Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JBluegill133

Intermat article on best all time from each DI school

Recommended Posts

They definitely got it right for VT. I would rank the best Hokies ever as:

 

1. Carter - DNP, 5, 2, 3

2. Brascetta - DNP, 8, 4, 3

3. Walz - DNP, 7, 4, 4

 

Walz and Brascetta are close for the 2nd spot. Ty could have, and probably should have, finished 3rd twice, but since he didn't, Brascetta gets the nod.

 

Can Haught knock Carter off the top spot this year? He's gone DNP, 6, 4. If he finishes top 3 this year, I would rank him 2nd. If he wins a title he goes #1.

I think being a finalist trumps 6,4,3

 

Carter I think keeps the top spot until another Hokie makes the finals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definite changes should be Uetake over smith and Ruth over Taylor. Ones that are very close and could be argued either way are Brands vs McIllravy Iowa and Simons vs Kolat Lock Haven. Minnesota is close between several.

Why is Ruth over Taylor a "definite change?"

 

Taylor has two Hodge trophies, Ruth has none.

 

Taylor had 53 career pins, Ruth had 46.

 

Taylor had 42 career tech falls, Ruth had 25.

 

At NCAAs, Ruth had more titles (3 to 2) but Taylor had more finals appearances (4 to 3). Their average finish at NCAAs was the same (1.5) but Taylor scored 100 career NCAA team points compared to Ruth's 95.5.

 

They were both four-time Big Ten champs, and their career records and winning percentages were virtually identical.

 

I would list them side by side on the GOAT list. But if I had to put one above the other, I don't know how I'd make the case for Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Ruth over Taylor a "definite change?"

 

Taylor has two Hodge trophies, Ruth has none.

 

Taylor had 53 career pins, Ruth had 46.

 

Taylor had 42 career tech falls, Ruth had 25.

 

At NCAAs, Ruth had more titles (3 to 2) but Taylor had more finals appearances (4 to 3). Their average finish at NCAAs was the same (1.5) but Taylor scored 100 career NCAA team points compared to Ruth's 95.5.

 

They were both four-time Big Ten champs, and their career records and winning percentages were virtually identical.

 

I would list them side by side on the GOAT list. But if I had to put one above the other, I don't know how I'd make the case for Ed.

Because three NCs is better than 2 NCs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should wrestle off for the honor? Wonder who would have won? I would probably give Ruth the edge in folk-style, but DT the edge in freestyle, although I am not really sure why.

Taylor teched him in free. Not sure who to give the edge in folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should wrestle off for the honor?  Wonder who would have won?  I would probably give Ruth the edge in folk-style, but DT the edge in freestyle, although I am not really sure why. 

 

If Taylor thinks Bubba Jenkins was good with a cradle, imagine what Ed Ruth could do to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do freestyle results have to do with college careers?

 

pretty cool list. fun!

 

Being an individual sport, if its a close call I think international (i.e. "professional") career can come into play.  Snyder and Leiber being a good example.  IF Snyder wins this weekend, its 4x champ vs 4x finalist and 3x champ.  Thats pretty damn close.  Factoring in 2 world and and Olympic Gold medal, and the people he beat along the way to get those three golds, particularly all while still competing in college....its feasible to factor those in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an individual sport, if its a close call I think international (i.e. "professional") career can come into play.  Snyder and Leiber being a good example.  IF Snyder wins this weekend, its 4x champ vs 4x finalist and 3x champ.  Thats pretty damn close.  Factoring in 2 world and and Olympic Gold medal, and the people he beat along the way to get those three golds, particularly all while still competing in college....its feasible to factor those in.

 

I'd probably disagree. Not that Snyder is the better wrestler, that is obvious. But in regards to college "greatness" on the mat I think that all that should be considered is the wrestler's body of work in NCAA matches. Hence, 3 x champ 1 runnerup falls to 4 time champ.  When it comes down to somebody who was an undefeated 3x champ (in the era when FR weren't allowed to wrestle varsity) vs a 4 x champ who had a few losses, that's a different matter. Hence why I weaseled out and put Uetake 1a and Pat Smith 1b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably disagree. Not that Snyder is the better wrestler, that is obvious. But in regards to college "greatness" on the mat I think that all that should be considered is the wrestler's body of work in NCAA matches. Hence, 3 x champ 1 runnerup falls to 4 time champ.  When it comes down to somebody who was an undefeated 3x champ (in the era when FR weren't allowed to wrestle varsity) vs a 4 x champ who had a few losses, that's a different matter. Hence why I weaseled out and put Uetake 1a and Pat Smith 1b.

 

So just for the sake of good debate, the international world and olympic championships while in college don't factor in?  And not just a matter of those results, but what they do for the program? (recognition, PR, recruiting, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just can't seem to get through Cox, which amazes me. Always thought Taylor was a lot better than J'Den.

 

Can't seem to get through him?  They've only competed against each other one time.  Taylor won 1 of 3 matches.  He didn't look good for his standards, but Cox makes a lot of good wrestlers look bad with his size, defense and positioning at 86kg.  

 

I agree re: Uetake being clearly better than Pat Smith, but they should be 1a and 1b.  You can't do better than win 4 NCAA titles, and he's the first one to do it.  There's no argument for John Smith over Pat Smith, it's a college list.  There's an argument that John Smith was a better folkstyle wrestler by his senior year than Pat as a senior, but career it's not up to debate.  Freestyle is irrelevant.  Is it possible that Pat Smith is an underrated 4x NCAA champ?  He was phenomenally good especially his last two years.  If he had won World and Olympic golds with an identical college career I guarantee that people would hold him in higher esteem.  

Edited by bwh27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest measure of success we use is NCAA titles. That's why Ruth's 3 titles should definitely put him above Taylor (although admittedly he is just slightly above him). With that said I don't see much difference between going 3 for 3 or 4 for 4 in titles. Uetake was undefeated and supposedly (before my time) he was never even challenged. Although he had some close scores, I have heard he just didn't want to humiliate his opponents. Pat Smith on the other hand lost several times in his career. That is a huge difference between an undefeated career. So that's why I think Uetake should be above him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just for the sake of good debate, the international world and olympic championships while in college don't factor in?  And not just a matter of those results, but what they do for the program? (recognition, PR, recruiting, etc)

 

I think it's huge to have an internationally acclaimed wrestling star like Kyle Snyder wrestling for a school. It's got to be a huge recruiting tool (and Tom Ryan will miss that tool when Snyder is done). I'm just saying that when you compare college wrestling careers that I'd not include international results. Comparing overall careers, definitely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest measure of success we use is NCAA titles. That's why Ruth's 3 titles should definitely put him above Taylor (although admittedly he is just slightly above him). With that said I don't see much difference between going 3 for 3 or 4 for 4 in titles. Uetake was undefeated and supposedly (before my time) he was never even challenged. Although he had some close scores, I have heard he just didn't want to humiliate his opponents. Pat Smith on the other hand lost several times in his career. That is a huge difference between an undefeated career. So that's why I think Uetake should be above him

 

Sounds reasonable. I'd just be hesitant to leave the first 4 timer off the list though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest measure of success we use is NCAA titles. That's why Ruth's 3 titles should definitely put him above Taylor (although admittedly he is just slightly above him). With that said I don't see much difference between going 3 for 3 or 4 for 4 in titles. Uetake was undefeated and supposedly (before my time) he was never even challenged. Although he had some close scores, I have heard he just didn't want to humiliate his opponents. Pat Smith on the other hand lost several times in his career. That is a huge difference between an undefeated career. So that's why I think Uetake should be above him

Uetake, bless his heart, was 21 years old when he won his first NCAA title. Pat Smith was 19 years old when he won his first, and wasn't touched at all to speak of the next 3 years of competition.

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...