OT- Thoughts on Richard Sherman interview
January 20th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
that a group of peoples who tend to be loud and boisterous is more indicative of being poor than anything else. if you look at hispanics, poor white people, poor brits, they all have different ways of being loud, opinionated, etc. etc.
January 20th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
race exists and it will not be going away. It is ok for tings to be about race.
January 20th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^
but actions and culture are way more influenced by environment than by some genetic predisposition.
my point is that differences between blacks and whites are an undeniable fact, but the two problems come in when people assign one characteristic as bad and another as good, and also ignore the fact that the differences are born from social differences rather than genetics.
January 20th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
"race exists"
The completely non-biological social construct called "race" exists, yes... because we created it.
It's purely a human social construct though, with no biological validity.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
to stereotype. i find it racist to dislike something just because it is different from the established norm.
if you don't think that the majority of urban, inner street black kids embody those traits, you're lying to yourself. the why of it has more to do with being poor and neglected by society thus leading to an attitude of no-fuck-being-given than having any inherentness to being black.
the problem is these people's actions are judged by white society and labeled as bad, classless, and thugish. the problem is not that these actions exist.
January 20th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
"Being lound, being rude, not giving a f!#@"
This isn't an acceptable part of any culture. I don't think that we should allow any excuse for allowing these actions/lack of values. There are certain things that are right and wrong, and being rude and not caring about others is WRONG. For all people
January 20th, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^
this is where we part ways. You say that Sheman is acting loud, rude and not giving a fuck. But you also say you have no problem with it. Seems odd to suggest its okay to be loud and rude, essentially condoning bad behavior.
But moreso, it seems odd to argue against criticism of Sherman for acting loud and rude. It seems logical to me that folks would condemn someone for acting loud and rude
January 20th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
Was that you were glorifying a time period in sports that coincided with some serious problems in sports. That you presented a gilded image of a morally superior time when the underlying metal was tarnished with sins of all kinds, including racism of embarrassing breadth and depth. I dunno. I'm just guessing.
To answer your question, though, I think it is fair to criticize Sherman for this episode if you think he violated some unwritten rule of decorum. I'd disagree, but it's not beyond examination. However, many people reacted in a racialized way, which we SHOULD all agree is ridiculous. The guy was too loud and assertive in an interview. This would not correlate to "thug" as strongly as was seen without a healthy dose of... shall we say 'racial subtext.'
As for how far Deadspin had to look, they published that article like 30 minutes after the interview. It didn't take hundreds of man-hours. It took MAYBE a couple, and consisted of a simple search for "Sherman n*****" or any of the other horrible things people literally said to Sherman.
January 20th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
It has become part of the game, in recent years/generations.
Your whitewashed view of sports is amusing, but terribly misguided. Sports has been filled with just as much vile crap as the rest of society for a long, long time. Ty Cobb was a complete jackass and a virulent racist. Fielding Yost had some well-documented issues. Muhammad Ali talked more trash than Richard Sherman could DREAM of talking. "All-American Boy" Mickey Mantle was a drunk and a man with many character flaws. The "survived world wars and depression" athletes you spoke of weren't exactly kind to Jackie Robinson and had plenty of kind words for him on the field (and that sets aside the hundreds of elite athletes they relegated to the Negro Leagues for decades).
The difference is that in the past, the media ignored this stuff. Now they exploit it for fun and profit. Football trash-talk didn't originate with the invention of the parabolic microphone.
January 20th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
EVERYONE was a racist back then! you can't judge them to be classless if everyone was classless. it's like, relativity, man.
January 20th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
I read your screed while listening to Chris Carter rip your race card to shreads.
January 20th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
Generally, I agree when people look longingly at the "good 'ol days" but (directionally) I think Section 1 is correct and you're wrong.
I mean, using Ty Cobb is an example? He did not "talk trash" for show (which is what Sherman did). Cobb just straight up hated people and acted accordingly - denigrating blacks and punching out handicapped people. Cobb (to my knowledge) didn't go up to a reporter and exclaim how he was tired of being disrespected by Christy Mathewson and was glad to finally get a chance to shut him up.
While Mickey Mantle was a drunk, what does that have to do with Richard Sherman? Did Mantle go up to Mel Allen's radio show after beating Brooklyn and yell, "I am tired of all the haterz on the Dodgers! Don't ever try and sneak a fastball by me!" Nope.
And Ali is a perfect example -- he stood out in the mid-60s / mid-70s precisely BECAUSE he talked so much trash. It stood out. It was quite unusual. Same thing with Joe Namath -- he stood out.
Trash talk on the field has probably been around since the Olympics (the original, BC version). But acting like Sherman did off the field, in the media, on a regular basis? That's (with a few notable exceptions) a modern invention.
January 20th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
You see more of it in the media these days than you used to... but that's because of the media. Shining a light on something doesn't make it appear. It just makes it visible where once it wasn't.
Point of fact, Ty Cobb WAS a trash talker: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-07-16/sports/0607160097_1_robin…
Ted Williams was a trash-talker: http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2013/04/04/book-review-facing-ted…
The entire Babe Ruth 'Called Shot' incident was ABOUT trash talk, and was itself part of the trash talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth%27s_called_shot
Stick a mic in The Babe's face after that homer, and take a guess as to what he would say.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
He didn't say they didn't trash talk on the field, which is what you cited, he said they didn't make it a theme during post game interviews, which is what you failed to refute.
As for Babe Ruth, we don't have to guess what he would have said in a post game interview, your link provides it, he said he was pointing at the Chicago bench to remind them he still had one strike remaining. Doesn't sound like post game trash talking to me.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^
They are pacifists. And you're comparing a post-game press conference-type interview (which Sherman ALSO gave, quite calmly and eloquently) with an interview conducted RIGHT THEN. Like, literally moments after play concluded. And THAT's what's new. They're putting mics on guys on the field and aiming dishes at Peyton Manning yelling OMAHA 37 times. We have more access, not more trash-talk.
Besides, my point was more to Section 1's original point that trash talk was never really a part of sports until the recent wave of whippersnappers, because previous generations fought large wars and therefore respected the respect.
January 20th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
"And you're comparing a post-game press conference-type interview (which Sherman ALSO gave, quite calmly and eloquently) with an interview conducted RIGHT THEN."
Nah - his post game press conference CONTINUED the d-baggery:
"Sherman left the field, put on a sportcoat and bowtie, and came right back at Crabtree in the postgame news conference. He called him mediocre. Twice.
"Med-i-ocre," Sherman said, enunciating every syllable as if he was chewing on something rancid."
January 20th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
Those links don't matter b/c I agreed -- "Trash talk on the field has probably been around since the Olympics (the original, BC version)." That's heat of the battle stuff, which I don't really care about.
My point is it is now common (though Sherman was extreme) to talk junk after the game. While there wasn't Twitter or MGoblog back in the day, players had scores of reporters following them -- print, radio and TV. If they wanted to denigrate their opponent, live and unfiltered on the air, they easily could have done so.
For Sherman, the game is over. You won. Show some class about your oppenent, or if you can't do that, just don't say anything at all. B/c beyond his Crabtree comments and his fake, passive aggressive "good game, buddy" butt slap, he made the choking sign -- all of which were pathetic on his part.
*Edit - just saw your comment. Again, it was not JUST his post-game remarks. He made the choke sign and taunted Crabtree. Besides, it's not exactly uncommon to give a post-game remark on the field. Most don't act like Sherman (though a few do).
January 20th, 2014 at 3:47 PM ^
I won't argue with you as to whether some form of "trashtalk" existed privately and quietly among players in the golden ages of American sport. I certainly won't argue the point that I never raised, which is that racial attitudes in sport as well as society have evolved in the past 100-plus years.
What I will argue about is the fact that it wasn't celebrated, or even tolerated, the way it is now. The simple fact is that there is now 1000% more trashtalk on the field and in sports telecasts than in years past. This simple fact is undeniable, for anyone who has followed Michigan athletics from the 1960's to today. Michigan football and basketball players are not the worst trashtalkers in sports; but they are some of the worst in the Big Ten Conference, and more than anything is the profound change that it represents from past decades.
And we really don't need to pick on Michigan; that's not the point. It is just my own metric, having attended most of Michigan's home football games during that time period, and having seen lots of basketball games live during the same time period.
Our collective tolerance for trashtalk and even perhaps the appetite for it (in some quarters) seems to have changed.
It would be one of the first questions that I would pose to Brady Hoke if I encountered him in a public Q-and-A. "To what extent do you think on-field trashtalking is inconsistent with your understanding of the notion of something special about 'Michigan football' which is a near-constant them of yours in public speaking?"
January 20th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
how much shit talking was or was not invovled in early 20th century sports because there was no micing people up, there were no immediate postgame interviews, etc.
if i had a time machine, i guarantee you those fuckers talked their fair share of shit.
January 20th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
"It has become part of the game, in recent years/generations"
Thanks for stating what I already did.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^
okay blackops, time to sit out a couple of plays.
January 20th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
To me the difference is when and where the shit talking takes place. If you want to talk shit during play on the field, go right ahead. It happens all the time and even the most respectful person can get caught up in the heat of competition. The game was over (by a few minutes) and Crabtree was no where around. I think that is the big difference.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^
That's all easier to do when you don't have someone push in the face when you try to shake his hand. So he was still emotional when they pulled him off the field for an interview. I have trouble feeling any outrage over this. In fact, I hope Sherman backs it up and shuts Crabtree down in both games next year.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^
You're right Crabtree did something bad so Sherman should probably stoop to his level right? Nevermind he already did his talking on the field by WINNING THE GAME. Laugh off a poor loser and move on to celebrate with your team.
January 20th, 2014 at 4:22 PM ^
you mock a poster as a mind-reader for interpreting Sherman's initial interaction with Crabtree as not heartfelt, yet you are so so certain that Sherman simply wanted to shake his hand--and have said so more often than you need to here. You have no better idea what Sherman was thinking than the person you questioned. And I'll throw my support behind the insincere position, cuz:
1. you shouldn't approach the vanquished immediately after a loss--bad manners alone
2. everything Sherman said and did afterwards belies your interpretation
3. Sherman never said he was angry because Crabtree dissed him when he tried to shake his hand.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
I'd bet my life that you're under 30. If not, god help us all.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:37 AM ^
Then you would die if you bet that.
January 20th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
I've got enough popcorn here to watch your point total dwindle into the negative.
2014!!!!!!!!
January 20th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
Oh no! My point total! That is just so important to me.
January 20th, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^
You say that, but yet you continue to make new accounts after you eventually get caved for making fun of the women's bball team or just being a negative nancy all the time. So yes, you do seem to enjoy your point total to an extent that you don't like it being the red...hypocrite, thy name is you?
January 20th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
Not for nothing but he only had two tackles because the 9ers only threw his way 2, maybe 3 times.
January 20th, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
I thought it was awesome. Nothing like getting a players pure reaction in the heat of the moment.
The best thing was how regal he was in interviews after that one. The Stanford education really shined through, and I couldn't help but laugh at all the "thug" comments that were made.
January 20th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
Edit: seems I was beaten to the punch. Oops.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
Entertaining but sounded rehearsed
January 20th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
How? I didn't get that feeling one bit. That was not planned one bit.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
That rant was too flawless to be genuine, if it was not hereased he probably would dropped a few f-bombs and n-bombs like players do on the field.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
I don't believe that. He has no idea that was going to happen, so how can it be rehearsed?
You want to know what WAS rehearsed? This one:
January 20th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
He was obviously pissed at Crabtree, so he decided to clown him, and practiced what he would say beforehand should the opportunity arise...
January 20th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
Flash in the pan...next please.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
I don't think "jacking" someone in the face (it was really more of a slap-push anyway) is an appropriate response to smack talk. That 'Skins OL was the bigger child in that encounter.
January 20th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
January 20th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
I'm kind of interested to see just how low your point score goes after this comment.
January 20th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^
banned.