Jump to content

boconnell

Members
  • Content Count

    4,347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

boconnell last won the day on March 19 2021

boconnell had the most liked content!

About boconnell

  • Rank
    Gold Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,804 profile views
  1. I love how you came to the end of an 11 page thread to express how much you don't care. Classic.
  2. I don't refer to close matches to say those guys are bad, I am more referring to whether those guys are making it harder to win a world title. Those guys are definitely making it harder to medal. But if your weight class doesn't have any former Soviet guys who can threaten the top guys or make advancement harder (or even just wear a guy out), then I don't think their presence changes how hard the weight was to win. I do think Iran has been much better these days than when Smith competed, and JB has run into some incredibly tough Iranians. Cuba was tremendous during the early part of his run too. I have no clue who was tough in Smith's day beyond the USSR. I think it's easy to say wrestlers today face generally tougher competition and tougher structure (# of weights, etc...).
  3. Serious question. Who are all the really difficult extra "russians" that JB has had to go through every year? It looks like he had a tough match in 2017 with Shabanau from Belarus. He also got tech falled by Bezkod in the consolations in 2016, but I don't think that loss had anything to do with Bezkod being difficult. Scanning through all of his results, I don't see any other difficult matches with guys from former Russian republics. I think Russia's break up generally makes things harder. I don't think it's really made things harder on JB. His main opponents have been Russians, Iranians, and Americans that he would have seen regardless of Russia's break up. I think 7 weight classes is far more relevant and far more difficult. Just by math that makes a title almost 50% harder to win these days (though the double bronze makes medaling about equally hard). But not all titles these days are won in 7 weight classes. World titles are once again won in 10 weight classes over the past few years. But current Olympics are won in 7 so an Olympic title is definitely much tougher these days.
  4. You say losses aren't better than not competing but you view not competing like losses. I say losses are worse than not competing when determining who is best. That's actually not a giant difference. We just disagree and that's okay. I appreciate that you backed off your earlier "everyone whose opinion isn't mine is wrong" stance. I agree with you that sticking around for a few bronzes is adding to your legacy. JB has done much more than stick around for a few bronzes. He's the GOAT in my mind.
  5. This is what I'm talking about when I say you are calculating the GOAT based on wins, and without regard for losses. You are declaring a season where you compete and lose every match as better than a season where you don't compete. In doing this you are making it about accumulating the most wins. That's a pretty good argument. I disagree, but I get it. For me it's not about what a guy would have/might have done. I agree it's about what the guy did. I include losing as a part of what he did. I think winning more and losing less is better. That's why I think JB is the GOAT. Not because 7 and change is better than 6, but because he won more than anyone, didn't lose much, and came back to win late. It's subjective for me. It is for you too, but you pretend it's not.
  6. I agree that your resume isn't enhanced by not competing. I disagree that your resume can't be made worse by competing. I think JB is the GOAT because of his success, the number of titles and medals, and his incredible drive and health to compete for a long time. His ability to adjust to age by changing weight classes also impresses me. But if he had added a couple of bronze medals and a bunch of losses in the last 4 years, it would have taken away from his resume for me rather than adding to it. Instead he won two titles while losing some matches and became the GOAT for me. You are welcome to disagree with that, but the way you declared your opinion to be definitive in an argument that is subjective, was beyond obnoxious.
  7. You have declared that only wins count, and losses don't matter. That's a stance you can take and defend. But it's strange that you declare everyone who considers losses in a subjective argument to be wrong.
  8. What do you consider a very long time? Sadulaev won 7 out of 8 Olympic/Worlds over a 7 year stretch. Smith won 6/6 Olympic/Worlds over a 6 year stretch. Sadulaev will bury Smith over the next half decade, but it's premature to say America has never had a guy who was dominant like Sadulaev has been at this point.
  9. 1 and 2 are great points. 3 is a terrible argument to make when discussing GOATs. A GOAT argument shouldn't include how a guy almost beat a bunch of really good guys. JB is the best because he won 7 plus other medals. Smith didn't match that. I also don't think JB is done. His hunger to compete, his health to be there every year, his ability to adjust style and weight as he aged. All of these things allowed him to compete at the highest level of a brutal sport for over a decade. He's the GOAT.
  10. I agree with your analysis that if different guys scored at different points, then it's a different match.
  11. Smith is mystified by college kids? He's a top 5 or so coach all-time. I wish I could be that mystified in my job.
  12. It also doesn't end well for more than a couple of the people who had no rules. Go to an AA meeting and most of the room won't be people who didn't drink until their mid 20s. There are too many conclusions being reached off of anecdotal evidence here. Not drinking in your late teens and early 20s factually leads to less drinking later, not more.
  13. Thanks for clarifying. I would agree people who live under strict rules are much less likely to have a drinking issue, but more likely for their issue to be serious if they have one.
  14. I am quite sure that people who drink in college are more likely to have a future drinking problem than people who don't drink in college. You can hate his rule, but you pushing the idea that his non-drinking team is increasing the odds of drinking issues is just dumb.
  15. He can get in a stance and not shoot at 141 just as easily as he can at 133.
×
×
  • Create New...