Jump to content

vhsalum

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by vhsalum


  1. Again, you don't get to make that choice. It is clear from the 10 pages of thread, that I am the clear victor. The consensus from ALL who have replied (other than your, old, self) is that my arguments pass the proverbial taste test. Yours sour in the mouth of a newborn.

     

    In the words of 2004, "YOU GOT SERVED!"

     

    But according to your own posts I "win". Claim "victory" all you want. You are clearly emotionally invested in this one. :) Trying to ignore poor technique by claiming a significant strength disadvantage (which went unproven btw) is laughable at best.

     

     

    And the crowd goes - BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! BOO the lack of evidentiary accountability!!!! BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! BOO the lack of any superold providing any further analysis after being soundly refuted by vhsalum! BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! BOO superold for not listing any college coaches that agreed with him, as he purported in earlier statements, and then was silenced when vhsalum named ten of his own!!!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! BOO superold for having all of his questions answered and not answering any of vhsalum's!!!!!! BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! BOO superold for not saying vhsalum agreed with your major points, even though he has illustrated in minute detail that he does not!!!! BOOOOOO!!!!!!! BOO superold for being crotchety and clearly in need of pain medications!!!!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! BOO we say!

     

    Jeez. The masses have spoken.


  2. no biggie. I accept your forfeit.

     

    It's more like a "win" on my part. You didn't prove a single one of your points and you even gave me points in your made up game. And, of course, you conceded my point on Marsteller's poor technique.

     

    Bye Vhs.

     

    Again, you don't get to make that choice. It is clear from the 10 pages of thread, that I am the clear victor. The consensus from ALL who have replied (other than your, old, self) is that my arguments pass the proverbial taste test. Yours sour in the mouth of a newborn.

     

    In the words of 2004, "YOU GOT SERVED!" :o :o :o


  3. I give myself a lot of things. Credit is not one of them. My achievements in this sport are all I need. Well, that, and destroying the very small bit of credibility and showing the boards your total lack of an ability to objective.

     

    And you failed at that Vhsalum. I think your credibility is under question, you refuse to answer my direct questions and then go off on tangents as if you are proving something. In the middle of all of this, you actually agreed with my major points. And you fail to answer the questions that will end this discussion once and for all.

     

    Dude! You can't just say I "failed," that is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT. I have listed my reasons as to why YOUR statement is inaccurate. YOU HAVE NOT. I have answered ALL of your direct questions. You have answered NONE of mine. And I only asked you two. Here they are again, just to refresh your memory:

     

    Now, I will ask you just TWO questions.

    1. Do you believe that in ANY CASE, and with ANY TWO WRESTLERS, the ONLY reason one does not win a scoring attempt is because of Poor technique?

     

    Please answer this question. It is a yes or no.

     

    2. Do you believe that Strength, or the lack-of, is a plausible reason for one wrestler to not be able to score on another (in the same weight class)?

     

    I have given my reasons as to why your major points are FALSE, and the only argument, which you have repeated, is your original premise. Even you can understand that one cannot stand on an argument based solely on the argument itself. There must be some evidence that supports it. And using my words, my analysis, my experts, my anecdotal and saying i AGREE with you is being disingenuous at best, and obtuse, rude and nonsensical at worst.

     

    And your reasons were found to be lacking. That one post that you keep referring to as if it was such a great post, was poor. It wasn't even attacking my position, it was attacking a position that you created and then imputed to me. And I'm not even sure when you made these great arguments that you speak of. I honestly think you're confused.

     

    Again, you do not get to decide whether my reasons are lacking. ESPECIALLY, if you provide no evidence yourself. Here is the ONE TIME you offered analysis:

     

    Look at his head position on his shots in his match vs. Rhoads. Also notice how he fails sink in his arm elbow deep when he's going for the finish to his single legs, his elbow is too far away from his body. He also had trouble with his footwork; he had trouble getting his legs under him when he got in on a few of his shots. Those are a few flaws there, and there's more where that came from.

     

    Guess What? I DESTROYED your argument, when I listed the sequence of scoring attempts. And again, here is where we ALL begin to understand that you are both denigrating a (at the time) high school sophomore wrestling a man three years his senior and do not understand the role that STRENGTH plays in the sport - HIS ELBOWS COME TO HIS SIDE AFTER EVERY ATTEMPT TO FINISH. Your own words say his head position was bad in his "shots." That's plural buddy. He only took one bad shot with his head in bad position. And to your initial, MAJOR POINT, he executed great technique in TRANSITIONING to multiple finish attempts. His feet were under him on all of his shots save for ONE. That is NOT a FEW. Nice try.

     

    So unless you can provide your OWN analysis, anecdotal evidence or expert testimony that contradicts my words, you lose. If you do not, then the rest of the posters are correct in saying that you just want to insult a kid.

     

    Also. You lose. "Your failure to answer both of these questions will render you argument moot and invalid

     

    Seriously? No, Vhsalum you lose. Your failure to answer my questions renders your arguments moot and invalid. See I can do that too! :)

     

    Again. Nice try. You don't get to use my words and say "i can do that too." No. You can't. If you were intelligent and witty enough to do so, you would have. No credit for using my words and acting like they discredit my views.

     

    Final Score:

    vhsalum - Win, W, 'a dub,' Finite, Finished HIM! ITS OVER!

     

    superold - still superold, crotchety, wrong and willing to take shots at a kid who would probably break his hip in a drill session


  4. You've misrepresented me, failed to answer my questions, and called me names. You also choose to highlight a few of my statement, although I said more, and attack them. You keep mentioning/implying that Chance was significantly weaker, but I have not seen evidence for that. You keep on mentioning irrelevant things to me an asking me for a response to them. Your long post detailing the scoring sequences in the match was largely irrelevant. Actually it did exactly what you didn't want it to do, it proved my point. Right now, I see all of your posts as trying to save face. I'm not going to continue to answer your questions when you continue to engage in all this nonsense. I'll address a few points.

     

    :cry: I "called you names." Now I've heard everything on this board. And guess what? You don't get to discredit my claim as "irrevelant," when I supply my OWN evidence to support them.

     

    to your point 1. Stop saying the word "PERFECT" no one is perfect. EVER. YOUR WORD was poor.

     

    I disagree. It's possible to execute a move perfectly. Here's what you're saying, if you teach a kid a move, it's impossible for him to hit that move perfectly in competition, even once. Your instruction can be perfect, but the wrestler's execution can never be perfect? That makes no sense to me. None.

     

    I'll grant you that. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely, with two wrestlers of equal skill? Hardly.

     

    In painstaking detail, I analyzed each scoring opportunity, and MY ARGUMENTS (because you have not presented any facts of your own to assert your claim of POOR technique) stand as the victor until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

     

    But you did give me points and conceded that Marsteller's technique could have been better. Stop trying to ignore that. If it could have been better, then that means he executed the move poorly. You admitted his technique could have been better. Sorry that bothers you so much.

     

    And no, your analysis didn't prove much if anything at all. You are giving yourself far too much credit. Just because you have a long explanation for something doesn't make that explanation correct. That should be obvious to you Vhsalum. I think your analysis was poor to be honest. For example look at this excerpt from the long post you made that addressed a mere caricature of my position:

     

    STILL on the leg, Chance circles to the front again, and gets his hands locked in an attempt to get Rhoades foot off the mat. In a very slick maneuver, not only does Rhoades keep his foot on the mat, but is able to hit a counter shot to chance's left leg.

     

    You seem to think that just because you explained what happened in the sequence, that proves that there was no poor technique involved. Why do you believe that this clearly shows that there was no poor technique displayed by Chance? The reason that Rhoades was able to make that slick maneuver was precisely because Chance left holes for him to do so. Holes in his technique. Are you willing to say that Chance's technique was perfect in that situation and still Rhoades was able to kick away and turn into a shot attempt of his own? I can't believe that anyone could honestly say that.

     

    I give myself a lot of things. Credit is not one of them. My achievements in this sport are all I need. Well, that, and destroying the very small bit of credibility and showing the boards your total lack of an ability to objective.

     

    I have given my reasons as to why your major points are FALSE, and the only argument, which you have repeated, is your original premise. Even you can understand that one cannot stand on an argument based solely on the argument itself. There must be some evidence that supports it. And using my words, my analysis, my experts, my anecdotal and saying i AGREE with you is being disingenuous at best, and obtuse, rude and nonsensical at worst.

     

    Also. You lose. "Your failure to answer both of these questions will render you argument moot and invalid"


  5. Guess what, you don't get to make a blanket statement. Marsteller did NOT show poor technique. That is too broad, and frankly, insulting to Mr. Marsteller. What I will not allow, is for you to trump your misguided theories on this board without proper response. Again. You are welcome to defend your statement about his "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." I again capitalized that last portion for you, just in case you had forgotten

     

    Vhsalum, I made my point and you agreed with it. End of Story. You even gave me imaginary points. :) I must admit I'm now laughing as I type because you actually believe you made great points and outdebated me. I'm not helping you save face VHSalum. And yes, Marsteller showed poor technique on his TD finishes. His setups could have been better to btw.

     

    And I too must admit the boisterous laugh I just let out. I realized that you have no idea what a good debate truly means. And beyond your lack of reading comprehension, you also have an inability to understand total aggregate scores in the field of competition. Superold, you are just too much. I mean, you really had me fooled there for a second. I mean, I actually believed you understood what it means to out-point someone. Round and round we go. This is like a merry go round. You make an unfounded statement, I call you out, you ask questions, I answer them, you make another unfounded statement, this time about how I agreed with you, I supply evidence to the contrary, you make another unfounded statement about how I agreed with you earlier.

     

    You my friend are obtuse. (please read the definition before you say I insulted you. You big baby) (oh, that was an insult)

     

    So again I say, defend your statement. What was it about his TD FINISHES were "poor technique."

     

     

    Vhsalum, you agreed with my major point. You really care for my opinion. If you think that Marsteller's attempted finishes were perfect (actually you said you didn't) then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to teach you wrestling technique for free. And you didn't respond to all of my questions. You've never proven that Marsteller was significantly weaker than that kid he wrestled either.

     

    I'll bite. First, and foremost. Please, for the sake of your own head. Stop saying I agreed with your "major point." Your MAJOR POINTS were TWO things:

     

    1. Marsteller showed poor technique on his TD FINISHES

    2. Marsteller will need to improve his fundamentals in order to do well on the college level.

     

    to your point 1. Stop saying the word "PERFECT" no one is perfect. EVER. YOUR WORD was poor. In painstaking detail, I analyzed each scoring opportunity, and MY ARGUMENTS (because you have not presented any facts of your own to assert your claim of POOR technique) stand as the victor until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

     

    to your point 2. I have supplied you with a list of no less than 10 Division I coaches, who disagree with YOU that Chance needs to improve his fundamentals in order to do well on the college level.

     

    Now. I will answer your question. (Even though you have yet to answer any of mine, nor supply evidence OF YOUR OWN) Having watched that match a number of times. Watching Chance hit multiple and repeated attempts to secure a TD on Rhoades, the evidence shows that YES, in that match, Rhoades was just too strong.

     

    Now, I will ask you just TWO questions.

    1. Do you believe that in ANY CASE, and with ANY TWO WRESTLERS, the ONLY reason one does not win a scoring attempt is because of Poor technique?

     

    Please answer this question. It is a yes or no.

     

    2. Do you believe that Strength, or the lack-of, is a plausible reason for one wrestler to not be able to score on another (in the same weight class)?

     

    Again, this is a yes or no question. Please understand that, your failure to answer both of these questions will render you argument moot and invalid. All hypotheses and theories must be able to withstand any question or assertions in the opposite that are even moderately reasonable.


  6. Guess what, you don't get to make a blanket statement. Marsteller did NOT show poor technique. That is too broad, and frankly, insulting to Mr. Marsteller. What I will not allow, is for you to trump your misguided theories on this board without proper response. Again. You are welcome to defend your statement about his "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." I again capitalized that last portion for you, just in case you had forgotten.

     

    Vhsalum, I made my point and you agreed with it. End of Story. You even gave me imaginary points. :) I must admit I'm now laughing as I type because you actually believe you made great points and outdebated me. I'm not helping you save face VHSalum. And yes, Marsteller showed poor technique on his TD finishes. His setups could have been better to btw.

     

    And I too must admit the boisterous laugh I just let out. I realized that you have no idea what a good debate truly means. And beyond your lack of reading comprehension, you also have an inability to understand total aggregate scores in the field of competition. Superold, you are just too much. I mean, you really had me fooled there for a second. I mean, I actually believed you understood what it means to out-point someone. Round and round we go. This is like a merry go round. You make an unfounded statement, I call you out, you ask questions, I answer them, you make another unfounded statement, this time about how I agreed with you, I supply evidence to the contrary, you make another unfounded statement about how I agreed with you earlier.

     

    You my friend are obtuse. (please read the definition before you say I insulted you. You big baby) (oh, that was an insult)

     

    So again I say, defend your statement. What was it about his TD FINISHES were "poor technique."


  7. Vhsalum,

     

    We agreed on my major point and you admitted it. You're too emotionally involved here. And no, you didn't answer all of my questions. Marsteller showed poor technique and you agree period. End of story

     

    It's funny that you choose to insult me, you are clearly upset. :)

     

     

    Edit: Even in your little game where you seemingly arbitrarily handed out points for our posts, you still gave me points. You could have simply chosen to not give me points! Wouldn't that have been smarter? Haha. Along with literally conceding my point in your post, you also gave me imaginary points in a little game that you made. :)

     

    You really do have a reading comprehension problem. Again. I point to YOUR WORDS: He exhibited poor technique on his (and I will now put this in all caps) TD FINISHES.

     

    That is your major point, and that is my major disagreement. I gave you a couple points because while your premise is completely wrong, you may have some valid points. Why would I give you 0 points? That's like not giving someone a 12 on their reading comprehension test. You've been there before so you know what that feels like. You earned your 12 out of 100.

     

    Again, my apologies if you feel have insulted you. I did not realize that your insecurities stem from your inability to take constructive criticism.

     

    Guess what, you don't get to make a blanket statement. Marsteller did NOT show poor technique. That is too broad, and frankly, insulting to Mr. Marsteller. What I will not allow, is for you to trump your misguided theories on this board without proper response. Again. You are welcome to defend your statement about his "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." I again capitalized that last portion for you, just in case you had forgotten.


  8. Vhsalum,

     

    I'm not sure why you continue to respond to me. I'm not going back and forth with you point for point. You already conceded my argument. You agreed with me whether you want to admit it or not. Nearly all of your post is irrelevant. And you seem to be emotionally involved too, why?

     

    Again, the crossroads. Technique is only as good as the engine running. Here is where I will get a point. IF a 90 lb freshman were to hit PERFECT TECHNIQUE on a 160 lb freshman and he didn't score, would you then say it was because his technique was "poor?" You would, probably, because you clearly fail to realize that in wrestling there is such a dynamic as physiology. I am using an exaggeration here, but the point is simply, the 160lb wrestler weighs more, and in pure scientific terms is stronger (I won't get into a kinetic energy argument with you, that would just make you look less intelligent, and I wouldn't want that for you).

     

    What does all of this have to do with anything? All of this is irrelevant.

     

     

    The same argument is the one I am making, DESPITE Chance's advanced technique (the opposite of your term poor) and clear control of the fundamentals of the sport, he was unable to score, because, in that match Rhoades was stronger. Now again. I hate to do this to you, where you have not, but I have illustrated in clear detail where Chance exhibited PROPER and ADVANCED technique. I even did the work for you. Please take each shot, and ANALYZE each of Chance's scoring opportunities and explain to us where Chance showed "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." Please notice the ALL CAPS. You did not say he exhibited poor technique on his shots, but his finishes. This is where your own words are shown to be plainly and clearly wrong

     

    No, I will do no such thing. You've conceded my argument already. I know this and you know this. At this point it seems you are just trying to save face. What you're saying is "Yeah Chance did show poor technique in that match, but it wasn't THAT bad and look at the tape he did a lot of things right too"! But once you concede he showed poor technique, that's it. There's nothing else for me to prove, you agree with me.

     

    And you haven't shown that Rhoades was significantly stronger, or stronger at all. I don't agree with you btw. You keep on stating that over and over again as if it's a fact.

     

    Your premise (and hope to dear God you are not a coach, because this would suck for your wrestlers), and i will pull a "superold" by asking a question: IF Wrestler A and Wrestler B are in the same weight class, and Wrestler A executes perfect technique, Wrestler A will always win any exchange?

     

    Irrelevant. This doesn't relate to the Marstellar match. Chance did not execute perfect technique in the situations where Rhoades stopped his shot. Vhsalum please stop responding with irrelevant points. I'm not going to assist you in what appears to be a face saving campaign. You already conceded my main point. I'm sorry that that bothers you.

     

    You keep expecting to get answers from me yet you didn't answer all of my questions. You have also misrepresented me on this thread and you have called me names and insulted me multiple times. :) Honestly, you didn't deserve this response from me. And you're not getting a response to your many off topic concerns. I think you're too emotionally invested in this topic vhsalum. :) You're not thinking clearly. :) At least I hope you aren't. Listen, It's not my fault that Marsteller showed poor technique. It's not.

     

    AAAWWWW! Did I hurt your feelings? Did I insult you in such a manner that your self-esteem has been shattered?

     

    Too bad. Unlike yourself, I hold myself to the WORDS I ACTUALLY WRITE/SPEAK. Once again, your quote was that Chance exhibited "poor technique in his TD finishes late in the match." and that he would need to improve his fundamentals in order to do well at the college level.

     

    Your words, not mine. I am simply asking that you back them up with arguments that support your claim. I have not conceded this to you, and will never. The mere fact that you refuse to answer ANY of my questions, all the while I have answered ALL of yours, in minute detail, with examples, analysis, anecdotal evidence and quotes from true experts, leads me to believe that you can't OBJECTIVELY argue your own point. So if you will refuse to answer my questions, provide ANY sort of expert analysis, anecdotal evidence, quotes from experts to support YOUR STATEMENT, please feel free to tuck tail and not post on this thread.

     

    And please with the I'm "too emotionally involved." I love a good debate. Period. This is fun for me. The fact that you are bothered by it tells me how much you truly don't believe your own words. You just don't like being called out on it. This is the first anyone on this board has been able to defeat you in your trollish game.

     

    Let me make this clear, and we will see if you can comprehend a sentence at the 6th grade reading level:

    I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT CHANCE MARSTELLER EXHIBITED POOR TECHNIQUE IN TD FINISHES IN HIS MATCH AGAINST RHOADES. I UNEQUIVOCALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT CHANCE WILL HAVE TO IMPROVE HIS FUNDAMENTALS IN ORDER TO DO "WELL" AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL.

     

    To support my argument, I have provided the following: (just a synopsis)

    Analysis: sequence detail of EACH of Chance's scoring attempts in the aforementioned match

    Examples: Wrestler A has perfect technique, Wrestler B is stronger

    Anecdotal Evidence (feel free to google the definition): My own beliefs of having watched and assessing Chance's strength level

    Experts: I have listed no less than ten Division I college coaches, who disagree with your statement. Including one quote believing that Marsteller, as a high school sophomore, would have beaten Frank Molinaro in the Big Ten finals.

     

    again. ball is in your court.


  9. WAIT, WHAT???? John Smith at his PINNACLE USED POOR TECHNIQUE AT TIMES? Now I know you have the ability to not analyze this sport in any OBJECTIVE way at all. At his peak, John Smith was the 1990 World Champion. This was the year he was named the first, and still only, Master of Technique Award by FILA. Please regale us with A SINGLE match in this entire year that John Smith demonstrated poor technique!

     

    This is where I have you. Yes, at times John Smith used poor technique at his pinnacle. AT TIMES means some of the time. I don't know why you point out 1990 specifically, 1991 was John Smith's best year btw. It's obvious to anyone who saw Smith lose in 1990, but even if it isn't, I have personal testimony from John Smith himself directly after he left the mat after one of his matches at the World Championships. I repeat directly from Smith himself at the World championships. Well that's it for your argument. Btw, I'm shocked that you believe that even an elite wrestler can be off at times in a match with technique.

     

    Man, that was SOOOOOO CLOSE! Yes, you almost had me there. Being that I am a fair man, and one with the obvious ability to tolerate such ignorance. I will grant you one point for your anecdotal argument that Smith himself used "poor technique." I simply state 1990 as the year he won the Master of Technique Award, because, while you clearly do not know the meaning of the word, this is an OBJECTIVE way of solidifying one portion of my argument.

     

     

    And here is where we meet a crossroads, that, THANKFULLY, EVERY ONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD, seems to grasp. Chance's technique is/was superb in that match against Rhoades.

     

    No it wasn't. If it were superb, he would have scored. He had several chances and he came up with no points. That's not superb in any possible world I can imagine.

     

    Why do you constantly overestimate yourself VHS? When did you ask everyone else on this board if they agreed with you? Haha. You even put it in all caps lock as if you've polled everyone on this board. :) You can't be serious.

     

    Again, the crossroads. Technique is only as good as the engine running. Here is where I will get a point. IF a 90 lb freshman were to hit PERFECT TECHNIQUE on a 160 lb freshman and he didn't score, would you then say it was because his technique was "poor?" You would, probably, because you clearly fail to realize that in wrestling there is such a dynamic as physiology. I am using an exaggeration here, but the point is simply, the 160lb wrestler weighs more, and in pure scientific terms is stronger (I won't get into a kinetic energy argument with you, that would just make you look less intelligent, and I wouldn't want that for you).

     

    The same argument is the one I am making, DESPITE Chance's advanced technique (the opposite of your term poor) and clear control of the fundamentals of the sport, he was unable to score, because, in that match Rhoades was stronger. Now again. I hate to do this to you, where you have not, but I have illustrated in clear detail where Chance exhibited PROPER and ADVANCED technique. I even did the work for you. Please take each shot, and ANALYZE each of Chance's scoring opportunities and explain to us where Chance showed "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." Please notice the ALL CAPS. You did not say he exhibited poor technique on his shots, but his finishes. This is where your own words are shown to be plainly and clearly wrong.

     

    Your premise (and hope to dear God you are not a coach, because this would suck for your wrestlers), and i will pull a "superold" by asking a question: IF Wrestler A and Wrestler B are in the same weight class, and Wrestler A executes perfect technique, Wrestler A will always win any exchange?

     

     

    He simply wasn't strong enough to finish those shots DESPITE his great technique (which I have illustrated, YOU HAVE NOT).

     

    You haven't once illustrated that Marsteller used great technique that match. You tried and failed. You even admit that you failed, but you want to pretend that you didn't. Also, I already asked you how do you know that Marsteller wasn't strong enough to finish those shots? How do you know if Rhoades was stronger than Marsteller. You merely assert this, and you haven't come close to backing that up in the slightest.

     

    Oh yes I did. Please feel free to read my previous posts, where is minute detail I explain each of Chance's leg attacks and near TDs. I NEVER admitted to failing. The fact is that I cannot fail in this argument, because I've already won by the mere fact that you continue to deflect and provide no arguments DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS MATCH that prove your theory correct.

     

    Lets not forget YOUR words "he had poor technique on his TD finishes"

     

    Hey look. I'll even be nice, since it is clear that your mind is failing you and your short term memory is, at best, Woodstock Hazy:

     

    2:00 - Set up: Right hand post, straight ahead single

     

    Sequence: Chance's head is up, head underneath on a straight ahead single. He is initially elbow-deep and is stuffed by Rhoads with a great sprawl and whizzer that allows him to cover Chance's head. Rhoades attempts to reach over top to Chance's trail knee, but is unable to as Chance hits a cut-back to the opposite side. Chance again knee slides, posting his right hand, and Rhoades is able to square up and cover Chance's head again. Chance circles back in an attempt to sit Rhoades to his butt, but Rhoades is able to get his foot back on the ground. STILL on the leg, Chance circles to the front again, and gets his hands locked in an attempt to get Rhoades foot off the mat. In a very slick maneuver, not only does Rhoades keep his foot on the mat, but is able to hit a counter shot to chance's left leg.

     

    Conclusion: This is where your "flawed technique" argument begins to die. In one, sixteen second sequence, Chance is able to chain wrestle that reads as follows: Cut-back, Knee Slide, Hand Post, Knee Slide, Circle back, Circle back. You are not able to execute that sequence with flawed technique. You pundits that believe a leg attack should be "photo" perfect every time do not truly understand the sport. I could easily give myself 7 "technique points" for that exchange. But I won't. One is enough.

     

    So tell me again where I DIDN'T illustrate Chance used great technique in that match?

     

    And PLEASE tell me the college coaches who have in ANY WAY said chance has bad 'fundamentals."

     

    No. I said he needed to work on his fundamentals. I never said they were bad.

     

    My apologies, I did not quote you properly. Point for you. Now. As I did, you are more than welcome to name the college of the coach(es) that said Chance would need to work on his fundamentals in order for him to do well on the college level.

     

    Here's a quote for you, from a Big Ten coach, told me after Chance's sophomore year. "You put him in our room this year, and he wins the Big Ten at 149."


  10. My point was extremely straight forward super. No one is perfect, no technique is perfect, these are real life people going up against other actively moving and fighting people. John Smith even at his pinnacle would (by using the standards applied to Chance) have regularly been a poor technician
    .

     

    I disagree that no technique is perfect. I don't know why it's being said that I'm using unusual standards when it applies to Chance. I'm using the same standards that I use for everyone. Yes, John Smith at his pinnacle did use poor technique at times. That is obvious. And in those situations, his technique was poor. Just because he did those moves correctly many times doesn't erase those situation when he didn't. I'm not sure why you think it does.

     

    If Chances technique was poor then just about every wrestler ever no matter what they accomplished had poor technique as well. Under those standards words lose all meaning.

     

     

    WAIT, WHAT???? John Smith at his PINNACLE USED POOR TECHNIQUE AT TIMES? Now I know you have the ability to not analyze this sport in any OBJECTIVE way at all. At his peak, John Smith was the 1990 World Champion. This was the year he was named the first, and still only, Master of Technique Award by FILA. Please regale us with A SINGLE match in this entire year that John Smith demonstrated poor technique!

     

    And here is where we meet a crossroads, that, THANKFULLY, EVERY ONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD, seems to grasp. Chance's technique is/was superb in that match against Rhoades. He simply wasn't strong enough to finish those shots DESPITE his great technique (which I have illustrated, YOU HAVE NOT).

     

    And PLEASE tell me the college coaches who have in ANY WAY said chance has bad 'fundamentals." And because I coach a high school program with Division I wrestlers on the roster, I won't name names, but here is the list of coaches I've PERSONALLY heard rave about Chance Marsteller (especially in regards to his ability to hand fight 'like a college wrestler'):

     

    Cornell

    Penn State

    Michigan State

    OTC

    Air Force

    Iowa

    NC STATE

    Arizona State

    Missouri

    Rutgers

    Virginia.

     

    Your ball. BISH!


  11. Dear superold,

     

    Lets start this at the beginning. I'll even be nice and let you contain your argument to ONE MATCH. I've done all the hard work for you. Please explain, as I did, the "poor technique" in each of the non-scoring sequences. Let's start there. Then we will all truly be able to embrace your point on this subject.


  12. Gents, you have to LEARN. You would have a better chance changing a career politician's opinion during a debate( NO CHANCE) than getting superold to change his mind. If you want, put out your opinion on the matter and then digress. There is NO point directly engaging him. It just turns into a muddled mess of paragraphs of responses per post......

     

    MSU,

     

    This is simply an education. I love providing schooling to those with lesser means. superold is getting killed in this debate, line by line. Plus, i'm bored. This is fun.


  13. Wow, this is going to be even more fun than I thought...

     

    He was in on the legs in all three periods. I admitted he was in bad position on the START of ONE single late in the third period. If Chance finishes the single in the second period, he wins the match, per the rules at that time. So stating that the reason he lost the "match" because "he had poor technique on his TD finishes" is FALSE and WRONG.

     

    He was in bad position due to poor technique. You have done nothing to show that that is "False and Wrong". Nothing.

     

    Yes. I have. And you have shown inability to understand the mere concept of our sport. You do realize that Chance is NOT wrestling a Takedown Dummy, right? I have clearly, and nearly frame by frame diagnosed EXACTLY what it is that Rhoads was able to hit that allowed him to (and I will say this in all caps you understand the sport just a little bit better today) PUT Marsteller in bad position.

     

    if anything his technique on his "finishes" were far better than his initial shots on just ONE of his leg attacks.

     

    And better doesn't mean perfect. His technique wasn't up to par.

     

    Let's get back to your original statement. Your expert analysis stated that Chance exhibited "poor technique" and would need to clean up his "fundamentals." And unlike myself, you have yet to apply any verbiage beyond your initial response to my argument (your elbow deep comment, etc.). This is what a true debate means. You do not answer a question with a question. You supply POINTS and COUNTER POINTS. No one said perfect. Not you or I. Here then, is the crux of our argument, you see Chance not score and you say "his technique wasn't up to par." I explain, in LENGTHY DETAIL, why that is false with counter points that show his exquisite technique was stopped by sheer BETTER positioning by Rhoades. What you seem to discount there is strength. It matters. You don't believe it does. Which is exactly why you believe an injury is NOT a reason to lose a match.

     

    Your SECOND statement: "His fundamentals need work if he is going to do well on the college level." This is a false in every degree of being false. In matters concerning Chance Marsteller, one fact that cannot be argued is that his "fundamentals" are far advance for a high schooler.

     

    It's not false. You even tacitly admit this when you qualify your statement. Look at your own statement, "his fundamentals are far advanced for a high schooler". It's fine if you want to say that, but the fact remains that D1 college wrestling and HS wrestling are two completely different levels.

     

    If you still want to disagree, let me ask you, are Marsteller's fundamentals far advanced for a D1 college wrestler? I'd like to hear your honest answer.

     

    D1 College Wrestling and HS wrestling are two different levels? Agreed. That wasn't a counter point, since we are not arguing that. And again, you answer my argument with a question. A cheap way to make a point, but i'll bite. YES! His technique is even far advanced for a D1 college wrestler. Keep in mind I am thinking about ALL 77 programs, and ALL of their wrestlers. He certainly is advanced. And I'll let my boy Adam Tirapelle voice his concern - He stated that the fear of Chance NOT succeeding in College is whether he'll be able to wrestle with guys who have the same STRENGTH LEVEL as he, or maybe even more than he.

     

    His head position in neutral is beyond reproach, and that is one of the first traits college coaches noticed about him as an 8th grader. Please tell me how many times you've seen someone even get their hands locked on him.

     

    If we are talking big picture, Marsteller has wrestled very few quality opponents. It doesn't matter to me that many HS wrestlers aren't able to get their "hands locked on him". Hardly any HS wrestler could get their hands locked onto Gulibon either.

     

     

    His feet - as a left leg lead, i've never seen anyone get to his right leg. He does a great job of making himself a small target, and there being only ONE target you may be thinking of attacking. His back leg is too far back, his feet stay shoulder width apart - which allows him to keep his back straight in a lead leg stance.

     

    And how many quality opponents has he faced?

     

    Elbows - No one gets underhooks on the kid. His elbows are sealed to his body, and his attack hand rarely touches the head
    .

     

    And has he faced any quality opponents who were top notch TD artists with the underhook? You keep mentioning "nobody had done this or that to him", but the exact same things could be said before he entered the Fila Jrs and lost twice. Before then, no one was able to consistently stuff his shots either. No one was able to beat him. No one could even give him a good match. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

     

    You're terrible at this. You asked the same question three times. (yes, i can see right through your pithy attempts to make the same point three times. Sorry, that's ONE counter point for you.)

     

    Quality opponents? Marsteller has them in spades. He's beaten a who's who of wrestlers to include:

     

    Garrett Peppelman

    Brian Brill

    Cody Wiercoch

    Zachary Beard

    Zach Zavatsky

    Coleman Hammond

    Nick Hodgkins

    Brett Harner

    Lorenzo Thomas

    Geordan Speiller

     

    I know I'm missing a ton more. Marsteller went everywhere, challenged returning state champs in 2 out of the 4 years at PIAA AAA States, and he was in HIGH SCHOOL. What we are doing is having an argument based on his body of work. Which, yes is against high school athletes, but that's what he is. We are arguing whether he has poor technique. He does not. IF he did, guys IN HIGH SCHOOL, would be able to get to legs, secure under hooks and stuff his shots.

     

    Handfighting - Again, clearly above reproach. You clearly underestimate just how hard it is to snap someone's hand off you and get their hands on the mat. Chance did it three times in the match against Rhoades. Before Pico, I was saying Chance is the best hand fighter I've ever seen at the high school level.

     

    Above reproach to who? Do you believe Marsteller is a world class handfighter?

     

    Unlike you, I'm not into just spouting of the latest rhetoric and buzzwords this sport has to offer. ANY comment I make, has been echoed by a Division I COACH. I've stood on the sidelines, and watch coaches just shake their head and say, "he's far ahead of some of the guys I have in my room RIGHT NOW." So yes, if it seems appropriate for a coach to say that Marsteller is a world class handfigther, so too will I.

     

    So please. Feel free to defend your argument as originally stated.

     

    I did and you agreed with me.

     

     

    Score superold 1.5, vhsalum 8

     

    Interesting scoring system. You even had to give me points! Even while ignoring some of what I said, you still had to concede my main point. Your argument is basically because Chance didn't do everything completely wrong, he can't be called out on showing poor technique. Or at least that's what it seems like.

     

    Let's make this point abundantly clear. If you must, please write it down in your technique journal that you keep by your bedside along with the cell phone numbers of every Division I coach you must know: WE DO NOT AGREE ON THIS SUBJECT. Saying that Marsteller "had poor technique on his finishes" and that his "fundamentals need work," is wrong. BOTH statements.

     

    It may be argued that on two shots in ONE match that he may have STARTED in bad position, but my counter point is that his opponent showed an ability to react and the strength in which to capitalize upon it, in a manner Chance was not able to score against.

     

    Now. I have made my points and offered counter points to yours. Please respond in kind. and understand that in a true debate - answering in a question is just rude, and saying that I agreed with you and using (and this is a biggie) BROAD GENERALIZATIONS WITHOUT USE OF STATED POINTS, makes you look ill-prepared/wrong to the audience.


  14. One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

     

    MSU158, I do take into account illness and injuries. I've done so in every case that I've discussed involving injury/illness on this discussion board. It's just that in every single case, poor technique/tactics/strategy could be pointed to as a big reason for a particular wrestler losing a match. There seems to be this fallacious reasoning on these forums, that anytime a wrestler gets hurt/injured every single failure on the mat is because of it. That's clearly false. If anyone can watch the McD's or the Alton's matches at ncaas last year and tell me that some very poor wrestling wasn't done by those kids, and that they didn't have enough in them physically to do better, I don't exactly what to them. One thing I could say is that they're letting something else other than the objective evidence influence their conclusions.

     

    Now you're just acting like a Millenial! You do realize real life is NOT a video game? You don't get re-dos, and your athletic career hinges ENTIRELY UPON your ability to PHYSICALLY complete a task. The problem is, wrestling is not forthcoming with regard to injuries, but if you think you saw a perfectly CAPABLE McDonough last year, you are making me understand a lot about you as a person. It was later found out that he was wrestling a torn shoulder (whether it was the rotator cuff or the labrum, i'm not sure).

     

    Have you ever competed at a high level with an injury? Because guess what, that's what makes this sport great. It is one of attrition. YOU are not being objective a when you say a wrestler, LET ALONE ANY ATHLETE, is capable of wrestling at their best with a full-blown injury. It is you who are operating under the "fan" fallacy. The argument that says "Well, all he has to do is...."

     

    Guess what? That is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and one that I dare you to bring up with any wrestler worth his salt.


  15. Why must you make excuses Tbar? Chance was healthy enough to take the mat. He wrestled those guys and was able to even be competitive. The reason he lost is because he had poor technique on his TD finishes late in the match. His fundamentals need work if he is going to do well on the college level. They're fine when he wrestles lower level HS, but he will be seeing a significant increase in competition when he enters college.

     

    Here is your original statement, so that we all understand exactly what it is we are arguing.

     

    Your FIRST STATEMENT: "The reason he lost is because he had poor technique on his TD finishes late in the match."

     

    He was in on the legs in all three periods. I admitted he was in bad position on the START of ONE single late in the third period. If Chance finishes the single in the second period, he wins the match, per the rules at that time. So stating that the reason he lost the "match" because "he had poor technique on his TD finishes" is FALSE and WRONG. If anything his technique on his "finishes" were far better than his initial shots on just ONE of his leg attacks.

     

    superold 1.5, vhsalum 7

     

    Your SECOND statement: "His fundamentals need work if he is going to do well on the college level."

     

    This is a false in every degree of being false. In matters concerning Chance Marsteller, one fact that cannot be argued is that his "fundamentals" are far advance for a high schooler. His head position in neutral is beyond reproach, and that is one of the first traits college coaches noticed about him as an 8th grader. Please tell me how many times you've seen someone even get their hands locked on him.

     

    His feet - as a left leg lead, i've never seen anyone get to his right leg. He does a great job of making himself a small target, and there being only ONE target you may be thinking of attacking. His back leg is too far back, his feet stay shoulder width apart - which allows him to keep his back straight in a lead leg stance.

     

    Elbows - No one gets underhooks on the kid. His elbows are sealed to his body, and his attack hand rarely touches the head.

     

    Handfighting - Again, clearly above reproach. You clearly underestimate just how hard it is to snap someone's hand off you and get their hands on the mat. Chance did it three times in the match against Rhoades. Before Pico, I was saying Chance is the best hand fighter I've ever seen at the high school level.

     

    So please. Feel free to defend your argument as originally stated.

     

    Score superold 1.5, vhsalum 8

     

    This is fun!


  16. Well then, lets have it! What part of his technique was flawed? Please enlighten us with your analytic skills!

     

     

    Look at his head position on his shots in his match vs. Rhoads. Also notice how he fails sink in his arm elbow deep when he's going for the finish to his single legs, his elbow is too far away from his body. He also had trouble with his footwork; he had trouble getting his legs under him when he got in on a few of his shots.

     

    Those are a few flaws there, and there's more where that came from.

     

     

    And away we go! Let's take a look at Chance's "flawed technique" shall we:

     

    (times are running time on video)

     

    1:20 - Setup: Front headlock, left-handed arm drag, to a single

    Technique - Anticipates he will not be able to score on the mat with his front headlock, changes off to a leg attack. Moves his feet out of the way, shoots elbow deep, Rhoades kicks out.

     

    Conclusion - Rhoades is a half-step quicker on this particular exchange, something Chance is probably not used to at this stage in his career.

     

    Score - superold 0, vhsalum 1

     

    1:40 - Set up: Left-handed underhook, outside step, single.

    Sequence: Chance initially is not in good position after a great sprawl by Rhoades and knee-slides to his feet. Rhoades goes over top is able to get Chances knees back on the mat, and get to a crotch lift. Chance immediately changes off to a low single, drops his hips to the mat and arches, to stop the crotch lift.

     

    Conclusion. superold will get a half-point for Chance's initial shot that did not allow him to get his hips in. I will secure two "technique points" as Chance is able to knee slide to his feet, and after being hipped back down to the mat, defend Rhoades scoring opportunity by properly dropping to an ankle and arching his back to defend the crotch lift.

     

    Score - superold .5, vhsalum 3

     

    2:00 - Set up: Right hand post, straight ahead single

     

    Sequence: Chance's head is up, head underneath on a straight ahead single. He is initially elbow-deep and is stuffed by Rhoads with a great sprawl and whizzer that allows him to cover Chance's head. Rhoades attempts to reach over top to Chance's trail knee, but is unable to as Chance hits a cut-back to the opposite side. Chance again knee slides, posting his right hand, and Rhoades is able to square up and cover Chance's head again. Chance circles back in an attempt to sit Rhoades to his butt, but Rhoades is able to get his foot back on the ground. STILL on the leg, Chance circles to the front again, and gets his hands locked in an attempt to get Rhoades foot off the mat. In a very slick maneuver, not only does Rhoades keep his foot on the mat, but is able to hit a counter shot to chance's left leg.

     

    Conclusion: This is where your "flawed technique" argument begins to die. In one, sixteen second sequence, Chance is able to chain wrestle that reads as follows: Cut-back, Knee Slide, Hand Post, Knee Slide, Circle back, Circle back. You are not able to execute that sequence with flawed technique. You pundits that believe a leg attack should be "photo" perfect every time do not truly understand the sport. I could easily give myself 7 "technique points" for that exchange. But I won't. One is enough.

     

    Score - superold .5, vhsalum 4

     

    No one cares about the ball-grab... YUCK!

     

    5:40 - Set up - Touch and Go, Straight on Single

     

    Sequence: Chance hits a straight on single, Rhoades is able to sprawl and whizzer, extending Chance. Chance is initially elbow deep, NEVER LETS HITS TRAIL KNEE HIT THE MAT, and attempts to cut the corner with a back step. Rhoades is able to cover Chance's head and stay in a sprawl position. Extended, Chance attempts to Iranian, Rhoades keeps his hips on the mat. Chance knee slides, is able to lock his hands, and changes his lock to high in the crotch (thereby no longer needing elbow deep). Rhoades squares up again and is able to get his foot on the mat.

     

    Conclusion: Again, with "flawed technique" Chance is able to get to Rhoades legs, initially in good position. Now here's what's next level. Instead of trying to hit a Cut Back or a knee slide, Chance attempts a back step to secure the corner and an Iranian to get Rhoades feet in the air. In every one of these attempts, Rhoades is able to square up, and keep Chance extended. This is a compliment to Rhoades. His hips are clearly stronger than anything Chance is able to hit.

     

    Score - superold .5, vhsalum 5

     

    Ball grab yuck. on to the 3rd period.

     

    9:55 - Setup: Level change single

     

    Sequence: Chance hits a head inside single, with no clear set up. His head is down his hips are out. Rhoades immediately stuffs Chance, and has both of his knees on the mat. Chance is able to get to the Iranian (with his butt covering his ankles) and steps up with right leg, and heads out the back door. Rhoades reacts, jumping away from Chance, and turns back in, covering Chance and gets to a crotch lift.

     

    Conclusion: Superold, you will get one point for Chance's terrible shot at the end of the period. It was clear that Chance was frustrated at this point and had no desire to head to the ball grab. If we concede that, you must concede Chance's "technique" after his stuffed leads less credence to your theory. Chance is able to turn bad position into a good one, coming out the back door and securing the leg of Rhoades. Now, above, I parenthesized "with his butt covering his ankles." Here is why I will give myself another technique point - as a high school sophomore, Chance is hitting technique that some college guys don't have down. Steve Garland said it best - "learn how to cover your ankles, or you're going to get your knees ripped out."

     

    Final Score - superold 1.5, vhsalum 6

     

    Final Conclusion: It goes more with what I said, Chance clearly did not have the strength to finish his shots. I actually said that in a post immediately following FILA JRs that year. Whether that was through his pneumonia or just his strength level at the time, his technique is far from "flawed." Keep in mind that this is a high school wrestler who is able to snap hands, control under hooks, has an outside and inside step, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, is able to chain wrestle through multiple sequences. Please pay attention to college wrestling, because other than Jordan Burroughs, David Taylor and Metcalf when he was doing his thing, there is no such thing as getting to a leg and scoring. You are going to have to defend one, two, three, seven counter attacks to finish a single shot.

     

    Your turn.


  17. While marsteller is a super talent I don't think it's a given that he makes the starting lineup for a couple of years. I don't see him replacining deirenger and with crutchmer and blees in that mix I don't think it's automatic. I tend to think that chance will have a tougher time w crutchmer than most think.

     

    Blees, at best, is a 165. Likely a 157, and if he's the best guy in the room, don't be surprised to see him starting next year as a true frosh. One thing about John Smith... he cuts dem boys. He is definitely old school in that manner.

     

    I would be absolutely surprised if Chance isn't beating Crutchmer when he walks in the room. A lot of people seem to forget that Chance has spent a lot of time at the OTC, and he does well against the senior-level guys.


  18. superold,

     

    PUH-LEEZ with your "Chance is going to need better technique" line. Have you seen the kid? Technically, is able to wrestle with college kids now. And that has been the case since he was in the EIGHTH GRADE! What happened in that tournament is clear, he wasn't STRONG ENOUGH to finish those attacks. Now, knowing the kid as well as I do (through anecdotal evidence of his time at the OTC), it would make sense that if he was sick with pneumonia, he didn't perform as well as he should because he didn't have the strength required to beat a wrestler much older than he (this was the summer after his sophomore year for gosh sakes!). Please feel free to debate. I've been waiting for someone to prop up this "technique" line for a while now.

     

    Vhsalum, it was his technique that failed him in the match that I saw. I think he was plenty strong enough. His failure to finish was also on display in the Wiercioch match.

     

    Well then, lets have it! What part of his technique was flawed? Please enlighten us with your analytic skills!


  19. I don't see Chance wrestling next year as a starter or entering many tournaments with Top competition. I think they will protect him from opportunities to lose until they feel he is fully ready. My guess would be a red shirt with limited opens against top guys.

     

     

    Then you, my dear sir, pay no attention to college wrestling or Oklahoma State. Looking at the roster right now, Chance is the best 174 on the team. If that is the case, he will wrestle. John Smith has a HISTORY of wrestling true freshmen. He's very much in the opposite direction, in terms of using redshirts.

     

    and to superold,

     

    PUH-LEEZ with your "Chance is going to need better technique" line. Have you seen the kid? Technically, is able to wrestle with college kids now. And that has been the case since he was in the EIGHTH GRADE! What happened in that tournament is clear, he wasn't STRONG ENOUGH to finish those attacks. Now, knowing the kid as well as I do (through anecdotal evidence of his time at the OTC), it would make sense that if he was sick with pneumonia, he didn't perform as well as he should because he didn't have the strength required to beat a wrestler much older than he (this was the summer after his sophomore year for gosh sakes!). Please feel free to debate. I've been waiting for someone to prop up this "technique" line for a while now.


  20. Dude. You DID get the full story.

     

    “This morning, the coaching staff decided that Justin was not medically able to wrestle and make the weight."

     

    What more do you need? His calorie count for the last 2 months?

     

    It IS their duty to report it, and the why. The details are unnecessary, and the only reason details get LEAKED in other sports, is because there are enough persons who care and think others may care for it to be LEAKED.


  21. Not going to lie. I feel for squash. In no way should wrestling have been dropped from the core program...

     

    Oh wait, yes it should have. Because the same persons who dropped the ball, are the same persons trying to put a spit shine on it now.

     

    The fight now, is to return as a core sport. Squash isn't going anywhere.

×
×
  • Create New...