Housebuye 2,221 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 What does your all time best American freestyler list look like? 1. Smith still or Burroughs? Burroughs would be tied for world golds, have more medal but “only†1 Olympic gold and he didn’t win them all in a row. 2. Baumgartner or Snyder? Baumgartner has 13 medals, 4 at the Olympics and 2 Olympic golds. Crazy. Snyder would have 4 world golds in a row, including an Olympic gold, plus a finals win (maybe 2) over a legend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Billyhoyle 2,027 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Smith gets the edge with 2 Olympic Golds. Baumgartner over Snyder until Snyder gets to 5. I would give the edge to Snyder at that point because of the wins over Sad and the 84 boycott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nyum 238 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Burroughs because Smith lost to reinoso during his run of 6. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spladle 179 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Smith because he won them consecutively. Reinoso lost earlier in the pool to a Unified Team member that Smith teched. Funny how style match ups create that situation. 2 GranbyTroll and Abdullahgadzhi Khuzin reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abdullahgadzhi Khuzin 1,459 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 What does your all time best American freestyler list look like? 1. Smith still or Burroughs? Burroughs would be tied for world golds, have more medal but “only†1 Olympic gold and he didn’t win them all in a row. 2. Baumgartner or Snyder? Baumgartner has 13 medals, 4 at the Olympics and 2 Olympic golds. Crazy. Snyder would have 4 world golds in a row, including an Olympic gold, plus a finals win (maybe 2) over a legend. Still, Smith and Bruce are better than present wrestlers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spladle 179 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 I would agree with that. Bruce went 15 years with no domestic losses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgallan 592 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Smith over everyone, 6 in a roll, two gold. JB and Baumgartner if JB wins is tough. Snyder as mentioned needs one more then 5 in a roll puts him just behind Smith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgallan 592 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 (edited) Re: Smith and the 92 Olympics, he had staph that year. Bad. Head swollen, lost hair, fatigue, all that nasty stuff. It was tough to get good training in. His wrestling was off. Dang near didn't make the team. Gutted out some nerve wracking wins in the games and then just decimated the Russian. Might have been his best performance ever. Reynosa was his last match in the pool. He didn't need to win it, just not get tech'd or pinned. He obviously wasn't trying to lose but he knew he pretty much had it locked so after all the drama he probably wasn't as focused as normal and looking to the finals. Poor Asgari, gets Belaglasov then Smith in Olympic finals. That is rough. Edited May 13, 2018 by sgallan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnklePicker 546 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 In the 1988 Olympics there were 10 weights. In the 2016 Olympics there were 6 weights. In 1988 there was 1 Russian in the brackets. In 2016 there were like 6. The answer to this question is Jordan Ernest Burroughs. 4 littlepun, JHRoseWrestling, Grecojones and 1 other reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gantry 1,708 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 I would agree with that. Bruce went 15 years with no domestic losses. Out of curiosity, did he retire with that streak? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TripNSweep 498 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Out of curiosity, did he retire with that streak? As far as I know he did. He was beating Neal pretty handily leading up to the 96 games and his biggest threat was probably Erickson who at some points was probably the 2nd best heavyweight in the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgallan 592 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Erickson was never a threat to Baumgartner. He lost to Baumgartner 2-3 times a year for a decade or so. It was Dake versus Taylor squared. Not only was Baumgartner better, but Eirckson didn't match up styles wise either. Given Erickson was a world class wrestler in his own right the domination was absurd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgallan 592 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 In the 1988 Olympics there were 10 weights. In the 2016 Olympics there were 6 weights. In 1988 there was 1 Russian in the brackets. In 2016 there were like 6. The answer to this question is Jordan Ernest Burroughs. Dumb American troll makes a stupid post. Thanks for representing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spladle 179 Report post Posted May 13, 2018 Up to 1992 we had a pool system and had to wrestle more matches to win the Olympics finalists often wrestled as many as 7 matches sometimes 8 to win the gold. Smith was something special. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnklePicker 546 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 Dumb American troll makes a stupid post. Thanks for representing. How is it stupid? Do you deny that it's harder to win world titles now then it was in 1988? I'm no troll. I thought you were done with wrestling. Just can't help yourself can you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spladle 179 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 I think 1992 was harder in that you had to grind through more matches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnklePicker 546 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 I think 1992 was harder in that you had to grind through more matches. Yeah more matches vs countries that aren't that good at wrestling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spladle 179 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 You are welcome to your opinion. Different eras, with an unprovable supposition. I actually would put Kenny Monday at his peak above Burroughs at his peak. Of course Burroughs has more hardware. 1 Cletus_Tucker reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boconnell 1,503 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 How is it stupid? Do you deny that it's harder to win world titles now then it was in 1988? I'm no troll. I thought you were done with wrestling. Just can't help yourself can you? Do you deny that winning more and losing less is a good thing? Do you deny that winning gold in the Olympics twice is better than 1 gold and 1 DNP? Only with an agenda can you make 6 for 6 gold medals with 2 olympic titles worse than 6 for 8 gold medals with 1 olympic win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnklePicker 546 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 No agenda, I just consider the competition a pretty big factor in evaluating who’s the best. 6 weights compared to 10 is a huge deal. As is having multiple Russians in your weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyJoey 25 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 In the 1988 Olympics there were 10 weights. In the 2016 Olympics there were 6 weights. In 1988 there was 1 Russian in the brackets. In 2016 there were like 6. The answer to this question is Jordan Ernest Burroughs. This. Less weights more Soviets. End of story. 4 Cletus_Tucker, littlepun, Grecojones and 1 other reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spladle 179 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 Not worth a pissing contest, certainly isn't the end of story though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boconnell 1,503 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 No agenda, I just consider the competition a pretty big factor in evaluating who’s the best. 6 weights compared to 10 is a huge deal. As is having multiple Russians in your weight. If they both went 6 for 6 or if Burroughs got to 6 total golds with 2 Olympic Golds then I'd agree the era he won in would be a clear tie breaker in Burroughs' favor. 1 GranbyTroll reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnklePicker 546 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 If they both went 6 for 6 or if Burroughs got to 6 total golds with 2 Olympic Golds then I'd agree the era he won in would be a clear tie breaker in Burroughs' favor. The point is, had smith had to deal with a much deeper weight with many more Soviets, would he have gone 6 for 6? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyJoey 25 Report post Posted May 14, 2018 And don’t forget back then you could lose in the pools and still win. Smith lost a match en route to at least one of his Golds Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
