Yes, I do mean Andy. Third place ------- lost only one time??? The guy who took second only lost one time, as well!! Making Andy the second best wrestler there in his weight class with a higher percentage win-lose. Right? He should have wrestled on additional match than the finalists. Out here, third place is Consolation Champion and second place is, well, second place. First and third get copies of their brackets. How did the boy who beat him do?
He does not have to be fast if he carries a low stance, uses the cross face in a mean sort of way, can sprawl and hip down hard -- he can take the advantage completely away from the shooter. A cross face and an ankle lift can pretty mush ruin the other guys day. Anyway - instead of trying to make him something he is never going to be (perhaps), work on counters that get him out of trouble and give him the advantage. I know a lot of wrestlers who preferred the opponent to shoot!!!!
Anyway -- this sounds awesome to me. Thanks for the report.
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Taylor <wmtaylor@plains.net>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:35:08 -0600
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma
You mean Andy. He wrestled under the lights until 1:00 this morning and ended up getting third place -- which isn't bad considering he was on the youngest end of a full bracket and wrestled kids who were committed enough to have come to that tournament from four states, some pretty good wrestlers in other words. He got a really tough kid from Grand Junction, who was able to capitalize on a couple mistakes. Overall I am really proud of him. But he still needs lots of work. He gave up too many points to take downs. He was just too slow on his feet. He will never be especially quick but his response time was not good -- and that is more of a head thing than anything else. It was miserably hot: 105 at 5:00. They delayed the start until 7:00, but it was still in the 90s. It finally cooled down in the later rounds, but by then the heat had paid its toll, everyone was sluggish and committing whatever mistakes they were prone to makin
g when their heads are not into it. Some were better at capitalizing on it than others.
Bill
----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:10 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding EnigmaThanks -- nice to know that I am on the right track once in awhile.OW DID TYLER DO LST EVENING????Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Taylor <wmtaylor@plains.net>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:52:32 -0600
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma
This is a very helpful post, John. I think you may be onto something concerning the exchange between Peter and Jesus.Thanks,Bill----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:15 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma
Linda, I could copy over your post (that little "G: or "j" thing - again and this time, it appparently originated with my machine)The question you said I did not answer was asked in greater detail for the first in that "j" post.Here is my answer. We must not separate the emotion of love from the action of love. To say that "love is kind" is not to say that "love is not an emotion." The I Cor 13 text speaks of love and says that it "rejoices in truth." Rejoicing is an _expression_ of an emotion. This whole idea that "agapeo" is not of an emotional root is ridiculous. In the common Greek language of so many years ago, "agapeo" was a work-horse word, used to describe a whole range of expressions including, on rare occasion, sex (Liddel & Scott). It was the Modern Church back in the 1970's that played up the love affair with this word. And so, it was Agape This and Agape That . The (in)famous exchange between Peter and Jesus ("Do you agapeo me" "Yes I phileo you') has Peter deliberately offering to His master a compromised love. The fact of the matter IMO is this -- Peter saw "agape" as not specific enough, so he offers to Christ the love of friendship. I have friends for whom I would literally die. If there is a purpose in this exchange having to do with the two words, perhaps we are seeing two men (Jesus and Peter) in (minor) conflict over the accepted use of these two words and when Christ finally uses Pet er's wording, we find that the issue was not over words but over commitment................Do you love me -- YES LORD I DO. iF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL, WE HAVE ChRIST ASKING FOR (IN THIS FINAL AND THRID QUESTION) A COMPROMISED LOVE. He died for our compromised life - but He never asks for compromise!!! Believing this means, to me, that "phileo" is not a compromise.God expects us to care for Him emotionally, as one friend to another. This exchange between Jesus and Peter leaves me with the appreciation that Christ INCLUDED the love of a friend in the word "agape."Jd
