GreatWhiteNorth

I'm not going to bicker with you. If you don't agree - then we agree to disagree. Any wrestler worth his salt doesn't give two ****s about the order of the matches on any given day. Same day, same status. Those of us who have wrestled get that.

Not surprisingly, the actual wrestlers aren't as obsessed with hyperbole as much as some of the fans are - specially the dopey fans on message boards like we have here. The huge majority know they'll never be at the top of the pile. And even though many of them work as hard as they can, knowing they likely won't be in the top x%, it doesn't matter. That's not even close to the goal of wrestling. Not by a mile. You work to be the best you can possibly be, and the chips fall where they may. You shoot for the top, and you land where you land. For (2) guys on the same team to shoot for the top and both achieve the status of NCAA Champion - that is something super special. That's an achievement they share. Yes, technically, the chronology of +/- an hour is real. But it is insignificant, and irrelevant in the grand scheme. Arguing about it as petty, at best.

They tied as the 1st ever champs - chronology doesn't matter (except for dopes on this message board.) There is no technicality involved here. They share the RU title. Anything other than the legit tie is nothing more than silly fodder for a message board.

I'll wait to see your submission.

Off the top of my head, Tommy Rowlands and Garrett Lowney come to mind. This would be dependent, of course, on the level of competition for any given 3 years - which does make it difficult to compare.

Exactly. That's what I was getting at (wasn't trying to accuse you of any wrongdoing.) I have zero videos of any of my college matches. I have zero results or statistics other than wrestling 4 years as a starter to letter, and getting a trophy one year for fastest pin (I don't remember which year.) My coach did videotape some matches, but the purpose was to analyze the match rather than for historical purposes. I had nothing in my dorm room to watch the tape on so I didn't consider getting/dubbing any of the tapes at the time. After my senior season I did think to ask my coach if he had any of the tapes, but he was recording on the same set of tapes over and over so my matches were long gone. I guess there might be some old school newspapers in the library archives I could dig up - but I'm not even sure they even listed my opponents names in the results. Pre-digital, pre-youtube, pre-web sites - we had to rely on our memories and they certainly don't get better with age! Oh well - this way, we probably remember opurselves as better than we really were and there's no proof that we weren't!

Funny thing here. 30 years ago, the world wide web didn't even exist. Back then, when you discussed events from history you either had an encyclopedia or your memory to rely on. If it was something that wasn't in an encyclopedia, then you just had your memory - which was, and still is, hit or miss for most all of us when it comes to specific details of events happening even 1 year ago, much less 40-50 years ago. My point - you can diligently fact check the stories of legends and find results that are fuzzy. Or you can just enjoy them. I'd recommend the latter.

At 133. Yes, a contender. No, not a favorite.

Agreed - like all the self-described "experts" in the White House. A bunch of low end tools with their own self promoting agendas. They want to fire Fauci and every other legitimate voice that is involved and eventually will, once they figure out how to do it in a way that their loyal followers won't see through as being as seriously detrimental as it is.

I used to enjoy the days of 'sparring' here with Big (I was a different username then... until I lost the password for it and gave up trying to recover it.) Somehow, back then it felt less like we were bickering and attacking each other and more like we were joking around and having fun. When I read and post these days, I think of Big, Brother Morris, Denny, and Jay The Historian surprisingly often. Jay is the only one I met in person (I bought his book) - but they were all great posters. Big would go on his rants that were mostly kind of funny, but the other three almost always maintained an uncommonly positive perspective.

I won't be missing this event. Anti-vax'ers are such a diverse group of sets of people. The confused deniers, conspiracy theorists, faith-first'ers, baseless optimistics, don't-know-any-better's, science doubters, government haters, pot stirrers, self important promoters, blamers, and blame-some-more'ers. Basically the same sets as flat-earthers - and commonly with a lot of set overlap. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Looking forward to it.

No doubt, you will be missed. The next time NCAA's are in Mpls (hopefully next year - fingers crossed), I will take you up on that beer offer.

So true. Hopefully those stubborn folks either have or will soon reconsider and view this within the context of science and data, and come to see how serious it really is.