Whitlock's Anti-Fab Five Column Proves One Thing ... He Is A Bitter Buffoon

I’ve never been much of a fan of controversial columnist Jason Whitlock, who has positioned himself in the national spotlight by taking contrary positions on race … I believe strictly for the purpose of notoriety.

Whitlock, who shows his narrow-minded prejudice in the very beginning of this column, is back at it with a column taking shots at the Fab Five ESPN documentary (this is not at all unexpected considering his past connections to the Fab Five of Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Ray Jackson, Juwan Howard and Jimmy King, and my comments above).

So, I will lay out some of the points Whitlock has made and make rebuttals.

Whitlock point:

With the help of the Worldwide Leader, Rose took baggy shorts, black socks, bald heads and trash talk and created the illusion the Fab Five were some sort of transcendent, revolutionary freedom fighters cut from the same cloth as Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Arthur Ashe and Muhammad Ali.

Rebuttal:

This is a classic case of gross overstatement to set the stage to tear down the product. By insanely invoking Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Arthur Ashe and Muhammad Ali, Whitlock reveals himself as more of an irrational buffoon. This is less of a commentary on Jalen Rose (executive producer of Fab Five) and more of a statement about the lack of credibility coming from Jason Whitlock.

Whitlock point:

The legacy of the Fab Five is that they were on the cutting edge of America’s unashamed embrace of style over substance.

When Rose ended the documentary waxing about how no one knows the names of the starters on North Carolina’s 1993 national championship team and everyone remembers Rose, Webber, Howard, King and Jackson, it dawned on me the Fab Five were the original Charlie Sheen.

 

Let me make this clear: I do not dislike the Fab Five. I made my bones as a journalist covering the Fab Five for the Ann Arbor News.

Rebuttal:

The last part is akin to “I’m not racist … I have black friends.” Whitlock’s entire column reveals a dislike for the Fab Five or some aspect of the Fab Five he never truly reveals (either by ignorance or cowardice). By the way, Whitlock never challenges the truth of the point about the naming of the starters.

Whitlock point:

The Fab Five are taking credit for the real accomplishments of John Thompson’s and Patrick Ewing’s Georgetown Hoyas.

It was Thompson’s all-black, Ewing-led teams a decade before the Fab Five that shook the foundation of college basketball, changed the complexion of starting lineups across the country, opened coaching doors that had previously been closed to blacks and paved the way for black sportswriters at major newspapers.

It’s easy to forgive Rose for his lack of self-awareness. It’s America. In this country, self-awareness and common sense are our most rare commodities.

Rebuttal:

Whitlock thinks it’s all about race. It’s not all about race, Jason. This was as much about culture, hip-hop, rap music, etc. It’s not all about race, Whitlock. It’s not easy to forgive Jason for his lack of self-awareness. It seems that Whitlock is stuck on the race aspect of it and misses the point of the influence the Fab Five had … stunning considering he was actually there, supposedly.

Whitlock point:

Five super-talented black kids enrolled at a prestigious, white university to play for an inexperienced, piss-poor-at-the-time white coach and, 20 years later, had the audacity to embark on a media tour preaching about black Duke players being Uncle Toms.

Are you kidding me?

Are we really this lost as a people?

Let’s end the facade that Rose’s words about the Duke players are being taken out of context.

Rebuttal:

Here’s Whitlock playing the so-called race card. He takes a shot at Steve Fisher who took the Fab Five to two Final Fours and won a national championship. All that and the guy was a “piss-poor-at-the-time white coach. Sounds racist, huh? I guess I will have to watch the documentary again because I thought the Uncle Tom thing (not that I condone it) was in reference to how they perceived Duke when they were college freshmen.

Whitlock point:

The Fab Five clearly believe Coach K and Duke didn’t and don’t recruit inner-city black kids, and they believe race/racism/elitism are the driving forces behind the philosophy.

Rebuttal:

I believe this is a micharacterization of what the Fab Five guys were talking about in the documentary. It wasn’t about race or racism … maybe elitism. I think it was more about classism and trying to project a certain kind of image that appealed to the kind of audience that likes Duke … an elitist largely white audience (truth be told). People felt this way when the Blue Devils played against UNLV.

Whitlock point:

During the three-year run of the Fab Five (one season without Webber), Duke beat Michigan all four times the schools met while winning two ACC titles and one NCAA title. During the same span, Michigan won zero conference or national titles. In addition, Webber’s interactions with booster Ed Martin put the program on probation and caused Michigan to forfeit all its games.

Rebuttal:

True, but Duke should have beaten the Fab Five. Duke had more experienced teams with about as much talent. The Fab Five were freshmen and sophomores. The Webber-Ed Martin thing is well-documented for the harm it caused Michigan and Webber.

Whitlock point:

Coach K probably thought the same thing I thought watching the Fab Five play: They’re immature, arrogant, interested in playing for a coach they could ignore and incapable of putting together the consistent focus and effort necessary to win a conference championship.

Two teams consistently beat the Fab Five — Duke (4-0) and Indiana (4-2).

Let me translate that for you: Structured, disciplined, well-coached teams beat Michigan.

Rebuttal:

If Coach K thought that then he was an idiot like you. He would have been disrespectful of how good Ohio State and Indiana were at the time. He also would have been too ignorant to realize how amazing it was for five freshman to accomplish what these guys accomplished. Two teams consistently beat Michigan, Whitlock writes. He cites structure, discipline and coaching. What this moron doesn’t cite is experience. Is that an accident? If it is then he is a complete tool. If not then he is corrupt as a journalist.

Whitlock point:

While making money for their white university and allowing their incompetent, white coach to learn on the job, the Fab Five were not man enough to harness the courage and focus to outduel — in their minds — inferior, racist teams.

Rebuttal:

Steve Fisher was a lot of things, but he has proven over the long haul that he is a pretty damn good coach. His accomplishments stack up nicely against a lot of other coaches. Is Whitlock to stupid to realize that these guys were freshmen and sophomores? This last comment from Whitlock shows how much of an idiot he is as a writer and analyst.