Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#21 JerseyJoey

JerseyJoey

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 504 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 01:51 PM

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.
  • Grecojones, JHRoseWrestling, Cletus_Tucker and 1 other like this

#22 spladle

spladle

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 345 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 02:06 PM

Not worth a pissing contest, certainly isn't the end of story though.

#23 boconnell

boconnell

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,218 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 02:10 PM

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.  


  • GranbyTroll likes this

#24 AnklePicker

AnklePicker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 8,628 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 02:18 PM

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?

#25 JerseyJoey

JerseyJoey

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 504 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 02:29 PM

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

#26 spladle

spladle

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 345 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 02:37 PM

Yeah, John Smith wasn't that good, he had it easy.

#27 Cradle1

Cradle1
  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 05:07 PM

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.

 

A solid point.  That said, I'd still take Smith by a hair.  Russia has always had someone who you felt like was a virtual tossup with JB throughout his career.  Smith always seemed to win against everyone in completely commanding style, like his world final would be 6-0 (back when takedowns were one point).   Made it seem easy against everyone.   Outside of the Cuban who seemed to present some sort of match-up with him I don't recall him ever being in danger of losing internationally. 


Edited by Cradle1, 13 May 2018 - 05:08 PM.


#28 Cradle1

Cradle1
  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 05:18 PM

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.  

The timeline seems off on this.  Stephen Neal was only a redshirt freshman in 1996 and placed 4th at NCAAs as I recall.  Was he really our #2 heavyweight at this time? 

 

With all due respect, no way, no how was Erickson EVER the #2 heavyweight in the World.  Baumgartner won five out of 13 years at the World/Olympic level, a huge achievement to be one of the top contenders for that long, but still it means that he won less than 40% of the time. During the entire run he always had 2 or 3 rivals that he was far from a sure thing against.  Erickson was a mile behind him during this run.... so I completely fail to see that he would have beaten guys who beat Bruce multiple times in some cases.  That 15 year streak is awesome, don't get me wrong, but the depth of the field in the USA (where our top big men have always tended to go the football route) compared to the talent the USA put out at say 136.5 or 163 obviously were not remotely comparable. Can anyone name a challenger other than Erickson?  I mean if Erickson had a history of beating World Medalist please feel free to correct me but that sure isn't my impression. 



#29 sgallan

sgallan

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 29,915 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 11:29 PM

.....

Edited by sgallan, 13 May 2018 - 11:31 PM.


#30 tec87

tec87

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,101 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 12:43 AM

The timeline seems off on this. Stephen Neal was only a redshirt freshman in 1996 and placed 4th at NCAAs as I recall. Was he really our #2 heavyweight at this time?

With all due respect, no way, no how was Erickson EVER the #2 heavyweight in the World. Baumgartner won five out of 13 years at the World/Olympic level, a huge achievement to be one of the top contenders for that long, but still it means that he won less than 40% of the time. During the entire run he always had 2 or 3 rivals that he was far from a sure thing against. Erickson was a mile behind him during this run.... so I completely fail to see that he would have beaten guys who beat Bruce multiple times in some cases. That 15 year streak is awesome, don't get me wrong, but the depth of the field in the USA (where our top big men have always tended to go the football route) compared to the talent the USA put out at say 136.5 or 163 obviously were not remotely comparable. Can anyone name a challenger other than Erickson? I mean if Erickson had a history of beating World Medalist please feel free to correct me but that sure isn't my impression.

Erickson was 4th at the 97 worlds. So you would have to think he would certainly be in medal contention the previous years if not for Big Bruce.
FIRE UP CHIPS!!!!

#31 boconnell

boconnell

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,218 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 01:23 AM

The point is, had smith had to deal with a much deeper weight with many more Soviets, would he have gone 6 for 6?

Would Burroughs have won if Tsargush's backups got to come to Worlds?  

 

When you are trying to medal, then all of the USSR backups make a huge difference, because those guys make it harder to get 3rd place since some of them are top 3 in the world.  But if you are solidly beating their best guy on the way to gold, then I don't think their 2-5 make a giant difference.  Sure one of those guys could have beaten him, but it's extremely unlikely.  When you beat the best in the world 6 for 6, then it's ok to assume you beat less than the world's best 6 for 6.  



#32 AnklePicker

AnklePicker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 8,628 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 01:51 AM

Would Burroughs have won if Tsargush's backups got to come to Worlds?

When you are trying to medal, then all of the USSR backups make a huge difference, because those guys make it harder to get 3rd place since some of them are top 3 in the world. But if you are solidly beating their best guy on the way to gold, then I don't think their 2-5 make a giant difference. Sure one of those guys could have beaten him, but it's extremely unlikely. When you beat the best in the world 6 for 6, then it's ok to assume you beat less than the world's best 6 for 6.

I’m not sure he would have. Remember at one point Tsargush himself was a back up behind Saitiev and he was also a back up to Geduev at the Olympics in 2016.

Think of it like this, in 2015, 2016 and 2017 every medalist in Kyle Snyder’s weight was from a former Soviet country aside from one the Romanian who BTW was represented by Albert Saritov, also a former Russian who beat Cael in the worlds. So literally every guy who medaled, and that includes both bronzes were from former Soviet states. Every one! Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Armenia. You don’t think it would have been much easier for Snyder to win world titles in the 80s?

Edited by AnklePicker, 14 May 2018 - 01:52 AM.


#33 boconnell

boconnell

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,218 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 02:08 AM

I’m not sure he would have. Remember at one point Tsargush himself was a back up behind Saitiev and he was also a back up to Geduev at the Olympics in 2016.

Think of it like this, in 2015, 2016 and 2017 every medalist in Kyle Snyder’s weight was from a former Soviet country aside from one the Romanian who BTW was represented by Albert Saritov, also a former Russian who beat Cael in the worlds. So literally every guy who medaled, and that includes both bronzes were from former Soviet states. Every one! Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Armenia. You don’t think it would have been much easier for Snyder to win world titles in the 80s?

I absolutely agree it would have been easier.  That's why I think titles now are better than titles then. That's why if it was even between a guy in the past and a guy now, I'd give the clear edge to the guy now.    

 

But when a guy wins every single world level tournament he ever entered and you say, "But he didn't beat some guys who might have been top 3-10 in the world", you are reaching.  Especially since in those 6 years Smith faced every top Soviet they could put out there and beat them all.  It's not like they had 1 great backup the whole time who was top 3 in the world but couldn't beat the starter so Smith never wrestled him.  He beat all their best guys at some point during the run.  



#34 PRyan2012

PRyan2012

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 02:08 AM

Bruce. Longevity! Was he better than Gable or Cael. NO!!!! But I run a business and that business model with what Bruce did is unmatched! 



#35 boconnell

boconnell

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,218 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 02:10 AM

Bruce. Longevity! Was he better than Gable or Cael. NO!!!! But I run a business and that business model with what Bruce did is unmatched! 

I would agree except longevity is different for a heavyweight.  If Gable or Cael could compete without weight cutting then they'd have far more longevity.  Most guys quit for a number of factors, but near the top is they are sick of making weight.  I'm sure if Cael didn't have to make weight but could still wrestle guys with his body size, then he could be competitive today.  


  • PRyan2012 likes this

#36 PRyan2012

PRyan2012

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 02:46 AM

I would agree except longevity is different for a heavyweight.  If Gable or Cael could compete without weight cutting then they'd have far more longevity.  Most guys quit for a number of factors, but near the top is they are sick of making weight.  I'm sure if Cael didn't have to make weight but could still wrestle guys with his body size, then he could be competitive today.  

True but how many heavyweight Olympic champs have we had? Bruce is in rare company.



#37 TripNSweep

TripNSweep

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,182 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 03:18 AM

The timeline seems off on this.  Stephen Neal was only a redshirt freshman in 1996 and placed 4th at NCAAs as I recall.  Was he really our #2 heavyweight at this time? 

 

With all due respect, no way, no how was Erickson EVER the #2 heavyweight in the World.  Baumgartner won five out of 13 years at the World/Olympic level, a huge achievement to be one of the top contenders for that long, but still it means that he won less than 40% of the time. During the entire run he always had 2 or 3 rivals that he was far from a sure thing against.  Erickson was a mile behind him during this run.... so I completely fail to see that he would have beaten guys who beat Bruce multiple times in some cases.  That 15 year streak is awesome, don't get me wrong, but the depth of the field in the USA (where our top big men have always tended to go the football route) compared to the talent the USA put out at say 136.5 or 163 obviously were not remotely comparable. Can anyone name a challenger other than Erickson?  I mean if Erickson had a history of beating World Medalist please feel free to correct me but that sure isn't my impression. 

 

No but there was sort of an idea that Neal was the future of the weight class, and I remember reading an article how Neal was a training partner for him and was getting beaten pretty handily.  Bruce even said something to the effect of Neal being the next man up.  Also Erickson beat many world medalists throughout his career.  He even pinned Shumilin in 97 or 98. He may not have been able to beat Bruce, but he was definitely in some years a guy who would have medaled at worlds if he ever made the team.  By the time Bruce retired though Erickson was in the twilight of his wrestling career, so we only got to see him towards the end.  As to whether he would have been as consistent with winning medals as Bruce, that's probably not comparable, but in some years he did wrestle good competition overseas and won, but was stuck behind one of the best ever. 


Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Contrary to what you've just seen, war is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy. If you'd like to learn more about war, there's lots of books in your local library, many of them with cool, gory pictures.

#38 PRyan2012

PRyan2012

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 03:51 AM

No but there was sort of an idea that Neal was the future of the weight class, and I remember reading an article how Neal was a training partner for him and was getting beaten pretty handily.  Bruce even said something to the effect of Neal being the next man up.  Also Erickson beat many world medalists throughout his career.  He even pinned Shumilin in 97 or 98. He may not have been able to beat Bruce, but he was definitely in some years a guy who would have medaled at worlds if he ever made the team.  By the time Bruce retired though Erickson was in the twilight of his wrestling career, so we only got to see him towards the end.  As to whether he would have been as consistent with winning medals as Bruce, that's probably not comparable, but in some years he did wrestle good competition overseas and won, but was stuck behind one of the best ever. 

Don't remember did Neal ever wrestle Erikson? And weren't those Neal Vs Baum practice matches in 1997? 



#39 GranbyTroll

GranbyTroll

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,969 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 04:01 AM

Dumb American troll makes a stupid post. Thanks for representing.

 

Trolling 4/10. Please try again. 


  • littlepun likes this

Iowa fans are still arrogant; it's just that their team isn't as good.


#40 Glane18

Glane18

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 05:53 AM

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.

 

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.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users