Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by oldsuper

  1. Dtl38, It's very easy to throw out trolling accusations, it's a lot harder to substantiate them. Why don't you try? I've posted nothing here that is even close to trolling. It's sad so many on these boards are so sensitive. Must every post be dedicated to talking about a wrestler's greatness? What if a wrestler under performs, it's off limits to point that out?
  2. So you're sticking to your comment that Gilman successfully wrestled to his "actual abilities" even though he lost to Moisey. The same with Telford even with the loss to Myers? You're firmly set on the opinion that if Gilman and Telford won those matches, that they would have been wrestling above their "actual abilities"? I think I may have to start a thread on this one MSU158.
  3. I'm not "bagging" on anyone. I just mentioned that Moore's wrestling is often poor and inconsistent. I think history bears witness to that fact. Btw, repeatedly throwing out accusations of bias does nothing to help your point. I'm not biased against any wrestler on the Iowa team. Nick Moore was well enough to wrestle better than he did imo. He didn't wrestle well. Far better wrestlers than Nick Moore have under-performed at the ncaa tournament, please remember that fact.
  4. Even with all of that, you didn't really define your terms. I hope that you aren't expecting everyone to agree with your "actual abilities" measure as though it's objective. It's funny that you always accuse me of holding to ridiculous opinions or talking in circles. I believe that is what you do MSU158. It was not within Gilman's "actual abilities" to beat Moisey? It wasn't within Teflord's "actual abilities" to beat the Maryland kid? If those two would have won those matches, they would have been wrestling above their "actual abilities"? Are you serious MSU158??? I know many Iowa fans that would disagree with that. I actually believe that the majority of Iowa fans would take Gilman and Telford in rematches.
  5. Btw, if you can't defend the "actual abilities" comment then just say so. You always seem to leave the thread when someone calls you out on one of your many assertions.
  6. I have cited numbers to support my argument as well. If you are implying that your opinion is fact based while mine isn't, you are clearly wrong. Iowa under-performed. This was their year to win the ncaas, and they came up short. Maybe they'll turn things around next year. They have a pretty solid lineup returning. I expect a national title from them in 2016.
  7. Yes. Nick Moore has a history of under-performing at the national tournament. Nick Moore looked like the same wrestler he did last year imo. Nick Moore is simply inconsistent. Not a useful comment. I could say: "Anyone who claims to be surprised that Nick Moore's poor, inconsistent wrestling led to yet another non AA finish is lying to themselves" Poor, inconsistent wrestling often earns you a non first place finish. Nick Moore didn't place at last year's national tournament, are you forgetting that? Btw, Greg Jones "never had an issue wrestling well" at the ncaas before he did. If Greg Jones can underperform, why can't Nick Moore? Is Moore better than Jones? When did you say this the first time? He looked like the same wrestler to me.
  8. What are each guys "actual abilities" MSU158? Are you trying to say that each wrestler's "actual abilities" are obvious, and even more importantly, objective?
  9. MSU158, saying that Iowa did "very well" is also an opinion. You often make the mistake of thinking that you are simply stating facts when you are merely giving your own opinion.
  10. Dziewa lost to a freshman. Who cares if he the freshman went on to beat other wrestlers? Do you realize that multiple wrestlers can underperform in the same bracket, in the same year? Gilman lost to a kid that he was 'supposed' to beat. You seem to be acting like losing to a freshman isn't a bad loss. Gilman beat Dance, a wrestler who didn't even make the podium! I told you my thoughts on guys who don't make the podium several times. Evans lost to Brown, I consider that a bad loss. I don't hold to the belief that if you lose to someone seeded higher than you, that means the loss wasn't bad. Also Evans has beaten Brown before too. Iowa was the #1 tournament team this year going into nationals. They lost, it was a poor performance as a team. I see no reason to abandon that stance.
  11. I'm not making excuses for Iowa's poor wrestling. I'm seeing things rather clearly if you ask me.
  12. Nick Moore looked like the same guy he was last year that collapsed at the national tournament. He wasn't "obviously a shell of the guy that beat Caldwell and Harger with ease last year". I think he was the same wrestler. Poor, inconsistent wrestling has been the way he's wrestled for most of his career. At least from what I saw. Evans was wrestling with far more than "pure grit". He was capable of wrestling technically and tactically better, and he failed to do so. He simply under-performed. Imo, chalking up Evans' collapse to injury is silly. So is saying that he was winning on "pure grit" the entire season.
  13. MSU158, At first and second glance it looks like Dziewa under-performed. He was the 5th seed and didn't place 5th or higher. Gilman losing to the freshman was bad, Iowa really needed that match. Evans, Brooks, and Burak lost key matches. Telford placed below seed. I saw a lot of bad wrestling from Iowa for the second consecutive year. They lost this tournament and Ohio State won. Ohio State's performance doesn't exculpate Iowa's poor performance.
  14. OtisCampell, From what I've saw, Evans, Moore and Brooks were well enough to wrestle up to seed. Evans was well enough to win the whole tournament. Poor wrestling in key situations is what cost them the match, and Iowa the national team title.
  15. How many back points has Stieber given up in his career? What about Dake? I don't recall Dake giving up any nearfall points, but I could be wrong. I think it's relevant to mention that Stieber was hesitant to go under true freshman Zain Retherford after their first match. Remember Zain was nearly 4 1/2 years younger than Stieber when he gave him trouble on the mat. Zain was considered to be a "small" 141 that year. Maybe Stieber isn't as physically strong as many seem to believe.
  16. LkwdSteve, I did not have a pick back then. What I do believe now is that Stethura is not the right guy for the job. I don't see him maximizing the talent that is in the area. Do you? Don't you think it's a bit...sad that several people are admitting (and many people probably personally believe) that Stethura is at CSU because nobody else wanted the job? Because that is all you could get? Look at it in a different context: You really want to go to the prom with the best looking girl in the class. Realizing that she is probably "out of your league" and that she doesn't want you, you decide to ask a girl out several tiers down from her because she was one of the only ones that would say "yes" to your invitation. There were probably tens of other girls that you really wanted more than her, but you already accepted defeat beforehand and decided to settle for the lesser girl. Isn't CSU in this situation as we speak? Imo, Stethura should be nothing more than a transitional coach for the program.
  17. Doesn't give me pause one bit. It seems to me that Jason Bryant is implying that Stethura got the job because no one else wanted it. And that a guy like Stethura was far from what they really wanted. That he was just the best they could get at the moment. A "desperation pick" if you will. In any other context, that would seem rather insulting. I don't see Cleveland State ever getting out of trouble with Stethura at the top. I don't believe that he excites recruits enough to want to get them to come to Cleveland State. It's been pointed out that the Cleveland area produces a lot of top HS talent. Has Stethura convinced any of those kids to come to CSU? Can you name one top 10-20 kid that has signed with CSU while Stethura was at the top?
  18. I'm not a troll VakAttack. I hope you aren't calling me a troll because I pointed out your incorrect statement about how Metcalf is "always attacking". That's demonstrably false. I didn't take you as one that would deny objective facts.
  19. I see no evidence of this being true. Logan Stieber is a better chain wrestler than Nolf, I believe "IMar" is too. Also Dake was a better chain wrestler than David Taylor. I'm not sure why many want to make Taylor the standard in this category.
  20. Yes, Dake lost as a true sophomore at age 19 (I believe). I don't believe that many would agree that's the same as being a RS Jr, that is Rs. Sr aged, losing to a true freshman that is almost 4 1/2 years younger than you. I don't believe that Dake "lucked out". After watching Caldwell's conference tournament, I didn't believe that he was going to win the ncaas that year.
  21. "Whats annoying is that, generally, the wrestling community will credit DT as being the best PSU wrestler ever. When, obviously, that title belongs to Ruth." For some reason, Taylor gets a lot of credit for losing to Dake. I know it's not popular to say, but much of Taylor's legacy is riding on Dake's coattails.
  22. Anyone else see several cases of revisionism after looking over this thread?
  23. Lostnumber, Although I think you have the correct answer to the thread starter's question, I think you went way too far. Yes, Dake's wins over Taylor were very good for his resume. With that said, Taylor isn't the discussion of "best ever". Not by a long shot. Doesn't have the right amount of national titles, and doesn't have the right record. Doesn't have those things because he didn't have enough skill. Taylor is several tiers down from a wrestler like Kyle Dake. Even the misguided, ridiculous "best two timer ever" bandwagon has died down for Taylor. To the wrestling community's credit, that was nipped in the bud almost immediately.
  24. Fishhook, I think Dake and Stieber would be an interesting match, but I'm talking true freshman Dake vs. senior Stieber. I think that would be an exciting match for many people. I think Dake's length and athleticism would give Stieber serious trouble.
  25. Littlethadd, Look at this link. I'm not entirely sure why they stopped counting Stieber's record correctly. I'm guessing because it's less confusing to see a 4 year record that doesn't have two freshman years on it. Two years in the same year doesn't make sense to a lot of people. As a matter of fact, I think Stieber's and Burroughs' record are the two most "confusing" records in recent times. http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-wrestl/mtt/logan_stieber_753012.html
  • Create New...