Jump to content
Housebuye

If Snyder and Burroughs win world gold this year...

Recommended Posts

Burroughs won a world title with screws in his ankle 4 weeks after he broke it.  He also won a world bronze after he tore up his knee in the first round (and that is the only time that Tsargush was able to beat him).  Add all his accomplishments together and, as the title of the thread says, if he wins a world title this year, he is in the argument as the best US wrestler ever.  The era of 6 weights and multiple soviets in one weight class, adds a dimension that was not there in years past.  John Smith is one of my favorite wrestlers of all time, as I grew up just a few years younger.  But, even if he could beat the top level Russian, having to wrestle multiple former Soviets in the same tourney takes a tole.  Not saying he would not still win, but it sure would make it much more difficult. 

 

With this year's World Gold, I would put Burroughs neck and neck with Smith. 

 

Unfortunately for JB, the Rio collapse will always be a part of his legacy.  It would probably take a gold in 2020 for everyone to forget that.  Even if he doesn't win it but tacks on a gold this year and next year, he'll jump Smith in my book.  An Olympic gold at 32 would be nuts.  Saitiev-like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am hoping for great success for both of them ( as well as all of our wrestlers ), in these upcoming World Championships. I don't know who is better than who, but one thing is for sure, is that all four are great, and we should be thankful that we have these special people representing the USA in our sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will never have a wrestler with that kind of longevity again. I think even Snyder will not make it to 10 years as the sole owner of his weight class domestically.

Edited by spladle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will never have a wrestler with that kind of longevity again. I think even Snyder will not make it to 10 years as the sole owner of his weight class domestically.

Snyder has a shot with his youth but still a long shot. 13 medals! 13 medals! Will not be matched! Big B! #1. Smith a distant #2 was done after his six. I am not sure he could have medaled again. No way his body could have went 4 cycles or 4 1/2 cycles like Bruce. I can think of a dozen guys better than Bruce if we were saying who peaked at the highest level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I came here to say. Imagine if the Soviet Union got to bring their top 6 to the Olympics, AND there were only 6 weight classes.

 

What weight was John Smith? 133 or something like that? NO way he would have medaled (and he probably wouldn't make the team) if there were 6 weight classes. 121 - no way. 145 - way too small.

Yawn, another spin version of dumb American wrestling fans who hate American wrestlers because.... I don't know.... I guess because you are stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but “only” 1 Olympic gold...

 

This reminded me of the episode of T-row/Funky when Ben Askren tells the story of John Smith talking about Kendall Cross "Hes good. But he's only got one olympic gold. ONE" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn, another spin version of dumb American wrestling fans who hate American wrestlers because.... I don't know.... I guess because you are stupid.

Go back in your hole. It’s not spin. It’s the facts. It’s WWAAYY harder to win world and Olympic titles now than it was in the 80s. You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was never easy to win an Olympic title. You make it sound like Smith had a cakewalk while Burroughs had to go uphill both ways in the snow barefoot. If you read your own statements you would realize how absurd you sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back in your hole. It’s not spin. It’s the facts. It’s WWAAYY harder to win world and Olympic titles now than it was in the 80s. You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are.

For Olympic it is, but not for worlds. One argument against the whole, “it’s harder now that the Soviet Union has broken up” line is that there is less state support/infrastructure for athletics/sport. Just look at what happened to their gymnastics and chess programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always extremely difficult to win world/Olympic gold. 1985, with "one" Russian per each of the ten weight classes, it is very difficult to win world gold. No one should deny that.

 

However, likewise it should not be denied that it is more difficult these days. Almost half the weight classes condenses all of that talent into less medal opportunities. Former soviet states grabbed 33 of the possible 48 men's wrestling Olympic medals. When you add the weight classes for the non Olympic Year the percentage goes higher.

 

All that said, if Snyder wins again this year, to me, just my opinion, that four is more impressive than the six. But not by much. Both are ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless either becomes better, it does nothing for my list. Now if you're asking about greatest, that absolutely has to be looked at. Keep in mind,

 

Best = high water mark in level of wrestling.

 

Greatest = resume. Who accomplished the most.

Those seem like arbitrary definitions

 

Best to me means most credentialed. It has to be quantifiable to have any value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was never easy to win an Olympic title. You make it sound like Smith had a cakewalk while Burroughs had to go uphill both ways in the snow barefoot. If you read your own statements you would realize how absurd you sound.

I never said it was easy. I said winning it today is considerably more difficult. This is no slight on Smith. Smith is one of my heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was never easy to win an Olympic title. You make it sound like Smith had a cakewalk while Burroughs had to go uphill both ways in the snow barefoot. If you read your own statements you would realize how absurd you sound.

Both Smith and Burroughs were/are the greatest because in their prime they were so quick they could beat their opponents reaction time and had the skill and will to finish.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those seem like arbitrary definitions

 

Best to me means most credentialed. It has to be quantifiable to have any value.

 

 

I've been following numerous sports for a number of decades.    There's nothing arbitrary about it.   In NFL, many say Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback, meaning he throws better than the others.   Everyone agrees Brady is the greatest, meaning his resume is the best.   And it makes sense.   The best wrestler could have been Cael.  But his resume probably ins't good enough to out a guy like Varner (international styles).  Their medals are very close, but Varner has more teams, more wins, etc.    In terms of best, I have no question it's Cael but in greatest, I might go with Varner.     You're welcome to your own interpretation, but your way isn't necessarily how it's done.     Any why would you want it to be?   We should have a clear difference in these two measures, best and greatest.   

 

A term GOAT is way over used, but GOAT is routinely used to measure resume.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following numerous sports for a number of decades. There's nothing arbitrary about it. In NFL, many say Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback, meaning he throws better than the others. Everyone agrees Brady is the greatest, meaning his resume is the best. And it makes sense. The best wrestler could have been Cael. But his resume probably ins't good enough to out a guy like Varner (international styles). Their medals are very close, but Varner has more teams, more wins, etc. In terms of best, I have no question it's Cael but in greatest, I might go with Varner. You're welcome to your own interpretation, but your way isn't necessarily how it's done. Any why would you want it to be? We should have a clear difference in these two measures, best and greatest.

 

A term GOAT is way over used, but GOAT is routinely used to measure resume.

How do you quantify best then? Do you agree it needs to be quantifiable?

 

I, too, am a fan of other sports. Weird thing to mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you quantify best then? Do you agree it needs to be quantifiable?

 

I, too, am a fan of other sports. Weird thing to mention.

 

Best is the guy who wrestles best.  I think you can do that by examining how wide the victory is.     A guy who techs and smashes everyone but only has 1 world title, he's the best.   The guy with 8 world titles is the greatest, even if he won all his bouts 1-0.      

 

Karelin went 13 years unbeaten and won the gold at all the events.    He demolished opponets who often times just wanted to get out of there.  He's your greatest by sheer volume of titles.    He gets my vote for best as well due to his dominance.  No one could score on him.  He destroyed so many opponents.       Lets talk USA..

 

 

There's no one I saw it do it better than Smith.  He had  the unstopable take down.  He had the lowshot and the high crotch.  He could scramnle and he could turn from top.    Just looking at his technique and his physical gifts, he was the best,  Better than Schultz.   He was is also the greatest due to resume (up for debate with Baumgartner).   Now lets say you give it to Big Bruce.    There's no way to call him the best, but he's right there for greatest.      Again, how well do  you actually werestle, vs how stacked is your resume.      

 

It's not exact science and not all of it is tangible.   The resume is pretty black and white.  The "best" that's up to you who you think is better, even if you're not aware of the resume.    

 

Burroughs looks to be one of our top 5 guys.   Monday was pretty damn incredible at a time. Smith and Schultz have been mentioned.   Carr.      It's a short list the guys considered best USA wrestlers.   Remove the medals and answer for yourself who  was the best wrestler.   It really is as simple as that.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housebuye - One more thing, I didn't mention other sports examples in order to weird you out.  I did that in order to show "Greatest" and "Best" are topics in other sports.  Sports that have Tens of MILLIONS of people tuning in weekly and then discussing the stars of today vs those from the past.   We have a few hard cores here that post, and the conclusions we're going to reach are going to have far less input, far less discussion, far less contributors to reach those conclusions.   If you don't believe me here, perhaps you'll believe the other discussions where this was discussed years ago by thousands of people and the conclusion was reached.     I didn't learn it on this board and I brought it up because I haven't seen it discussed here.   You absolutely do not have to accept it if you'd rather use your own interpretation of what is best and what is greatest.      For me it's pretty cleat the two are different and each used to measure a different standard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housebuye - One more thing, I didn't mention other sports examples in order to weird you out.  I did that in order to show "Greatest" and "Best" are topics in other sports.  Sports that have Tens of MILLIONS of people tuning in weekly and then discussing the stars of today vs those from the past.   We have a few hard cores here that post, and the conclusions we're going to reach are going to have far less input, far less discussion, far less contributors to reach those conclusions.   If you don't believe me here, perhaps you'll believe the other discussions where this was discussed years ago by thousands of people and the conclusion was reached.     I didn't learn it on this board and I brought it up because I haven't seen it discussed here.   You absolutely do not have to accept it if you'd rather use your own interpretation of what is best and what is greatest.      For me it's pretty cleat the two are different and each used to measure a different standard.  

So is Babe Ruth the Best and Greatest hitter of all time?  Or because he didn't play against black and latin people, was it easier for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't done much research on Babe Ruth.  I wouldn't be the one to ask.  I don't follow base ball.   I'm best with NFL, boxing, MMA, wrestling of course.     

 

If Babe has the highest batting average, he was probably the best hitter.  I  would definitely factor his opposition though.  I'd consider slugging percentage and home runs.      I've heard a guy mentioned for best hitter named Ty Cobb.      Speaking of Cobb, Randall Tex Cobb had a must see legendary fight with Larry Holmes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×