucking awesome! That's what we do all day every day. It's fun as fuck.
Not getting those 4 minutes back (edit - presumably it's kind of old based on how they both look and also that Phelps ended up with several additional medals). Nick Wright is always talking shit or giving a semi-controversial take about something. That's what he does. Sometimes more knowledgeable athletes take him to task. First, the topic is fair but also ridiculous (is Phelps the greatest Olympian athlete) which presumably is why Cowherd had him on for that discussion. I'm struggling to find a reason to care what Nick Wright's opinions on swimming events are. Very few swimmers are masters of all strokes, so for Phelps' ability to compete and win medals for 2 of the 4 major strokes is already impressive. But that already destroys his initial point. He doesn't have individual medals for anything but butterfly and freestyle which are not the same thing nor a good example of what he compared - "100 yard... he got to run it and then they tell him, 'hey you can win another gold running it backwards. Then you could win another skipping..." But those examples are just given to justify the opinion he's presenting. Sprinters, like swimmers (shorter distance swimmers), can also run additional distances or do hurdles if they want. Also relays which both sports have. Gymnasts also can compete in multiple single events (6 I think) and team competition beyond that. They can't make the argument that parallel bars are the same as a balance beam or floor exercises either.
It's not even an argument for me. Phelps is the most decorated Olympian of all times. Does that make him the greatest Olympian athlete ever? No. It's just that he's got the most gold medals. He's the greatest swimmer (shorter distance Olympic swimmer anyway) ever, but it's not really arguable who is the greatest Olympic athlete ever because there is no right answer. Some might argue that decathletes are the best, others may point to marathon runners or distance swimmers or extreme athletes and what some of them can do. It boils down to being an argument for argument sake where there's no provable answer (which Nick does allude to early but still argues his point anyway). It's no different from people propositioning that "x' sports team or athlete in "y" year is the greatest team or individual from that sport ever. Look, I get into some of these discussions with my more jock-oriented friends from time to time. So I'm not immune to arguing an unprovable point either. But that's what it is.
There is no right answer… worst words ever written. Its an opinion, obviously.
There are factually more realistic ways for swimmers to medal than runners, and more humans run than swim. Both are very compelling points that are fun to think about and apply to other sports. Especially the second one. It helps me contextualize how impressive certain feats are in ways I hadnt before.
Saying “idk why id care about what nick weight says” is just… why care about what anyone has to say. He makes those athletes look like idiots routinely. Just because you played a sport doesnt make you most qualified to report or commentate on it. And it sometimes causes these guys to be blinded into thinking kyrie irving is a top 20 all time player or whatever. “Shaming the source” is the most inforoo tactic of all time in these conversations.
We really should have included the sport where they ski around with a rifle on their back.
If you asked me what a biathlon was and then told me it was skiing around with a rifle on your back to different targets I would laugh you out of the room but you'd be correct.
We really should have included the sport where they ski around with a rifle on their back.
If you asked me what a biathlon was and then told me it was skiing around with a rifle on your back to different targets I would laugh you out of the room but you'd be correct.
At my work we fantasy draft athletes for this sport every time the winter olympics come around and its pretty hilarious / fun.
Post by T3ddy F1a1r on Apr 3, 2024 12:31:32 GMT -5
My favorite part about survivor is I can set up the game overnight, then by the time I wake up y'all have already turned it into a dumpster fire and I didn't even have to do anything
There's no consistent or cogent logic with the voting so I'm not investing thought on this other than voting for nascar, gymnastics and skateboarding until they're gone.
My favorite part about survivor is I can set up the game overnight, then by the time I wake up y'all have already turned it into a dumpster fire and I didn't even have to do anything
It's true to the early days of the show Survivor where most of the voting seems to be based on spite
So is defending a source for not that much of a reason. He does make points from time to time when I watch him. But he also gets shot down on the regular too. No issue with the idea of you being able to contextualize anything. But calling there’s no right answer “the worst words ever” when there isn’t one is kind of doing the same thing you are being critical of. You may feel like the 1965 UCLA Bruins are the best team in college basketball history. Maybe the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins were the greatest NFL team. Probably a lot of people do. But it just comes down to being an argument for argument sake. It’s okay to have an opinion on anything. But there’s not always going to be a right answer when subjectivity, speculation or supposition is an inherent part of the crux. It’s really pretty simple to deduct that it’s impossible to know or there is no right answer if there isn’t or you can’t possibly know. Shit doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Dude arguing opinions is fucking awesome! That's what we do all day every day. It's fun as fuck.
Of course. But we can also acknowledge that they are opinions no matter how strongly aligned we are with the argument we are making. An opinion may or may not be right. Michael Phelps may or may not be the greatest Olympian ever. But circling back, Cowherd and Wright's arguments (seemed to be leaning toward Carl Lewis being the greatest because he came back at 35 and won another gold in the 100 (Phelps came back at 31 and won gold after that video was released) isn't any more right or a reason to downplay (even with caveats that he's got the hardware). Perhaps too many pundits were calling him the greatest Olympian of all times at that point and it rubbed them the wrong way or gave them a point to argue which is also what they do every day. But when you get down to the argument they were making, there is no right answer.
It's whatever you want it to be. It can be arm wrestling, mud wrestling, chicks in a pool of oil at a redneck bar, WWE, greco-roman, us and our friends as kids having battle royals in our rooms, giving your nephews a DDT because you feel like it. He's only asking which sport we like the least. It's up to the individual to self-define.
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Apr 3, 2024 13:19:16 GMT -5
I was friends with a bunch of swimmers in college and everyone bullied Michael Phelps. Absolute dumbass and borderline sex pest.
That said, even if we’re knocking swimming for being a game, swimmers probably have the best overall athletic fitness of everything left and that should count for something.
I was friends with a bunch of swimmers in college and everyone bullied Michael Phelps. Absolute dumbass and borderline sex pest.
That said, even if we’re knocking swimming for being a game, swimmers probably have the best overall athletic fitness of everything left and that should count for something.
There's a huge self-selection and access bias to who specializes in which sports.
You can argue that in a sport like amateur wrestling or swimming that to compete at the highest level you have to get to a higher level of physical conditioning, but that's not the same to me as athleticism.
If he grew up solely doing swimming and gymnastics I have no reason to believe Tyreek Hill wouldn't have multiple gold medals.
I was friends with a bunch of swimmers in college and everyone bullied Michael Phelps. Absolute dumbass and borderline sex pest.
That said, even if we’re knocking swimming for being a game, swimmers probably have the best overall athletic fitness of everything left and that should count for something.
by what measure?
Trying to find the studies but Google is filled with too much junk to shift through.
Basically I mean from the perspective of what contributes most to your overall health or if a person off the street did one sport what would be best for them. So obviously when you frame it like that things requiring higher cardio health or muscle endurance or VO2 max are gonna rate high than having an insane vertical or back squat PR which are more specialized skills. I want say the studies went something like rowing, swimming, soccer, cycling but I can’t remember exactly.
There's a huge self-selection and access bias to who specializes in which sports.
You can argue that in a sport like amateur wrestling or swimming that to compete at the highest level you have to get to a higher level of physical conditioning, but that's not the same to me as athleticism.
If he grew up solely doing swimming and gymnastics I have no reason to believe Tyreek Hill wouldn't have multiple gold medals.
Do you want to dance while also thinking about all the ways you've failed as a human?
UPCOMING SHOWS 11/21 - Caribou @ Avant Gardner 11/23 - LCD Soundsystem @ Knockdown Center 11/25 - TV on the Radio @ Webster Hall 12/5 - LCD Soundsystem @ Knockdown Center 12/7 - LCD Soundsystem @ Knockdown Center 12/14 - LCD Soundsystem @ Knockdown Center
Maybe by conventional standards but I'd assume that he'd win every race by 10 meters.
Note - I don't know if Tyreek can even swim but in this illustrative example he's been doing it since he was 4.
this is like saying Tyreek hill would be the best Center in the NBA if he played center since he was 4.
I don't see how something that solely involves speed is comparable to basketball. A lot of the guys who win Olympic gold in swimming are like 6'3.
I don't think competitive swimming pulls a comparative sample size of the world's best athletes today. Entire regions of the world are not represented due to access issues.
There's a huge self-selection and access bias to who specializes in which sports.
You can argue that in a sport like amateur wrestling or swimming that to compete at the highest level you have to get to a higher level of physical conditioning, but that's not the same to me as athleticism.
If he grew up solely doing swimming and gymnastics I have no reason to believe Tyreek Hill wouldn't have multiple gold medals.
If I had learned how to do rugby and practiced really hard and wore my glasses and ate right and read books about doing rugby and had been mentored by, like, the best rugby guy and got a good night's sleep most nights, I have no reason to believe that I wouldn't have been the greatest rugby player who ever rugbyed.
Edit: It may be worth mentioning here that I'm pretty tall.
