LMAO...The rest of the Bowen "kick" story

[Obstructed_View]

eh with that guy. its pointless

Yeah. He's an idiot.

[bobbyjoe]

I was curious how the Amare story was being received by other teams.

Wow--Laker fans are tearing a new asshole in Amare:

http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=41762

http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204901

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/poll.php?d...ts&pollid=3374

Don't forget the Lakers have been bounced from the playoffs by the Suns 2 straight years. Last yr's was a physical, intense series with a acious clothesline of Kobe by Raja Bell, another dirty player.

Around the league though, about 90% of neutral NBA fans think Bruce Bowen's play was not only dirty, but had clear intent to injure. His track record is too strong. When the rap sheet reaches Page 10 or 11, the case is pretty much closed. But stay in denial if it helps you feel better. Some still think OJ was innocent and that the Holocaust never happened. Or that 9/11 was a conspiracy and not carried out by Bin Laden.

[kps0001]

Yeah. He's an idiot.

Ok thanks. I promise this is my last response to him. if I do anymore you have my permission to slap me Obstructed_View.


Here is a post of mine from another thread. Why don't you read through my 100 or so posts and you will see the same type of things said more than once.

I fixed that a little. I am one that is on board with Spurs fans on this one. I don't think it was intentional, don't even think he hit Amare, Bowen and Barbosa are nice guys, Bowen is one of if not the best defender in the league and with that comes the "dirty player" label and same can be said for Raja minus the best defender part but still a top defender. SOME Suns fans are ing way too much about calls but yet still will have no problem calling Spurs the biggest whiners!!!

is there an ignore function on here?

[Kori Ellis]

is there an ignore function on here?

Yes. Go to your control panel and you'll see it in the sidebar. But sometimes it's humorous to continue to read the idiots - so I do not use mine.

[boutons_]

Over the years, Bruce's feet have repeatedly ended up in some pretty weird, smoky positions.

It's understandable for people to claim there's fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4yz__akIU

Watch the frame-by-frame slo-mo. WTF was Bruce doing with his right foot just as he arrived behind Amare? A spastic. out-of-control move?

Bruce was braking, which you normally do with both feet.

From that video and angle, pretty hard NOT to question what was happening.

And then there's this video. Bruce's right foot,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59vXUjiHRko&NR=1

... going "Evil Dead 2" on him, like Bruce Campbell's hand?

[clubalien]

if bruce didn't kick, but insted put his foot under as to cause amare to land on bowen and not the floor or to trip isn't that still dirty. I thought bowen was known for not giving from for jumpers to land, not out right kickinng someone.

seems trying to trip someone should be bad too.

[SRJ]

Do you know the definition of hypothetical or hypothesis?

Here you go since I find the need to spell things out in grave detail to some here.

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

I am simply stating your hypothetical argument has some flaws or is not a viable argument, if you will. But I am the dumbass? Isn't the overall purpose of a hypothesis to create dialogue as to the validity of that hypothesis? You seem not to be able to prove your hypothesis that you so cleverly made up.

Stop right there.

The Diaw-Ginobili thing was my hypothetical. Again, subs ute Stoudemire, Bowen, and kick in place of the hypothetical terms and you'll hear just how stupid the real accusation is.

I called you a dumbass before. That was incorrect. Now it's clear to me that your object is to deliberately misinterpret what I'm saying in order to cast doubt upon my credibility. That's quite an attempt, but just know that I see right through it.

Because you can't honestly argue that what I posted before in regard to Ginobili-Diaw was hypothetical. And you know that.

Instead you resort to calling names and using big words you apparently don't know the definitions of in an attempt to sound smart or tough on a message board.

Woe is me and cry me a river. (As I just pointed out, I know exactly what hypothetical means) Please - as if I'm throwing cuss words around so that all the other posters will think I'm some kind of badass. I don't care what anyone thinks of me - I'm just sick of desparate opponents, looking for any kind of edge at all, trying to malign Bruce Bowen. It's ing ridiculous.

Bruce Bowen is a physical defender. And when you're physical, the probability that you could inadvertently injure someone is increased. More contact, more active hands and feet, more fouling.

Bruce Bowen's value comes from his defense. Opposing players have an interest in seeing him out of the game, hence the accusations. Their "dirty" accusations are plausible in that Bowen's defense has created some unfortunate, though inadvertent, results like rolled ankles and poked eyes.

However, and this is what you keep dancing around, every time there was an incident, the league ruled that Bowen wasn't guilty of any dirty play. Every time. Why? And this time, don't tell me that "the league eventually will put a stop to it". That's not an answer as to what happened in the past.

Don't you think it's odd that, when you examine the laundry list of Bowen's accusers, not once was he disciplined? Is he just that good at being dirty? Is the league office persistently in the Spurs' corner?

Your argument is utterly ridiculous since you are trying to compare the accusation in question to Boris Diaw who has never been termed a dirty player and in, my opinion and probably everyone else's, is soft as . See I can look at my players with objectivity. That is the big difference. I understand completely trying to defend or stand up for your teams players. The fact is many here don't do it due to blind homerism.

I have reiterated that the Diaw-Ginobili thing was hypothetical and demonstrated why the real argument was ridiculous. If you can't figure it out, especially after reading this post, well then what more can I say?

[kps0001]

Stop right there.

The Diaw-Ginobili thing was my hypothetical. Again, subs ute Stoudemire, Bowen, and kick in place of the hypothetical terms and you'll hear just how stupid the real accusation is.

I called you a dumbass before. That was incorrect. Now it's clear to me that your object is to deliberately misinterpret what I'm saying in order to cast doubt upon my credibility. That's quite an attempt, but just know that I see right through it.

I am not deliberately misintepreting anything. Could be misinterpreting but not deliberately. I was merely stating how your comparison is not a fair one. I am not casting doubt upon your credibility only your ability to make a fair comparison to try to prove your point. You tried to make an absurd comparison to an event that took place in which there is some history of similar events taking place. Can't you see that? I get what you were trying to do but you failed miserably. That is my point.

Because you can't honestly argue that what I posted before in regard to Ginobili-Diaw was hypothetical. And you know that.

That makes no sense. you said it was hypothetical, I told you what the definition was and proceeded to explain why the hypothesis isn't valid in your argument. YOu now aren't trying to explain to me why you feel it is a good hypothetical but just resort to me not getting it!?!? I wonder how that would go over in an educational setting, not that I am comaring this place to any sort of ins ution. But imagine yourself in a science class and you come up with, what you think, is a great hypothesis. Your instructor points out the flaws or discredits your hypothesis. Then you simply state to your professor that "I have reiterated that the Diaw-Ginobili thing was hypothetical and demonstrated why the real argument was ridiculous. If you can't figure it out, especially after reading this post, well then what more can I say?" Not that I would compare myself to a professor but I would give you a failing grade.

Woe is me and cry me a river. (As I just pointed out, I know exactly what hypothetical means) Please - as if I'm throwing cuss words around so that all the other posters will think I'm some kind of badass. I don't care what anyone thinks of me - I'm just sick of desparate opponents, looking for any kind of edge at all, trying to malign Bruce Bowen. It's ing ridiculous.

sounds to me you are the one who is desperate and I dont' get from any of your responses that you truly understand hypothetical or how to deal with it when your hypothetical is proven invalid. you are failing to back up your beloved Bowen because the overwhelming majority of opponents keep stating the same things. Others seem to be able to admit there are some questionable things Bowen does but you cannot. Does the league have a problem with it? Not yet. Amare could either be very wise for what he did or very stupid depending on how the events unfold. We will see.

Bruce Bowen is a physical defender. And when you're physical, the probability that you could inadvertently injure someone is increased. More contact, more active hands and feet, more fouling.

Bruce Bowen's value comes from his defense. Opposing players have an interest in seeing him out of the game, hence the accusations. Their "dirty" accusations are plausible in that Bowen's defense has created some unfortunate, though inadvertent, results like rolled ankles and poked eyes.

I understand all of this. Although I disagree in part with the inadvertent part but I really don't want to keep discussing this. The inadvertent is arguable and never going to lead us to a conclusion as I will state some plays throughout the past aren't and you will claim they all are. So lets just agree to disagree on that one. Thats the big difference. I have no problem stating Raja is a dirty player or in fact has made some really dirty plays. Is it easier because he has been suspended for them? yes. However, again just because the league has not suspended Bowen I contend he is still a dirty player but has done nothing illegal or to warrant a suspension.

However, and this is what you keep dancing around, every time there was an incident, the league ruled that Bowen wasn't guilty of any dirty play. Every time. Why? And this time, don't tell me that "the league eventually will put a stop to it". That's not an answer as to what happened in the past.

I don't think I have been dancing around anything. You seem to be getting ready for tryouts of next seasons dancing with the stars, though. The league will put a stop to it and it has everything to do with what happened in the past. Rules are changed and added quite often for things that have happened in the past as a way to better things moving forward. Not just in the nba but all sports and life in general. Why is that so not logical?

Don't you think it's odd that, when you examine the laundry list of Bowen's accusers, not once was he disciplined? Is he just that good at being dirty? Is the league office persistently in the Spurs' corner?

No i don't think it is odd. Yes I think he is that good at being dirty. He is doing things that will eventually become suspendable infractions. He is that good of a defender that I believe rule changes will follow. Do I think he is the first to ever do the things he has done? No, but he does it with so much frequency that the attention is now unescapable.





Thanks for explaining yourself civilly even though I may not agree with it. Alot of other people can't seem to explain there thoughts on here. You did. I understand things have been heated for a few days due to the accusations being thrown around. It makes it tough for Spurs fans having to defend Bowen. Some just seem to be able to do it without blind homerism. Being a fan of an opposing team we probably won't agree on a lot of things and thats what makes it fun and interesting. To many times people think opposing fans are here they are "trolls". Well alot of the opposing fans really want to know more about others teams and carry on civil conversations and alot are just trolls. The ones that are regulars here that can't seem to respond to anything with anything remotely close to intelligent are no better than some of the "trolls" from opposing teams. Do we all like to make innocent jabs, yes (see above dancing with the stars comment. Things like that I feel are OK. Calling people got, pussy, bag,etc,etc. all the other names that people through are don't really accomplish anything. Oh well things will probably always be that way.

I like it here and will be here if the Suns win or lose throughout this series. I am not one that comes here to talk after a win and disappear if we lose.

I have mad respect for the Spurs, how can one not? I hate them with a passion at the same time because they have owned my team. Does that mean I can't come here and still be civilized, or at least try to? Some of you make it difficult. I am really excited about this series and haven't posted this much on a message board in about 5 years. Unlike some I don't take things personally that are said on message boards. I have been around enough to know that it takes all types to make a community such as this one and a few bad seeds isn't a reflection on all the members. It amuses me that so many can call names and act childish and discredit pretty much everything they say. I wonder if they are like that in real life and how they cope with society. Oh well I am just rambling on.........pointless


Now GO SUNS!!!!

[rayray2k8]

to suns fans this is not a foul.

[Fabbs]

it was the edge of Amare's shoe-heel that hit the bottom of Bowen's shoe. Nothing ever touched Stoudamire's Achilles tendon...

What?!
The picture seems to show Bowens tip going exactly into Stoudamires Achilles tendon.