Reusse and "Fatism"

Donate To GopherHole
MrC said:
Doesn't qualify as ad honimem or doesn't qualify as verbal abuse in the form of name calling?

A distinction with little difference, as previously posted.
Click to expand...

Distinction with ENORMOUS difference. Just admit when you're wrong.

It doesn't qualify as an ad hominem.

Oh and if you want to point out my typos, what is an ad honimem?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Distinction with ENORMOUS difference. Just admit when you're wrong.

It doesn't qualify as an ad hominem.

Oh and if you want to point out my typos, what is an ad honimem?
Click to expand...

Game, set, match.
 

BarnBoy said:
We are slicing hairs. By itself it doesn't. Depending on the context of the surrounding conversation, maybe. (e.g. if used as a rebuttal to an argument)
Click to expand...

Well, "Fat Pat" and "Fatrick" are name calling. It may not qualify as an ad hominem, but when not, it is still a type of verbal abuse. I am willing to stand corrected if all or even most uses of "Fat Pat" or "Fatrick" were neutral or enduring. But they are obviously not, they are name calling to evoke contempt even when they are not ad hominem.

Again, Reusse has a good point about "fatism."
 

Nomellini said:
Recently, Reusse stated that "fatism" is a deeper prejudice in American society than ageism, sexism or racism, suggesting that it was an important factor in the fall of Coach Claeys, one that pre-dated "the scandal". This seems to be one of those "elephant in the room" topics. It is so volatile that people tend to leave it alone, perhaps in the interest of civility. I wonder if a reasonable discussion could take place on this forum.
I live in San Diego. "Body culture" is a big deal here. This emphasis can be a good and healthy thing but I have often seen it taken too far. Twenty years of dating out here taught me that there is a grain of truth in Jackson Browne's line "it's who you look like, not who you are." I finally found a Wisconsin lady out here and have been happily married for 27 years. Mercifully, she cares not at all about sports.
When I come back to Minnesota, it doesn't take long to realize that I am in a very different place. One of the things about Minnesota that I most appreciate is the general understanding in relationships that substance trumps style. My friends and relatives see food differently from me and don't care so much about their figures. I say good for them, but I do sometimes fear for their health.This brings us to the Coach Claeys situation.
Of course, there are anti-discriminatory laws in place but they can be circumvented. If an organization feels its most public representative does not project an attractive appearance, it can find other paths to dismissal.
But what do you think? Did the appearance of Coach Claeys impact his effectiveness as coach, recruiter and "face of the program"? If so, to what degree? Do you agree with Reusse's take on the depth and prevalence of this bias?
Click to expand...

The answer is "Yes". Unfair as it is, the reality is that image matters. i have to be honest, I had no confidence in coach Claeys ability to recruit mostly because of his image and lack of exuberance. Good things happen to nice looking people.
 

I think it would entirely ignore reality to say size wasn't a factor, but it's way too simplistic to attribute his perception issues simply to size; by far the biggest reason was Claeys' personality. He comes off as a quiet, reserved guy, without a great deal of charisma. There's no sin in that - heck, I pretty much just described myself - but it's the biggest part of why so many didn't see Claeys as a head coach. If he had a big, outgoing personality (think Rick Majerus or Rex Ryan) the size thing might have been negated.
 


Reusse complaining about fatism? I guess everyone wants to be a victim these days!
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Distinction with ENORMOUS difference. Just admit when you're wrong.

It doesn't qualify as an ad hominem.

Oh and if you want to point out my typos, what is an ad honimem?
Click to expand...

Please read again if you will, I pointed out your typo with an intended sense of humor, even noting that doing so could be considered ad hominem on my part. You seem to have taken that very personally, I meant to be humorous, and apologize if it was was offensive. Frankly, I make so many typos I almost never get a post out without editing it several times.

Also, I acknowledged, perhaps not clearly enough, that name calling is not always an ad hominem.

To answer your specific challenge, I will repost the Wikipedia definition of ad hominem I posted on post 19 above, apparently both you and BarnBoy missed it:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Attacking the "character" could, in my opinion, including attacking their weight, although I understand it may not be as clear as "he is wrong because he is fat." But earlier in this thread someone made the argument that Bud Grant's fitness was a positive compared to a fat coach. I think you and I had the same opinion of that. Please also see post 26, where I tried to discuss the differences between ad hominem and name calling.

But respectfully, here is where I most materially disagree with you:

Calling someone fat, in my opinion, can have the effect of questioning their self control, and their worthiness of respect. In my opinion, this can be ad hominem without being as explicit as you require. In practice, saying "Fat Pat," or "Fatrick," can have the effect of saying "let me remind you that this guy is a fat person and we all know that fat people are disgusting and unworthy of our respect so why the hell would you care what he thinks?" If that is the intent of the name calling, it is an ad hominem. If not, it is not. I think quite often it is the intent. Again, that is my opinion. Since this cannot be definitively tested, we should probably respectfully agree to disagree. Also, I believe that name calling is no more constructive than ad hominem, so even if it just name calling, I do not like or respect it. That is what I meant about distinction with little difference. You may disagree with my perspective, but I don't think it is unreasonable.

Finally, "Just admit when you're wrong" is not a terribly compelling argument, and adds nothing to the conversation. Not sure if it is an argument from authority (yours in this case?) or proof by intimidation, but either way it is not terribly constructive.
 

I've heard from multiple people that there was more to it... Claeys was not a workaholic (sort of expected as a D1 coach), he would be gone by five at times, had "smartest guy in the room" syndrome, and he had vetoed multiple recruits that had the rest of the coaching staff scratching their heads. Sawvel was actively looking around because he saw the writing on the wall.

I'm sure Coyle did his homework and saw the writing on the wall too.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Distinction with ENORMOUS difference. Just admit when you're wrong.

It doesn't qualify as an ad hominem.

Oh and if you want to point out my typos, what is an ad honimem?
Click to expand...

Bob, are you fat? I don't listen to fat people. Because their arguments are, well stupid , beacause they are fat. Fatty. I bet you can't pee without hitting your belly, fatty. You know how stupid you are? You may have a law degree, but you kids are embarrassed to see you in your dad fat jeans, fatty.

Seriously, I bet you are obese. And sad, stupid and fat.
 



I agree with Reusse on this one. I've actually had conversations earlier in the season about people not liking Claeys as a coach based upon his appearance. I think he didn't get respect from many in the general public and media because he didn't "look like a coach".
 

Wow, this thread degenerated quickly. Back to the topic... I think TC's weight was an issue with respect to being the "Face of the program" and may have possibly affected his energy level as it pertains to recruiting/travel etc.

Part of me felt his authenticity was a breath of fresh air in the realm of college coaching and I can see how some recruits would respect that as well. On the whole, I believe his weight hurt him, but perhaps not to a great extent.
 

1st - for the record, Pat Reusse has lost quite a bit of weight in recent years. He's not skinny, but he is a lot smaller than he used to be - so the "Fat Pat" references are outdated. there are other media people in the Twin Cities who are more overweight than Reusse.

2nd - Call a black person the "N" word, and you will likely be attacked as a racist or bigot. Call an obese person "fat," and virtually no one will blink an eye. Reusse has a point - there is prejudice against fat people, and it is much more widely accepted in society than prejudice based on skin color or ethnic origins - because of the perception that fat people are lazy, or have no self-control. In some cases, that is true. In other cases, people have medical issues or psychological issues that contribute to weight problems.

As far as Claeys, it's a perception issue. A young, energetic coach like Fleck is seen as preferable to an overweight coach like Claeys. Almost every story about coaches like Mark Mangino or Charlie Weis mentioned their weight. In terms of X's and O's, I think Claeys is a good coach. But he is not a polished public speaker, and doesn't come off well in public. that - combined with the weight - makes him less attractive as a coach - at least in some people's eyes. but - take away the Sept 2nd incident, and Claeys is still the coach of the Gophers - weight or not. I just don't think Coyle would have the balls to fire a coach with a 9-4 record without having the cover of the incident so he could make his "culture" argument.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
1st - for the record, Pat Reusse has lost quite a bit of weight in recent years. He's not skinny, but he is a lot smaller than he used to be - so the "Fat Pat" references are outdated. there are other media people in the Twin Cities who are more overweight than Reusse.

2nd - Call a black person the "N" word, and you will likely be attacked as a racist or bigot. Call an obese person "fat," and virtually no one will blink an eye. Reusse has a point - there is prejudice against fat people, and it is much more widely accepted in society than prejudice based on skin color or ethnic origins - because of the perception that fat people are lazy, or have no self-control. In some cases, that is true. In other cases, people have medical issues or psychological issues that contribute to weight problems.

As far as Claeys, it's a perception issue. A young, energetic coach like Fleck is seen as preferable to an overweight coach like Claeys. Almost every story about coaches like Mark Mangino or Charlie Weis mentioned their weight. In terms of X's and O's, I think Claeys is a good coach. But he is not a polished public speaker, and doesn't come off well in public. that - combined with the weight - makes him less attractive as a coach - at least in some people's eyes. but - take away the Sept 2nd incident, and Claeys is still the coach of the Gophers - weight or not. I just don't think Coyle would have the balls to fire a coach with a 9-4 record without having the cover of the incident so he could make his "culture" argument.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Sept 2 incident provided the opening; the loss at WI and the unfortunate boycott/tweet sealed his fate.
 



There is no way that "fatism" is a deeper prejudice than racism or sexism in this country and there have been a number of events over the last 6 months nationally that certainly prove that point. That said, I do think Claeys weight/appearance worked against him...but so did his introverted personality. If you were a parent imagine the difference between Claeys coming on a visit to your home and someone like Pat Fitzgerald? If Claeys was more outgoing, I think his weight would be less of an issue but when you combine it with being more soft spoken it allows people to stick with their first impression and/or their biases/prejudices. I am sure there are much better examples, but does anyone remember the last wrestler "Dusty Rhodes"? Dusty was a main rival of Ric Flair and was one of the most popular wrestlers in an era where most guys juiced to the gills and Dusty had one of the worst bodies you will ever see. Most of the time the "fat guy" in wrestling relies on moves that emphasize his weight (like a "splash" where the big guy jumps in the air and lands with his stomach on top of his opponent), but not Dusty. Dusty's weight was never mentioned and he wrestled and was treated just like the more visually appealing (for lack of a better word) stars of his day. This was because Dusty was charismatic on got the audience to buy in to him to the point that his appearance was secondary.

I was personally impressed by a lot of things Claeys did as a defensive coordinator and some of what he did as a head coach. The issues I had with him were mostly all head coach related: I hated the decision to run on 3rd and 3 and then punt back to Wisconsin this year to start the 4th quarter, I hated the decisions made to just play for a fg before the half at Nebraska, I thought the end of the half against Purdue was just bizarre, and those decisions made me wonder if any of the issues from the Michigan debacle were ever fixed. From the outside looking in, it does appear that Claeys is more comfortable as a coordinator with a lower profile as opposed to the head coach and face of the program. I am not sure that has as much to do with his weight as it does his own personal makeup. Regardless, I hope we see Coach Claeys have a lot of success at his next stop in whatever role that might be.
 


Schnauzer said:
Well, considering most "healthiest cities, healthiest states, fittest cities," etc. lists rank the Twin Cities or Minnesota quite highly (often above San Diego or California) - perhaps you need to meet more Minnesotans beyond your relatives because it might be leading you to some false assumptions.


http://www.shape.com/fitness/top-10-fittest-cities-america
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm feeling pretty good. Yours is the only snarky post directed at me. Ever been out of The Cities?
 

Nomellini said:
Wow. I'm feeling pretty good. Yours is the only snarky post directed at me. Ever been out of The Cities?
Click to expand...
I was comparing the city of San Diego with the state of Minnesota. Yes, Minneapolis is an enlightened place in many ways, diet and exercise included. I have seen studies where the states are rated according to various health indices. Minnesota generally rates in the 25-35 range, with the southern states dominating the low end. San Diego vs. the state of Minnesota is simply no contest.
 

Nomellini said:
I was comparing the city of San Diego with the state of Minnesota. Yes, Minneapolis is an enlightened place in many ways, diet and exercise included. I have seen studies where the states are rated according to various health indices. Minnesota generally rates in the 25-35 range, with the southern states dominating the low end. San Diego vs. the state of Minnesota is simply no contest.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is spend five minutes at the state fair to recognize that your point about MN and weight has validity.

People make judgements about appearances repeatedly every day and the unfair byproduct is that individuals who are considered to be more attractive get more opportunities. It's not fair and it's not right, but it's life and it's across all cultures.

Claeys was on a short leash for multiple reasons and his appearance was probably one of them.
 

Reusse and "Fatism"

Nomellini said:
Wow. I'm feeling pretty good. Yours is the only snarky post directed at me. Ever been out of The Cities?
Click to expand...

Boy do you got me wrong. I actually ain't ever been to The Cities. I don't like to wear shoes much and I hear a lot of businesses there are sticklers about that. However, Pa says we may bring a load of butter there soon so ya never know.

Pa also says MN ranks at or near the top in nearly any "healthiest state" list he can find, usually above California. Ma says that probably makes sense since MN consistently ranks best in the country for rates of heart disease.
 

Reusse and "Fatism"

Nomellini said:
I was comparing the city of San Diego with the state of Minnesota. Yes, Minneapolis is an enlightened place in many ways, diet and exercise included. I have seen studies where the states are rated according to various health indices. Minnesota generally rates in the 25-35 range, with the southern states dominating the low end. San Diego vs. the state of Minnesota is simply no contest.
Click to expand...


MN is almost always ranked in top 5 (often #1) when it comes to health (Google away...). But I don't doubt that if you look hard enough you can find something, somewhere that has MN ranked lower. In the end, I can fill a page with links showing MN ranks at or near the top of all US states according to various health indices. Again, almost always above CA.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and break health down further to just obesity. After all that is what this is about. The obesity rates for CA and MN are within 2% (pretty close) and although both are "good" related to most other states, the numbers are both too high. For MN, the rates for heart disease and diabetes are better so the 2% obesity difference is "gobbled" up by these facts when it comes to health.

http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

If you are basing your personal fat "study" and making judgements on eyeball comparisons between your neighborhood in San Diego with your friends and family in outstate MN, I'm guessing your opinion would be just as skewed as a person living in uptown Mpls flying to Oakland and observing people there.
 

For me with Claeys it was more of a lack of leadership and overall energy but it was awfully tough to imagine him meeting the demands of the job over a 5-10 year period at that weight. The energy required to be a subdued coach is incredibly taxing, being that weight and practicing a diet required to maintain it just sucks a person of energy. This is not to mention the secondary consequences that can come with that weight of sleep apnea, diabetes, ect.
 

Ruesse has said that Coyle wanted Fleck well before Cleays was let go. Cleays is the consummate thoughtful, nice guy coach. He is not the guy to drive a program that is floundering financially and loosing fans. Fleck is the high energy guy that will fill seats. If Fleck was 40 lbs heavier, it wouldn't have mattered. This was about needed new high energy face for the program.
 

watertown 1987 guy n said:
Ruesse has said that Coyle wanted Fleck well before Cleays was let go. Cleays is the consummate thoughtful, nice guy coach. He is not the guy to drive a program that is floundering financially and loosing fans. Fleck is the high energy guy that will fill seats. If Fleck was 40 lbs heavier, it wouldn't have mattered. This was about needed new high energy face for the program.
Click to expand...

I'll bet that it would have mattered at least some if Fleck was 100lbs heavier.
 

For Claeys, part of it is weight and part of it was fashion/ how he carried it. It may have been a hidden drawback of not having an agent but Claeys' game day attire was generally terrible. I was at the CSU game this year and he was wearing a light jacket that was way too big (not sure how that is possible but there you go). It hung down like a moo-moo (have never typed that word before so sorry about spelling). Then there was the cold weather game in 2015 where he showed in an snowsuit and stocking hat. He looked like a fat 8 year old.

If Claeys had an agent, they might have taught him something about how to dress to minimize focus on his weight. Someone on his staff should have brought it up but it probably was a sensitive topic to Claeys.
 


I think there are two types of fatism. If someone is genetically disposed to being heavy, there's little that can be done about that except to remain active and carry the weight as well as one can. For those folks, fatism is, to me, an unfair label and Claeys probably fits in this group. I don't think Claeys weight played much of a, if any, role in his being let go. I would say the same thing about Mark Mangino being let go at Kansas.

On the other hand, there are people who simply let themselves go, subscribe to the Cheeto, Jelly Doughnut, and Big Gulp diet, and have an exercise regimen that largely consists of the thumb working the remote. I have less sympathy for these folks unless they are suffering from depression.
 

Unless you have to look at it naked or sit next to it in coach on an airplane...why does anyone care how fat someone is that they don't even know?

If it is someone you love and you are worried about their health...great. But I suspect you wouldn't post your concerns on a message board or social media if that was the case (if it is, you should reconsider your support process). Otherwise, who cares.
 

Yes, I think his weight was a factor. Whatdoyouthink, he's at least 400 lbs if not approaching 450. That's a lot of extra weight to carry around. If you put that much extra weight on me I couldn't even walk up a staircase. When Limegrover lost all his weight he pointed out that it made him a better coach -- much more energy, could do more instructing players during practice, didn't get as tired during the day, etc. From a recruiting standpoint being that obese has to be a negative -- from being able to fit into an airplane seat to the impression you make during a home visit, it's all negative when you're that obese. And yes, from a "face of the program" image being his size wasn't good, that and as others have stated the clothes that he chose to wear. All told, yes it was a factor but certainly not the only one.
 


Carlson 79 said:
It matters, because athletics is about fitness. Fitness is about nutrition, particularly in this day & age. It's also about discipline. If the head coach appears (whether true in fact, or not) not to have personal discipline, then how can he/she be expected to instill that in the ranks?

Bud Grant's obvious fitness & appearance on the Vikes' sideline all those years was a source of pride for me as a young fan, and no doubt for at least some of his players. It simply matters. Anyone who denies it is missing the boat.
Click to expand...

I am not going to pretend like weight played no role in the perception of Claeys but I think only the most shallow of people didn't like him as coach simply because of his weight. If he had a great personality/drive to promote the program it wouldn't have mattered how big he was. But when you combine his weight with a very dull personality it makes him a tough sell to a lot of people.

There have been and continue to be plenty of out of shape or overweight coaches. I don't think for a second that Coyle felt he had to make a change at head coach simply because of how big Claeys was.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom