Rucker gets under my skin. Dude talks about not being a fan too much. He goes out of his way to proclaim his neutrality even when the situation doesn't call for it. Makes for awkward moments on the radio.
Caller: What did you think about the rebounding?
Wes: Well first let me say that I don't actively root for the vols. Saying that, they did pretty darn good on the boards.
like wtf...
Ever notice how it seems like he is complaining on twitter about how much he works? The guy always talks about not getting sleep because of getting in late from a game, etc, etc. He covers SPORTS! Not much sympathy
Posted via VolNation Mobile
The Pearl family must feel like they deserve more respect than earned.
A friend and I were just talking about that last week.
I realize that I sound like a know-it-all here, but I would really like to have an air-check with Wes Rucker one day. I was a radio personality in Knoxville for a station that was consistently in the top three (ratings-wise) for about five years. I recently left to take a job for a TV network, but still, I listen to some of the radio talent in this town and would just love to sit down with them to help. Again, I realize that sounds arrogant of me, but that's actually a required attribute of any radio personality!
My biggest note for Rucker would be that nobody cares about his personal life. He makes the show about Wes Rucker first and sports second. Nobody gives a damn whether or not he slept late or shaved his beard. We care about the info he has that we don't on the Vols and other sports teams.
He'll get better, he just doesn't get it yet. He's still impressed with himself.
A post like this -- especially in the context of this particular thread -- can only be made by a guy who is actively going out of his way to bash Pearl.
A couple years ago I read a book entitled "Ghosts of Manilla" by Mark Kram. The book is centered around Ali and Frazier's epic third fight, but is mostly noteworthy in its attempts to discredit the historical overglorification of Ali the man. Kram's take on Ali is basically that he was a great boxer, but really not that great of a guy, and not a guy that should be viewed historically as some kind of civil rights hero...because he really wasn't that at all.
Kram's arguments are very much on point, but their effectiveness is undermined to a certain extent because Kram doesn't do a very good job of disguising his disdain for Ali. He obviously didn't like the man. And so his basic point that the romanticized historical view of Ali is a complete farce -- an argument that has a lot of merit and that really did need to be made...by somebody -- doesn't hit with the same force that it would have if delivered from a more seemingly neutral author.
Anyway, I hope this helps to shed some light on why I don't -- and nobody should -- take any of your arguments/points about Pearl without a grain or two of salt. Which is a nice way of saying you shouldn't in any way be taken seriously. I do thank you for this post, though. It has been quite helpful as an illustrative example.