Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Plasmodium

  1. I have also never said that jb > js, so don't assume. he is not part of the discussion.
  2. I have not said dake is better than jb. I clearly set the question as yes/no when I asked it.
  3. Since I made the question yes/no, obviously you are wrong.
  4. Yes and no are the only possible answers to a yes/no question. Providing a different answer means that you haven't answered the question.
  5. Does his answer need more 0's or 1's? LOL the beauty of the binary question is he only needs a single bit to answer it. 1 for yes, 0 for no.
  6. You still haven't answered it. 'Maybe' is not an answer to a binary question.
  7. I forget - what are the rules for someone sitting out the challenge tournament?
  8. Yes, you have been clear on what your reasoning is - and it is not only flawed, but also biased. Yes, you are comparing how good they (JB and DT) were at their best, by bringing up the point that JB won a world title a few months after college and DT didnt. You did this because you stated that their overall career college statistics and accomplishments didnt matter as much as how high a level they were at during their peak at graduation. Fine, if you want to use that line of argument - I present Kyle Dake and John smith. Dake, same as Taylor, was not on the level you give Burroughs - yet you say Dake is the better college wrestler while Taylor is not. Smith is above the level you give Burroughs, yet you say Burroughs is the better college wrestler than Smith. You pick and choose when you want to use your criteria that you "put more stock into" - and when presented with other examples of why it simply does not work - you dump it and say it is "off topic". No, sir. Im sorry - but again, you cannot do that and be logical at the same time. Your position is extremely illogical and inconsistent. In fact, it cannot be any more illogical or inconsistent...and it becomes dishonest when you continue to evade the implications by stating that you can pick and choose which criterion is most important whenever you want, and throw it out whenever you want. You can not do that and have a logically consistent and coherent argument. It is biased and dishonest, period. You continue to be evasive and avoid addressing it - but it does not go away. Ill map it out more clearly, since maybe jumbled up in paragraph form is tough to see. Comparing who was the better collegiate wrestler at the peak of their NCAA career... **I know this is repetative, but I want to keep hammering it in so you can no longer avoid it... Three examples: 1) JB is better than DT because he was able to win a World Title 3 months after graduation, and Taylor cannot do that. 2) Dake is better than JB, in spite of the fact that, like DT, he is not able to win a World Title 3 months after graduation. 3) JB is better than John Smith, in spite of the fact that Smith won two World Title while still in college, and it took Burroughs until after college to get to that level. This is the single most inconsistent argument I've ever seen posted on these boards. The more you attempt to state that it is consistent, the more dishonest it becomes on top of the inconsistency. Ask yourself this question: Is the 3/14 DT better than 3/11 Burroughs? Share it with the board. Typing the answer "NO" will be very liberating for you.
  9. Stay on topic. Kyle Dake has nothing to with this discussion. He is a different person with different credentials. I have been clear what my reasoning is. I am comparing how good they are when at their best. I put more stock into how he performed as a developed wrestler than how he performed as a developing wrestler. Frankly, I put zero stock in the latter. That is neither illogical or dishonest. You don't agree, fair enough. Have the courage to answer the same yes/no question that I did and we'll move on to Bubba.
  10. This is a different topic, I don't want PA-Fan to confuse the two.
  11. It's not about what you are interested in. It is about the criteria and reasoning you use to put Burroughs (as a college wrestler) ahead of Taylor (as a college wrestler). I showed you, that using the same criteria, Burroughs must be a better college wrestler than Dake, because Dake (like you pointed out of Taylor) was not able to win a world title a few months after graduating. Further than that, again using your criteria of evaluation, John Smith must be a better college wrestler than Burroughs (who is better than Taylor and Dake) because he won TWO world titles while still in college, and it took Burroughs a few months after he graduated. You saying that this is off topic is just you avoiding how blatantly obvious it is that your evaluation system is flawed, and also that you are using it only when you see fit. Apparently it gets thrown out the window unless you are talking about Burroughs and Taylor...because even though you list Taylor as a worse college wrestler than Burroughs because he is "not on the level Burroughs was when he graduated" (meaning he can not win a world title a few months after graduation) - you still list Dake as a better college wrestler than Burroughs (51 out of 100), even though he, like Taylor, can also not be on the "level Burroughs was when he graduated", meaning winning a world title a few months out of college. This is a direct contradiction under the evaluation criteria you yourself set and use You must realize that by now, which is why I venture to say that you refuse to acknowledge it. Each wrestler has a different set of credentials. Each unique comparison is based upon those merits and are therefore off topic. I don't know where to go with this anymore, to the yes/no question of "Is March 2011 JB a better wrestler - than March 2014 DT?" My answer is yes. Therefore, he belongs at a higher place on a GOAT list than DT.
  12. Physical and mental beatings are easy to recover from. Spiritual beatings -- Those take awhile.
  13. So 2 dominating years for Burroughs stands for something very significant, but 4 dominating years (assuming he wins this year) for DT (save for 3 matches, two against the 2nd best NCAA wrestler ever and one as a RS freshman against a RS senior) don't stand for anything? To sum up - No. Do I think Burroughs as a Senior would win against Taylor as a Senior at 165? I don't know. I think it would be a toss up and be determined by 1) If Taylor could stop Burroughs double 2) If Burroughs could keep from being dominated on the mat. It would be a style clash, and very interesting to watch. What is ridiculous is for you to say that Taylor isn't even close - for all the reasons I stated already. And, Ill say it again...stop ignoring me demonstrating how flawed your reasoning is. Please address that - i've stated it 3 times now.... It is not that they don't stand for anything. They put him into a very, very elite group of wrestlers. My reasoning is not flawed. If Howe, DSJ and DT wind up in the same bracket and DT blows through it and he wins WTT, I'll put on the same level as JB was. I don't anticipate he'll be in the same bracket as either of them. Nor do I anticipate he'll beat either Dake or JB next spring. That being said, things happen. There is no reason to believe that Taylor would turn JB nor is there reason to believe he could stop JBs offense. I'm not interested in having a disussion with you about John Smith, Cael Sanderson or Kyle Dake. They are unrelated to this topic.
  14. Versus Dake, I make it 51 out of 100 JB. Versus Taylor, I make 7 out of 10 JB. Dake versus Taylor is clearly 10 out of 10 Dake.
  15. Jb is in the group of people who are better collegiate wrestlers than DT. I don't control who is in the group, but it contains other people. I am not vague. I am very explicit. Its fine that you want to include freshman and sophomore years in your evaluation of how good someone was, but this is a discussion of how good someone is. Two dominating years as a Jr and sr clearly demonstrates that he is no longer the skinny 18 year old he was in the distant past. To sum it up -- you agree Burroughs is the better, but disagree as to the degree that he is better?
  16. First, I assumeyou mean post-collegiate accomplishments. Secondly, again I cannot explain any further or in any more detail why post-collegite (Senior level freestyle) competition has no bearing on evaluating someone while they are in college. Thirdly, if you have been paying attention I never attempted to argue that Taylor was better. What I did argue was 1) Burroughs doesn't belong in a grouping with Cael and Dake (in terms of NCAA) 2) Taylor's NCAA career is better than Burroughs (assuming he wins this year as he is expected to). 3) That Burroughs as an NCAA wrestler is not clearly ahead of Taylor - as you are asserting by trying to bring in his Senior level accomplishments. You can certainly argue this point both ways...but to make a claim that it is so obvious and clear is just insane. Finally, and I am addressing this to you and NJWC since you are both proponents of the "Burroughs was a World Champion within a couple months of graduating - therefore he is a much better college wrestler than Taylor because he won't be at that level within a few months of graduating" argument.... According to this logic you guys are using, in order to be consistent in your argument and reasoning you must believe the following things as well: 1) As I already pointed out... you guys have to consider Burroughs a better College wrestler than Dake (since Dake also can not be a World champ within a few months of graduation as Burroughs was) **Here is the kicker 2) You guys also have to consider John Smith perhaps the best College wrestler of all time (ahead of Dake, Burroughs and even Cael) since he was a multiple time World/Olympic champion while still in college - not just within a few months of college mind you, while he was still in college. Do you still not see why this argument is nonsense? First, yes post collegiate Second, we agree to disagree that wrestling accomplishments have no place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler. Thirdly. (Interesting outline numbering system!) 1) that has never been part of the discussion 2)every time you go to this 'career' thing, I quickly point out that I am only interested in how good they are at their best. 3)call me insane, cause DT is not close to where Burroughs was. The other stuff is off topic.
  17. I disagree with your assertion that collegiate accomplishments are irrelevant. Obviously. The tournaments he competed in happened in a very, very short time frame. The success in each of them are hardly independent. This is an evaluation tool to use. It distinguishes one from the other. One has two NCAA titles and a World title in a year and some change. The other is an NCAA runner up and NCAA champion in the same length of time. Which is the better wrestler? Your argument makes no sense. Do you assert that DT is the better wrestler the last two years of their respective careers? Have they both experienced continuous improvement throughout their career such that the last two years are their best years?
  18. Now you add evaluating him "as a wrestler"...I like that little qualification you snuck in that. Except, we aren't evaluating him "as a wrestler" - we are comparing him as a collegiate wrestler to another collegiate wrestler...in folkstyle - the style of collegiate wrestling. I mean is there some sort of physical block in you brain preventing you from understanding this? Burrough's freestyle skills/accomplishments have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE when comparing him as a college wrestler to Taylor as a college wrestler. None...none at all. You know why? Because...and this is where it gets a bit tricky... in the hypothetical world of the comparison we are making, Jordan Burroughs as a freestyle wrestler/World and Olympic Champion on the post-college Senior level does not exist. We are comparing JB to DT in college - so just imaging that It is 2010 and Taylor and Burroughs are the same age and graduating the same year and they are about to wrestle each other...the last 2 years (JB's freestyle career) have not occurred yet. It is honestly not a very hard concept to grasp...Do you see now why Burrough's freestyle accomplishments have absolutely no bearing on the discussion? Im honestly asking - are you really unable to conceptualize what it is we are discussing? It really should not have to be said, let alone 4-5 times, that POST-COLLEGE wrestling should not be considered when comparing guys WHILE THEY WERE IN COLLEGE. Not sure where your reality disconnect is occurring. Going LIM with the CAPS does not bolster your argument. What JB did immediately after college is strongly indicative of the skill he had while in college just a few months prior to that. He did not pick up those skills in three months. His immediate post collegiate career success merely augments the fact that he was undefeated his last two years and won, in dominating fashion, brackets with at least 4 NCAA champions in them. It distinguishes and separates him from his peers. One of those peers is DT. Is there anything he can do to separate himself from JB in the last two years of their college career?
  19. Lets not change the subject. We are comparing the wrestling skill of JB two years ago against the anticipated skill of DT 8 months from now. It is absolutely relevant to use JB's freestyle skills as a data point when evaluating him as a wrestler.
  20. I hope all of the top 74kg contenders are busy overseas this summer. Anyone know their schedules? I'd sure like to see what DT or Dake can do with Tsargush.
  21. Let me put what you just said in different terms - to illustrate just how ridiculous it was. "When evaluating how good of a college wrestler he was, Burrough's post-college accomplishments are far more relevant than his performance while he was in college." Wow. Wow indeed. His wrestling skills at the close of his college career are far better judged by what he was able to accomplish beginning three short months after his last college tournament than by what he did as an 18 year old boy.
  22. I am referring to the two points I made when these posts started. Whether Burroughs belongs in the same group as Dake and Sanderson is not part of the discussion. I place Burroughs higher on a list of all time greats than Taylor based on a judgement of how good they are when developed rather than how good they were when they were developing. As for the restriction that Burroughs' stock can't go up due to his freestyle accomplishments - nonsense. That is another data point to demonstrate how good he became. It is far more relevant than his performance 4 years prior to graduation.
  23. Two Things: 1) Yes, we do disagree - at minimum about how clear cut you think it is. JB at the end of his career was not "demonstrably better" than DT at the end of his. First because DT hasn't ended his yet. Second, because that is subjective and opinion, since they can not wrestle eachother at that point in their careers. 2) You were far from clear that you were not arguing that JB had the better career...you are now saying that. You spent multiple posts arguing that JB did have the better career - so I dont even know where this is coming from. But if you want to concede that DT did, in fact, have the better career (assuming he wins this year) then fine...you can say JB was better at the end all you want. There is no point in arguing about what we are discussing. I started this sub-thread by saying if you want to create a top ten GOAT list for college wrestlers, DT would be below Sanderson, Dake and Burroughs. You are trying to change the argument to be about a career, but it is only about who the better wrestler is. That is point one. Point two is crazy. You say it 'baseless' to assert that a guy who beats another guy twice(including by pin) is going to beat him again.
  • Create New...