Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DocRevue

  1. Mark Schultz was one of the most explosive collegiate wrestlers of all time, but he often worked out of a tripod from the bottom - 30 years ago. It's not inferior technique by any means.
  2. Once again, people mischaracterize the so-called "Iowa Style." This is mostly just a straw man that Iowa critics put up for an easy target. If anything, this year's Iowa team abandoned any real Iowa attitude at the Penn State meet. They needed more tough offense, not less. This isn't just technique vs. aggression, because the Hawks lacked both against Penn State. I wouldn't say there was not "any real Iowa attitude" but it was a problem. One of the major differences between the present day Iowa teams versus their competition and the old Iowa teams versus their competition is that nearly all of the top teams, and particularly Penn State, now condition as hard as or outcondition Iowa. I'm not saying that Iowa's conditioning is suspect, just that the playing field has leveled in that regard. As far as the match went: 125: Gilman wrestled very well and really can't be faulted. He made a couple of mistakes and a two-time NCAA finalist (with the BIGGEST gastank in college wrestling, in my opinion) made him pay for them, but really this was a very solid performance for Iowa. 133: Ramos did a great job. Gulibon looks too small for the weight class. 141: Dziewa is very tough and definitely capable of beating Retherford. Came down to a big mistake late and Retherford being unflappable. 149: Kelly should have won this match. Unforgivable mental lapse with time running out. 157: St. John looked good. I'm not sure what the bench was doing. 165: Moore wrestled Taylor tough. I didn't think this was a bad performance. Taylor is just the superior wrestler right now and no amount of bullying or conditioning on its own is going to beat him. You have to have a skill set comparable to or better than his to knock him off, and Moore just doesn't right now. 174: Evans looked terrible - by far Iowa's worst performance. No offense, poor defense, not getting off the bottom - he looked beat from the start. 184: Ruth is just on another level. He's nearly impossible to outwrestle and he never looks tired. I thought Lofthouse looked all right - he's just outclassed. 197: Brooks was game but overmatched. I think a healthy Burak probably would give McIntosh all he could handle. Hwt. Telford did enough to win. I'm impressed with Lawson - the match just came down to experience and a mistake.
  3. Stieber did not look out of gas in the Retherford match. At least to me. It's entirely possible Stieber was sick but if he was he didn't let on.
  4. Ban, I didn't think you were disagreeing. I was just riffing on the point you made and pointing out that a guy who went 159-0 made short work out a lot of his opponents.
  5. Those quick sticks and techs sure cost Sanderson a lot of matches.
  6. Bubba should have told Sanderson to stuff it, transferred, and stuck David Taylor in the NCAA finals. I like Cael but everyone makes mistakes. He handled the situation badly and it came back to bite him and Taylor.
  7. I hope you're not serious. The idea that a wrestler of Stieber's caliber somehow becomes better by allowing wrestlers he is capable of pinning and teching stay with him in a competitive match is preposterous. Stieber has wrestled thousands of competitive and practice matches in his career. He freestyled at a high level over the summer. He works out daily with a 2x NCAA champ. He moved up to 149 for the All-Star and beat a returning national champ. He does not lack mat time, and short matches against second- and third-tier wrestlers did not cost him the Retherford match. What cost him the Retherford match is that he was outwrestled by a strong, talented, technical wrestler who showed a great deal of poise and stayed aggressive in the third period and overtime. Stieber didn't wrestle badly, and he wasn't out of gas in the third or in overtime. He just got outwrestled. It happens, and it just as easily could have happened if Stieber had let more of his lesser opponents survive all seven minutes.
  8. It was also partly facilitated by Smith's nasty streak on the mat, which Burroughs doesn't seem to have. I'm not saying anything bad about Smith or Burroughs - both great, great wrestlers, both tough as nails, and both winners.
  9. Nice PR but obviously not completely true. Weight cutting is necessarily a part of college wrestling not only because of the existence of weight classes but because wrestlers must make and hold a given weight class over the course of the season to make the team. Bumping up a class after the Christmas break just is not an option on a competitive team. Also, matside weigh-ins are a horrible idea that will (1) encourage last second, extreme cutting, and (2) put out an overall worse product. If you want evidence of what mat-side weigh-ins (and the weight cutting connected with them) would look like, visit the jock's room at Santa Anita.
  10. Quanon: Sorry, we've reached the quote limit so I couldn't quote your most recent post. That the results of the proposed contest might vary considerably based on the events chosen does not mean there is no such thing as athleticism. But the proposed contest itself is not really the issue because the contest (unlike the speed contest you propose) does not seek to determine the world's greatest athlete. Rather, the contest forces the drafters to attempt to draft a TEAM that will give it the best OPPORTUNITY to prevail in a series of random and unknown tests of strength, agility and stamina AT THE MARGINS. It provides a platform for debate about the world's best athlete. But, since you don't like the draft proposal, here's a different proposal. Assume it were possible to take all the of the world's practitioners of exercises, sports, and games requiring strength, agility, and stamina and put them through an infinite series of tests of strength, agility and stamina, and stack rank them based on their result on each test. Now, because the tests are infinite, we could never be sure of establishing the "most athletic" because the next test would always be expected to change the results somewhat. But I would expect that that, over an infinite series of tests, it would be established that certain participants would have better overall performance than others - more, for lack of a better term, "athletic ability."
  11. What does "athletic ability" mean? If you can answer that question, then you can have a debate. Otherwise, we're just throwing out a bunch of names of famous people that are successful at different things. I'd like to see any of the people mentioned in this thread compete at a marathon or a rock climbing contest or an ATP tennis match. And was it this thread that someone mentioned that Burroughs has an ugly golf swing, and therefore can't be a great athlete? "Athleticism" doesn't mean anything. I never used the term "athleticism," but it does mean something. It is the adverb form of a word I did use, "athletic." "Athletic" means "or or relating to athletes or athletics; characteristic of an athlete." An "athlete" is someone "who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina." I would define "athletic ability" as the capacity to participate successfully in a variety of exercises, sports or games requiring strength, agility, and/or stamina. What are the characteristics of an athlete? Strength, speed, quickness, agility, mental toughness, stamina, explosiveness, leaping ability, footwork, the ability to pick up physical skills quickly, to name a few. Particular sports value some of these characteristics over others, and a particular athlete's skill set in his or her sport may offset his or her lack of certain athletic characteristics, making it difficult to compare specialists in one sport to specialists in another. So how do we best evaluate overall athleticism, i.e., the possession of the characteristics of an athlete? Or, for purposes of this thread, how do we evaluate whether JB is or is not the world's best athlete? Here's my suggestion: Imagine we are tasked with drafting a freestyle wrestling team that will compete against other freestyle wrestling teams and we have the world's entire pool of freestyle wrestlers to choose from. We know their wrestling accomplishments and their physical ability. JB is going to be the concensus number one pick. He's the best freestyle wrestler in the world; he's going to give us an automatic win in his weight class. Now, imagine we are tasked with drafting a team of individuals who will compete against other teams in a variety of undisclosed tests of strength, speed, agility and stamina. We don't know what the specific tasks will be, and we don't know which of our team members will be assigned any particular task or whether he or she will have training associated with that task, and we don't know which members of the other teams they will compete against in their task. We are given the world's entire pool of men and women who compete in all exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility or stamina. Our team has the number one pick. Are we going to pick JB?
  12. In terms of pure athletic ability - no. He's quite possibly not even the most athletic wrestler in the world. But he is a great athlete.
  13. God would like international wrestling more if He could understand the rules.
  14. This, pretty much. Floyd is a natural lightweight who has fought at light welterweight, welterweight and occasionally light middleweight for years for the paydays. Floyd is well known for eschewing the boxing tradition of training camps. Instead, he treats training as a full time job. He employs a full-time nutritionist/chef and is in great shape at c. 147 lbs. There really are no fights for him to make at 140 lbs. and under - his defensive skills are such that only guys with a size advantage are going to sell tickets. Also, bulking up is not going to help him much. He's a more powerful puncher than people give him credit for, but he's had bad hands for years. The one possible inaccuracy I see above is that Floyd made Canelo come down to the 152 lb. catchweight. According to Floyd's camp, Canelo's people floated the notion of the catchweight to entice Floyd, and Floyd jumped on the offer. He's fought at 154 before and I think he would have fought Canelo at that weight, but why not take the pounds?
  15. For good or bad, a big part of what keeps many, if not most, sports fans coming back is second guessing, analyzing and discussing strategy and tactics with other fans. It's just human nature to discuss and debate. The extreme example is a stupid drunk decrying a coach as a moron, but there are plenty of fans who, every day, are engaging in well-reasoned, thoughtful discussions regarding their sports. And they aren't doing that because it's the best use of their time, or because they're paid, or because they have nothing else to do, or because they're better qualified than the athlete/coach/general manager they're criticizing or supporting. They're doing it because they are intensely INTERESTED in the sport. And the sports world in general strongly encourages this - through "sports news" programs, talk radio, fantasy sports, video games, etc. - because an interested fan base means butts in seats and eyes on TV sets, which in turn means not only respect for athletes, but money.
  16. Flo apparently has some business model problems they have to get cleaned up. That said, most of the other criticisms I see of Flo demonstrate why wrestling is where it is. The sport has the cheapest, most entitled fans imaginable. A family of college football fans spends more to go to a single game than most wrestling fans spend to see wrestling in a year or more, and think nothing of it. Wrestling's own fans are loathe to spend any amount of money to watch the sport, and yet we can't understand why the sport is fighting for survival. There is plenty to nitpick about Flo or any other company, but it's undeniable they've done what seemed impossible - provide a legit internet presence for the sport of wrestling, provide reasonably good broadcasts of a variety of wrestling events, and raise the profile of wrestling - particularly of high school wrestling - all on a shoe string. Gentlemen, it's everyone's right to complain, and constructive criticism is great. But we should keep in mind that Flo is really all there is. If you think what they do is easy, or low quality, or should be cheaper or free, go ahead and start a competitor and see how long you last.
  17. Big Ben was an Administrative Asst. not an associate coach. He will have an immediate impact on Telford becoming successful. JT#1 is completely off base surmising that Berhow seeks revenge. Nelson's success has been partly based upon Berhow's competition and support in the room. I didn't summarize anything. I said I wonder, as in I question. It is a fair question. Secondly of all, if you feel that he will have an immediate impact on Telford becoming successful, I'd imagine that a win over Nelson would contribute to that success? You make it seem like I stated that Berhow was out for blood. I simply stated that it might give him some satisfaction if Telford is to beat Nelson. Separated by a common language. Love it.
  18. My understanding is the Brands brothers don't drink and don't wrestle one another. So not even then.
  19. Popularity isn't the only factor here. Squash is backed by people with real clout. Where I live, the most influential people are personally involved in the following sports - golf, tennis, and squash, then cycling/mountain biking and running. You're not going to find them at a wrestling tournament. That said, I think baseball being in the mix is a good thing for wrestling because MLB has been very clear it will not allow players to bug out for the Olympics. Baseball has a lot less appeal as an Oly sport, even in the U.S., if the best players in the world aren't playing.
  20. What? Jesse's dad is/was a cop. Jantzen had great talent, worked hard, choose a good school and is reaping the rewards. Good hell.
  21. Title IX, which applies to far more than athletics, is not going anywhere. It has been remarkably effective at meeting its goals. Yes, there are problems with interpretation, but the primary practical problem with interpretation is football. I'm just fascinated by the fact that there are wrestling fans who still think that football is not a primary issue here. What has the sport of football ever done for the sport of wrestling? How many football programs have cut schollies and roster spots so that a wrestling or baseball or gymnastics program could survive? This isn't just a gender issue - it's a resource allocation issue. And resources are vastly overallocated to football.
  22. College wrestling's decline has been fueled, in part, by the effective professionalization of college athletics. Whether it's "PC bullcrap" or not, a wrestling coach pointing out that he is pleased to be in a conference where student athletes are valued is a good thing.
  23. He lost two close matches to two tough kids. Ugi is a beast, and Dardanes is no slouch. Tough draws and Mangrum did not come out on top. It happens.
  24. Yes. The AD was Rondo Fehlberg, as I stated above. An AD with a wrestling background probably can't hurt but an administration or board determined to drop wrestling is not going to be stopped by an AD.
  • Create New...