Quote:
Originally Posted by MassPats38
Did I say he did? And thanks for the grammar lesson - I didn't realize "deserving to be despised" and despised were not the same. My eyes are now open. Assume if you are characterized as despicable, people despise you in some way, shape or form as at least one person is claiming publicly you deserve to be despised and likely despises you himself or herself.
|
My point was not to give you a grammar lesson but to point out that the article said BB is despicable or deserving of being despised. I thought you were trying to say that just because he was despised doesn't make him, or others that have had success in sports even though despised, despicable. Someone can be despised without being despicable. See the difference?
Quote:
|
The point is the article is stupid, whether classified as despised or deserving of that regard.
|
I disagree that the article is stupid because of the classification. I believe it is stupid that BB is included in an article that is a list of despicable coaches. A lot of those coaches deserve inclusion, imo.
Quote:
|
My additional point was success often breeds contempt, and people like Lombardi, once you get past the records, are traditionally not the most lovable characters in the eyes of people and fans of teams in their path.
|
I actually agree with you, and your point illustrates the difference in being "despised" and "deserving to be despised". I am a fan of Phillip Rivers. It is fair to say that he is "despised" by fans of other teams, or at least was-it might be changing. Doesn't mean he is "deserving to be despised".
Quote:
|
It is the author's opinion, in this case an author associated with a style magazine. Call me crazy for not taking it too seriously.
|
The author's opinion was that BB belonged on a list of despicable coaches. We both agree that that is silly...or stupid. Not sure why you would think I would call you crazy for not taking it seriously.
Quote:
|
Come to grips with the fact the national media does not love Belichick and likely never will
|
Funny, I never said differently.
Quote:
|
The media assessment is not objective and is easily defeated if people actually considered the good stuff Belichick actually does that he does not generate press releases to publicize. But vanilla good side/bad side stories are not nearly as interesting as one sided presentations of villains and heroes. As such, Belichick the villain is the primary storyline.
|
This is pretty far off what my post was about. Within the context of the discussion, "despised" vs. "despicable", it is irrelevent. But to answer this point, you seem to be under the impression that because I clarified the difference between "despised" and "despicable", I disagreed with the rest of your post. I didn't, and in fact I'm sure that you did not wish to include "despicable" coaches in your "despised" successful coaches characterisation. Unless you are saying the end justifies the means or that success forgives despicable behavior (i.e. child molestation). I know that is not what you meant but it illustrates why the difference between "despised" and "despicable" is so important.
Re: Belichick #14 on GQ's "Most Despicable Coaches" list
Linear Mode
