Jump to content

drag it

Members
  • Content Count

    787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

drag it last won the day on April 15 2019

drag it had the most liked content!

About drag it

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not aware of a focused interview fully on that topic. But I recall him at the time giving kind of a Dake type weird vague passive voice answer suggesting that there was something physically wrong with him in the loss which he said he did something to correct before the repachage. Not sure if it was an injury or something more serious -- like vitamin D levels, vitamin Q levels, gravitational pull at Tokyo latitudes, or something terrifying like that.
  2. Which brings up a question: Is Taylor a poorer winner or a poorer loser? Asking for a friend who has difficulty with weigh in times.
  3. Legit question. To me the answer is that for many or most passionate sports fans, there is something captivating about the concept of greatness, which has both tangible and intangible qualities, that makes debate about a particular aspect of greatness compelling. Since the comparisons are not absolute, it can lead to maddening and frustrating disagreements, but that's part of what makes it compelling.
  4. The facts in here are good points, and I personally don't think the difference in hype should be as huge as it is, but I think it's undeniable that the wrestlers themselves put a far, far higher value on an Olympic medal. Which for a lot of reasons I think means that this is a relevant point for GOAT discussions. And thus Burroughs' one medal in three Olympics is a substantial factor in the debate (particularly with two world golds at non Olympic weight).
  5. Yikes. A guy who went through 2 cycles and was 6 for 6 but has one less world level gold than a guy who has one Olympic medal in three cycles over 12 years isn't as good as that guy because I'm extrapolating that a guy who was 6 for 6 wouldn't ever have won again of he kept wrestling and said extrapolation is equivalent to extrapolating EIGHT MORE golds for a guy who is all of 1 for 1. I know the world is going to hell but I haven't totally surrendered to the idea that I have to check basic common sense at the door to engage in any public discussion. Thanks for letting me know what you think my argument is. Yes I do think it's the best 6 year stretch. And I think that 6 years is long enough to, in context which has been discussed ad nauseum, to be the GOAT. This isn't baseball, careers do not normally go 12 years or more. Six was a good long time for someone at that level. He wasn't a comet. Or if he was he got caught in some weird gravity pull that lasted through 2 Olympic cycles. Another way of looking at it, this is for others if they're interested, which career would you rather have had, Smith's or Burroughs as of today? With which would you feel you'd achieved greatness? 6 for 6, 2 for 2 gold in Olympics, or 7 for 12, one medal in 3 Olympics, 2 of my golds at a weight class I entered because I got beat in qualifying for my own world team. Which of those better describes GREATNESS? To me, it's clear. Smith is greatness in its purest form. That's twice the number of golds as both Gables combined. They did it three years total. He did it six by himself. And in those six got more Olymoic medals than Burroughs.
  6. First let's deal with actually why he didn't keep going. 1. No money in sport in U.S. at the time. 2. Got offered literally the uniquely best job for him in his profession. 3. And this is important. May have been worn out from the single minded devotion that produced the unprecedented six titles, that all-in that produced those results is a big part of why I see him as GOAT. It was in the Gable range but for six years not Gable's two. This must be stressed. Now your hypothetical. I don't see a guy who had his mentality having any interest in staying around for the results you describe. If he kept wrestling, he'd be all in and would do better. He's John Smith. Anyway playing by your implausible rules, I would probably still see him as the current GOAT. Peak performance (not a year or two, six straight golds) trumps somewhat better career stats. But, no, I don't think that the extra years under your scenario improves his case. It probably hurts it if the much worse results weren't the result of an obvious injury. It diminishes the invincibility of a guy who won every time he laced 'em up. Still GOAT but a closer call. Since we're talking about argument fallacies, I think there is recency bias on the Burroughs side. Here's my hypothetical. Burroughs with the same record, but he wrestled when Big Bruce did, vs Snyder of today, but in the hypothetical, Snyder won his first three, beating Sadulaev for his third, then kept beating The Tank and won his next three, then retired to devote his life to Christ or be Ohio State coach (Tom Ryan would say do both, its the same thing). Where would he rate vs Burroughs on the GOAT list? My guess is almost everyone says higher than Burroughs counting stats bases on his 6-for-6 with 2 Olympic golds.
  7. Correct. And he was in danger of losing each of those three matches, as well as at least two other matches in his career at NCAAs. He trailed in the last 20 seconds of two finals before his opponents dove into his briar patch/leg. Lee, with one, two torn ACLs due to being out of wrestling position, and mono or some other virus due to being out of dining hall or some other non-wrestling position, has never been in any danger of losing an NCAA match. That is the main reason for my opinion which is just an opinion. I can easily see others' opinion being the exact opposite and finding Yianni's remarkable skill at pulling out tight matches as a point in his favor. I just put more stock in the fact that there hasn't been one second of a match at NCAAs where there was any reason to believe that Lee was going to lose. And his cyborg like dominance when healthy -- an absolutely visceral blitzkrieg.
  8. Undoubtedly true with respect to their whole college career. My subjective Lee vote is based on me torqueing my analysis toward a heavy focus on NCAAs. It's there that Lee has never been in trouble and Yianni has been repeatedly in trouble, so much so that he needed what many thought a very questionable, very late call to beat McKenna, and what I thought was a real quick danger call to beat Eierman. i justify the NCAA focus on two things. 1. It's the most important result on its face, and it's become, almost ridiculously so, the sole emphasis of all the coaches and wrestlers during the time these two have been in college. 2. Lee's physical issues have been extraordinary, probably unique, such that just wasn't the same guy in those losses as he was in the 2018 NCAAs and 2020-2021 before he popped his knee at Big Tens, so I give him slack for the losses that I probably wouldn't give anyone else.
  9. Correct, all these arguments attempting to minimize the Olympic dichotomy are not well taken. The Olympic results are what they are and can't be spun. Smith competed two cycles and won two gold medals under the rules of the time. Burroughs has competed three cycles so far and has one medal (gold, won under the silly rules of that time). The former is much, much better than the latter. It's also true that the wrestlers want to win Olympic gold much more than World gold. I could give endless examples, probably the most apt being the Brands. Tom has one World and one Olympic gold; Terry has two World golds and one Olympic bronze. Please don't even pretend that the careers are viewed the same way, by Terry or by the public. Flo did an entire documentary about why they're not. I personally don't think that the disparity between how Olympic and World is viewed makes sense, but it's reality. Look, Burroughs' bad day in Rio substantially hurt his GOAT argument. From the cheap seats, it looked to me like this magnificent competitor lost his focus on competing at the wrong time, got interested in marketing (you can see why, he's as marketable as it gets -- great at his sport, good looking, confident, funny, personable, etc.) and wasn't ready for war when he got there, and that little bit of losing an edge left one of the best wrestlers in the world without a medal. GOAT is a heavy crown. One Olympic medal in three cycles is a tough fact to argue around.
  10. Other way around. Bulls went from 27 to 38 wins in Jordan's first year, and from 40 to 50 in Pippen's (basically the same). But Jordan never won a playoff series without Pippen, and only won one playoff game without him (he played five seasons without him, imagine Magic, Bird, or Russell going that long with such little team success) and when Jordan retired after 1993, the Bulls won 55 games the next year, only 2 less than the year before, and were a bad call from making the Finals. Jordan was the greatest individual player ever but never showed he could make an average team great (because he couldn't) like the others discussed routinely did. (Apologies to the folks who don't see the point of this on a wrestling board.)
  11. They don't take away everything they have accomplished. But they are one (two?) of multiple factors in the equation that leaves many of us believing that someone who went 6 for 6, including 2 for 2 at the Olympics, is the GOAT.
  12. Neither. Bill Russell, who had 11 titles, is the GOAT. Also won two NCAAs at a nothing basketball school. Basketball is a team game. Russell made his teams better than anyone, you could have put him with a bunch of mediocrities and they would have been a standout team. Michael Jordan never won a playoff series without Scottie Pippen.
  13. Don't disagree that the metrics strongly favor Yianni or that him chasing a XXX-0 record would have been something special, something that was out the window for Lee the second he gassed against Bresser. But going past the stats and delving into individual matches I think cuts both ways and is maybe the biggest reason I'm in the Spencer camp. Specifically because of the McKenna match where Joey outwrestled him in regulation and got a really soft call against him at the end. Also several other tight matches at NCAAs where Yianni was in real jeopardy (IIRC he got 2 on a very close danger call against aforementioned Eierman) -- with Lee having none (even Mueller getting a cradle didn't come close to turning him). (And I do recognize that Yianni's amazing scrambling in those close matches says a lot about him as a competitor.)
  14. Sebastian Rivera is really good, though Lee is better and depending on your point of view significantly better. I think that those of us who favor Lee stipulate that Lee's losses are significantly worse, by quite a bit. Full concession on that factor. I view it through the lens of Lee's best the one year he wasn't severely impaired being better than Yianni's best, his winning two titles with severe impairments, and his never being threatened in any of those NCAAs, as slightly outweighing Yianni's much better record. It's a close call, though, and we're very lucky because we get to watch them one more year and factor in those results, which could separate one of them.
  15. Nice. Definitely a matter of opinion and although I can't criticize the other side, I share yours. Yianni has a much better record. But to me Spencer's decimation of great competition when healthy trumps. Specifically his first NCAA and, since we're throwing in freestyle, his blitz of a strong field at nationals in 2019, were qualitatively different performances. Plus he got the job done with a bad virus and two torn ACLs in other years, without ever being in any danger of losing a match at NCAAs, which Yianni has been in several times. Combined with the very generous call Yianni got against McKenna (I was there and rooting for Yianni, but I don't buy it), that's enough for me to prefer Lee.
×
×
  • Create New...