What if...IU had Hired Jerry Tarkanian instead of Bob Knight...
- Thread starter Pryght
- Start date
I never once tried to play anything off. Unlike you, I was completely honest. That’s fact, in spite of how much that offends you.
You would know, little fellow. Love that I intimidate you as much as I do. Are you crying?
Tim Daniel-Bleacher Report 2017:
Former Indiana University head basketball coach Bob Knight criticized UCLA legend John Wooden for his lack of control over Bruins booster Sam Gilbert when it came to recruiting.
Knight made pointed remarks during an interview for Undeniable with Joe Buck, which is scheduled to air Wednesday night on the Audience Network, per ESPN.com.
"I have a lot of respect for Wooden as a coach, how he coached. He was a good coach," he said. "But from then on, and I don't mind saying it, I don't respect Wooden, because he allowed Sam Gilbert to do whatever it took to recruit kids. And one time he told me, he said, 'I just didn't know how to deal with Sam Gilbert.' And I'm saying to myself, 'I damn sure could have dealt with him.'"
I would also point out that the two aren't mutually exclusive.They can both be true. Knight could have thought that about Wooden and just not voiced those thoughts publicly until after Wooden made remarks about him. Even if that is the order in which it happened, stating that Wooden's comments caused Knight's comments is purely conjecture and can't be proved.
That's funny that you think you intimidate...well, anyone.
It's sad that everyone IRL most assuredly laughs at you, and then, when you come on line, you get the same treatment from everyone here.
Wonder why BK waited so long to criticize Wooden, even choosing to do so after his death? Hmm.
I look forward to Ordfan's equal measure of proof to back up his stance, but not holding my breath.
Well, you don't intimidate me at all, so that was a stupid question. Why are you having such a meltdown today?
It’s a classic move, really boosted into the stratosphere thanks to the internet’s omnibeneficent influence: you don’t actually *argue* a point, you rather cast aspersions on - or make outright accusations about - motive, mood, biases, etc.
Shortcutting actual thought: it’s the winner’s tactic!
Wonder? That's all you've got?
There is weak evidence, and then there is NO evidence. You've got the latter.
Case closed.
That is a possibility, athough it cannot be proven, while Knight's comments about Wooden's dirty program are in clear print above. But to argue that Wooden's program didn't cheat, or that they may have but Wooden had zero knowledge, flies in the face of facts that are decades old.
I would add that the Buck interview includes RMK being complimentary towards JW's coaching skills. Knowing RMK as we do, if he had a personal grudge about JW's words towards RMK, and not solely the dirty program, I find it hard to believe RMK would have been so gracious towards JW as a coach. I've never seen Knight be the least bit complimentary towards anyone when he has a personal grudge against that person.
Last edited:
Just put him on ignore and let him have a conversation with himself. Then he can be the smartest guy in the room and intimidate himself.
It was a question, just like the one I’ve asked you and that you’ve consistently avoided. Why is that, especially since you weren’t able to prove anything you claimed?
False again. Everyone here has seen the evidence. You're on an island alone, surrounded by an ocean of factual reality.
I may not be able to spell, but I can defend my arguments with verifiable facts. You cannot. At this point it's beyond obvious and you're embarrassing yourself.
JW and UCLA were dirty. RMK called him out on it. End of story.
Case Closed.
Here's a second article, written 7 yrs before the Buck interview. Again, proving my point. The evidence keeps mounting. Wooden even does some half hearted back peddling on the issue in the last paragraph.
Meanwhile, I can't find anything that would every marginally validate your hypothesis that RMK was bitter at Wooden for his critiques of Knight's coaching ways. All you have presented are the voices in your head.
Case closed...even tighter.
https://www.mlive.com/benchwarmer/2010/06/john_wooden_wasnt_shy_about_di.html
No, you really don’t. I’m not sure why you would think that, unless it’s a manifestation of your obvious delusions of grandeur.
I’m dropping out of this conversation. You’re making me feel very uncomfortable and I enjoy life too much to run the risk of having it snuffed out by a simmering lunatic on the verge of deep state neurosis with a nagging chip on his shoulder. Send in the clowns, Harvey, it’s that time, again. Time for the candy-colored clown they call The Sandman!
No, it doesn’t prove your point. Show me where Wooden cheated, as you claimed. Proof.
Then post verifiable facts that Wooden cheated. Back it up or go away.
People with delusions of grandeur tend to believe everyone else is intimidated by them. Classic symptom.
I never referenced anyone else. I asked why you were intimidated by me. Your deflection is the classic example. Please answer the question.
so you've given up on the argument of what was really in RMK's mind when he was critical of JW? Ok good call your part. We'll move on to the next topic....give me a few minutes. As Cap told Iron Man...I can do this all day.
Not at all. If you know anything about BK, this wouldn’t be such a difficult things for you to see.
sorry, I deal with facts, not speculation.
Just so I have them clear in my head, are these your two main arguments you are fighting for?
1. Wooden and UCLA were clean
2. RMK disliked what JW said about him personally, not because he thought answer to #1 above was 'hell no'
??
You’ve offered no proof that Wooden cheated, and he was never charged with or convicted of NCAA violations during his time as UCLA head coach. That’s a fact you continue to ignore.
You are correct on #2, and that’s a behavior that any of us who followed Knight through the years observed on multiple occasions.
Why do you consistently behave as if I intimidate you if, in fact, I do not?
I don't. It's just those pesky delusions of grandeur fooling you.
Of course you. That’s not really a matter of debate. I’m just trying to determine why I intimidate you. It’s an internet message board, after all.
No, I accidentally omitted a word. Is this yet another sign of your feelings of intimidation, which you frequently display here (an internet message board)?
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your practice of pointing out other posters' typing errors.
I'm sure that's another symptom of your delusions of grandeur.
Last edited:
You don't, but I'm sure you think you do.
Classic case of delusions of grandeur for all to see.
The difference, if you bothered to look, is that I acknowledge them (most are spell check related, though it’s my error for failing to proof read thoroughly). Of course, the errors I point are rarely related to spell check. Obviously, this is yet another demonstration of how intimidated I make you. Sorry about that.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Pacers take it to Milwaukee tonight tie the series 1-1
- Latest: PhyloeBedoe
-
-
-
Argentina elects "far-right" libertarian--will they turn it around?- Latest: Joe_Hoopsier