Jump to content

PA-Fan

Members
  • Content Count

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PA-Fan

  1. Seriously? "Change the rules a little bit". "Allow them to get back into wrestling shape/mind?" If you have to add all of these caveats to support your statement...you must see that you were probably wrong to start with... These guys aren't Gods, they're human beings. You put them on a pedestal and act like they're invincible. They aren't. Schlatter was put on a pedestal and then along came Metcalf. Metcalf was put on a pedestal and along came Caldwell....so on and so forth, it repeats itself again and again and again. Yes, I realize, different example but in theory it is all the same. Steiber isn't untouchable, nor is he invincible. He may after all kill Faber on the mat, he may. That doesn't mean he will, and it certainly doesn't mean that he will with no uncertainty. In this sport we grant too much or too little, example defined. I can't believe you just did that again in this same thread. It's not just a "different example, but the same theory" situation...it is almost not even apples and oranges...it is more like apples and wrenches! Im not even sure what you are trying to argue anymore...wreslters at the top of the NCAA are not going to lose to wrestlers who haven't trained to wrestle in years - especially if when they were wrestlers they weren't all that great (Faber for example). You are making a nonsensical argument...that is only overshadowed by the examples you are attempting to use to support it. Come on man.
  2. I am going to judge wrestlers, for a list of top 10 NCAA wrestlers of all time, based on their 4 year NCAA career...I feel like that is pretty simple. Is Burroughs more accomplished on the whole than most people on that list? Yes. Was he better or as good his Senior year as other on that list? Yes. Does any of this make a difference when you are talking about who goes on that list? No. Burroughs as a senior may even have been better and beaten Taylor as a Senior...but that doesn't mean that he is on the list in front of Taylor (who is not even for sure on the list himself)...let alone in the grouping with Sanderson and Dake - 2 of the only 3 4-timers ever. What is baseless is you saying "If Bubba would have gotten his way and stayed at PSU, Taylor would have been 165. He would have been totally destroyed by JB and Howe. He would have finished fourth at best."
  3. You literally just completely ignored everything else I wrote in that response (including my reiterating my two main points and the very specified example I gave to illustrate them - TWO DIFFERENT TIMES) and picked out that one sentence? Really?? At this point im just stunned and don't even know how to respond back to you.
  4. No. I am not arguing for Taylor to be ahead of anyone with better credentials. I even explicitly stated earlier that I am not arguing for Taylor over Ruth, or for him to be on the list at all. I am not trying to have anything both ways...I was simply pointing out that this specific list/grouping is ridiculous...and explaining why it is.
  5. Seriously? "Change the rules a little bit". "Allow them to get back into wrestling shape/mind?" If you have to add all of these caveats to support your statement...you must see that you were probably wrong to start with...
  6. Might as well throw in a little grapes there too huh? Bottom line, per opinion, less than a handful of guys would've picked Blanc over McDonough pre-match. You can take that to the bank. Probably somewhat true...but people who understand freestyle surely wouldn't say that... but still it is a completely independent statement from the way you used it to down the point being made, that Faber/Edgar have no chance vs. Stieber/Ramos...they don't.
  7. First, that is completely baseless and unfounded...so I can't even say anything in response. Secondly, yes he is "certainly" behind Sanderson and Dake...but Burroughs? Please make that argument. When you do though, do not forget that we are talking about a list of NCAA wrestlers, and comparing NCAA careers. If we were talking internationally too...then Burroughs is ahead...but we aren't...so he isn't. Burroughs is not in the same group as Sanderson and Dake when it comes to NCAA careers - he just flat out isn't. Taylor's NCAA career compared to Burrough's is not really all that close (assuming he wins this year in the fashion he probably should). Taylor is going to walk through this year (barring injury)...and like Burrough's he will be a two time champ - but he will clearly edge him out in the dominace department (overall), the fact that he was also a two time finalist along with his two titles, and the fact that in one of those finals he lost to one of the greatest NCAA wrestlers of all time, by a point, which kept him from winning 3 titles. By any standards Burroughs is not above Taylor, or even Askren for that matter, in terms of NCAA careers.
  8. I just gave you the main reason that freestyle results are not a good predictive tool of future folkstyle results - complete with a recent real world example to illustrate the points...and you say nothing in return ...and have the audacity to say that, in the past, I have not given a "a worthwhile response that engaged the major points in return" ? Wow is all I can say. You have to realize the difference here in our main arguments. The fact that if you look at the entire body of crossover matches, most of the time the freestyle winners are also the folkstyle winners - is not being argued by me. I made it very clear that what I am arguing is that freestyle results are not great predictive tools for future folkstyle matches on the individual level - this is a key difference you seem to be ignoring. You cannot just say "Well, on the whole, my point is true - so there." Again, I gave you two very specific reasons to support my position: 1) The rules in freestyle are much different 2) The scoring in freestyle is much different. I then provided you with a specific example illustrating why these reasons hinder the ability to predict a folkstyle match from a freestyle result (i.e. The same sequence of Taylor vs. Howe in freestyle that made the score 9-0 and ended the match, in folkstyle, is 2-0 with about 6 mins left to wrestle in the match) If you want to respond to that and refute it, be my guest. But don't just ignore it, speak in generalities, and appeal to authority ("been held by quite literally every elite wrestling mind")...none of that is useful at all in a debate.
  9. Guys like you would also think that based on collegiate results, Matt McDonough would murderize Obe Blanc. McDonough was a three time NCAA finalist, and Blanc placed once at 6th. According to your on paper analysis McDonough would kill Blanc. Blanc toyed around with him at the Olympic trials, smoked him. Guys DO have the ability to get better, even though it goes against popular belief. This is a terrible example. You are comparing a guy who is 100% dedicated to freestyle wrestling beating a guy who was much more accomplished in the NCAA...vs Guys who are 100% training to fight and not wrestle, wrestling guys who still are 100% focused on wrestling. It is a completely ridiculous comparison in every way. And yes, as you say, "guys do have the ability to get better" - but to do that you need to train for it. Training for years to be a fighter will not make you a better wrestler than you were when you were actually a wrestler. Blanc vs. McDonough in freestyle compared to Faber/Edgar vs. Steiber/Ramos is not even remotely the same thing.
  10. I think the main point of the post was that the article being referenced was extremely biased towards Dake - it was...go read it if you haven't. I love the way Dake talk's for the most part..for example him saying "Im the best in the world". Great, that's all confidence and you need that - it's awesome. But in this article - the writer suggesting that he lost most likely because he had to wrestle 3 times and Burroughs didn't, and Dake himself flat out saying it, is just ridiculous and completely dismissive of how good Burroughs actually is. Here are some quotes that I just found ridiculous: "I'm looking forward to wrestling him again when we're both fresh. That will be some pretty cool fireworks," Dake said. "I still think I would win, going in fresh. There's just such an advantage to be able to sit out." "If he was to wrestle three matches and I was to wrestle three matches going in, it would have been a little bit different. It's speculation. I can't just say I would beat him. It's hard to say, but I am looking forward to wrestling him again." (Can't just say you would beat him?...but you just did - one quote ago). The article was extremely over-hyping IMO. Also, Dake's remarks come off as nothing but excuses. I think this is probably the only time Dake has talked and I haven't liked it.
  11. Exactly how do they have very little value? Really? Come on, It is always explained - I have done it myself with you in a very long and exhausting thread, and explained it in very particular detail as to why freestyle results have very little predictive value to folk matches. The reasons they have little predictive value is very very simple...the scoring system and rules are extremely different in folk and freestyle. The fact that A beats B in freestyle and also beat him most of the time in folk is not as strong a piece of evidence as you suggest it is. Again...it is not hard to understand why freestyle results are not very good predictive tools for folk results. Great example example...the Taylor v. Howe match: The scoring in freestyle was obviously a 9-0 tech. But that same sequence in folk is 2 for the td, and 3 NF for the tilt at the end. BUT...lets not forget the rule differences - no locking hands in folkstyle...so the trapped arm gut that lead to the NF count is not even possible in folk. So in a folkstyle match between the two Taylor is ahead 2-0 instead of the match being over. (And, this is ignoring the fact that in a folk match the Howe would never attempt the head pinch at all ,which led to the td in the first place...it would be pointless to attempt in folk.) A 9-0 tech fall in freestyle vs. a 2-0 lead in folkstyle is very clear evidence of the rule and scoring differences between the two styles being a huge, huge difference...one that hinders the predictive value across the two styles. Or how about the opposite? The people arguing for this not meaning much to a folk match-up between Howe and Taylor being the same people saying last year "Dake pinned Taylor at the WTTs, so he would certainly beat him in folk". I have been consistent on both arguments (as I imagine many others have) - This result doesn't mean much to a Howe v Taylor folk match (I thought Taylor would win before this, and this doesn't make me thing hed win by more)...the same way the Dake pinning Taylor at WTTs didn't mean much to a Dake v Taylor folk match. Shame we wont see Taylor v Howe in folk. Very interesting clash of styles - I think it would look like a Burroughs v Howe folk match...a lot higher scoring than a normal Andrew Howe match with him coming up just short.
  12. In folk I really don't think any of these matches would be won by the MMA guys. In free I am sort of leaning the same way as well...although Taylor and Ruth are more opened up and less dominant in free. I think Dake v Askren would have the most potential to be close and entertaining especially in folk (sad we can't see that)...but I think Dake still wins this in either style. Still - a fantastic idea for the sport in its current situation.
  13. This is the scariest and most insane thing about Burroughs...the fact that he is still improving and is relaively new to freestyle - and still has a World Title and Olympic title under his belt. You can see it very clearly if you watch him from the Trials when he won his first spot - the the Worlds - to the Olympics - and to the Trials this year. He looks and moves so much better - and has closed so many gaps in his wrestling. It is almost unbelievable.
  14. I just wanna be clear up front I am not attempting to make an argument for one of them over the other...just pointing something out. WOW :shock: ...that was an extremely slick attempt to slip that by. Saying "Taylor lost 3 times as a Junior" is ridiculous in the context you are putting it...it has to be noted who he lost to those 3 times...one of them being an exhibition match before the season...and all 3 of them being to Kyle Dake (Ruth has never faced anyone of this caliber), in double OT once and by 1 point twice.
  15. Because opponents matter. I'm not saying Ruth shouldn't be ahead of Taylor, but saying that Taylor should not qualify for the short list to be considered top 10 just because he lost to Dake is an unfairly high bar. How many NCAA champions wrestled an opponent of senior year Dake's caliber in the NCAA finals? The list is very, very small, maybe just a handful throughout history. Was Alan Fried "just" a 1x NCAA champion? For the purposes of discussing who the very best collegiate wrestlers of all time are, yes, Alan Fried was just a two time champion. There is an ridiculously high standard for something like that, and with three 4 time champions and several more three time champions, Taylor just can't qualify for that kind of list. There's just too many guys who accomplished more than he did. And Taylor didn't only lose to Dake, he also lost to Bubba Jenkins, who while a good college wrestler isn't close to being an all-timer, and had lost that season to an NAIA wrestler along with a couple of other losses. Taylor simply can't qualify for this kind of list based on tournament scoring that clearly favors wrestling in this era. More points for placement, more bonus opportunities, bigger brackets, etc. It's not a grave insult to a man's wrestling capabilities to say he's not one of the 10 best ever. Lots of great wrestlers aren't among the 10 best ever. Vak I usually agree with a lot of what you post, and more so with the rationale and reasoning behind it...but this statement is totally unfair. The point being made was that Taylor is not a 2 time champion right now only because he happened to be in the same weight class a Dake - who happens to be a top 3 college wrestler of all time. This is a fact. Taylor's second NCAA title right now was blocked only because one of the [other?] best wrestlers of all time met him in the finals last year. For you to nit-pick and say "well, he also lost to Bubba so that argument doesn't fly" is not fair in the slightest, and is basically a non sequitur to the point being made (by the way - Taylor's only losses are to Bubba and Dake...that's all of them - so that stands for something in and of itself). Bubba was an NCAA champion and two time finalist (also a Junior World team member I believe?) ... he was no slouch. Plus - playing the "he lost to a weaker looking opponent so he can't qualify for 'this kind of list' " game is silly - all that need to be done is point to one (or two) of Dake's losses and you can see that clearly...Kevin LeValley is nowhere near as good/accomplished as Bubba even. Everything else you discussed, fine you can argue and have decent points. I am not even saying Taylor is for sure a top 10 of all time (assuming he runs the table and dominates this year), thought I for sure think a legitimate case can certainly be made for him. But this specific point really rubbed me wrong and I think it is extremely unfair and unwarranted.
  16. Three things: 1) I am not a "rookie" here...as evident by the fact that I have about 5 times as many posts as you...and by the fact that I just quoted Marty's opinions on Dake and Taylor from 4+ years ago. 2) Speaking of those opinions - They were both wrong. It is a fact that Marty said these things regarding Dake and Taylor, and that Marty was not "calling Dake's greatness" - please just research what he actually said about Dake coming into college...I promise you it was nothing like "Dake with be a 4 time Champ and one of the best to ever wrestles in college" - nothing like that at all. The only thing more off that his prediction on Dake was his prediction that David Taylor...the guy who, after his Junior year, is a 3 time Big 10 Champ, 3 Time National Finalist, 1 Time National Champ, Hodge Trophy winner, with a 101-3 Career record...that he would not be able to become an All American until His Junior year. So really, don't try to come here and praise Marty's genius and predictions - it is a very well established fact that he is insanely far-off with 99.5% of the predictions he has made. 3) As for the me "jumping on the bandwagon too late" comment...I don't know exactly what it is you are talking about. It is another well-known fact that I am in the Taylor camp - if you are referring to my sig line it is part of a bet from the Southern Scuffle finals match that has yet to be changed.
  17. Which time was LIMartin correct? When he said Dake was good or when he said he wasn't that good? Marty? Is that you? Odd that you say Marty "spoke the truth"...anyone remember Marty's prediction about Dake 4 faithful years ago? "He will lose, he is a freshman. Freshman lose." How about his spot-on prediction about Taylor? "He will not be bog/strong enough to AA until at least his Junior year." Marty was "On the money"..."Spoke the truth"??? Laughable.
  18. Let me try to clear a few things up....I didn't say "Taylor is very close to Burroughs"....I don't think he, Dake, Howe, or anyone else is really all that close to beating Burroughs - let alone taking his spot. What I did say was that Taylor was able to hang close and wrestle with Burroughs - after the first period shalacking. I am not asserting that Taylor's match with Burroughs was closer than Dake's second one...all I said was the score of the Dake vs. Burroughs second match made it seem closer than it was. Do I think Burrough's second win over Dake was more decisive than Dake over Taylor? Decisive? No, not exactly - I mean it went to OT. But do I think Taylor was more in the match vs. Dake than Dake was in match 2 vs Burroughs (as in did he have a better shot to win against Dake than Dake did with Burroughs)...yes. I get it...and I don't mean to make it sound like it was close...Taylor is a far way off of Burroughs in freestyle without a doubt...all I said is he was able to hang and wrestle with him..I should have added "after the first period."
  19. Obviously in the only one they wrestled. 3-0 / 1-0. "Very close" was a bad phrasing - "hanging with" would make much more sense. *Edit: actually I did write "hung very close"...so I take my correction back. That is completely besides the point I was making anyway.
  20. I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. All the evidence seems to point to the fact that, at the top of 74kg in the US, it is all about style match ups. Dake beat Taylor, Dake beat Howe in a marathon, Taylor took it to Howe, Burroughs crushed Dake and then beat him in OT (although not as close as it sounds), Taylor wrestled pretty well with Burroughs, Howe is the only person in the last few years to take a period from Burroughs (although that doesn't matter anymore). Your statement here is completely dismissive to Howe and Taylor - and that is pretty ridiculous. Taylor is still in college and hasn't even begun to focus on freestyle yet (and Dake has only just begun). Dake has beaten Taylor 5 times in the past year. He beat Howe the first time he and Howe were remotely close in weight. Dake is absolutely "closer" to Burroughs than anyone else is. With that said....he isn't close. Why is he absolutely closer to Burroughs than anyone else is? Did you just completely ignore everything I wrote in the post that you quoted. The results vary between the guys at the top. Dake beats Taylor (albeit close), Dake beats Howe close, Taylor destorys Howe, Burroughs destorys Dake and then beats him close (although not as close as the score looks), last chance he got Howe was right there with Burroughs, Taylor was pretty tight with Burroughs (more so than Dake was even). You missed the entire point to my post. Dake right now has the edge on Taylor and Howe, sure. But to say he is closest to Burroughs is not really the same thing. I mean be was taken down to the wire by Howe - and then Taylor crushed Howe...Taylor hung very close with Burroughs - and then Burroughs teched Dake - and then beat him in OT. I think if you wrestle that bracket 10 times the only thing that comes out the same at this point is Burroughs winning. Dake may be there the most to face him - but not 10 out of 10.
  21. Not sure why posts are disappearing in this thread....is Flo onto our disappointment in them!!!??? :o :shock:
  22. I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. All the evidence seems to point to the fact that, at the top of 74kg in the US, it is all about style match ups. Dake beat Taylor, Dake beat Howe in a marathon, Taylor took it to Howe, Burroughs crushed Dake and then beat him in OT (although not as close as it sounds), Taylor wrestled pretty well with Burroughs, Howe is the only person in the last few years to take a period from Burroughs (although that doesn't matter anymore). Your statement here is completely dismissive to Howe and Taylor - and that is pretty ridiculous. Taylor is still in college and hasn't even begun to focus on freestyle yet (and Dake has only just begun).
  23. Yes, the free ride is over. USAW is no longer about getting high schoolers to watch and become interested in the sport, it's about monetizing the fans who they currently have. It costs them money to go and video tape matches, so if a high schooler can't afford to pay, he will have to settle for watching baseball or basketball on TV. 150 dollars a year from 5,000 people translates to much better value for USAW than the "potential" to garner more support sometimes in the future. If you want to see videos of post match interviews and pre-match hype, however, there is plenty of that available for free. One of the rare times I have agreed, completely, with scribe. $20 a month is no cheap fee...especially when you consider the endless problems the service has had, which everyone should be aware of. And then you are just completely fine with ostracizing an entire group of people (for example, high school wrestlers) who don't have the ability to pay the fee? That is absolutely ridiculous. Then to take it a step further, they are "leeches"? Get real my friend.
  24. "What John Smith did was amazing. For me to compare myself to John Smith is like people comparing Kyle Dake to me on this trip...." Amazing.
×
×
  • Create New...