Blog Post 11

        The general argument made by director John Singleton in his work "Marion Jones: Press Pause" is that due to Marion Jones's race, she was treated unfairly in prison for her performance enhancing drug use. He uses many quotes from former coaches, fans, and Marion herself to exemplify how badly her life was affected from one simple little mistake. In this documentary, Singleton is suggesting that Marion's race had a large impact on how badly her prison experience was. She did make a mistake, so prison time was her punishment, but it became Marion's worst nightmare when she got into solitary confinement for 50 days for simply defending herself from one of her former cell mates. Many think this happened to Marion specifically because she is black. They think this because she did nothing wrong and people stereotypically think skin color plays a large role in acting out and hurting others. In conclusion, Singleton's belief is that Marion was not deserving of the punishments she received.
       In my view, Singleton is right because Marion was pressured into something she was not completely comfortable with and was only defending herself in prison. More specifically, I believe that Marion became very famous incredibly fast that she was not prepared for all the pressure. People expected more from Marion as she continued running and she did not want to let her fans down. She had little kids that looked up to her greatly. She did not deserve to go to prison because she made a mistake and was nervous when people questioned her about her performance enhancing drug use. She was under extreme pressure and could not handle it. Also, she did not deserve the 50 days of solitary confinement because all she did was defend herself from getting injured. Racial issues played a large role in the deciding of the solitary confinement for Marion. I maintain that Marion Jones is an amazing and charismatic person who deserved none of the bad treatment she received, Therefore, I conclude that Marion deserved much better.

Final

       The Norton girls tennis team defeated the Dedham girls tennis team at Nobles indoor courts on June 1, 2015 because of great motivation and skill. It was both of their last matches and it was definitely a great way to end the season. Many were worried the match would be cancelled, but luckily Nobles high school had open courts available. Both teams put in great effort and were evenly matched, Norton just ended up having a better day.

       The final scores were Michelle Faddie (D) Emma Daly 6-3, 6-3; Meg Moriarty (N) Melissa Martinez 6-2, 6-2; Lakynne Sargent (N) Natalie Raposa 6-3, 6-3; Brooke Murphy-Tara Kiley (N) Darcy Rheaume-Bridget Coakley 6-1, 4-6, 7-5; Janede Rosario-Riisa Kuzara (D) Danielle Sullivan-Catie Moniz 6-4, 6-1. Altogether, the final match altogether was Norton 3-2.

Norton Girls Tennis Team

         Norton previously lost 3-2 against Dedham earlier in the season, so the pressure was on for Dedham to win again. Norton viewed this match as an opportunity to redeem themselves and see how much they have improved from their previous match. Coach Everette Clark from Norton was ecstatic that they won. "I am so proud of how far my girls have come. They have improved tremendously and it definitley shows it in their scores" he explains. Norton is a team made up of 1 junior, 1 sophmore, and the rest freshman in which most of them have never played before this year. It is impressive that they won their match because they are playing in a very tough league against much older girls and had to come up with intricate plans for defeating them. The whole Norotn team was vociferous when they won. 
        The match between Kiley-Murphy and Rheaume-Coakley was a real nail biter. Norton won the first set while Dedham won the second, so they had to advance to a third set. The third set continued to go back and forth with many deuces. Finally after a long match, Tara slammed the ball after Darcy set her up at net. Dedham lost by not being outplayed but making simple mistakes. Every point mattered during this match because both of the doubles teams were very evenly matched. They both learned this the difficult way because they ended up playing for approximately 2 hours. Dedham was filled with indignation after they lost. In the end, it was all worth it for the Norton team because they helped win the entire match for Norton. 
        Norton had to change their lineup for this match due to an injury of Murphy. She previously played with Sullivan for second doubles, but Moniz replaced her. Although, the doubles lineup is changing all the time with everyone improving rapidly. Moniz played well and did her job as replacement for Murphy.
        Both teams used very important skills. Dedham had very strong serves that became full strength once they made it to second set. It was hard for the Norton girls to subjugate them. "Some of their serves were amazing, they were very difficult to hit," says freshman second doubles player Catie Moniz. Norton did a lot of poaching at the net and were agile with their movements. "I can't stress enough how much the girls need to poach when they can. I always tell them that and they have improved greatly with it. Even if they mess it up, if they try that is all I care about," says coach Clark. Norton also successfully hit a few dead balls which involves a motion similar to slicing an apple. Dedham struggled with setting up the person at net during doubles because some of their hits were erratic. Norton easily took advantage of this and slammed many balls. Norton struggled a little with serves in the beginning, but once they got going, they improved. 
       Both teams ended their season with a great match. Next season is predicted that Norton will do much better especially because this is most of the girls' first time playing tennis. It is also predicted that Dedham will do better because they are improving dramatically after every match. Everyone had a great season this year and learned many new skills. Both teams succeeded their main goal of becoming better athletes.



Discussion Questions:
Do you think Norton will do better next year? If so, how much better?
Do you think having Steph Murphy injured affected the team?
If you were the coach, how would you feel about Norton's season this year?
       

       

Blogpost #10

       Will Grimsley's shocking article "It Was Lightning and Thunder" about Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston's boxing match was written for a boxing fan base because it was the fiftieth anniversary of this memorable fight. Ali knocked out Liston in approximately one minute causing fans to be shocked and angry because it was not a fight worth $100 to watch. In Grimsley's writing, he explains the fight without taking one side and acting like their cheerleader. He also knows the specific writing style for boxing. He uses boxing terms correctly and words that are widely known like overhand right, belted the challenger, and neutral corner. Additionally, Grimsley wrote about the individual opponents not just that match altogether. He explained both opponents' plays and how the match went. Grimsley used good statistics of Liston and wrote about how he is 215 1/4 pounds. He also uses important quotes from fans about how disappointed they were that they paid $100 for a 1 minute match. A quote was also used from Liston complaining that he would have gotten up if he heard the count. His quotes are useful and help explain the frustration of the match from both fans and Liston. He also proved in his writing that he knew important information on the opponents and the match and did his research. Grimsley wrote a very interesting and informative sports article.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

       In Sun Chronicle's informative article "Sox Have No Answers for Rangers, Gonzalez", they explain how Chi Chi Gonzalez had an amazing game as a pitcher and contributed greatly to their win against the Red Sox. They have a baseball fan base in mind because they explained what happened on Sunday nights game. Gonzalez did great especially for a rookie and was hitless for 5 innings. In the Sun Chronicle's writing, they definitely know the writing style for baseball. The scores were written with a hyphen and with the winning score first. They used certain baseball terms like rookie, hitless, and first-inning jitters. Also, the article wasn't just based off the game but on a certain player; Gonzalez. They also addressed Gonzalez as a rookie pitcher not just Chi Chi Gonzalez. An important quote was used from Gonzalez showing that he really enjoyed playing and being respected by David Ortiz. A quote was also used from the manager Jeff Banister who made Gonzalez's dream come true even more amazing.  The Sun Chronicle does a good job in explaining the great night Gonzalez experienced on Sunday.

Blog Post #9

        Deflategate has been going on for a couple months now. It is an issue where supposedly the Patriots deflated their footballs before their game against the Colts. Deflated footballs help the teams grip leading to fewer fumbles. Because of the accusation, the Patriots were blamed of cheating their way to victory with a final score of 45-7. After this issue, the Patriots were also accused of deflating their footballs for previous games too. Now, Tom Brady is being accused of setting up the deflation before the game with Jim McNally, sports equipment manager, deflating the balls. He was found guilty of setting this up and has a 4-game suspension and the Patriots have to pay a 1 million dollar fine. Some people agree Brady is guilty while others think he is innocent. The topic deflategate has brought up a lot of controversy throughout America. 

       Personally, I think Brady is not guilty. There is some evidence against him, but not all of it is very specific. For example, some people are suspicious just because he did not want to turn in his phone for someone to search through. His personal information is on there and it is understandable that he does no want random people searching through everything. If the Patriots had not won the Super Bowl, this issue would not have been still ongoing. They would not have searched so closely for all of this evidence. Everything has been so blown out of proportion and should not be taken this far. Tom Brady is not guilty and should be let off of the accusation.

       The punishment is not justifiable for Tom Brady's breaking of the rules. There is not enough solid evidence against him. The only bit of evidence is that he was talking with McNally before and after the game. There is no proof McNally deflated the balls for Tom. Brady's punishment of a 4-game suspension is taking things way too far. Because of the lack of evidence, the suspension should be held off. Also, the 1 million dollar fine is too much because the Patriots supposedly did not know about the deflation of the balls. They should not be punished especially if there is no solid evidence against them. 

       There could be a much better solution to this problem. Instead of the 4-game suspension, the case should be looked at more thoroughly. If Brady is still found guilty, the suspension should be shorter like 1 or 2 games. With a 4-game suspension, Brady would be missing a total of 1/4 of the season. He is a vital player to the team and without him, they would not do as well. Also, the fine of 1 million dollars is a little too high. Without all of the evidence, the fine should be lowered to about 500,000 which is half. Everything is being blown out  proportion and a new solution to deflategate should be made. 

Blog Post #8

    a) The general argument made by director Josh Greenbaum in his work "The Short Game", is that it is okay for kids of ages 7-9 to compete in a very intense level of golf as long as their parents are supportive. He uses examples of some of the kids lives.One example is that he follows Allan's life who is number 1 in the world at age 7. He gets interviewed and asked about his life. Allan answers the questions almost as any normal 7 year old boy would. Josh Greenbaum is trying to display that even though it may seem like the kids are under too much pressure at such a young age, they are still normal kids just doing something they love. In conclusion, Greenbaum's belief is that the world tournament is fine for young kids to prepare for as long as they have supportive and non pressuring parents.
      b) In my view, Greenbaum is right because if the kids are treated correctly, they should be fine. More specifically I believe that kids should be able to do what they love and if they are very good, they should have a chance to use their skills in competitions. For example, Sky is a 7 year old golfer who takes golf very seriously and studies it physically and mentally. Becoming so into an activity can be a good thing because if you become good at it, the activity could become your job when your're older. Becoming involved in an activity can also help with overall  fitness. Although others might object that kids are too young for this competition, I maintain that this skill can be helpful later on in life or just allow them to do something they love. Therefore I conclude that kids should compete in the World Golf Tournament as long as their parents are supportive and they really love the game.
     c) In Josh Greenbaum's documentary "The Short Game" (2013) he shows that there is nothing wrong with very young kids competing at a very high level intensity golf tournament as long as the parents are fairly supportive. The author first displays this with interviews of the kids. It shows how happy they are like any normal kid. The author then shows this with showing clips of the parents being supportive. They keep themselves together even if their kid makes a frustrating play. To conclude she shows clips of the kids being themselves and having fun. They make many new friends and have a blast. His purpose is to show that the kids are living normal lives in order to make people believe it is okay to let young kids compete in this type of competition. He seems to have a large variety in is intended audience because there are many different examples used to display his points.
     
     

Blog Post # 7 Summary/Analysis

       The general argument made by director Trevor Martin in his work "Schooled- The Price of College Sports", is that the NCAA is getting away with a fraud of using their student athletes for billions of dollars and not giving the athletes even one cent. He says "not because they are amateurs, it’s because you don’t want to pay them." In this film, Martin is suggesting that the NCAA is using the term amateur as an excuse for not paying the student athletes any money for playing. The athletes put forth a lot of time and effort to stay student athletes and aren't getting any credit. In conclusion, Martin's belief is that the student athletes should receive money for their actions.

In my view, Martin is right because the students dedicate most of their lives to playing for a college team. More specifically, I believe that the student athletes should get money, a real education, and more free time to learn or rest. For example, the students don't get anything for their efforts, so I believe they should get what they deserve for bringing in all the money from their fans. The athletes should get paid a certain percentage of the money that is made because it is completely fair. Although others might object that the athletes should get paid, I maintain that the athletes definitely deserve some money. Therefore, I conclude that because of all the money and fame the players bring to the NCAA, they should receive some of the profit.

Blog Post #7 Rhetorical Precis

        In Trevor Martin's documentary "Schooled-The Price of College Sports" he suggests that the NCAA is not allowing college athletes to get the right education and care they need because they are only concerned with how well they play on the field/court. The director exposes the NCAA by first showing clips of historical sports which displays how important sports are to American history. He then exploits the NCAA by using examples of how the student athletes are being cheated. To conclude he shows videos of students and others affected by this issue. They tell their real life stories and struggles of being student athletes. His purpose is to expose the NCAA issue in order to help the athletes and future athletes with their lives. He seems to have an audience of people who are not informed about the NCAA yet and current student athletes in mind because he wants people to help and for the athletes to be prepared. Personally, I agree with the documentary because the players are being treated unfairly and if they don't make it to the pros, which they most likely wont, they will not have a proper education to succeed without sports in life. I believe the athletes should be given a proper education so they can succeed later in life.