Sports discussion

Topic

Replies

This is interesting – the IOC has made a statement on the issue:

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/joint-paris-2024-boxing-unit-ioc-statement

“As with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport.”

But I presume from what Martin says that he thinks additional confirmation was carried out beyond checking what sex her passport states.

Martin Smith wrote:

The other issue with this argument is that it reduces boxing down to an issue of pure physical strength, which is completely contrary to all the components the sport allegedly requires: speed, stamina, psychology, spatial awareness and endurance.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, as lots of those other aspects would obviously also be enhanced by male physiology compared to female, not just strength.

This is quite a good and objective primer that sets out what is currently known (and what isn’t) about the situation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cye0ex43k63o

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

Irish-born boxer Amy Broadhurst, who beat Khelif last year, had this to say at that time:

Have a lot of people texting me over Imane Khelif. Personally I don’t think she has done anything to ‘cheat’. I thinks it’s the way she was born & that’s out of her control. The fact that she has been beating by 9 females before says it all.

I think the Italian boxer overreacted (in fact, she has since apologized to Imane for her decision).

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, Al-x, Dave

njerry wrote:

I think the Italian boxer overreacted (in fact, she has since apologized to Imane for her decision).

There’s a lot of psychology in boxing, and I’m sure the fact that this controversy was all swirling before the fight happened probably factored into it too. Obviously it was in her mind.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

Years ago, when Martina Navratilova got more fit in her game and went on this 98-2 run, she was dominating and beat Chrissie Evert a lot, there was talk about her, not that Martina was trans but given her athletic build and her orientation, questions about her femininity. So all this questioning and challenging who participates in womens sports is not new.

 

Al-x wrote:

Years ago, when Martina Navratilova got more fit in her game and went on this 98-2 run, she was dominating and beat Chrissie Evert a lot, there was talk about her, not that Martina was trans but given her athletic build and her orientation, questions about her femininity. So all this questioning and challenging who participates in womens sports is not new.

 

And these days she’s peddling the same arguments people used against her.  And she was trained by Renée Richards, one of the first trans people to compete in sports, let alone in tennis, so you’d think she’d know better.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Years ago, when Martina Navratilova got more fit in her game and went on this 98-2 run, she was dominating and beat Chrissie Evert a lot, there was talk about her, not that Martina was trans but given her athletic build and her orientation, questions about her femininity. So all this questioning and challenging who participates in womens sports is not new.

 

And these days she’s peddling the same arguments people used against her.  And she was trained by Renée Richards, one of the first trans people to compete in sports, let alone in tennis, so you’d think she’d know better.

Agreed. There is hypocrisy on her part.

All this though is part of a larger conversation of gatekeeping femininity and who defines it.

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

The main discussion point around Khelif doesn’t seem to be that she is trans in the way that we would usually conceptualise that idea – I think it is pretty universally recognised that she has lived as a woman since birth.

But the notion seems to be that she has XY chromosomes as a result of DSD, and has essentially gone through male puberty with the physical advantages that entails. And if that is the case, then the question leading on from that is whether she should compete in the male or female category in boxing.

I think it’s important to separate these ideas out, because this whole discussion around Khelif isn’t really about transgender ideas at all, but rather about exactly where the line is between male and female in categorisations of professional sport. And a case like this is potentially a borderline case that requires some precision and clarity around the qualifying requirements.

The IBA have made claims that testing has revealed XY chromosomes and have implied a DSD for Khelif; some people have then tried to discredit the IBA and refute their claims; and the IOC have said that their qualification criteria essentially revolve around checking someone’s stated sex on their passport.

Unfortunately as with all of this stuff, it has become politicised and people have adopted entrenched positions that increasingly have less and less to do with the issue at hand.

I think it is a debate that can be had calmly and on a factual basis, but unfortunately a lot of irrelevant red herring stuff keeps getting pulled into the discussion. And the details around it get increasingly contested, it becomes very difficult for the average person to know exactly where the truth lies.

Ultimately, as with all these sporting categorisation issues, I think there need to be clear and unambiguous qualification criteria adopted by the sport governing bodies and recognised by the IOC, so that these arguments don’t happen publicly midway through a competition.

My feeling is, if one athlete’s advantage over another is due a genetic or other condition present at their birth, then that’s just the law of nature. It’s no different than Yao Ming’s height, or Michael Phelps’ long torso, or Serena Williams’ shoulder width. This isn’t a matter of competitive fairness or of the unfair advantage; competition, by it’s nature, will always have people who are better than other competitors. To single out Imane Khelif, who was literally “born this way”, is unfair and unsporting.

This “scandal” has as much merit as the one involving the sacrilegious Last Supper re-enactment during opening ceremonies. Nothing to see here folks; move along.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

njerry wrote:

My feeling is, if one athlete’s advantage over another is due a genetic or other condition present at their birth, then that’s just the law of nature. It’s no different than Yao Ming’s height, or Michael Phelps’ long torso, or Serena Williams’ shoulder width. This isn’t a matter of competitive fairness or of the unfair advantage; competition, by it’s nature, will always have people who are better than other competitors. To single out Imane Khelif, who was literally “born this way”, is unfair and unsporting.

The difficulty here is that you could make the same argument in favour of all athletes, male and female, competing in the same category rather than having two separate categories for the two sexes. Although it would obviously mean that most of the time the female athletes lost, even if it was only the law of nature that dictated that the men were on average stronger, taller, and faster.

But I think most people recognise that having separate male and female categories is useful in sports based on physical attributes.

And if you accept that, then you obviously need to have a system for determining who belongs in what category.

So it seems to me like the questions at the centre of this boxing controversy are, firstly, defining exactly where the line is that defines and divides those sex-based categories (in any given sport, but in this case in boxing), in terms of admission criteria; and then secondly, establishing which category each competitor should fall into on the basis of those criteria.

The IOC seems to have done that for boxing this year by saying that the sex on your passport determines your category, with no further testing necessary; other people are arguing that that’s not sufficient, and in particular doesn’t correctly account for borderline cases potentially involving DSD.

I don’t pretend to be expert enough in these sports (or in the physical attributes of these individual athletes) to be able to answer any of these questions with authority, but it seems like these are the aspects that need to be clarified.

And after the conversation around the event this year, it seems likely that those clarifications will come before the next Olympics.

Dave wrote:

The IBA have made claims that testing has revealed XY chromosomes and have implied a DSD for Khelif; some people have then tried to discredit the IBA and refute their claims; and the IOC have said that their qualification criteria essentially revolve around checking someone’s stated sex on their passport.

It’s worth noting that not only have the IBA have refused to reveal the results of their tests beyond stating they found this chromosome issue, they’ve refused to even name or describe the test that allegedly found the alleged chromosome issue.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith, Al-x, Todd

lorcan_nagle wrote:

It’s worth noting that not only have the IBA have refused to reveal the results of their tests beyond stating they found this chromosome issue, they’ve refused to even name or describe the test that allegedly found the alleged chromosome issue.

My understanding of the IBA’s explanation for that is that there are confidentiality restrictions around revealing any further details.

But regardless of the IBA and how much their views on the matter are trusted, I guess that one way to clear up some of the current misinformation or misunderstanding might be for the two boxers at the centre of the controversy to simply take tests to indicate whether they are XX or XY and then make those results public.

I don’t really see the downside for them doing that, given that it’s a safe and non-invasive test – and especially given that the result apparently wouldn’t affect their male/female category eligibility either way as far as the IOC are concerned.

Then again, maybe they don’t want to do that because confirmation of an XY result would only make the criticism of their presence in the female category grow louder, and would invite more pressure on the IOC for their handling of the whole thing.

Really it seems like all of this should have been sorted out privately and behind closed doors before the competition even began, given that all these issues were known beforehand, rather than letting this all play out publicly while the competition was ongoing. It isn’t very fair on the athletes concerned or their opponents. It feels like the whole thing has been quite poorly handled by the IOC.

I’m also very aware that there is now a narrative around this issue that suggests that any questioning at all of the two boxers’ presence in the category is somehow anti-trans or anti-female, and people involved in the wider discussion are taking sides accordingly.

Personally, I feel like that’s the usual reductive social media nonsense, and there’s actually a fairly straightforward competitive categorisation issue at the heart of it all.

(Any other factual questions over category eligibility – like weight for different weight classes, or whatever – would be treated with far less heat, but because this is to do with sex/gender, there’s a far more politicised and distorted debate around it.)

I think everyone would agree that they want competitors to be in the right category, it’s just a question of exactly how you determine that, especially for what may be borderline cases.

Dave wrote:

My understanding of the IBA’s explanation for that is that there are confidentiality restrictions around revealing any further details.

They haven’t even said that, they’ve refused to answer any questions on the topic.

The problem is that there is no reliable evidence that Khelif is trans or intersex and yet we have to operate under the assumption she is because of internet dickheads.  This entire scandal has been based on how hard she punched an opponent, that she doesn’t look traditionally feminine, and a disgraced boxing authority disqualified her from a competition in questionable circumstances (and we should note, have changed their story on why she was disqualified at least once in the past).

And if we do go through all these tests and prove that she is indeed cis down to her fucking chromosomes, it won’t matter, because the same assholes will do the same thing any time a woman who doesn’t fit their increasingly narrow definitions excels in sports.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And if we do go through all these tests and prove that she is indeed cis down to her fucking chromosomes, it won’t matter, because the same assholes will do the same thing any time a woman who doesn’t fit their increasingly narrow definitions excels in sports.

Exactly. This is where transphobia always leads. They start out claiming they’re just worried about protecting women and very quickly it ends up with any woman who doesn’t look quite femme enough getting harassed.

Dave, you seem inordinately bothered by the genes of an amateur boxer. You need to step away and realise how weird and invasive (and borderline eugenicsy) it is that you’re suggesting that someone have to take a genetics test and publicly reveal those results to compete in a sport to your approval. And even if that did happen, the practicalities of that level of categorisation is insane. We go from dividing boxers by sex and weight to what? Sex, chromosomal break-down, weight, height, reach, bone density, eye sight, joint flexibility, hair colour? Even the Paralympics isn’t that granular with categorisation for disabilities.

I’ve been watching a lot of other Olympics events the past week – I haven’t bothered posting about it in here because of the bad vibe going on – and the diversity in body types in most of those sports is large. Sports climbing especially has men who built like bodybuilders going up against guys who could pass for basketball players; women who are absolutely ripped taking on teenage string-beans. And yet it’s still a fair competition. There’s no-one going around crying that there’s someone taller than them having an unfair advantage. Every body type comes with its advantages and disadvantages. The same is true in boxing. To pick up your earlier question, boxing is not just about who can hit harder. Ali is considered one of, is not the, greatest boxers who ever lived, but he didn’t win by just unremittingly sledgehammering the hell out of his opponents. It was a combination of stamina, agility, psychology and yes, strength. The hysteria you keep falling back into, that some Y chromosomes Khelif allegedly has gives her some unassailable advantage, completely ignores that in favour of a reductive assumption that it’s all just about who can hit harder. And even if that was true, her own previous losses show that isn’t the case.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd, lorcan_nagle

I look at someone like Simone Biles, who performs at such an extraordinary level. It has been said that at times, her performance is comparable to men. I look at her and her build just doesn’t look like most female gymnasts. Despite her prowess in the sport, she doesn’t always win gold.

Having a potential genetic advantage is just that, an advantage. It does not guarantee a win every time.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Martin Smith wrote:

Dave, you seem inordinately bothered by the genes of an amateur boxer. You need to step away and realise how weird and invasive (and borderline eugenicsy) it is that you’re suggesting that someone have to take a genetics test and publicly reveal those results to compete in a sport to your approval.

This is an unduly patronising response that suggests I’m personally getting worked up about it, when my posts in this thread haven’t taken sides on the issue, and have been intended to ensure that the debate here remains civil and factual, and doesn’t become the slanging match that it has become on social media.

I’ve tried to characterise the current argument around it in a calm way that presents the two sides of the conversation without any heat to it, and I’ve been clear throughout that I’m not expert enough in the subject or familiar enough with the facts to be able to judge either way. I’ve just tried to describe the arguments that are being made on either side.

Ultimately I think it’s a bit silly for us to pretend there isn’t an issue around this at all when multiple competing female boxers are actively protesting about it in the ring – but I also think it’s a bit silly to pretend that anyone commenting on this knows for sure that these boxers are in the right or wrong category and are competing fairly or unfairly. We simply don’t have all the facts.

My posts have set out the aspects that are still unclear and need to be clarified if any conclusions are to be drawn, I haven’t claimed to be able to draw those conclusions myself – like I say, we don’t have the relevant facts.

The point around taking a test and making the result public was that it would clear the issue up to a great extent and put an end to a lot of the misinformation that’s swirling around. I don’t think it’s “weird and invasive and borderline eugenicsy” to make that point, (and I gather these swab tests were standard practice until recently among Olympic competitors for categorisation purposes, so not really suggesting anything outrageous or offensive).

Unfortunately I think your post demonstrates that it’s very hard to have these conversations in a calm civil way without someone getting overly worked up, making inaccurate assumptions and starting name-calling (like insinuating transphobia when the conversation really has nothing to do with transgender issues, or accusing me of falling into hysteria), which is the kind of atmosphere I’ve been trying to avoid all along.

I felt like we all knew each other well enough here to be able to have the conversation about the debate without adopting that kind of tone, but maybe not.

1 user thanked author for this post.

njerry

To try and adopt a more conciliatory tone:

I understand that there’s a real risk with these conversations that are happening in multiple places that you might see someone talking about an issue in one place, like this forum, and assume (from aspects that they talk about) that they must hold views similar to people that you’ve seen speaking about similar aspects elsewhere, like Twitter or in the media or wherever.

But this is often not going to be the case – these aren’t simple binary discussions where it’s one side versus another, or where everyone talking about a certain aspect of the topic automatically holds the same set of views. And the specifics of what people are saying about these aspects can be very different.

I can only assume from Martin’s post citing transphobia and hysteria around this issue that he’s responding to transphobia and hysteria that he’s seen elsewhere around it, which I don’t doubt is happening – but I don’t appreciate those accusations being leveled at me just because I’m discussing the issue.

So please don’t do that.

Dave wrote:

This is an unduly patronising response that suggests I’m personally getting worked up about it, when my posts in this thread haven’t taken sides on the issue, and have been intended to ensure that the debate here remains civil and factual, and doesn’t become the slanging match that it has become on social media.

I’ve tried to characterise the current argument around it in a calm way that presents the two sides of the conversation without any heat to it, and I’ve been clear throughout that I’m not expert enough in the subject or familiar enough with the facts to be able to judge either way. I’ve just tried to describe the arguments that are being made on either side.

Ultimately I think it’s a bit silly for us to pretend there isn’t an issue around this at all when multiple competing female boxers are actively protesting about it in the ring – but I also think it’s a bit silly to pretend that anyone commenting on this knows for sure that these boxers are in the right or wrong category and are competing fairly or unfairly. We simply don’t have all the facts.

My posts have set out the aspects that are still unclear and need to be clarified if any conclusions are to be drawn, I haven’t claimed to be able to draw those conclusions myself – like I say, we don’t have the relevant facts.

The point around taking a test and making the result public was that it would clear the issue up to a great extent and put an end to a lot of the misinformation that’s swirling around. I don’t think it’s “weird and invasive and borderline eugenicsy” to make that point, (and I gather these swab tests were standard practice until recently among Olympic competitors for categorisation purposes, so not really suggesting anything outrageous or offensive).

Unfortunately I think your post demonstrates that it’s very hard to have these conversations in a calm civil way without someone getting overly worked up, making inaccurate assumptions and starting name-calling (like insinuating transphobia when the conversation really has nothing to do with transgender issues, or accusing me of falling into hysteria), which is the kind of atmosphere I’ve been trying to avoid all along.

I felt like we all knew each other well enough here to be able to have the conversation about the debate without adopting that kind of tone, but maybe not.

Dave, your well-written, thoughtful, and insightful response is appreciated, but in the end it doesn’t change the fact that you’re a poopyhead. Just sayin’…
.
.
.
.
.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Dave wrote:

To try and adopt a more conciliatory tone:

I understand that there’s a real risk with these conversations that are happening in multiple places that you might see someone talking about an issue in one place, like this forum, and assume (from aspects that they talk about) that they must hold views similar to people that you’ve seen speaking about similar aspects elsewhere, like Twitter or in the media or wherever.

But this is often not going to be the case – these aren’t simple binary discussions where it’s one side versus another, or where everyone talking about a certain aspect of the topic automatically holds the same set of views. And the specifics of what people are saying about these aspects can be very different.

I can only assume from Martin’s post citing transphobia and hysteria around this issue that he’s responding to transphobia and hysteria that he’s seen elsewhere around it, which I don’t doubt is happening – but I don’t appreciate those accusations being leveled at me just because I’m discussing the issue.

So please don’t do that.

The problem is that the points you’re raising are the same ones that the transphobes are, it’s just the cover they use to try and seem reasonable because they know if they were honest they’d look like lunatics.  Like if the IBA had never disqualified Khelif, they’d still be either claiming she’s trans or intersex with no evidence.

And even then, they lie. The argument that the IOC only took her passport as evidence of her gender is a deliberate misquote, the IOC said that they used her passport and other standardised methods for example.   But that last part is conveniently ignored.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

The problem is that the points you’re raising are the same ones that the transphobes are, it’s just the cover they use to try and seem reasonable because they know if they were honest they’d look like lunatics.  Like if the IBA had never disqualified Khelif, they’d still be either claiming she’s trans or intersex with no evidence.

This might be true – I haven’t delved into what transphobic corners of the internet are saying.

I’m basing my comments on mainstream news reports and comments from the bodies involved like the IOC and IBA, with the issue given prominence most of all by other competing female boxers protesting against Khelif in competition (I’m sure you’ve seen many of them making the double-X sign in the ring in recent days).

To be clear, I think anyone who is outright insisting that Khelif is a man, or is trans, or even that she is definitely cheating/ineligible for the female category, are likely arguing from a misguided ideological point of view, rather than basing their views on the facts.

But I also think that people who are outright denying any possibility that there could be complexities here that might call eligibility into question are probably also arguing from an ideological point of view rather than being led by the facts.

There are just too many unknowns as things stand for anyone to really be sure, I think.

But I also think people don’t like uncertainty – they prefer to feel like they know the answer. So rather than waiting for sufficient facts, they tend to decide what side they support and then select the elements in the public domain that support their side and disregard the ones that don’t.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And even then, they lie. The argument that the IOC only took her passport as evidence of her gender is a deliberate misquote, the IOC said that they used her passport and other standardised methods for example.   But that last part is conveniently ignored.

I think that stems from this:

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/joint-paris-2024-boxing-unit-ioc-statement

All athletes participating in the boxing tournament of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 comply with the competition’s eligibility and entry regulations, as well as all applicable medical regulations set by the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit (PBU) (please find all applicable rules here). As with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport.

Dave wrote:

This might be true – I haven’t delved into what transphobic corners of the internet are saying. I’m basing my comments on mainstream news reports and comments from the bodies involved like the IOC and IBA, with the issue given prominence most of all by other competing female boxers protesting against Khelif in competition (I’m sure you’ve seen many of them making the double-X sign in the ring in recent days).

Mainstream news in the UK is a transphobic corner of the internet.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Huh, this is still rumbling along. On the passport aspect, Algeria requires you be male or female, no opt-outs.

One aspect that doesn’t seem to be covered much is that, even if a competitor has a genetic edge of some natural kind, that advantage still guarantees nothing. Phelps had a lot of wins, but he’ll have had losses too. Whatever edge an individual has, they still have to perform well and there’ll be times when it still does nothing. It’s not some mathematically guaranteed A + B = C every time.

That uncertainty is arguably sports biggest selling point, that things happen that perhaps shouldn’t, the unpredictability of it.

This confected mess is overshadowing a lot of good to come out of this Olympics. Especially around body types and how that gets linked to athletic ability. This Olympics has blown a big hole in that.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Dave wrote:

This might be true – I haven’t delved into what transphobic corners of the internet are saying. I’m basing my comments on mainstream news reports and comments from the bodies involved like the IOC and IBA, with the issue given prominence most of all by other competing female boxers protesting against Khelif in competition (I’m sure you’ve seen many of them making the double-X sign in the ring in recent days).

Mainstream news in the UK is a transphobic corner of the internet.

Even if you feel that way, I don’t think that simply acknowledging that these arguments are a part of the mainstream debate around the topic – and making it clear that it’s hard for the average person to come to any firm conclusions about it all – should mean getting labelled a hysterical transphobe.

But it seems like that’s what this discussion has come to.

Dave wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Dave wrote:

This might be true – I haven’t delved into what transphobic corners of the internet are saying. I’m basing my comments on mainstream news reports and comments from the bodies involved like the IOC and IBA, with the issue given prominence most of all by other competing female boxers protesting against Khelif in competition (I’m sure you’ve seen many of them making the double-X sign in the ring in recent days).

Mainstream news in the UK is a transphobic corner of the internet.

Even if you feel that way, I don’t think that simply acknowledging that these arguments are a part of the mainstream debate around the topic – and making it clear that it’s hard for the average person to come to any firm conclusions about it all – should mean getting labelled a hysterical transphobe.

But it seems like that’s what this discussion has come to.

Yes, they’re part of the mainstream discussion.  The mainstream discussion designed to confuse and obfuscate and make you think these are “reasonable concerns”.  It’s the same way the anti-choice argument makes a “reasonable concern” out of asking when life begins because they have no counter to the moral argument that you shouldn’t force someone to be pregnant against their will without sounding like monsters.  But it’s just chaff.

Let’s say that the IOC takes this all on-board and creates a set of intricate rules to govern the testing for and regulation of intersex conditions and whatever else the “reasonable concerns” are this week.  Do you honestly think that next Olympics they won’t scream and cry about someone else and gin up another set of “reasonable concerns”? And that those “reasonable concerns” won’t get laundered through the media like they always do?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Yes, they’re part of the mainstream discussion.  The mainstream discussion designed to confuse and obfuscate and make you think these are “reasonable concerns”. 

Yeah, I do understand this. I really don’t have a clue how much weight to give the objections that have been raised, and I don’t doubt that the discussion around it could be artificially amplifying arguments that really don’t deserve to be given much credence.

I feel like it’s reasonable to acknowledge that these arguments are out there though. Not least because I always think the best way to counter inaccuracies and misinformation is by actually discussing it and rebutting it, rather than dismissing it out of hand – and I feel like we generally do a good job of having that kind of good-faith discussion here.

I’m sure there will be more mainstream discussion around it in the days and weeks to come, but for now I see that Khelif has won her gold, and I don’t think anybody would want to detract from someone who has reached that achievement legitimately.

The only problem is, where culture wars are concerned, it doesn’t tend to play out that way. Most of us posting know this from what started as Comicsgate and has gone on to infect wider entertainment and politics. It could be argued that wasn’t anything new either, old hatred, new form.

So yeah, we’ll have people playing the “actually, it’s about…” card on this area and others. Like with Star Wars, Trek and the Boys going “woke”, culture wars are the political version. Trans is the latest target, but it’s a familiar pattern.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

And after trans people have enough cultural weight to be accepted, it’ll be furries, or poly people, or something else.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd

[Al-x]

Overall the Olympics was entertaining. Seeing all these young toned bodies of both male and female athletes made me feel old 🤣

And these split second metrics:

Nice story:

 

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by Al-x.

2 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Todd

I don’t like people making fun of the break dancing. Let people have fun!

[Al-x]

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I don’t like people making fun of the break dancing. Let people have fun!

• This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Al-x.

[Al-x]

Seriously, news has it that Simone Biles biological mom who was an addict and gave her up for adoption is now reaching out to make amends:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/simone-biles-mother-adoption-olympics-b2595936.html

I really don’t know. That would be Simone’s call…

——————-

Next one will be in LA. The gridlock already 🤣

 

• This reply was modified 3 months, 4 weeks ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Al-x.

Yeah… Well you go on believing that Deontay 🤣

Everybody else who’ve been there will go with this:

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

NFL:

Dak Prescott … Wow! 240M extension (80M signing bonus) . 230M of it guaranteed.  Damn.

Tom Brady in the booth now.

I don’t like Tyreek Hill, but he still didn’t deserve that yesterday.

[Al-x]

Nice seeing Aaron Rodgers at QB as the Jets won last night.
It was supposed to be like this last season but I digress.
I just hope Rodgers makes it all season.
Hold off on ideas of being an elite team making the playoffs and challenging the Chiefs, Bills, Ravens, Steelers etc.

Years ago Tampa Bay signed Tom Brady and got a quick Super Bowl out of it.
Jets are trying the same thing with Rodgers. We’ll see it if works out.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Al-x.

I keep wanting to rip the Seahawks, and they give me reason to.
But they turn around and do something good.

Then I send out a text to friends about Geno Smith being the new Hasslebeck (and not going to win, he’s a NY Jets castoff for fuck sakes), of course he does a surgical strike downfield.

Well, They have to be benefiting fr9m a nice start to the schedule.

But a good friend reminded me good teams start by beating the teams they should beat.

I heard the situation with QB Bryce Young and the Panthers owner isn’t going so well. Maybe the Giants can sweep in and hoodwink Bryce from them.  QBs and any player for that matter is subjective. Some players do better once they change teams and work better in that coaching system. The Jets had Geno Smith, Sam Darnold and they are OK where they are now.

 

Let’s go Mets!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ahhh, the Jets:

https://sports.yahoo.com/jets-fire-head-coach-robert-saleh-after-20-36-record-over-3-plus-seasons-we-are-not-where-we-should-be-141224167.html?guccounter=1

It’s also worth noting how a few players are doing now that they left. Geno Smith is a reasonable QB in Seattle and Sam Darnold is 5-0 as Vikings QB. I guess it took the investment of Aaron Rodgers for them to fire Saleh and try to salvage the season. They are a win now team.

No wonder Belichick resigned the very next day after he inherited the job after Parcells. He would never have lasted 24 years here like he did in New England. Jets management…. sigh.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I don’t think there’s any new information in here (I saw pretty much all of this reported on Twitter during the Olympics) but here’s a nice summation of how the boxing nonsense during the Olympics was set up by Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/10/17/russia-paris-olympics-boxing-gender/

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

So, geographically I latched onto the Seattle Seahawks a long time ago.
It’s my absolute right to over cheer when things are good, and the sky is falling at the first dark cloud.

This is a franchise that has 3 trips and one Superbowl to show for it. Hang onto that and don’t feel slighted as it”s hard to win even one (ask Buffalo…).

I’ve said this before, but so lucky to escape the train wreck Russell Wilson was.
But Geno Smith?
Can’t wrap my head around it, but there is all kinds of proof he’s for real.
It”s annoying as fuck to be proven wrong.

Good for him, but he is 34 years old and I doubt a contender (they could middle their way into a wild card spot).

So as Im typing, good throw by Geno to DK Metcalf, but that was highlight reel by Metcalf.
The good people from the Wilson trade and the Seattle rebuild will need a QB to build around realistically.

Or maybe I shouldn’t be so negative. He can get to the post season. It’s a team game for how far you go.
If there is a god he’s sick of Mahomes like the rest of us, and he loves to give the edge to former Jets players (just to rub their noses in it)

and DK Metcalf just caught it in the end zone with 4 seconds left in the first half.
Good decision to burn a time out to avoid the 10 second runout after the Intentional Grounding call
17-7 Seattle over Atlanta at the half.

Okay, Ill stop rambling.
However, Ive bately seen Brady as an analyst (commentator?) this season.
How’s he doing?

NY Liberty : Congratulations!

NY Mets : Season was a LOT better than everyone thought it would be.

NY Jets: Wait and see the departure of Saleh and the arrival of an old partner of Rodgers will do.

NY Giants: Nice that Saquon Barkley returned as an Eagle and blew them away. Giants should have drafted Hurts when they had the chance instead of Daniel Jones.

NY Knicks: Going to be a good year.

World Series: Yankees  – Dodgers. I don’t care either way. Shame if the Dodgers lose after spending 1B last year.

Watching Luke Willson (CTV commentator, Canadian, won a Superbowl with the Seahawks) doing the Sunday wrap up.

(He used to have long hair, keeps that memory alive with a mullet.
I would shave his head is the polite way to day it)

He went off on a ramt about the Seahawks loss was embarrassing, they haven’t looked good, hey internet, maybe Pete Carroll wasn’t the problem.
I agree with that.

3 way tie in that division for the lead, 4-4
I guess the Rams have a bye but when they play their eight game, a win has the whole division at 4-4
Sad thing is, someone will win the division and get a home game in the playoffs.

Washington Commanders won yesterday on a crazy “Hail Mary” pass that tipped into the arms of a receiver in the end zone.
Haven’t seen that in ages.
Just like Roger Staubach.

World Series: Yankees have to win 4 of the next 5, but that would mean that the loaded Dodger team would lose 4 of the next 5.🤣

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

[Al-x]

Congrats Dodgers. You spent $1B last year so you’d better win.🤣
But:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officers-clash-hostile-baseball-fans-los-angeles-after/story?id=115343015

——–

As for Halloween and Rodgers:

 

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Al-x.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, Todd

Al-x wrote:

Dak Prescott … Wow! 240M extension (80M signing bonus) . 230M of it guaranteed. Damn.

But now:https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/cowboys/2024/11/09/dak-prescott-injury-update-cowboys-qb-hamstring-surgery/76161438007/

How much of Dallas record is on him? Too hard to say. It might be more on the offensive line, no pocket protection, no time to set and throw and so on. If everything else is all set, offensive line, receivers, running game, and the offense messes up, that would be on the QB.

—————-

Crazy yesterday that the 49ers kicker messes up 3 FGs but made the very last one that won the game. Is all forgiven? 🤣

KC blocked what would have been the game winning FG yesterday. Still undefeated.

Al-x wrote:

I wish the Time Stone was real so I could have used to revert Tyson to the age of 19 that night. He was just too old. He came off a lot of transfusions over something he had that postponed it the first time. He had nothing that night. Jake was in a bad position because he would have looked bad beating down an old man way past his prime. Give credit to Tyson for going the distance of 8 rounds 2 minutes each.

Tyson got a nice paycheck though. The other fights on the cards were better. No offense to Jake, but to get respect he has to take real boxers. This  imho shouldn’t count on Tyson’s record.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

Al-x wrote:

I wish the Time Stone was real so I could have used to revert Tyson to the age of 19 that night. He was just too old. He came off a lot of transfusions over something he had that postponed it the first time. He had nothing that night. Jake was in a bad position because he would have looked bad beating down an old man way past his prime. Give credit to Tyson for going the distance of 8 rounds 2 minutes each.

Tyson got a nice paycheck though. The other fights on the cards were better. No offense to Jake, but to get respect he has to take real boxers. This  imho shouldn’t count on Tyson’s record.

16th Century sailing ships had less rigging than that fight did.

You could tell Paul was holding back big time. He could have dropped Tyson at any time. Thrown in that Tyson admitted he was fighting hurt, the fix was definitely in.

A corrupt boxing match? Now I’ve seen everything

3 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, njerry, Todd

I saw this and …

Ok… some good came out of it like Amanda Serrano getting a huge payday and Mike getting 20M. It is what it is.

But I still want him to take on a real boxer in his prime. Too many exhibition bouts. Now prove yourself.

Well done!

Vancouver Canucks called up Max Sasson (undrafted, free agent signing March 2023) for his first NHL game (in Ottawa to start a road trip).

The whole family flew to Ottawa.
With a 1-1 tie, Sasson Beautifully passed to the trailer (Blueger) who scored, earning him an assist in his first ever game!

Watching dad go nuts and high-fiving everyone was beautiful.

“I really liked his game,” said #Canucks head coach Rick Tocchet about rookie Max Sasson.

“To just get called up out of the blue, he seized the moment.”

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-sasson-reacts-dads-celly-first-nhl-point

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

So the Seahawks just beat the Carinals to tie at 6-5 and Seattle leads the division (with the tie-breaker).

Although the Rams play Monday night, if they win then they lead the division (NFC West) in a 3 way tie at 6-5.

San Fran is fourth at 5-6 and below .500 at week 12 for the first time in a while.

You could look at Seattle’s victory with some positives, but can rip apart.
Could they win a playoff game?

One of those sad sack teams will win the division and host a playoff game.

Yet the NFC West is only the second worst division.
NFC South has one team at 6-5, and 3 below .500

The NFC? Fuck sakes!
Philadelphia leads their division, I can only view as a new Buffalo Bill’s.

Detroit leads their division, matching the Cheifs with the best record at 10-1
Detroit? Sorry, Im hallucinating at this point

Some bad football played.
I hear a lot about the Jets and Giants and their lack of direction (no progress for years).
Now the mismanaging of time by the Bears coach (Fired now).
All these teams that are taking a step backwards.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/42864917/sources-mets-land-juan-soto-15-year-765m-deal

To outdo the Yankees…Wow