npope

I will grant you that different environments have different norms. That said, a quick internet search finds that 44% of Americans own at least one firearm of some sort. Of that 44%, 33% own (at least one) handgun. That gets us down to 14% (44% x 33% = 14%) of Americans own at least one handgun. God knows how many own multiple handguns, but 14% own at least one. How many people keep that handgun in their car? I have no idea, but it is likely significantly less than the 14% already identified. I am just saying that those of you who pack-n-carry (any gun, much less multiple guns) are the outlier - NOT the norm in America.

Geeezzz, hell's bells! Yes, and it is possible that he had been hired to move some gun shop's supply of handguns to a new location. The point isn't that there couldn't be some rational, albeit unlikely, explanation. Rather, the issue is that four handguns in a car is not normal, even though some on this forum seem to have an empathetic bent toward driving a car with multiple weapons available. The point is that it is NOT normal - but rather, it is abnormal - whether a poster does the same thing or not. If a poster also carries four weapons in the car then they too are behaving in an abnormal way - by definition. We don't even have to get into the rationale for doing so; four handguns in the car is not normal behavior. That's not to say that there couldn't be an explanation (as you supply as a possibility), but without such an actual explanation, that behavior is abnormal and deserving of scrutiny.

You make a lot of assumptions to get to "no big deal," e.g., "additional unloaded guns out of reach"; "lightweight on the weed," etc. I don't know where you are from and while you may have had three or more at some point in time, that is NOT typical behavior. The whole thing smells bad and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he gets a little time for the whole kerfuffle.

Pat Christenson (University of Wisconsin) was an NCAA champ (167) in 1977. Prior to that, he had never placed at the NCAA nor did he place at the state meet while in high school (Wisconsin). Came out of nowhere.

The self-denial associated with weight loss is a complicated personality trait and (thankfully) many people simply are not emotionally ready to buy-into it. I was one of the extreme weight cutters n HS and college; it wore me out by the time I was done with the sport. But I do remember guys on my teams who couldn't (or wouldn't) engage in significant weight loss and at the time, I felt as though they simply didn't have the "commitment" to the sport or the team that I had; I thought less of them as a competitor/teammate. With the benefit of time and perspective I can now better see the error of my thinking. The absolute worst thing about our sport is (excessive) weight loss.

Give us a little more time - we'll get there

Can't wrestlers win two medals? One in free-style and the other in Greco? It used to be that way unless the rules have changed. I know that two isn't four (for example) that might be possible in swimming or possibly track & field, but since we are nitpicking about the number of medals... Just sayin'

Like the swallows of Capistrano, the rise of another Olympic year brings with it an inexplicable rise in the profile of the sport of swimming. I would easily classify both swimming and wrestling as secondary sports with trivial followings in most years, but when an Olympic year rolls around we find not only the Olympic swimming events plastered on TV, but even the US team's trials make the TV screen. In a non-Olympic year no "average-Joe" knows any of the swimmers' (or wrestlers') names. But something happens with the marketing machines of each respective sport during an Olympic year that provides swimming with an inexplicable high-profile platform for marketing the sport. Certainly, swimming is a simpler sport to understand (and that may be the be-all as far as explanations go), but if I were the people in charge of USA wrestling I think I would try to hire-away the people in charge of marketing swimming to do the same for wrestling. The pulse for interest in wrestling among the broader public is virtually nil and doesn't increase at all during Olympic years. What is swimming doing that wrestling is not? Is the "product" really that different?

Sports fans are generally all about the won-lost column, and this especially describes wrestling and its fans, where after a handful of minutes of competition a winner - and a loser - is declared. The success and/or failure of an athlete is very black-and-white in our sport. With the arrival of NIL and the ability of a mere handful of teams to compete for the raw talent in that market, the pools of premiere talent will congregate in a very few schools (we already are seeing it). This concentration of talent will lead to a competitive imbalance, i.e., the strong teams will increase the distance between themselves and the weaker teams (whose numbers will far out-number the teams with money and talent) will fall away and fan-interest will wither and dissipate. In time, you will literally only have a handful of powerful, sustainable teams who will only have each other to compete against - a small cluster of maybe five to ten teams who nobody else other than their own respective fan-bases care about. There won't be enough teams against which to compete in order to have a "season." I can't think of any other sports model where this is sustainable. This concentration of money and talent will surely kill our sport as part of the collegiate experience; it will be lucky to continue even as a club sport because it is such a grueling experience for the wrestlers themselves. The club version used by the rest of the world may be the only sustainable version, but that is a significantly foreign model for Americans to swallow as much of our sporting system has been integrally tied to our educational system. Sadly, I think we are in the midst of the end of our folk style sport as we have known it for the past century.

Okay - let's get this part right. Jordan graduated from the University of WISCONSIN in 1986 where he was a two time national champ. He later picked up a law degree at tOSU. You guys make me doubt that you know anything about what you are saying.

You are the only one saying that I only lost by pins - no one else said that. I said I learned to never quit while there was still time on the clock. Obvious that you aren't reading what is posted and writing your own narrative so you really don't need anyone responding to you - so I'm out - go for it.

Please reread the post. I think you are just being deliberately dense now. What was said was that one of the most poignant learning moments from my wrestling career was that I never quit trying - no matter the score. I have lost many times by a variety of scores - but that has nothing to do with the post that was made.

I understand that you didn't say that no one ever comes back near the end of a match, but you also said that when the "writing is on the wall" wrestlers at the highest levels are more likely to simply accept the beating and get off the mat ASAP...and that's the part I have trouble with. I don't really know if that's a true assessment of the competitive nature at that level (and I did indeed wrestle in college) but even more, I hope like heck it isn't accurate. I count among the many valuable lessons I learned from the years competing is that a person should never quit when there is still "time on the clock." I buy into the value of believing "It ain't over till its over" and it colors all aspects of my life. So, to think the many greats of our sport think otherwise on this point "ruffles" me a bit and I resist accepting your premise.

Tell that to Rob Rohn

After watching a few of Gable's matches here (and note that I am in my 60s) I find it hard to reconcile my memories of him with the fact that he is a far older man now - his legend always precedes him in my mind. He was a force of nature during his time.