DDD Forum :: View topic - Most Influential Rock Artists

Quote:

... that is incorrect as it has nothing to do with a person`s ethnic origins ..... there is no such thing as a black or white race .... there is more biological diversity between males and females than people with diferent skin colours ... and there is not a male race and a female race .... there is only the human race ... and singing voices/notes do not know skin pigment unless slanged by accent ..... Take care

Quote:

Scientists have proven that people of western african descent have genetic advantages that make them run faster than other people. The 100 fastest times ever run the 100 meter dash are ALL from people of western African descent. If that genetic difference exists, why can't a genetic difference also exist with voices?

Different genetic mutations occur through nature as human beings adapt to their environment. It's certainly possible that nature had a reason for causing different size nostrils, head shapes, etc...that could cause a different vocal sound for human beings from certain parts of the world.

...your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve ..... Take care

Quote:

.. after your last couple of googled posts it is even clearer .... "your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve" ..... Take care

gminer wrote:

Take your blind liberal stance and go home.

If it's not genentics than how do you explain no white sprinters being able to compete in the 100 meter dash?

This was written ten years ago....

The last time that a white athlete participated in an Olympic 100m final, Jimmy Carter was still in the White House. And the last time a white athlete held the 100m world record, Khrushchev was ensconced in the Kremlin. Over the past decade, the 10 second mark in the 100m has been broken 200 times - but not once by a white athlete. Nor is it just at the 100m that whites are so noticeably absent. Every men's world record at every commonly-run track distance from 100m to the marathon now belongs to a runner of African descent.

Bruce wrote:

gminer wrote:

nothing new...... again your premise leads to false conclusions ... and if you have questions let your logic provide you answers you want to hear ... Take care

... after all everyone can tell by the audio from the tunes in the link below the songs are sung by a young white Irish girl ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cptq3_OHEC8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ8ftyfN ... re=related

.... and an interview with the Irish lead singer of Thin Lizzy ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sR61Nu6FqE

.. you generally have no idea what you are talking about ... other than your premise is incorrect and your examples do not prove anything in regards to your "black singing voice" theory ..... Take care

honestly though, usually you can tell when a person is black or white by hearing their voice. at least that's been my experience. there are exceptions. i have no science to back it up obviously, but i can almost always tell.

edit: is also has nothing to do with accent. its a certain timbre or something.

yeah, none of this is racist. its just observation. there are clear physical differences- even if the DNA is extremely similar. you can clearly see a difference with hair, with facial features (noses, lips, etc)... feel a difference in skin texture...

it might actually be a body hair thing. i noticed it a lot as a wrestler in high school. almost without exception, there is a smoother quality about the skin of a black person as opposed to a white person.

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
gminer wrote: Quote: ... that is incorrect as it has nothing to do with a person`s ethnic origins ..... there is no such thing as a black or white race .... there is more biological diversity between males and females than people with diferent skin colours ... and there is not a male race and a female race .... there is only the human race ... and singing voices/notes do not know skin pigment unless slanged by accent ..... Take care Quote: Scientists have proven that people of western african descent have genetic advantages that make them run faster than other people. The 100 fastest times ever run the 100 meter dash are ALL from people of western African descent. If that genetic difference exists, why can't a genetic difference also exist with voices? Different genetic mutations occur through nature as human beings adapt to their environment. It's certainly possible that nature had a reason for causing different size nostrils, head shapes, etc...that could cause a different vocal sound for human beings from certain parts of the world. ...your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve ..... Take care http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/olympics.html why black will beat white at the olympics new statesman, 18 september 2000Next Saturday afternoon, in less time than it has taken me to type this sentence, the fastest man at the Olympics will take the 100m gold medal. That man may be the pre-Olympic favourite, the American Maurice Greene. It may be Trinidad's Ato Boldon. It may even be Britain's Dwaine Chambers, who has run into impressive form in the last few weeks. But whoever it is, of one thing we can be certain: he will be black. Indeed, you've probably got more chance of winning the lottery next Saturday than a white man has of even making it to the final. The last time that a white athlete participated in an Olympic 100m final, Jimmy Carter was still in the White House. And the last time a white athlete held the 100m world record, Khrushchev was ensconced in the Kremlin. Over the past decade, the 10 second mark in the 100m has been broken 200 times - but not once by a white athlete. Nor is it just at the 100m that whites are so noticeably absent. Every men's world record at every commonly-run track distance from 100m to the marathon now belongs to a runner of African descent. Nor is there any respite for white sportsmen away from the Olympics. In 1950, the American Basketball Association was almost entirely white. Today it is 80 per cent black; among the stars the figure rises to 95 per cent. Sixty per cent of American footballers are black. France won the football World Cup and Euro 2000 with a team in which more than a third of the players were black. In boxing, the two world heavyweight champions - Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield - are black; there is not a single serious white contender for their crowns. What lies behind such black domination of sport? The traditional liberal answer points the finger at social factors. Blacks, so the argument runs, have been driven into sport because racism has excluded them from most areas of employment. Racism also makes blacks hungrier than whites for success, and so they more often end up on the winners' rostrum. In the postwar world, largely as a consequence of the experience of the Holocaust, there has been a great reluctance to see human differences, indeed to view any aspect of human behaviour, in biological terms. Humans, we have come to believe, can be explained purely in terms of culture. Increasingly, this antipathy to biology is wearing away. More and more, biologists, anthropologists and athletes themselves are looking to nature not nurture for an explanation of black domination. 'Blacks are made better', argues Carl Lewis, the African American athlete who won four golds at the 1984 Olympics. The American journalist Jon Entine dismisses the environmentalist theory of black athletic prowess as 'political correctness'. Entine's book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It was published in America earlier this year to great controversy. The liberal consensus, Entine argues, has served only to disguise the truth about the black domination of sport - which is that blacks are built to run and jump. It's an argument that's winning a hearing on this side of the Atlantic too. Last week, the BBC transmitted The Faster Race, produced by its Black Britain team, which argued the case for a natural black athleticism. Channel 4 begins shortly a three-part series, The Difference, which explores genetic differences between races, including in sport. It's time we put away our fears of talking about racial differences, the series argues, and faced up to the facts of genetic diversity. The view that black sportsmen and women have a natural superiority rests on the evidence of physiological research, largely into two groups of athletes: East African long distance runners and West African sprinters. East Africa, and in particular Kenya, is the powerhouse of middle and long distance running. The top 60 times in the 3000m steeple chase are all held by Kenyan athletes, who also hold more than half the top times at 5000 and 10,000 metres. Kenyan men have won the world cross-country championship every year since 1986. At the Boston marathon, often considered the world's premier event, Kenyan men have not lost since 1990. Most remarkably, the vast majority of top Kenyan runners come from one area in the country - the Kalenjin region along the western rim of the Great Rift Valley, adjacent to Lake Victoria. Kalenjin runners have won more than seventy per cent of Kenya's Olympic medals in world running and all but one Kenyan-held world records. A number of lines of research suggest that the secret of such spectacular success lies in superior biology. All muscle contains two kinds of fibres - fast-twitch and slow-twitch. The former is good at producing explosive bursts of energy, the latter at sustaining muscle effort over long periods. Physiologists have shown that the muscles of Kenyan athletes have a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibres than those of white or West African athletes. Kenyans also enjoy a slighter body profile, have relatively longer legs and larger lung capacities, and possess more energy-producing enzymes in their muscles which are better able to utilise oxygen. Athletes of West African descent - which include most African American, Caribbean and black British athletes - have, on the other hand, a physique which is suited to explosive events, requiring sprinting and jumping. Such athletes possess what biologists call a mesomorphic physique with bigger, more visible muscles including a larger chest. Their muscles contain a higher proportion of fast-twitch fibres than do whites or East Africans. Athletes of West African descent also possess less body fat, a higher centre of gravity, narrower hips, and higher levels of testosterone in their blood. For Entine such physiological and biomechanical differences demonstrate the natural superiority of black athletes. For Entine's critics, on the other hand, the very search for such differences demonstrates a racist outlook. 'I don't think it matters what the biological conclusions are', argues former footballer Garth Crooks. 'It forges a distinction between black and white athletes which is unhealthy, unhelpful and untrue.' According to the prestigious science journal Nature, 'The danger that interracial comparisons will be inhibited by considerations of political correctness is less serious than that interracial studies will be wrongly used.' 'There are some things better left unsaid', concluded the New York Times. Such critics are responding to a long history of racism in which black athletic superiority has often been seen as evidence of intellectual backwardness. 'The Negro excels in the events he does because he is closer to the primitive than the white man', claimed Dean Cromwell, the head coach to the US team at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. 'It was not long ago that his ability to sprint and jump was a life-and-death matter to him in the jungle.' Today, too, scientific racists, such as the controversial Canadian psychologist Philippe J. Rushton, argue that there is a trade-off between brain and brawn, and that black athletic superiority has been purchased at the price of lower intelligence. In The Faster Race Rushton explained (with a perfectly straight face) that Asian and white infants are born with bigger heads than black infants. Hence Asian and white women have a bigger pelvic girdle than do black women. A smaller pelvis, Rushton claimed, is better suited to running. Asians and whites are brainier, blacks more athletic. Such claims may seem to us deeply offensive. But this is no reason to close our eyes to scientific arguments about racial differences in sporting ability. The cause of antiracism is not strengthened by ignoring science or censoring data. Racial science is a pseudo-science, which ignores the truth about human differences; antiracists should not try to ape it. Moreover, the debate about differences in sporting abilities is part of a wider debate about the meaning of new knowledge about genetic diversity. Channel 4's The Difference links racial variation in physical attributes to racial variation in intelligence. The final programme in the series is largely given over to Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, to argue that black populations are naturally less intelligent that whites and Asians. Liberals who refuse to engage in the debate about natural difference are simply leaving the terrain open to the likes of Rushton and Murray. The real problem with the 'blacks are born to run' thesis is not that it is politically incorrect and hence should be ignored but that it is factually incorrect and should be challenged. The most basic difficulty is the confusion of racial and population differences. Different population groups are clearly physically distinct. The Masai in Kenya tend to be taller and longer limbed than the stocky, short-limbed Inuit in the Arctic, because the body-forms of both have been shaped by natural selection to suit their particular environments. But the fact that there are physical differences between human groups does not mean that such differences can be reduced to racial distinctions, nor that such differences need have a meaningful consequence in human endeavour, whether that be sport or IQ tests. It is certainly possible to divide humanity into a number of races, as we conventionally do, according to skin colour and body form. But it is also possible to do it many other ways - using, for instance, blood group, lactose-tolerance, sickle cell, or any other genetic trait, as the basis for our new 'races'. Genetically, each would be as valid a criterion as skin colour. The distribution of one physical or genetic characteristic - say skin colour - is not necessarily the same as that of another - such as blood group. The current division of the world into black, white, Asian and Oriental races is, in other words, as rooted in social convention as in genetics. Entine rejects such criticisms as mere 'semantics'. But his own argument shows why it is not so. According to Entine, East Africans are naturally superior at endurance sports, West Africans at sprinting and jumping, and 'whites fall somewhere in the middle'. But if East and West Africans are at either end of a genetic spectrum of athletic abilities why consider them to be part of a single race, and one that is distinct from whites? Only because conventionally we use skin colour as the criterion of racial difference. To understand why genetic notions of population difference are at odds with social ideas of race, consider the Australian athlete Cathy Freeman. Freeman, an Aborigine, is the hottest Australian athlete, and a good tip for the 400m Olympic gold. Because of their skin colour, Aborigines are often bracketed with sub-Saharan Africans as a 'black' race. Racial scientists have often argued that Australian Aborigines and black African are the two most primitive races in the world. Since Freeman's rise to prominence, there has been much speculation that Aborigines, like black Africans, are natural athletes. Genetically, however, there is no population in the world more distinct from those of sub-Saharan Africa than Australian Aborigines. Freeman is genetically closer to white athletes such as Britain's Katherine Merry than to black athletes such as America's Marion Jones. Here, as in much else, appearances can be deceptive. Not only are genetic notions of population differences distinct from political concepts of race, but the physiology of human differences is not easy to interpret in sporting terms. Entine suggests that West Africans have relatively slender calves compared to whites, and that this helps their sprinting ability. It is difficult to see how, because muscle-power increases with cross-sectional area; smaller calves should make it harder, not easier, to excel in explosive sprinting events. Indeed 'slender calves' is the main biological reason given for the lack of African-Americans in ice hockey. Yet the same attribute is seen as enhancing their performance on the track. It is true that athletes of West African descent living in North America, Western Europe and the Caribbean dominate many sports. But contemporary West Africans don't. This is the opposite of what one should expect if athletic ability was predominantly genetic. In America, considerable intermixing between black and white populations has meant that the African American population embodies, on average, some 30 per cent of genes from populations of European descent. Hence African Americans should be poorer athletes than West Africans. The reverse is true. What all this suggests is that the relationship between sports, culture and genetics is much more complex than either liberal antiracists or 'race realists' like Entine and Murray will allow. Athletic talent is at least in part inherited, and there are undoubted genetic differences between populations. Nor should we dismiss the possibility that West Africans and Kenyans have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting or long distance running. It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and there is clearly much more to sport than natural ability, but in principle there is no reason to assume that certain populations have physical characteristics more suited to particular athletic activities. But are blacks naturally better athletes than whites? Not necessarily. We should be highly suspicious of any and all attempts to confuse the genetics of populations and the politics of race.

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
gminer wrote: Quote: ... that is incorrect as it has nothing to do with a person`s ethnic origins ..... there is no such thing as a black or white race .... there is more biological diversity between males and females than people with diferent skin colours ... and there is not a male race and a female race .... there is only the human race ... and singing voices/notes do not know skin pigment unless slanged by accent ..... Take care Quote: Scientists have proven that people of western african descent have genetic advantages that make them run faster than other people. The 100 fastest times ever run the 100 meter dash are ALL from people of western African descent. If that genetic difference exists, why can't a genetic difference also exist with voices? Different genetic mutations occur through nature as human beings adapt to their environment. It's certainly possible that nature had a reason for causing different size nostrils, head shapes, etc...that could cause a different vocal sound for human beings from certain parts of the world. ...your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve ..... Take care What white voice ever sounded like this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCaVU_iNNc0 or like this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0RbiZNqQU or like this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trRJcIDEM_A or like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP34u6rdscs

Author:	gminer [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
.. after your last couple of googled posts it is even clearer .... "your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve" ..... Take care

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
gminer wrote: .. after your last couple of googled posts it is even clearer .... "your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve" ..... Take care Take your blind liberal stance and go home. If it's not genentics than how do you explain no white sprinters being able to compete in the 100 meter dash? This was written ten years ago.... The last time that a white athlete participated in an Olympic 100m final, Jimmy Carter was still in the White House. And the last time a white athlete held the 100m world record, Khrushchev was ensconced in the Kremlin. Over the past decade, the 10 second mark in the 100m has been broken 200 times - but not once by a white athlete. Nor is it just at the 100m that whites are so noticeably absent. Every men's world record at every commonly-run track distance from 100m to the marathon now belongs to a runner of African descent.

Author:	gminer [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
Bruce wrote: gminer wrote: .. after your last couple of googled posts it is even clearer .... "your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve" ..... Take care Take your blind liberal stance and go home. If it's not genentics than how do you explain no white sprinters being able to compete in the 100 meter dash? This was written ten years ago.... The last time that a white athlete participated in an Olympic 100m final, Jimmy Carter was still in the White House. And the last time a white athlete held the 100m world record, Khrushchev was ensconced in the Kremlin. Over the past decade, the 10 second mark in the 100m has been broken 200 times - but not once by a white athlete. Nor is it just at the 100m that whites are so noticeably absent. Every men's world record at every commonly-run track distance from 100m to the marathon now belongs to a runner of African descent. nothing new...... again your premise leads to false conclusions ... and if you have questions let your logic provide you answers you want to hear ... Take care ... after all everyone can tell by the audio from the tunes in the link below the songs are sung by a young white Irish girl ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cptq3_OHEC8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ8ftyfN ... re=related .... and an interview with the Irish lead singer of Thin Lizzy ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sR61Nu6FqE

DDD Forum https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/

Most Influential Rock Artists https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1035	Page 28 of 64

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
gminer wrote: Bruce wrote: gminer wrote: .. after your last couple of googled posts it is even clearer .... "your premise based on eugenics is incorrect which leads to false conclusions ... such as your assertion a person sounds black ... there is little point to this debate as you could shave my head and call me Adolf but I not buying the Bell Curve" ..... Take care Take your blind liberal stance and go home. If it's not genentics than how do you explain no white sprinters being able to compete in the 100 meter dash? This was written ten years ago.... The last time that a white athlete participated in an Olympic 100m final, Jimmy Carter was still in the White House. And the last time a white athlete held the 100m world record, Khrushchev was ensconced in the Kremlin. Over the past decade, the 10 second mark in the 100m has been broken 200 times - but not once by a white athlete. Nor is it just at the 100m that whites are so noticeably absent. Every men's world record at every commonly-run track distance from 100m to the marathon now belongs to a runner of African descent. nothing new...... again your premise leads to false conclusions ... and if you have questions let your logic provide you answers you want to hear ... Take care ... after all everyone can tell by the audio from the tunes in the link below the songs are sung by a young white Irish girl ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cptq3_OHEC8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ8ftyfN ... re=related .... and an interview with the Irish lead singer of Thin Lizzy ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sR61Nu6FqE The one in a million exception does not disprove the norm. Just because Brent Barry could take off from the foul line and dunk doesn't mean that white players could do that just as normally as black players. If you see a silhouette of a player taking off from the foul line and dunking the ball are you gonna say that there's just as much chance that he's white as there is that he's black? The conclusion is not that all blacks are better athletes than all whites. The conclusion is that the world's best sprinters are 100% black. A white sprinter has about as much chance of winning the 100 meters at the olympics as Pat Boone does of making this list some day.

Author:	gminer [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
.. you generally have no idea what you are talking about ... other than your premise is incorrect and your examples do not prove anything in regards to your "black singing voice" theory ..... Take care

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
gminer wrote: .. you generally have no idea what you are talking about ... other than your premise is incorrect and your examples do not prove anything in regards to your "black singing voice" theory ..... Take care You generally and specifically have your head up your arse. Genetics certainly play a part in voices. That's why singers from the same family can sing harmonies (Mills Brothers, Everly Brothers) that can't be done by singers who are not related. When you show me a white guy who can sing like Howlin' Wolf we'll talk.

Author:	Forgotten Son [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously?

Author:	pave [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
honestly though, usually you can tell when a person is black or white by hearing their voice. at least that's been my experience. there are exceptions. i have no science to back it up obviously, but i can almost always tell. edit: is also has nothing to do with accent. its a certain timbre or something. edit: or it might be that i'm hearing an accent and don't realize thats what it is thats giving me the clue idk.

Author:	Bruce [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
pave wrote: honestly though, usually you can tell when a person is black or white by hearing their voice. at least that's been my experience. there are exceptions. i have no science to back it up obviously, but i can almost always tell. edit: is also has nothing to do with accent. its a certain timbre or something. Of course there are exceptions like Bryant Gumbel, but for the most part you are correct about the timbre. You have to remember that like Barrack Obama, a large percentage of blacks in America have some white people as ancestors somewhere down the line. Sometimes a person who looks black, like Obama, has other genetic factors that came from the white side of his parentage or ancestory. No doubt about it though. If there was no difference at all you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between black and white voices most of the time. You can also tell the difference between black and white usually by the kind of hair that they have too. Is it racist to say that hair type is genetic? If hair can be different genetically for different races of people, why not voices?

Author:	pave [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
yeah, none of this is racist. its just observation. there are clear physical differences- even if the DNA is extremely similar. you can clearly see a difference with hair, with facial features (noses, lips, etc)... feel a difference in skin texture... and more. there is clearly differences in athleticism too. none of it is "black and white" (pun intended lol), but its there. i dont see why people have a problem admitting it. its more than just skin color.

Author:	Bruce [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
pave wrote: yeah, none of this is racist. its just observation. there are clear physical differences- even if the DNA is extremely similar. you can clearly see a difference with hair, with facial features (noses, lips, etc)... feel a difference in skin texture... Not to mention the shape of their asses.... http://alwaysfunkyfresh.files.wordpress ... 4/lol1.jpg You're right about the skin texture. I was married to a black woman for 5 years. Never thought about it, but the skin was a bit different than the white girlfriends I've had.

Author:	pave [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
it might actually be a body hair thing. i noticed it a lot as a wrestler in high school. almost without exception, there is a smoother quality about the skin of a black person as opposed to a white person.

Page 28 of 64	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Bruce [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Most Influential Rock Artists
pave wrote: it might actually be a body hair thing. i noticed it a lot as a wrestler in high school. almost without exception, there is a smoother quality about the skin of a black person as opposed to a white person. I wrestled as a soph but never with a black kid. The coach talked me into coming out for the team in mid-season. This was like january of 1973. He was forfeiting at 98 pounds on JV, didn't have anybody at that weight and I was 91 pounds. I had never wrestled before. Got my ass kicked in practice every day by a freshman who was not allowed to wrestle in matches then because freshmen at that time were part of the junior high. He used to walk a few blocks to the high school for practice. His brother was the varsity guy at 98. My first match I pinned some kid they referred to as a fish (he just laid on his stomach). The team went nuts when I won. In those days 98 wrestled first. I understand now they mix it up at random. I got pinned twice, won one match by forfeit, and then quit. The coach used to stare me down after that if I passed him in the hall...LOL. Just didn't like it. I had quit as the manager of the basketball team to go wrestle.