Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Burroughs humblebrags all the time. who cares? he's also a gracious champion and RTs other wrestlers own humblebrags. and a slightly unrelated note, he's also a tireless shill for his ASICS shoes, but whatever, if i had my own shoes i'd be tweeting about them incessantly too. I don't care, I think he deserves to brag (humbly or not) about his accomplishments - as does Taylor...that is my whole point. Where are the people bashing Taylor for arrogance when Burroughs does the same type of stuff? It just shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency some people have...
  2. I highlighted for you the subtle (yet not so subtle) statements that make you come of as a "DT hater". It is not over sensitivity to think this way, when you state that a guy who has 3 losses in his career (2 to one of only 3 4-time champs by a combined 2 pts...and one to a 5th year senior as a RS freshman) is "good, but not that good". It is no accident that any thread like this turns into an argument on how Taylor is really over-rated. Or how him tweeting something about his 100th bonus pt win shows how arrogant he is. Someone mentioned it earlier....and I will reiterate it now. Why did nobody (specifically any of you guys bashing Taylor for arrogance) say the same things about JB after he won his titles and tweeted/facebooked about it repeatedly? The word hypocritical comes to mind....
  3. Honestly, do you even read the things I write before responding? Quantifying the word "generation" is all well and good, go for it. Take it from ancestry.com or wherever else you want. But it does not change the actual meaning of the word when you attempt to put an average number to it. IT STILL MEANS groups separated by birth. Again, you continue to make argument and counter things I am not saying. You just went on a huge rant about the word "consistently" .... a word that completely changes the context of the argument...and a word you added to the argument to make your counter-points more sensible. That is not how this works...especially if you are going to turn around and accuse me of the thing you just did. You can see it as rare as you want....my point still stands....and will continue to stand. Once in a generation, given the concepts of averages and total # of all generations, CAN occur twice (or three, four, five, etc.) times in the same generation. Without adding any caveats or twists to the argument...this is a completely factual statement. So, considering that, you cannot argue against Taylor being once in a generation by saying "hey, Dake is in the same generation...so Taylor can't be once in a generation." I really cannot explain that in any simpler terms.
  4. I also would like to point out to all you guys in the "He can't be once in a generation because there are others just as good/better in his generation" camp... By that rationalization...."once in a generation" almost does not even exist. Pat Smith and Cael Sanderson are in the "same generation". So, one of the 4 timers is left off the list? And, by some of your definitions Kyle Dake is also in their generation...so TWO of the 4-timers are now left off the list?
  5. Starting to understand the "once in a generation, multiple times in the same generation" and "100 year storm every 5 years" idea...so you are shifting the focus of your comments? Nicely done. First off, depending on what dictionary you use 30 years is the most accepted range for a "Generation". I cannot find Taylor's birthday but considering Smith was born Sept. 21, 1970 I would say he would be considerably younger than the average age a parent has a child. So let's say we use 25 years as an acceptable range. You only have 4 generations wrestled in NCAA history. Your argument weakens when I get to add Hodge, Uetake, Gable and all the other 3 timers or wrestlers with higher winning percentages. If you want to change the definition to suit you feel free. However, a storm is, BY DEFINITION, no longer a 100 year storm if it consistently happens every 5 years. The same applies when there are a multitude of wrestlers in the AVAILABLE generations that can easily be argued as comparable if not better than Taylor. David Taylor is great. I would even say he is amazing. All I pointed out was it can EASILY be argued he is not once in a generation AND it is NOT being said with an OUNCE of hate. Why are you so quick to take offense and try to insult in return? You get to benefit, as a fan, from having him wrestle at PSU. He will most likely be a major contributor to 4 Team Championships. I would be ecstatic to have someone of his caliber at MSU. Minkle would ruin him, but that is besides the point. You can let something as trivial as where he falls into the "Generation" rankings bother you or simply be happy he is part of your team instead of anyone else's. First, "generaiton" is most commonly defined by offspring...not by a set number of years. One generation is born from the previous generation. Second, you saying there have only been 4 generation of NCAA wrestlers is invalid to the argument I made. When I said "once in a generation" I made the argument that multiple "once in a generation - ers" can be in the same generation, considering averaging and total numbers...NOT the finite number we have had SO FAR. Third, I am changing no definitions at all. I don't even know where you got that idea. Fourth, a "100 year" storm can happen consistently (even though you threw that word in yourself, since it wasn't there to start) every 5 years for a finite period of time...and still be a "100 year storm" based on it's severity - which is why it is called that. Because given enough time, a storm of that severity will happen ON AVERAGE, only once every 100 years - regardless if it happened 5 times in the last 25 years. The same reason, as I have already explained, you can have multiple "once in a generation' wrestlers within the same generation. You claim I am changing definitions and arguments...when you are the one adding words to twist things to fit your argument. Words like "consistently" and "Available (generations)". When you add those words you are countering an argument I never even made.
  6. Starting to understand the "once in a generation, multiple times in the same generation" and "100 year storm every 5 years" idea...so you are shifting the focus of your comments? Nicely done.
  7. Yes, I can call him that. I have already explained why - if you can read and understand what I wrote...along with fairly simply math...you will see why I can call him once in a generation even though there are multiple other talents in the same generation. Another aside...I think your "generation" definition may be a little too wide...putting all these guys in the same generation. Pat Smith is easily old enough to be Taylor's dad...how would they be the same generation?
  8. If you understand the concept of averaging over total time (or numbers)...then yes. It is exactly like that.
  9. I know what you are saying, and also most likely why you are saying it. The same reason scribe thinks Taylor tweeting about his 100th bonus point win, IMMEDIATELY followed by how grateful he is to be at Penn State, somehow equates to him patting himself on the back. Silly. :? Also, if you want to get technical....he would be a once in a generation talent. You can have multiple "once in a generation talents" in the same generation. Simply do the math, figure out how many D1 wrestlers per generation...then take all the wrestlers with Taylor's accomplishments / ability....and compare the numbers. Im sure he would fall well within the "once per generation" range....As would Kyle Dake - who just happens to be in the same generation.
  10. "he's great but not that great..." What a joke of a post. The kid has 100 BONUS POINT WINS wrestling in D1 - and it is a few days into his final season. No matter who he lost to and/or beat...that is GREAT. Period. Your qualification of "not THAT great" is absolutely ridiculous. Your hatred of Taylor and/or Penn State can not shine through enough. 100 bonus point wins. Not just 100 wins, 100 bonus point wins. Bringing up guys you think are better than him in response to this topic is a joke.
  11. Anyone? I can't find it for some reason...
  12. Do you think Askren would stand a chance? I mean, Askren is an all time great, and I also happen to love what he is doing for the sport at the moment...but him and Cael settling it on the mat? I think that ends in a loss for Askren every time. Love him or hate him and what he believes, lets not forget who Cael is, and exactly how good he was.
  13. I know you never said Cyler is better than Taylor...that is my entire point - that you hold conflicting beliefs - because you think BJ > DT for reason X yet DT > CS despite reason X - aka you have a cognitive dissonance here. You seem to have a hard time even following a logical train of thought...let alone constructing one yourself. "The mark of a champion is the championship.."- fine. But it is not the mark of the better player...or wrestler...necessarily. Eli is not a better QB than Peyton, no matter how many Superbowls he has. That is the argument you are making...and it is wrong, because there are many other factors to consider when asking "Who is better?" The same logic applies to Bubba and Taylor...Bubba is not the better wrestler - it is even more clear than the Eli v Peyton example when you consider that they have the same # of NCAA titles, but everything else Taylor blows him away - the only thing Bubba has is 2 head to head wins when Taylor was a True Freshman and RS Freshman - fine that is something...but not nearly enough to make him the better wrestler.
  14. Yes, I think Brent Metcalf is a "better wrestler" than Caldwell...even though Caldwell beat him. And Peyton and Eli...really that is your go to "gotcha" question? Peyton is much better than Eli. Much better. I want Peyton every single time...regardless of Eli having more Superbowl rings. Is Eli better than Dan Marino? Is Terry Bradshaw better than Tom Brady? This argument is just silly...amount of Superbowl rings is a single factor...not the entire evaluation system. That is why Peyton shows up on just about everyone's list of the best QBs ever...Eli? Not so much. The same idea applies to wrestling... See how my logic is consistent? Yours is not so much...since you refuse to say that Cyler Sanderson is better than Taylor, even though he is also 2-0 vs. him...which is the exact same reason you state Bubba is better than Taylor. This is called "cognitive dissonance". You have two completely conflicting beliefs: Bubba > Taylor since he is 2-0 vs. him head to head...but Sanderson (also 2-0 vs. Taylor) is not....and you are logically incoherent to boot.
  • Create New...