You are not getting it are you? I don't give a shit what you think or believe. If it makes you feel better, you can declare victory, and I will not dispute it other than to say that you haven't proved or disproved anything.
Printable View
I'm not asking you to give a shit. I'm asking you to tell me what clutch is, in your view. You have so far failed to do that. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to get you to define what we are debating, but you refuse to do that. Is clutch dependent on actual results, or is it merely something you believe that you see in someone?
You two both have to pack it in on this, really. This has been going on for page after page and it's still going nowhere.
I am not interested in debating this with you as I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. On the other hand, if you want to present a compelling case of why clutch doesn't exist using definitive measures, I can't stop you and I will read it and consider it. Otherwise, just stop.
Time to give Farrell the pink slip!
Of course what constitutes clutch players and clutch situations is a belief. I'm sure that both exist and hope that no one ever can come up with a definitive way to prove the existence of either. As I have said many times sort of this is why I believe people who have real experience in athletics know more about what it really means than those who don't. You don't believe that - that is fine. Your attempts to intellectually stun me really are accomplishing much. I'm the guy who just coughed up a bunch of $ because the tooth fairy just made a visit.
Interesting. I saw that as completely the opposite, that DD is trying to perpetuate the "debate" by being obtuse and evasive. Two of the people (three including me) in this "debate" had already said that they don't care what DD thinks and yet he continues to try to perpetuate the debate.
Perception is everything, I guess.
I don't think I could have said it any more clearly. Plus, he said it at least on one occasion that there was nothing anyone could say that could change his mind. That doesn't seem like a good faith offer to debate, so why bother. Let him make his case all that he wants, but I have no interest in trying to convince him, especially when he has prejudged the issue.
Debating rarely changes anyone's mind. Most people are too close-minded and see the opposite side not as an opportunity for education, but as a conflicting thought that needs to be countered. And the belief in "proof" has turned into a selection of what "facts" fit your original side. This has become more and more evident with politics these days.