You are so full of it and you actually think most on here think you know what you are talking about. You ALWAYS pick the worst match of someone's year or career to use it to gauge that person. That is the WEAKEST argument possible. Ignore all of the positives and focus on one sole result. Should we then judge Snyder solely off getting pinned by Gadson with relative ease?
What in the world are you talking about? When have I mentioned that I think that most people here know what I'm talking about??? In reality, the opposite is probably true. And are you really this dull? Retherford's win over Collica is not the worst match of his career. Retherford has three career losses. A statistics warrior (i.e. a person without any true understanding of a given sport outside of some statistics) such as yourself should know that.
I'm not focusing on one result. I'm not ignoring the positives. Stop resorting to spreading mistruths to prove your ridiculous point. I just merely pointed out that Retherford is not guaranteed to put a "brutal" ride on Snyder. This isn't the only time that has happened in his career. The same thing happened with Sorenson, and I believe Port too. I also gave you Snyder's escaping Cox as a piece of evidence to show what Snyder could do on the bottom. Again, Cox is one of the best riders of all time and Snyder handled that just fine.
Also, I didn't SAY Retherford is better. I said there is at least an argument that could be made. Also, Snyder was ridden a full period by a far inferior Jenson(see I used your 1 match logic), so it could be said that it would be MUCH MORE likely that Retherford would ride out Snyder.
And when did I say that you said Retherford is better? Where? I didn't say this. You make things up so often that I should conclude that you do it intentionally to make everyone else's position seem as ridiculous as yours. It's as though you really know that your opinion is nonsensical so you try to create the illusion of a good back-and-forth debate, when in reality, your opponent actually has the much better position. When you have to resort to make-believe, that's usually a good sign that you should abandon your argument.
Yes, Snyder was ridden by Jensen. Snyder also escaped without trouble from the much larger Connor Medberry in the ncaa final. Medberry was the best heavyweight on top last year. When the lights are brightest, Snyder wrestles his best. He can escape when he absolutely has to. If he had to escape vs. Jensen, do you doubt he could have? The fact that Snyder consistently escapes when he absolutely has to should be taken into consideration, especially when he's able to do so vs. much larger opponents. Snyder hasn't shown a consistent weakness on the mat, yet you make it seem like it's certain that he "would" have a hard time with Retherford. Retherford has shown far more weakness on his feet than Snyder has on bottom, but it isn't equally certain that Snyder "would" overwhelm him on his feet? Why not? You seem to have a bias against Snyder.
Finally, in regards to Dean, I believed his style was enough to slow down Snyder and make it hard for him to get to his offense. I wasn't saying that Dean was clearly better or would definitely beat Snyder. You can run your mouth on that comment all you want, but NOTHING you could say could prove that fact wrong.
You are so dishonest MSU158. Look at you shamelessly setting up strawmen and then knocking them down and pretending that you are being reasonable. I never said that you said Dean was better than, or would definitely beat, Snyder. So why even mention that??? "Nothing you could say could prove that fact wrong"... are you serious? I never said that was a fact, I never said that you said that. This seems like it's just a distraction that you created to ignore from what you actually did say. Let's focus on that.
"...In folkstyle, Dean and him would be a toss-up"---That's what you said. You think that match is a toss-up because you believe Dean would slow Snyder down due to his "neck clubbing". Be honest, are you so embarrassed by this statement now that you don't actually want to address what you originally said? You talk about what you didn't say (which I didn't even accuse you of saying) rather than what you did say. "...in regards to Dean, I believed his style was enough to slow down Snyder and make it hard for him to get to his offense." Yeah, but that's not all. You think it's enough to slow him down to the point that the very result is in doubt. And you weren't talking about a one-time thing either, you thought that Dean was good enough to consistently wrestle Snyder that way! You're talking about a match that would mostly be contested on the feet. Probably 6+ out of 7 minutes on the feet. In that time, you think that Dean would be able to go even with or win the tie-ups and handfighting battle with Snyder. That "neck-clubbing" is going to be enough to stop Snyder; serving as an equalizer. To put it simply, you suggested that Dean would be able to win the takedown battle with Snyder. The match would be a toss-up because the neutral wrestling would be! Absurd! If you can't tell that Snyder is considerably more skilled than Dean on his feet (in ties, handfighting, positioning, footwork, takedowns, finishing) there's really not much hope for you. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Perhaps sticking to ncaa breakdowns where Penn State finishes no higher than second is what you should stick to. Well, then again, maybe there is some hope for you. Since you try mightily to avoid what you actually said about Dean/Snyder, maybe that shows that deep down you realize how stupid your comments were and are rightfully embarrassed by them. Don't let that shame go to waste. Learn from it and change your ways.
Now, I am not going to go back and forth with you because you go right past stubborn to obnoxiously obtuse. In fact, you make BigTenFanBoy look like a guy that doesn't like to argue. You can go on thinking you are all knowledgeable and never wrong, but that doesn't actually make it so.
Is it possible that you are upset because you know I'm right about the few major arguments that I have made on themat? It seems that way. I won't apologize for being right just because it hurts your feelings/ego in some way. That's your personal issue.