Mike Gundy has a mullet, apparently, and it has caused shockwaves throughout Oklahoma State fandom and beyond. While this has brought some positive, kind-hearted light to the football team’s head man, there’s a burning detail about Gundy’s haircut that needs to be addressed.
First, we need to be reminded of Gundy’s mullet in the first place.
I think what I’m about to say is something that needs to be said. Before we get there, some background on the topic ...
I have somewhat long hair, and my haircut has sparked a debate amongst the CRFF staff. My hair is naturally straight but flips out a skosh in the hindmost. It’s not long in the back, it just flips out naturally.
I was roasted and publicly shamed in CRFF’s Slack group for "going full Gundy." I was criticized for the curl being a characteristic of a mullet, not for the length in the back. My haircut is certainly not bordering on Mississippi Mud Flap territory. This, in my opinion, is just a stark example of our OSU society being too fixated on mullet-hood right now, and I was just the latest victim. Where’s my safe space?
Back to Gundy ...
My experience is the inspiration here. I said on CRFF The Show that my theory on Gundy’s mullet is that he didn’t quite realize how long it was in the back, and thought, "Nah, I’ll just get a haircut when I get back from media days," and then all hell broke loose. I mean, it’s not like it was immediately apparent that Gundy had a mullet. It took some looking, and probably some imagination. We saw what we wanted to see.
There are important characteristics that must be present in a good mullet. The most important being flow and length. The question then becomes, which is MORE important? Can one survive without the other? Below is an extensive, thorough data list compiled via google images.
In a mullet, there has to be length before curl. For example, this is not a mullet. Jesse Eisenberg has flow, but length is not apparent, therefore a mullet does not exist in this space.
Flow does not equal mullet, as proved in this instance. Check out an example from a classic movie of my generation, Joe Dirt. His mullet is all length and no flow. One cannot simply possess flow and consider it a mullet.
As you can see here, length is much more crucial to a mullet than flow. Without length, flow is simply flow. A mullet cannot exist without length, and it can exist quite fruitfully without flow.
Last night I posed the question to our Twitter followers, what is more important in a mullet? Flow or length? As of 12:33 P.M., length in the back had taken a commanding 70/30 lead. There’s still time, though...
Which is more essential to a mullet?— CRFF (@CowboysRFF) September 1, 2016
So, what do you think? Is Gundy’s mullet ACTUALLY a mullet, or are we exaggerating?