Jump to content

PA-Fan

Members
  • Content Count

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PA-Fan

  1. To the original question... No.
  2. I guess we will find out during the true 3rd match..
  3. I've heard that Burroughs fellow is pretty tough too. Ehhh, he did lose in 2008.... Has he even wrestled anybody tough in the meantime? :lol: I think he is the luckiest Undefeated World/Olympic Champion ever. I mean really, who has he beaten?!
  4. So does Dake. Burroughs is still a heavy favorite...a bit more so when you consider what Dake just had to go through, plus the fact that he has to beat him not once, but twice...AND plus the fact that he has to also outplace him internationally. Dake looks great...But Ill still take Burroughs as our World Team member.
  5. The bolded claim you made is completely baseless and silly...all mixed in there with actual observations. Congrats to Dake...now he has to beat Howe, Burroughs twice, and outplace him internationally to make the world team. That may be the toughest road to a world team ever! :shock:
  6. I think Q vs. Hahn would be an interesting and exciting match up...as well as Delgado vs. Lee. Id see it like this. Delgado dec. Lee (Is that shot even stoppable now?) Stieber dec. Thompson Ware dec. Stieber Larkin dec. Ness Welch dec. Bertin (I think experience and style gets Welch this win vs. 03 Bertin) Taylor maj Lackey (Sorry Matt :? ) Waller dec. Brown Ruth dec. Rosholt (I honestly wouldn't be surprised by a major, but Ed with the win for sure) Hahn dec. Q (this was a tough one) Mocco dec. Nelson Final I have at 16-15 B10 - on the back of a Taylor major. Obviously other bonus is possible, or none at all...but I think he is the most likely in the lineup on either side to score bonus.
  7. It's a shame that after all the Taylor v Dake hype from last season there is (most likely) nobody that can touch him. It's going to be so boring!!
  8. Am I the only one who finds it just a bit odd that Howe stated that he has grown into 174 and making the cut to 165 for a whole season might be too tough...and in the same interview says he will be back at 74 kilos (163 lbs) internationally and that the cut "isn't too bad"? I understand less weigh ins and everything internationally...but I still found this to be a bit odd.
  9. Ill make a positive case for Ruth: He is 103-2 in 3 NCAA Seasons - with both losses coming as a freshman. He has 73% bonus point percentage in his career. A 3 time Big 10 Champion A 2 time NCAA Champion and 3 time AA (1 3rd place finish) His loss to Amuch (in which he sustained a knee injury requiring surgery) was avenged the next year, with a MD in the NCAA Finals. His most recent season saw him become an Undefeated NCAA Champion (again), up a weight class while defeating the returning NCAA Champion twice and majoring a returning 2x finalist in the Finals. Stieber is 65-5 in 2 NCAA Seasons. Also has around 73% bonus point percentage in his career (although slightly less than Ruth when calculated more precisely.) A 2 time Big 10 Champion A 2 time NCAA Champion in two tries (*Somewhat controversial win as a freshman, but a win is a win) Most recent season saw him become an Undefeated NCAA Champion (first undefeated season). He defeated a first time finalist, whom he had wrestled 4 times before. This was clearly his biggest win of the season. His freshman season saw him beat Oliver in the finals with a controversial call - that is a quality win for sure. When you compare their NCAA careers - it is extremely clear to an unbiased eye that Ruth is certain in the conversation for being the best wrestler in the NCAA this coming season. More than that - it is not hard to make the case that he is the best - so to say he is out of the conversation is just outright silly. Last point in regards to this "why freestyle results should never be considered when assessing collegiate wrestlers." - that is easy, because it is a totally different style with completely different rules. I am not saying they don't translate, etc...but if you question is who is the best collegiate wrestler returning for this upcoming season - the basis for that assessment should be collegiate wrestling...it is a fairly straight forward concept.
  10. my god...that flo video is very telling. I guess Palmer and his "agents" made a smart move rejecting the proposed CF contract this tool's lawyer sent over....."the language was too broad". Burroughs just looks annoyed the whole time by this guy's shtick...bet he's sorry he ever got into bed with him. This actually cracked me up...Disabato was annoying me in this video. The very genuine and upbeat Burroughs seemed very annoyed with him - that is saying something :lol:
  11. Dake is too small to compete with Cael - even now that Cael is past his prime. He is a 74 KG guy - with no proven track record (as of yet) on the international level. He simply can not compete with someone who, even when cutting extreme weight, is still a weight class above him - not to mention can compete with and beat our Olympic Champion 2 weights above him. The idea of an exhibition to save olympic wrestling is interesting...but this particular match wouldn't work at all.
  12. Yes he did. Not in D1/NCAA competition he didn't. It is kind of what he is know for, ya know. It should be obvious that in the context of this discussion, that much is implied.
  13. Yep, he sure "torched" Taylor those 4 times - what with one being in freestyle and the other 3 being a ride out win, and two 1 pointers. :roll: Also, way to scold those "trying to bring Dake down." and in the very next sentence belittle Taylor shamelessly - bravo...that is some world-class hypocrisy. Finally, it sure does seem like you are, in fact, saying Cael isn't the best ever (and Dake is) - so just say it.
  14. He was 135 pounds coming out of high school. And probably 175 (walking around) when he graduated...so I doubt it without some serious weight gain.
  15. The reason is they are NOT 5'8" and couldn't SNIFF 163 lbs. I think you are oversimplifying JB's talents related to the sport he PARTICIPATES in. Obviously every sport has its best athletes at each position but you can only compare each to a certain point since the skill sets necessary to be the best at that position may vary CONSIDERABLY. JB is OBVIOUSLY a 1 of a kind for the sport and weight class he competes in. Comparing him to Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods or Barry Sanders is very difficult and inevitably flawed by the impossible to avoid bias that the person making the comparison inevitably has. Comparing a golfer to a wrestler is easy when you're deciding who is the best athlete. Not so easy when you are deciding who the more dominant participant within their own Sport (or game if you don't consider golf a sport) is.
  16. As for the "Brands in front of the camera" argument... I dont care either way. I was just illustrating why that still frame was useful...while the one showing Stieber flat was not. As for the freestyle fall...yes that is the rule. But this sequence, as fast as it was, is not a sure-call in freestyle no matter what the rule says. And it is not a call at all in folkstyle, no matter how many still frames show Stieber flat - like I said you can get them from hundreds of matches showing flat shoulder's...doesn't mean they were pinned just because a still frame showing 1/100th of a second shows it.
  17. :roll: Please watch the sequence at full speed instead of taking still frames - which are totally useless. From the time he locks the cradle to the time Stieber is belly-down and out of it...all of about 2-3seconds passed. That is the entire sequence. Not that Stieber was on his back for 2-3 seconds mind you....the entire sequence was 2-3 seconds. This wouldn't have even been a fall in freestyle...to argue otherwise is just silly. I bet I can find still frames from hundreds and hundreds of matches that show someone flat like this - and they probably stayed flat for about 1/3 of a second. Ill say it again - still frames are useless. All you have to do is watch the sequence and you can see, very clearly and beyond any doubt, that there was no fall. Argue back points all you want, at least you have some grounds to argue. Pin - no chance. There is a reason that neither Ramos, nor Brands, were arguing for the pin - because it was not a pin. This thread was started based on a still frame. And that's definitely a pin in Freestyle, what are you talking about? But I don't think it was a fall in Folkstyle. The still frame that started the thread was in response to an argument that said Brands was never in front of the camera blocking it's view...if I remember correctly you actually were one of the ones making said argument...he clearly was. - In this case a still frame from said camera is useful...the entire video would be also. The still frame showing Stieber's flat shoulders is taken from a 3 second (max) sequence - and attempting to be used as evidence that he was pinned - when in reality there is no way that should have been called a fall. - in this case a still frame is useless. As for that definitely being a pin in Freestyle, not so much. It would be more likely to be called in freestyle, sure. But I think even for freestyle that would be pushing it. I meant to say "not even be called a pin in freestyle"...but either way the idea is the same. Just watch it - at 6:07 Ramos locks the cradle and Stieber's shoulders break criteria. At 6:10 he is belly-down and out of the cradle. Accounting for the time that he spends being taken to "flat" and the time coming back from flat to belly down...you are talking almost no time being flat at all - unless you take a still frame which is totally misleading to the reality of the situation.
  18. :roll: Please watch the sequence at full speed instead of taking still frames - which are totally useless. From the time he locks the cradle to the time Stieber is belly-down and out of it...all of about 2-3seconds passed. That is the entire sequence. Not that Stieber was on his back for 2-3 seconds mind you....the entire sequence was 2-3 seconds. This wouldn't have even been a fall in freestyle...to argue otherwise is just silly. I bet I can find still frames from hundreds and hundreds of matches that show someone flat like this - and they probably stayed flat for about 1/3 of a second. Ill say it again - still frames are useless. All you have to do is watch the sequence and you can see, very clearly and beyond any doubt, that there was no fall. Argue back points all you want, at least you have some grounds to argue. Pin - no chance. There is a reason that neither Ramos, nor Brands, were arguing for the pin - because it was not a pin.
  19. Right AGAIN! :lol: Oh man. This was basically a guarantee he was going to finish at 165 hahaha
  20. Yep. I'd say it is pretty cut and dry for sure. 3 time champ RS Senior Dake at 174 vs. 1 time champ RS Senior Howe - Howe winning would be obvious! :roll: Good thing for Dake he had the foresight to avoid this entire situation and just not RS - so he only had to beat David Taylor for title #4!
  21. Perfectly reasoned and logical. Obviously if A beats B, and C beats A...B could never beat C. That is just silly !!! This has never happened, ever! :roll: :roll: :lol:
  22. This is very sound logic...the only difference is Taylor actually has head-to-head matches against Dake which show how close they were in skill. This is the leg up Taylor will have on Metcalf - in terms of being remembered in history.
  23. OK, so bringing up freestyle to talk about a folkstyle wrestler's skill is like bringing up ping pong or hunting. Got it. Yes, we disagree, and I conclude that you and zeeb must be related. No, you are still not reacting to what I am actually saying. Bringing it up to talk about his "skill" (that implies in a general sense) is fine and sensible - the skills do transfer after all which we agree on - but bringing it up to talk about his folkstyle skill/accomplishments/ability/etc specifically - yes it is akin to bringing up ping pong or hunting (obviously it is much more relevant than those two examples - but it is outside the realm of folkstyle wrestling, so it is just the same). Was the winky face really not enough to get across my jest in that statement? The underlying point, which was not in jest, is what we have been discussing for the entire day. Please refer back I don't want to keep repeating myself. The rules and scoring of freestyle is much different than folkstyle - similar to Football and Rugby (see previous example, again)
  24. But that is what I am trying to say - it is like that!! ;) (although freestyle is much more closely related than ping pong or hunting skills!) Agree to disagree. My fingers are getting tired.
  25. I know it is a "retarded" example - that is why I stated so - in different words. I was illustrating my point. So what if a wrestler never wrestled freestyle period - does he get an "F" for his freestyle part of the grade - thereby dragging down his folkstyle GPA? The two styles are different enough to be discussed separately - there is no need to bring one into the equation as a sort of tie-breaker for tough/close comparisons that you can't make a decision on (as you are doing). Cael Sanderson was a better folkstyle wrestler than John Smith. Smith was a better freestyle wrestler than Cael. That is ok - they can be evaluated differently and separately. You only need to evaluate both together if asked who was the better "overall wrestler" (in all styles) - that is not what I was ever discussing here and I made that clear multiple times.
×
×
  • Create New...