Jump to content

PA-Fan

Members
  • Content Count

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PA-Fan

  1. I still dream about getting majored as a senior in the State finals :oops:
  2. Yea I get it.... I don't get why you say that.
  3. Im not sure what you are getting at with this post? What stinks about it exactly? Why is it strange to hear a top recruit is interested in multiple schools? What is "how it works" at Cornell? So what if he "greyshirts" and does a year working out in the fingerlakes club? I just don't get this post at all.
  4. I made it clear that the post was still very unofficial...and obviously he has a wide range of choices. But what I am hearing, from some "in the know" people, is that Cornell is the extremely likely front runner at this point. From an outside perspective...honestly it makes perfect sense given the recent PSU debacle.
  5. The (still very unofficial) word I am hearing is that Haines is now very likely headed to Ithica.... Any thoughts/ideas/comments?
  6. I don't "have the spine" to answer? Coming from the guy who continually refused to answer my questioning of his evaluation criteria and its inconsistencies, and then when I pushed, and pushed, and pushed for a response, he finally, after flat out ignoring post after post, says something like "Everybody is different, and that is off the topic anyway..." and nothing more. Then this: It is this kind of irony that was the driving force behind me deciding to stop opening this thread...why did I go back on that decision today :roll:
  7. Given your evaluation criteria, i.e. "JB is Better than DT because he won a World Title right out of college and DT is not on that level" - it is an extremely valid assumption, one that is very easily made. And it is part of the discussion when I am showing how your reasoning is flawed.
  8. You're right, I read your "51 out of 100" comment backwards. That's my bad. But, my point still stands about your reasoning being flawed - because I assume you'd rank JB as a better college wrestler than John Smith..no? If the answer is yes - then your reasoning is contradictory and flawed. If the answer is no - then your reasoning is at least consistent - but we are back to the "post collegiate results should not matter when evaluating college wrestling" argument. And you can set whatever you want, me saying "I don't know" when I don't know is still a valid answer - especially when I gave specific reasoning. If I gave another answer when I didn't know...that would be dishonest - and I don't like being intellectually dishonest.
  9. That's rght, I forgot that you can change the parameters of anything, anytime, to fit the way you want them to. The same way you can say JB was better than DT in college and simultaneously, using the exact same reasoning, say that Dake was better than JB (which is the exact opposite conclusion) Also its ironic how hard you press me to give an answer you want, even though I gave one 3 times now - that you deem as unacceptable, and simultaneously ignore the question I am asking you about the invalidity of your reasoning. I'm not exactly sure how your brain functions...there are too many inconsistencies to keep up with, and it is giving me a headache.
  10. "I don't know" is also an acceptable answer - to any question (even a Yes/No question). Also, continually ignoring something that I continually bring up means you are being evasive and dishonest.
  11. Wasn't sort of the opposite argument made of David Taylor coming into PSU? "He is too small - not strong enough - not physical enough." Interesting is all. Chance was physically mature at a young age - fine no argument. But he still came into HS at 152 lbs as a freshman, and won a state title. Followed by two more, and most likely a 4th this year. It's not as if he was wrestling a bunch of little boys...he has been wrestling (and destroying) the best of the best, in the best wrestling state (not to mention national freestyle and greco titles, as well as Cadet World level competition and success until he was injured). I think saying "it'll be interesting to see him taking on other guys as developed." is pretty unfair. Whether he will continue on that level in D1 remains to be seen...but I do not foresee his physicality and wrestling ability "evening out" being any sort of problem.
  12. I think Howe and Brown will match up better than most think. I give Howe the edge, as I think he is the better technical wrestler. But as far as style goes they seem like mirrors of each other. I think Howe wins most of the time in this match up in something like a 3-2 / 4-3 dec. The good thing for Brown, and PSU fans, is that type of style leaves room for a stolen win here and there!
  13. 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. The irony of you telling me "I still have not..." is amazing. Why is maybe not an answer? I gave an entire rationale of this hypothetical match-up. I said that it would come down to 1) If Taylor could stop/slow down Burroughs on his feet. and/or 2) If Burroughs could keep Taylor from getting on top of him. Yes, I did answer it. If I was betting - it would depend on the odds. If Taylor was getting decent odds Id bet on him...and if Burroughs was getting decent odds Id probably bet on him. Yes or No are not the only answers to a question. Im going to go back to not discussing with you now - I don't like how much effort you have put into attempting to steer away from something I have so thoroughly outlined for you - i.e. Your evaluation system being not only illogical, but biased and dishonest as well.
  14. 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. I already answered that question - the answer is maybe, the match would be interesting to watch - do you even read my responses? At this point, I am not even going to discuss anything with you anymore. Your ability to completely evade the fact that your evaluation system is both logically inconsistent (as I have pointed out 4-5 times now, in great detail) and also biased (given that you can subjectively change the way you evaluate two wrestlers on a case by case basis)...that ability is amazing. I went to great lengths to clearly illustrate these points to you - multiple times - and you just ignore it. Im not wasting anymore time discussing anything with you.
  15. Of course there are many factors in evaluating two people. In the case of JB vs. DT (in college) I laid out a multitude of evidence for DT...and the trump card being played was "Burroughs was able to win a world title right out of college, and Taylor wasn't - therefor Burroughs was better." Fine - if you want to use that argument then you must deal with the things i've been trying to get Plasmodium to stop avoiding for 6 or 7 posts now... No, that fact is but a part of the overall puzzle, not the sole reason. JB was also a Hodge winner, and had proven himself by beating a ton of former AAs and champs. His list of victims far surpasses who Taylor has beaten. The fact that he was a world champ less than a semester's time period after graduating is just a validation of the level he was already at. DT isn't close to that level. Nope...not how the argument was presented (multiple times in fact)...It can't be changed now to seem more reasonable.
  16. Of course there are many factors in evaluating two people. In the case of JB vs. DT (in college) I laid out a multitude of evidence for DT...and the trump card being played was "Burroughs was able to win a world title right out of college, and Taylor wasn't - therefor Burroughs was better." Fine - if you want to use that argument then you must deal with the things i've been trying to get Plasmodium to stop avoiding for 6 or 7 posts now...
  17. 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.
  18. This is a different topic, I don't want PA-Fan to confuse the two. It is not a different topic. I am challenging your reasoning for putting Burroughs (in college) ahead of Taylor (in college) - just using other examples to illustrate how nonsensical it is. I am not confused in the slightest...you are just being illogical, and at this point possibly intentionally dishonest - since I have repeatedly and meticulously showed how flawed your evaluation system is.
  19. I see. So, in your mind, it is perfectly ok and logical to focus on specific reasons as to why one wrestler is better than another (i.e. Burroughs is a better college wrestler than Taylor because Taylor isn't on the "win a world title right after college" level) - and then throw out those same reasons when comparing different wrestlers (i.e. Dake is a better college wrestler than Burroughs even though, like Taylor, he isn't on the "win a world title right after college" level...OR...Smith is not a better college wrestler than Burroughs, even though he is on the higher "win two world titles while still in college" level, and Burroughs wasn't) Perfectly logical and reasonable...Oh, wait, no it isn't. It is totally nonsensical. You can't just throw out your own line of reasoning when it doesn't fit - and keep it when it does. That is, and you are, absurd.
  20. 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.
  21. 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....
  22. There you go again with the slick wording - ofcourse "wrestling accomplishments" have a place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler...but that is not what you are asserting. You are asserting that wrestling accomplishments after college are relevant (you even said more relevant than in college accomplishments) to evaluating a wrestler while he was in college. I don't know if you are purposely being vague like this to make your argument seem more plausible, or what...but either way please stop it. 1) Has never been part of the discussion!? It started the discussion - when you grouped Cael, Dake, and Burroughs as ahead of Taylor. 2)I don't care what you are interested in...you (and other) have attempted to argue in this thread that Burroughs career was better. This is a fact...it happened. I am pointing that out. What you consider more important or meaningful is beside the point. 3)You're insane. If David Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was", then who was (in college) close to where Burroughs was? The kid has 3 career losses (two of them to a top two wrestler EVER), 3 Big 10 Championships, an NCAA title and 3 finals appearances, a Hodge trophy, 85%(give or take) wins by bonus, and 3 Gregorian awards. He has exactly the same number of titles, and more of every other accolade, as Burroughs coming into his Senior year...plus he is just as dominant (if not more so) over the field as Burroughs was his Senior year. Not to mention he is an overwhelming favorite to win again this year. You can think all you want that Burroughs was better and he'd win if they could wrestle each other at the same development level, that's fine. But for you to say that Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was" is absolutely absurd. Lastly, NO WAY. You don't get to duck out of this. What I said was not "off topic". It is extremely on topic. I showed how nonsensical and logically inconsistent your rationale was. By your system of evaluation (that system being that Burroughs post-collegiate accomplishments, being so close to his college career, makes him a better college wrestler...)you must also believe the two things I pointed out. Let me repeat them for you: 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. You have two choices here: 1) Realize that your reasoning behind your argument is flawed because of these two ridiculous examples I gave you.... 2) You stick to your reasoning and say that these two statements are also true, given that they would have to be for your reasoning to be sound. You don't get to just say this is "off topic" and ignore it completely....it is very, very on topic.
  23. There you go again with the slick wording - ofcourse "wrestling accomplishments" have a place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler...but that is not what you are asserting. You are asserting that wrestling accomplishments after college are relevant (you even said more relevant than in college accomplishments) to evaluating a wrestler while he was in college. I don't know if you are purposely being vague like this to make your argument seem more plausible, or what...but either way please stop it. 1) Has never been part of the discussion!? It started the discussion - when you grouped Cael, Dake, and Burroughs as ahead of Taylor. 2)I don't care what you are interested in...you (and other) have attempted to argue in this thread that Burroughs career was better. This is a fact...it happened. I am pointing that out. What you consider more important or meaningful is beside the point. 3)You're insane. If David Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was", then who was (in college) close to where Burroughs was? The kid has 3 career losses (two of them to a top two wrestler EVER), 3 Big 10 Championships, an NCAA title and 3 finals appearances, a Hodge trophy, 85%(give or take) wins by bonus, and 3 Gregorian awards. He has exactly the same number of titles, and more of every other accolade, as Burroughs coming into his Senior year...plus he is just as dominant (if not more so) over the field as Burroughs was his Senior year. Not to mention he is an overwhelming favorite to win again this year. You can think all you want that Burroughs was better and he'd win if they could wrestle each other at the same development level, that's fine. But for you to say that Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was" is absolutely absurd. Lastly, NO WAY. You don't get to duck out of this. What I said was not "off topic". It is extremely on topic. I showed how nonsensical and logically inconsistent your rationale was. By your system of evaluation (that system being that Burroughs post-collegiate accomplishments, being so close to his college career, makes him a better college wrestler...)you must also believe the two things I pointed out. Let me repeat them for you: 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. You have two choices here: 1) Realize that your reasoning behind your argument is flawed because of these two ridiculous examples I gave you.... 2) You stick to your reasoning and say that these two statements are also true, given that they would have to be for your reasoning to be sound. You don't get to just say this is "off topic" and ignore it completely....it is very, very on topic.
  24. :roll: I love how people throw in those caveats when it suits their side of the argument.
  25. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...