Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#61 spladle

spladle

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 345 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 04:11 AM

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.

#62 Billyhoyle

Billyhoyle

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,378 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 06:23 AM

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.

#63 Lurker

Lurker

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 667 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 07:32 AM

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.

#64 Housebuye

Housebuye

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,748 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 07:38 AM

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.

#65 spladle

spladle

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 345 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 07:56 AM

Smith was also voted most technically correct one year as well. Neither Snyder nor Burroughs have Smith's technical range.

#66 spladle

spladle

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 345 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 07:56 AM

Smith was also voted most technically correct one year as well. Neither Snyder nor Burroughs have Smith's technical range.

#67 AnklePicker

AnklePicker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 8,644 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 09:19 AM

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.

#68 bp2xbw

bp2xbw
  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 11:04 AM

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.  



#69 Cletus_Tucker

Cletus_Tucker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 05:06 PM

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.   



#70 Housebuye

Housebuye

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,748 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 05:36 AM

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.

#71 Cletus_Tucker

Cletus_Tucker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 08:39 AM

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.    



#72 Cletus_Tucker

Cletus_Tucker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 08:47 AM

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.  



#73 Lurker

Lurker

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 667 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 08:48 AM

Best, greatest....it's all opinion (when having the "all time" talk). So it can't be, and doesn't need to be quantifiable. That makes it sound more sophisticated, but end of the day it's debatable.
  • Cletus_Tucker likes this

#74 jchapman

jchapman

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,597 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 08:59 AM

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?


Record Holder:  Most Escapes in a Season


#75 Cletus_Tucker

Cletus_Tucker

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 09:48 AM

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.  



#76 TripNSweep

TripNSweep

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,194 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 10:56 AM

I would say Bruce is ahead of Smith just due to consistency and longevity.  But not by much. The length of his wrestling career with the consistency of medaling, I think he went 13 for 15, is pretty damn good.  Also without a loss to domestic competition.  


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.

#77 Housebuye

Housebuye

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,748 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 11:04 AM

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.

Fair enough. I use different criteria. There isn’t one right answer unless we agree on the criteria.

#78 sgallan

sgallan

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 29,915 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 12:32 PM

I would say Bruce is ahead of Smith just due to consistency and longevity. But not by much. The length of his wrestling career with the consistency of medaling, I think he went 13 for 15, is pretty damn good. Also without a loss to domestic competition.

Given this standard he is better than every wrestler in FS save Medeved (and perhaps Satiev). He was great but no, he is not the second or third greatest FS wrestler of all time. That is absurd. There is 7 or 8 wrestlers on that list and nobody other than the random American would have Baumgartner there.

#79 sgallan

sgallan

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 29,915 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 12:40 PM

FWIW, Karekin was mentioned. Yeah, no contest, there has never been a more dominant wrestler the Karelin. To this day he is the only guy, in a medal match, where I saw people pin themselves before the lift.
  • Cletus_Tucker likes this

#80 TripNSweep

TripNSweep

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,194 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 05:46 AM

Given this standard he is better than every wrestler in FS save Medeved (and perhaps Satiev). He was great but no, he is not the second or third greatest FS wrestler of all time. That is absurd. There is 7 or 8 wrestlers on that list and nobody other than the random American would have Baumgartner there.

 

I'm just talking about Americans.  


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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users