I REALLY Wish I Could Speak Like Stephan A. Smith

[Bilz]

you have missed the point

no one in this thread, except Hey Clemenza, is saying that dude convinces people he is right. Most have been critical of his use of his talent, but if you dont think this dude is a great speaker, and by comparing him to politicians you are admitting that, then you are just full of shyt. Dude has a gift of gab that he doesnt use properly.

He is the very definition of eloquent.

The people in here are basically saying he is a good speaker but he is full of shyt. If he was eloquent, he'd have people saying he knows what he's talking about. We all see through him.

For someone that really doesn't know very much, he does a decent job of speaking with confidence without slipping up or stuttering, but that's as far as it goes. He's doing it without being articulate or eloquent.

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

Malcolm X had that talent. If you ever seen him in a interview or debate he always made the white man feel intellectually inferior.

 

[CrimsonTider]

This. If you people read a book or so ever so often his linguistic abilities wouldnt impress you so much. By reading more you expand your vocabulary, which in turn will allow you to become more confident in your ability to talk.

Its not that hard people.

 

[superunknown23]

Confident in running the football.

His game debacled after leaving Dallas though

 

[PhonZhi]

The people in here are basically saying he is a good speaker but he is full of shyt. If he was eloquent, he'd have people saying he knows what he's talking about. We all see through him.

For someone that really doesn't know very much, he does a decent job of speaking with confidence without slipping up or stuttering, but that's as far as it goes. He's doing it without being articulate or eloquent.

isnt that one of the very definitions of "articulate"?

 

[obarth]

SAS is a mediocre at best speaker. He has a decent vocabulary and talks fast/loudly. Anyone who really listens will realize he's very inefficient in getting his point across. If you transcribed his sentences, they'd be very long and an editor would have a field day cutting out all of the redundant statements. Just look at the SNL skit they did on him. The whole "He's a friend of mine" shyt is one way that he wastes a lot of words on shyt that has nothing to do with the point he's making. Efficiency in getting your point across is a big part of public speaking.

 

[Bilz]

isnt that one of the very definitions of "articulate"?

A very basic definition. You can loosely define anyone that can make audible noise as "articulate". When I use that term to describe someone, it's because they clearly express their views and knowledge and come across as being well spoken and polished. Articulate people don't have to scream like an idiot to get their point across.

 

[The_Sheff]

The people in here are basically saying he is a good speaker but he is full of shyt. If he was eloquent, he'd have people saying he knows what he's talking about. We all see through him.

For someone that really doesn't know very much, he does a decent job of speaking with confidence without slipping up or stuttering, but that's as far as it goes. He's doing it without being articulate or eloquent.

You can give an eloquent speech and it be 100% lies and bullshyt.

 

[Bilz]

You can give an eloquent speech and it be 100% lies and bullshyt.

And if they're truly eloquent, people might know they're bullshytting.

I think we are focusing too much about semantics in this thread and not enough on the fact that no one here really finds Stephen A to be a reliable source on anything. His oratory skills are irrelevant if he isn't able to convince anyone that he knows what he's talking about.

 

[yseJ]

And if they're truly eloquent, people might know they're bullshytting.

I think we are focusing too much about semantics in this thread and not enough on the fact that no one here really finds Stephen A to be a reliable source on anything. His oratory skills are irrelevant if he isn't able to convince anyone that he knows what he's talking about.

but this thread is only about his oratory skills, not convinciblity...so I dont see hows thats irrelevant.

also I dont get why people think him not being conviceable is an indicator of him not being articulate.

sas is a dam good speaker. problem with him is that hes speaking his own opinions, which are quite often logically and factually flawed. and so are his arguments. im convinced that if he were to have someone elses ideas conveyed...someone else with a bigger brain....hed make a much better analyst.

no matter how good a speaker is, he isnt going to convince you if he says things you know for sure aren't true. so lets separate oratory skills from actual analysis of sports, which sas is quite poor at...

 

[yseJ]

being eloquent doesnt mean being able to convince people you know something....eloquency is choice fo words and sentence structure to convey a point in a manner that is both elegant and grandiose. its almost exaggeration-like.

again, if the most eloquent speaker in the world gets up and tells you earth is flat in the most eloquent way possible...you'll see past the bs and focus on the raw facts of why exactly he thinks earth is flat. same with sas...when he says one can re-kick a fg. no amount of eloquence will help you to escape sheer factual stupidty

 

[MoneyTron]

That Kw-may Brown rant was classic. He does have a unique way of speaking. It's hilarious and serious at the same time.

 

[Blackking]

Is Tebow The Most Polarizing Athlete Ever? - YouTube lol at this shutdown of Mr.1.4

 

[pete clemenza]

A very basic definition. You can loosely define anyone that can make audible noise as "articulate". When I use that term to describe someone, it's because they clearly express their views and knowledge and come across as being well spoken and polished. Articulate people don't have to scream like an idiot to get their point across.

So SAS has never calmly argued his point? Yes he has his roll the eyes-scream fest-temper tantrum moments and they are frequent but he can switch it up and come calm and speak his point in a level tone. Don't front like he's all screams and nothing else. He's definitely has the gift of gab, whether its all or half bullshyt or not is besides the point. And the theatrics he and SKIP(real talk here) only help drive whatever they are saying home. these dudes are on tv for a reason. everybody can talk sports but if you don't have that extra umph! you're not reaching their level. We can definitely talk shyt about these dudes but they are like the NBA/NFL/MLB level of sports "journalism"-entertainment.

A preacher is not getting a mega church if he doesn't add some theatrics to his gift of gab. the same with a politician. He or she is not getting into any office without some flair and theatrics to go along with their passionate speeches on Hope and Change. And Politicians and preachers spit out the most bullshyt most of the time

 

[Box Cutta]

He's just another blusterous talking head. His speaking style is in the vein of Bill O'Reilly, Rush, Olbermann, etc. Not a good conversationalist at all. He's a fun television personality, and I'm not going to act like I don't like First Take when he's on, but "Eloquent" is the last word I would use to describe him. As I said, he's blusterful, loud, and obnoxious. Eloquent would denote a more nuanced, poetic speaking style. I don't know if ESPN has anyone truly "eloquent", or if such a person would even work as a sports journalist these days.

ESPN is extremely comparable to fox news and what happened to that channel. Always full of shyt, but there was that window of time when Glenn Beck was still on...remember how he single handedly dragged the entire discourse down by simply being more radical than everyone else? And how everyone else had to stoop to his level to keep par? I feel like First Take is doing that to ESPN. Always been shyt for as long as I can remember, but when you add in Sportsnation, look at how PTI has sunken (I swear this show used to be better), ATH always been stupid, even Mike and Mike seem to have delved into the stupidity a bit (And I used to respect those dudes)...we are in the dark ages of journalism in general, and sports journalism in particularly.

Edit : Keep in mind, my main issues with ESPN aren't speaking styles and such. If you want to come off like a blusterous idiot, go right ahead. My problem is the forced narratives, phony storylines, the thin line between romanticism and business and how talking heads will take either viewpoint when they want to push their argument, , the bs psych analysis, the low key racism...all of it.