Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigTenFanboy

2017 Zain Retherford vs 2008 Brent Metcalf

Recommended Posts

You left out one part. I am comparing their careers starting in year 3 of eligibility, since that is where Metcalf's NCAA career began. Here is what it looks like so far:

 

Losses

Zain Retherford 0 (Agaian, starting year 3 and I am assuming Zain has no additional losses)

Brent Metcalf 3

 

Big10 Titles

Zain Retherford 3 (Again, I am assuming Zain wins out)

Brent Metcalf 2

 

NCAA Titles

Zain Retherford 3 (Again, I am assuming Zain wins out)

Brent Metcalf 2

 

Close Matches at NCAA's. Close is defined as non bonus wins

Zain Retherford 0 (I am assuming Zain just continues on with what he has been doing)

Brent Metcalf 7

 

This category really illustrates the difference between the two wrestlers. Metcalf won by DEC in the quarters thru the finals in 2008. He won by DEC in the semi finals and finals in both 2009 and 2010. Here is Zain's NCAA record: FALL, FALL, FALL, TF,  Major, TF, TF, TF, FALL, TF. He kills everyone. This isn't even close. 

 

Points scored at NCAA's

Metcalf scored 66 team points for Iowa in his 3 NCAA appearances.

Zain has 56.5 team points between his 3rd and 4th years. Assuming he just repeats the process he will end up with about 84-85 team points. Not close. 

 

Note: Zain already has 68.5 team points at NCAA's including his true freshman year, but he should far outpace that number when we take out his true freshman year and replace it with his final year to make the comparison apples to apples.  

TBar,

Do you seriously think the best way to pick winners and losers is number of close matches?  Or NCAA team points?

 

You are cutting out Retherford's freshman year when it has his best win and single most impressive NCAA accomplishment for a comparison like this (beating Steiber, who I think was better in college than Metcalf).  But you cut that season out because it ruined your undefeated and margin of victory argument.  

 

It kills me how much weight is given to margin of victory in college, and then nobody cares the moment you get past college.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, Logan Stieber? You might have heard of him. Considering Darrion lost a lot of matches (even before his injuries) in his career, I'd say Stieber was a far superior wrestler than Darrion Caldwell. Just noticed you qualified it by limiting it to 149. Whatever. Anything to contort an argument, I guess. 

 

 

 

 

But Palmer did ride him, and Zain has a far superior top game to Palmer's. Palmer wasn't even close to Zain on his feet or in any other position either. Palmer had 33 college losses, but in Palmer's senior year he was right there with Metcalf including even defeating him 9-3 at Big10's. So Matcalf was almost majored by a wrestler who himself had 33 losses. 

 

Metcalf wrestling Zain would be another step up from where Palmer was at that time. 

What did you miss about my saying 149?  Stieber was at 141 and YOU didn't even use that year in your own comparisons.  Sheesh, Metcalf redshirted his true freshman year and then lost the next year's eligibility.  Comparing those seasons would be impossible.

 

Man your memory is REALLY off today.  a 5 point scramble move with roughly 20 seconds left in a 3-3 match isn't exactly almost majoring someone. And yet again, you are using record comparison with completely different levels of competition.  Palmer was a complete stud that didn't redshirt and wrestled in an absolute meatgrinder all 4 years and AA'd all 4 years.  His wins over NCAA Champs include Metcalf, Burroughs, Schlatter, Jenkins, O'Connor and Molinaro. He also lost to Jordan Leen 3-2 in triple OT as a true freshman. The list of NCAA Finalists he defeated include Lang, Churella, Vallimont and Chamberlain.  I wouldn't be surprised if I missed someone as well.

 

Simply put,  If Retherford fell into these brackets without a redshirt he would definitely have more losses..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you look at dominance it tells you something. That is why they hand out the Hodge each year. And I know there are guys who win the close matches, which makes for a nice argument. Until proven otherwise, I will still take the more dominant guy in most fantasy matches. Dake proved he could beat Taylor, but Metcalf will never be able to prove he can beat Zain unless he comes out of retirement. 

 

Interestingly, Metcalf could have proven something at last year's Olympic Trials, but he bowed out early while Zain, still the college kid, finished 3rd against the seniors. Seniors including Metcalf and others better than Metcalf. 

They don't hand out the Hodge because it tells you something.  They hand it out because they want to reward pinning (thus the name of the award).  

 

But the OTTs are a great point in Zain's favor.  His higher finish when only a junior in college is hard to argue with.  

 

I go Zain in this one.  I think Metcalf would struggle on bottom.  Zain is much better on top than Palmer is and he gave senior Metcalf trouble.  I think the price of entry for a competitive folkstyle match with Zain is being physical enough to stand up to him and being great on bottom.  I don't think you can win without both of those.  Metcalf only has one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you miss about my saying 149?  Stieber was at 141 and YOU didn't even use that year in your own comparisons.  Sheesh, Metcalf redshirted his true freshman year and then lost the next year's eligibility.  Comparing those seasons would be impossible.

 

 

You are the one who decided Zain never wrestled anyone. I responded because that one simple statement from you was ridiculous. It matters NOT one bit that when Zain wrestled Stieber they were at 141, so you qualifying things the way you always do makes for a bastardized argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one who decided Zain never wrestled anyone. I responded because that one simple statement from you was ridiculous. It matters NOT one bit that when Zain wrestled Stieber they were at 141, so you qualifying things the way you always do makes for a bastardized argument. 

Who is the one who removed the whole season where that win happened?  

 

You want to restrict the wins/losses argument to the 3 year stretch of your choice (which includes a year that hasn't happened yet for Zain).  But you want to draw best wins from outside the same 3 year stretch you made up.  And then you want to talk about bastardized arguments?  That is the height of hypocrisy.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't hand out the Hodge because it tells you something.  They hand it out because they want to reward pinning (thus the name of the award).  

 

But the OTTs are a great point in Zain's favor.  His higher finish when only a junior in college is hard to argue with.  

 

I go Zain in this one.  I think Metcalf would struggle on bottom.  Zain is much better on top than Palmer is and he gave senior Metcalf trouble.  I think the price of entry for a competitive folkstyle match with Zain is being physical enough to stand up to him and being great on bottom.  I don't think you can win without both of those.  Metcalf only has one.  

 

 

Point of distinction. What I actually said was that being dominant tells you something, which I believe is true. Not always but certainly more often that not the guy who is totally dominant scores more TD's or has more turns for back points and is better at it than the other wrestler, this they are less likely to lose.  Not always, but more often than not. 

 

And no, I don't think number of close matches is the "best way" to pick winners and losers, but it is a data point worth noting. Who is more likely to lose, a guy who wins a lot of 1 and 2 point matches or a guy like Retherford or Nolf? 

 

And to address your other point, as far as why I cut out Zain's true freshman year, I gave the reason why. Metcalf started in Year 3 post high school. Let's compare apples to apples. Metcalf didn't beat anyone in his first two years because those years don't count. He started in Year 3. Ok, let's look at Zain starting in Year 3. No losses. Unlike Metcalf's 3 losses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the one who removed the whole season where that win happened?  

 

You want to restrict the wins/losses argument to the 3 year stretch of your choice (which includes a year that hasn't happened yet for Zain).  But you want to draw best wins from outside the same 3 year stretch you made up.  And then you want to talk about bastardized arguments?  That is the height of hypocrisy.   

 

 

I don't think so. I gave what I consider an apples to apples argument, and feel free to remind if Zain loses next year. I'm guessing it won't happen. 

 

I only brought Year 1 back into it because MSU implied Zain didn't wrestle anyone as good as Caldwell, which is an absurdity. Stieber was considered unbeatable when Zain beat him, not so much with regards to Caldwell.  Darrion had a better backflip, though. It goaded Metcalf into shoving him and losing a team point for Iowa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointless rabbit holing with TBar.  If you want to  ADD the 1 year of wrestling Stieber and and a loss to Port, go for it.  It still doesn't change the fact that you originally not using it was the right thing to do when comparing their careers since Metcalf didn't start until his RS Sophomore year.

 

The REASON I only used 149 also has a TON to do with your comparisons pointing out both Retherford's dominance and record at 149.  Even if you want to use his freshman year, Retherford was still a combined 1-3 against Stieber and Port and they are the only guys he has wrestled to date that compare to Metcalf, Schlatter, O'Connor, Gillespie, Leen, Burroughs, Molinaro, Palmer, Lang, Churella, Vallimont and Chamberlain.

 

Put him in a bracket with most of the above for 3 years and I absolutely guarantee his bonus points drop considerably over 3 NCAA appearances and I would not be surprised if there is  less NCAA Championships as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The REASON I only used 149 also has a TON to do with your comparisons pointing out both Retherford's dominance and record at 149.  Even if you want to use his freshman year, Retherford was still a combined 1-3 against Stieber and Port and they are the only guys he has wrestled to date that compare to Metcalf, Schlatter, O'Connor, Gillespie, Leen, Burroughs, Molinaro, Palmer, Lang, Churella, Vallimont and Chamberlain.

 

Put him in a bracket with most of the above for 3 years and I absolutely guarantee his bonus points drop considerably over 3 NCAA appearances and I would not be surprised if there is  less NCAA Championships as well.

 

 

Yeah, well you guaranteed me last year that I Mar was less likely to lose than Zain or Nolf. You actually got very heated up about that whole thing and declared it a sign of tremendous dis respect to I Mar that anyone would even feel that way. Your fantasy wrestling guarantees have lost a lot of luster with me. Lol.

 

And speaking of I Mar. I can get him even further involved in the whole 2008 Metcalf can beat 2017 Zain fantasy match thread, and it is along the lines of your silly "Zain hasn't beaten anyone" claims. 

 

To begin with here, Zain is probably even better in folk than he is in free. I think you would even agree with that premise. Amirite? But let's look at free, only his 2nd best discipline. Two years ago Zain beat some good guys at the Dave Shultz tournament. Last year Zain destroyed James Green at 65 Kg at OTT, then beat Jimmy Kennedy for 3rd at that event. His loss came 8-6 at the hands of Logan Stieber. So then later in 2016 I Mar signs up to wrestle at NYAC at 70Kg. This very msg. board is abuzz about seeing him take on James Green and Jordan Oliver.

 

This is at the same time that you have placed I Mar on the high holy pedestal of wrestlers so good they simply can not be beaten in college, and to suggest otherwise is a sign of, one, a total lack of knowledge of the sport, and two, total disrespect. This is you saying these things just last fall. So what happens? I Mar proceeds to lose to that same Jimmy Kennedy that Zain beat earlier in the year, and the weight class is taken by that same James Green that Zain dominated earlier in the year. 

 

Metcalf wasn't beating anyone of nearly this consequence in 2008, but to suggest Zain could beat him ....

 

Yeah, and I mar is less likely to lose than ............................

 

And last but not least, I Mar did in fact lose to a college wrestler. You swore it wouldn't happen, or that it was less lkely to happen than any other number of rare occurences. Then came a Penn State freshman to prove otherwise. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a horse in this race, but... I totally see TBar's point.  If you're asking to make a comparison, then making it a "fair" comparison for both Zain and Metcalf is the only way to do it, thus, tossing the early years has to happen.

 

Now... to suggest that no one in Zain's current 149 weight class can compare to Metcalf's at the time is a bit of STRONG conjecture.  Zain's list of "who he beat" continues to grow, and none of us have a clue as to how Sorenson, Jordan, Mayes, etc. will be looked at from a historical perspective.  At the moment that each of the individuals above were AA'ing, were they as good as the 149/150 pound weight class from 5-7 years earlier?  Time will ultimately tell, and provide some additional context. 

 

All in all, given INDIVIDUAL results, I take Zain in his junior year OVER Metcalf in his Junior Year.  Zain's future FS success is yet to be seen, but, I'd argue that he's on a higher trajectory given where he was most recently (i.e. 3rd at OTT) vs. Metcalf in his junior year (RS or not).  Yeah yeah yeah, I get it about "weight class composition" and all... but the results, when measured empiracally and in black & white, all point to Zain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palmer was a complete stud that didn't redshirt and wrestled in an absolute meatgrinder all 4 years and AA'd all 4 years.  His wins over NCAA Champs include Metcalf, Burroughs, Schlatter, Jenkins, O'Connor and Molinaro. He also lost to Jordan Leen 3-2 in triple OT as a true freshman. The list of NCAA Finalists he defeated include Lang, Churella, Vallimont and Chamberlain.  I wouldn't be surprised if I missed someone as well.

 

 

Palmer had 33 college losses. He was a 4x all American, which makes him a much better wrestler than most, but you are building him up to be something he is not. He's not in the same category as a guy with 3 total L's, a Hodge Award and 2 NCAA titles with a 3rd a near lock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you look at dominance it tells you something. That is why they hand out the Hodge each year. And I know there are guys who win the close matches, which makes for a nice argument. Until proven otherwise, I will still take the more dominant guy in most fantasy matches. Dake proved he could beat Taylor, but Metcalf will never be able to prove he can beat Zain unless he comes out of retirement. 

 

Interestingly, Metcalf could have proven something at last year's Olympic Trials, but he bowed out early while Zain, still the college kid, finished 3rd against the seniors. Seniors including Metcalf and others better than Metcalf. 

 

The Hodge is for the best year (like the Heisman), not necessarily the best wrestler. J'Den is another Dake like example and Snyder is clearly the best wrestler. This is why I don't really like margin of victory as a defining point. Despite the one reservation your case for ZR is very very strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about bastarding an argument.  You want to bring IMar losing into an argument over Retherford vs. Metcalf.  LOL!!!!  Guaranteeing(not sure I even used this word) someone is less likely to do something isn't really a guarantee and still doesn't mean it won't happen over the other.  I can guarantee red or black is more likely to come up on the roulette wheel, that doesn't mean I guaranteed one of the 2 green numbers won't happen, and those odds are far less likely than where I had IMar over Nolf or Retherford, let alone Retherford not doing as well against a superior field.

 

IMar fell flat at NCAA's, no doubt of that. However, up until that match he hadn't even had a remote scare(see Retherford vs. Sorenson)  IMar wrestles with a ton of raw nerves and emotion.  Most of the time this helps him, but against Nolf the 1st time and VJO this season it didn't.   Those same nerves and raw emotion worked against him this time and he went rubber kneed early in the match and panicked.  Adrenaline can be your best friend and your worst enemy.  Also, hats off to Joseph.  He made great adjustments from prior matches and wrestled a brilliant match!

 

The rest of your argument is purely irrelevant gibberish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heil wins 6-0 every time.

 

Quick takedown and stall ride.  1969 bottom wrestling is not as good as today.

 

Chooses down and gets out relatively easily and scores an easy defensive takedown from funk.  1969 top wrestling is not as good as today and Gable's shots were not as good as todays, especially not as good as Jimmy Gulibons.

 

Stall ride for the 3rd.

 

Probably close to 6 minutes of riding time unless Gable chose neutral then it would be 8-0 but even with a stall ride, I would not be surprised that Heil couldn't pull off a cheap tilt.

 

Can Retherford even beat Nolf?

Edited by paboom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMar fell flat at NCAA's, no doubt of that. However, up until that match he hadn't even had a remote scare(see Retherford vs. Sorenson)  IMar wrestles with a ton of raw nerves and emotion.  Most of the time this helps him, but against Nolf the 1st time and VJO this season it didn't.   Those same nerves and raw emotion worked against him this time and he went rubber kneed early in the match and panicked.  Adrenaline can be your best friend and your worst enemy.  Also, hats off to Joseph.  He made great adjustments from prior matches and wrestled a brilliant match!

 

The rest of your argument is purely irrelevant gibberish.

 

 

So in other words, despite your insistence last year that your argument was the right and compelling argument, as it would turn out you were actually wrong. Just as you have been so consistently wrong about much of your anti Penn State wrestler arguments. 

 

If you think about this you can see a trend here. Don't let this Metcalf thing get too far out of hand. You don't want to be the guy that somehow convinces himself that 27 guys from Metcalf's era could beat Zain Retherford. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a horse in this race, but... I totally see TBar's point.  If you're asking to make a comparison, then making it a "fair" comparison for both Zain and Metcalf is the only way to do it, thus, tossing the early years has to happen.

 

Now... to suggest that no one in Zain's current 149 weight class can compare to Metcalf's at the time is a bit of STRONG conjecture.  Zain's list of "who he beat" continues to grow, and none of us have a clue as to how Sorenson, Jordan, Mayes, etc. will be looked at from a historical perspective.  At the moment that each of the individuals above were AA'ing, were they as good as the 149/150 pound weight class from 5-7 years earlier?  Time will ultimately tell, and provide some additional context.

 

All in all, given INDIVIDUAL results, I take Zain in his junior year OVER Metcalf in his Junior Year.  Zain's future FS success is yet to be seen, but, I'd argue that he's on a higher trajectory given where he was most recently (i.e. 3rd at OTT) vs. Metcalf in his junior year (RS or not).  Yeah yeah yeah, I get it about "weight class composition" and all... but the results, when measured empiracally and in black & white, all point to Zain. 

Do you honestly believe that we need time and context to judge these two groups against each other?  What do you honestly think this group is going to add accomplishment wise?  We already know everything we need to in order to judge the strength of those groups.  It doesn't make Metcalf better than Retherford, but pretending we can't compare those groups yet shows you are making your data fit your argument instead of the other way around.  

 

And that is odd since you have the much stronger argument and don't need to do that.  Can't you just say, "Yes Metcalf wrestled much tougher competition, but Zain has 10 other factors that give him the edge."  Why the need to not admit the obvious here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that we need time and context to judge these two groups against each other?  What do you honestly think this group is going to add accomplishment wise?  We already know everything we need to in order to judge the strength of those groups.  It doesn't make Metcalf better than Retherford, but pretending we can't compare those groups yet shows you are making your data fit your argument instead of the other way around.  

 

And that is odd since you have the much stronger argument and don't need to do that.  Can't you just say, "Yes Metcalf wrestled much tougher competition, but Zain has 10 other factors that give him the edge."  Why the need to not admit the obvious here?

 

I agree and here is why.

 

Just because there was a lot of guys moving around weight classes does not by itself make Metcalf better. On the surface he may have indeed wrestled better comp., but so what? Metcalf beat Burroughs, but that wasn't the same Burroughs as the "All I See Is Gold" Burroughs.

 

Plus, loads of wrestlers go in and out of weight classes to simply avoid a hammer they know they can't beat. And even taking that out of the equation, if Zain wins 100 in a row to finish his career that alone makes the competition look worse than it is simply because mathematically there can be no other champions he can beat if he wins them all and no one moves into his class with a championship at another weight.

 

Take Zain out of it and pretend he never existed and I bet people view Sorenson and Mayes differently. 

 

These are some of the reasons I agree with you, bo. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there was a lot of guys moving around weight classes does not by itself make Metcalf better. On the surface he may have indeed wrestled better comp., but so what? Loads of wrestlers go in and out of weight classes to simply avoid a hammer they know they can't beat. And even taking that out of the equation, if Zain wins 100 in a row to finish his career that alone makes the competition look worse than it is simply because mathematically there can be no other champions he can beat if he wins them all and no one moves into his class with a championship at another weight.

 

Take Zain out of it and pretend he never existed and I bet people view Sorenson and Mayes differently. 

Are you serious?  My post says 2 different times that the weight class being stronger DOES NOT MAKE METCALF BETTER.  You even quoted it and reposted it.  

 

You are so eager to argue that you just disagreed with a post that agreed with you.  I seriously don't get that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious?  My post says 2 different times that the weight class being stronger DOES NOT MAKE METCALF BETTER.  You even quoted it and reposted it.  

 

You are so eager to argue that you just disagreed with a post that agreed with you.  I seriously don't get that.  

 

 

Oh, we agree. I am going to amend my post in response to make sure it starts with "I agree and here is why"

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question - would love to see the match but Zain hasn't had enough quality competition to yield an answer. Looking at what's been accomplished by guys that Metcalf has beaten makes me want to vote Metcalf. The fact that Zain has dominated less quality competition, however, shouldn't be held against him.

 

I also don't put too much stock in the Caldwell matches. Style match-ups are such an important factor. Caldwell was a bad style match up for Metcalf, but Zain is nothing like Caldwell. As noted above, let's not forget that Metcalf consistently beat Borroughs and Molinaro and broke Jenkins in the NCAA finals (the same Jenkins who dominated and pinned Taylor).

 

In short, I don't know who wins, but I do know that T-bar's above response is way off base ("...there's no legitimate comparison that does not place him above Metcalf.").

I agreed with your post until you said Jenkins dominated Taylor. Hardly. Score was 1-0 in the second period when Jenkins IMO CAUGHT Taylor. If the match went to the 3rd I think Taylor would have won the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of this "anti-PSU" stuff, I haven't even been arguing Metcalf over Retherford.  It's just ANY argument that doesn't paint PSU in the absolute best possible light is reprehensible.  

 

 

Also, using Freestyle wrestling results to favor Retherford is a bit skewed.  Metcalf did take 2nd at the U.S Open right after his Junior year, winning the 1st period against Paulson before losing the next 2.  Paulson would go on to beat Frayer at WTT's, while Metcalf lost to Frayer 0-1,3-0,0-1 in the Challenge semis.  He also took Bronze in the Pan Am Championships that year.  Oh, and he won the World Team Trials the next year having lost a match not much earlier to the "inferior" Palmer.

 

So, by that logic, Retherford would need to win the World Team Trials next year just to be on par with Metcalf..........

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of this "anti-PSU" stuff, I haven't even been arguing Metcalf over Retherford.  It's just ANY argument that doesn't paint PSU in the absolute best possible light is reprehensible.  

 

 

Also, using Freestyle wrestling results to favor Retherford is a bit skewed.  Metcalf did take 2nd at the U.S Open right after his Junior year, winning the 1st period against Paulson before losing the next 2.  He also took Bronze in the Pan Am Championships that year.  Oh, and he won the World Team Trials the next year having lost a match not much earlier to the "inferior" Palmer.

 

So, by that logic, Retherford would need to win the World Team Trials next year just to be on par with Metcalf..........

I'm a pretty big PSU fan but will say this. Using Metcalfs performance at the trials really isn't fair. After he lost to Molinaro I'm pretty sure he packed it in. Seriously at the trials outside of making the finals no one cares about the wrestle backs. And I'm a big David Taylor fan Saying this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed with your post until you said Jenkins dominated Taylor. Hardly. Score was 1-0 in the second period when Jenkins IMO CAUGHT Taylor. If the match went to the 3rd I think Taylor would have won the match.

Isn't Jenkins on record saying he pinned Taylor with the same cradle in practice? Seems he was looking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...