Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skikayaker

Stoll #1?

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Gross should also be ranked lower. Its been discussed, but at the same time many people believe that Gross is capable of beating everyone. People doubt Stoll's ability (even at full health) to defeat the likes of Gable. 

"Lower" is the issue and becomes completely arbitrary.  If you, as a ranker, decide limited or no competition should be a negative, you shouldn't rank them at all until you have enough data.  But, to rank them under some, but not all with that lack of data becomes SOLELY opinion based.  No ranking is fully objective, but the intent should always be as close as possible.

So, to be clear, if the data says you are the highest returning AA, or even the champ, and have yet to take a loss, you simply DO NOT have any data that clearly says he will lose to anyone.  But, if you don't have enough data to clearly say he will or is at the level he was the prior year, you just don't rank him until he does.

I would like to see rankers say you have to have atleast 4 matches in by Mid December to stay ranked and double that after the Midlands/Scuffle.  Once they get into the double digits after that, they should remain eligible.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MSU158 said:

"Lower" is the issue and becomes completely arbitrary.  If you, as a ranker, decide limited or no competition should be a negative, you shouldn't rank them at all until you have enough data.  But, to rank them under some, but not all with that lack of data becomes SOLELY opinion based.  No ranking are fully objective, but the intent should always be as close as possible.

So, to be clear, if the data says you are the highest returning AA, or even the champ, and have yet to take a loss, you simply DO NOT have any data that clearly says he will lose to anyone.  But, if you don't have enough data to clearly say he will or is at the level he was the prior year, you just don't rank him until he does.

I would like to see rankers say you have to have atleast 4 matches in by Mid December to stay ranked and double that after the Midlands/Scuffle.  Once they get into the double digits after that, they should remain eligible.

I agree with your method. My point earlier is why people are saying Stoll should not be ranked number 1. The system is what it is. It will never be perfect, but the bottom line is people are commenting/asking why Stoll is number 1 because a large group of people feel (even at 100% health) Stoll is not the best wrestler at this weight vs Gross who many people feel is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

I agree with your method. My point earlier is why people are saying Stoll should not be ranked number 1. The system is what it is. It will never be perfect, but the bottom line is people are commenting/asking why Stoll is number 1 because a large group of people feel (even at 100% health) Stoll is not the best wrestler at this weight vs Gross who many people feel is.

Which is opinion-based and not results-based, which is what rankings profess to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you convinced that a 100% healthy Stoll will not be number 1?  I'm not so sure a large number of people feel that way?  There is a lot of season left and some people actually still coach.  Just saying I'm not convinced (yet) that Stoll can't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Which is opinion-based and not results-based, which is what rankings profess to be.

You specifically asked WHY people are all fluffed up about Stoll being ranked number one and not so much when it comes to Seth Gross.

You can site the rankings process all you want, but if the people do not believe the wrestler Ranked number 1 is not the best wrestler in the weight class they will complain.

Many still believe Gross is the best 133lber.

Most do not believe Stoll is the best 285lber.

Ofcourse its opinion based!

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, teach said:

Are you convinced that a 100% healthy Stoll will not be number 1?  I'm not so sure a large number of people feel that way?  There is a lot of season left and some people actually still coach.  Just saying I'm not convinced (yet) that Stoll can't win.

 

I wouldn't rate him #1 even if he were 100% healthy. He has 3 losses to the top of the "smaller heavyweight" type wrestlers over the past 2 years, and two of his main competitors this year are smaller quicker heavyweights. Now, he did beat White in SV  last year, but White is improved at this time. Then there is Gable Steveson who I don't think he could beat on his best day. 

Add in the way he has looked so far this year and it is hard to imagine him ever even being 100% this year. I'll be somewhat surprised, maybe even mildly shocked, if he even stepped on the mat with Steveson. If he wrestles that match and wins I will be the first to acknowledge my being wrong. Don't think that is going to happen though. Time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Not sure what one has to do with the other.  Iowa is still the most hated program nationally, even though they are no longer the best.  Listen to the reaction at the NCAA tournament when one of their wrestlers loses.

That's only because the arena is half filled with PSU fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Which is opinion-based and not results-based, which is what rankings profess to be.

It's not results based. 

Gross is the returning national champ who hasn't lost.  

Stoll is not the highest returner, and the higher returner has been beat.  There are data points that strongly suggest those guys (Dhesi, Stoll, Hemida, Nevills) have been passed.  Can you justify Stoll at #1?  If you really want to.  But no results based argument demands or even suggests he should be #1, he has 3 meaningless wins all season, and all non-results arguments show he has no business being #1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, boconnell said:

It's not results based. 

Gross is the returning national champ who hasn't lost.  

Stoll is not the highest returner, and the higher returner has been beat.  There are data points that strongly suggest those guys (Dhesi, Stoll, Hemida, Nevills) have been passed.  Can you justify Stoll at #1?  If you really want to.  But no results based argument demands or even suggests he should be #1, he has 3 meaningless wins all season, and all non-results arguments show he has no business being #1.

 

A "new era" at Heavyweight is being ushered in, as we speak.  Fellas... it's happening.  Gone are the days of the "lumbering giants", where their girth was unrivaled.  More than ever, we're seeing the more athletic, low/mid-weight range body style, and it's working.  Lot's of kids in HS are seeing this, and are saying "hey, it's better to be a wrestler, than a fat guy that can sumo people to death".  I apologize if this sounds caustic, but I really do believe this to be true.  Stoll, his style/type, is quickly being outpaced by these quicker, more athletic (and just as strong, if not stronger) body types.  Gable has some pounds that he could theoretically lose, but... imagine if he lifted/trained like the Snyder regimen?  I hope he does... retaining elite "little guy" quickness, with the strength of an Ox.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

A "new era" at Heavyweight is being ushered in, as we speak.  Fellas... it's happening.  Gone are the days of the "lumbering giants", where their girth was unrivaled.  More than ever, we're seeing the more athletic, low/mid-weight range body style, and it's working.  Lot's of kids in HS are seeing this, and are saying "hey, it's better to be a wrestler, than a fat guy that can sumo people to death".  I apologize if this sounds caustic, but I really do believe this to be true.  Stoll, his style/type, is quickly being outpaced by these quicker, more athletic (and just as strong, if not stronger) body types.  Gable has some pounds that he could theoretically lose, but... imagine if he lifted/trained like the Snyder regimen?  I hope he does... retaining elite "little guy" quickness, with the strength of an Ox.  

Completely disagree.  You WILL still have Zach Rey(s), Dustin Fox(s) and even Brock Lesnar(s).  For the most part, the quicker, smaller, more athletic guys will still be pursuing football and other sports.  Plus, even Snyder took a loss to the resident "lumbering giant" in Coon.

It is simple physics.  A strong, full sized 285 that can hold position is a strategical nightmare for your "new age" 285's.  Unless they can have Snyder like gas tanks and attack late in matches, they will always have serious disadvantages attacking, especially finishing on, the full sized 285's.  

Everyone always complains about lack of "shots" at 285 without really understanding how difficult/dangerous it is on a multitude of levels.  We are seeing a recent influx of guys so talented that they are able to transcend the normal, but they will prove to be the exception, not the rule.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

Completely disagree.  You WILL still have Zach Rey(s), Dustin Fox(s) and even Brock Lesnar(s).  For the most part, the quicker, smaller, more athletic guys will still be pursuing football and other sports.  Plus, even Snyder took a loss to the resident "lumbering giant" in Coon.

It is simple physics.  A strong, full sized 285 that can hold position is a strategical nightmare for your "new age" 285's.  Unless they can have Snyder like gas tanks and attack late in matches, they will always have serious disadvantages attacking, especially finishing on, the full sized 285's.  

Everyone always complains about lack of "shots" at 285 without really understanding how difficult/dangerous it is on a multitude of levels.  We are seeing a recent influx of guys so talented that they are able to transcend the normal, but they will prove to be the exception, not the rule.......

Zach Rey, Dustin Fox, Brock Lesnar...

Physically speaking one of these things is not like the other.... Pretty bad example to use when trying to counter treep2000's description of "a fat guy that can sumo people to death." Big time exception to the rule.

I think we're going to see MORE faster more athletic heavyweights that are just as strong as the big guys of the past.

And Coon is not a "lumbering giant" Another bad example on your part. He was the exception, not the rule when it came to big guys because he actually has wrestling ability.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Zach Rey, Dustin Fox, Brock Lesnar...

Physically speaking one of these things is not like the other.... Pretty bad example to use when trying to counter treep2000's description of "a fat guy that can sumo people to death." Big time exception to the rule.

I think we're going to see MORE faster more athletic heavyweights that are just as strong as the big guys of the past.

And Coon is not a "lumbering giant" Another bad example on your part. He was the exception, not the rule when it came to big guys because he actually has wrestling ability.

When exactly did lumbering giant and girth mean fat.  I was mainly answering that part, but did you ever LOOK at Dustin Fox?  He pretty much fit the "fat guy" description.  Also ALL the big guys COULD STILL WRESTLE if they made it to the DI level and the AA stand.  How many examples am I supposed to use to satisfy you?  100?  200?

Also, Coon won a MAJORITY of his matches due to his size and Greco abilities.  He was NOT shooting lightning singles and doubles and much of his offense was counter wrestling and actually out-sumo'd Stoll when they wrestled.

You can THINK you are going to see more faster, athletic 285's all you want.  That makes it no more true and in no way guarantees these guys will eliminate the full sized 285's that know how to hold position.

In fact, when saying "big time exception to the rule" I will bet that will apply to the 1 or 2 guys that fit your athletic definition.  They may prove to be so good that they can overcome the size advantage, but this weight class isn't all of a sudden going to be dominated by just Snyder, Cassar and White body types and styles.....

 

Also, you have proven you are THE most stubborn poster on here, and there are a lot of us that are ridiculously stubborn.  So, as to not clutter this board with another nonstop back and forth, I will stand by what I said above and, knowing you will respond, I will happily give you the last word and move on!

 

 

 

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

When exactly did lumbering giant and girth mean fat.  I was mainly answering that part, but did you ever LOOK at Dustin Fox?  He pretty much fit the "fat guy" description.  Also ALL the big guys COULD STILL WRESTLE if they made it to the DI level and the AA stand.  How many examples am I supposed to use to satisfy you?  100?  200?

Also, Coon won a MAJORITY of his matches due to his size and Greco abilities.  He was NOT shooting lightning singles and doubles and much of his offense was counter wrestling and actually out-sumo'd Stoll when they wrestled.

You can THINK you are going to see more faster, athletic 285's all you want.  That makes it no more true and in no way guarantees these guys will eliminate the full sized 285's that know how to hold position.

In fact, when saying "big time exception to the rule" I will bet that will apply to the 1 or 2 guys that fit your athletic definition.  They may prove to be so good that they can overcome the size advantage, but this weight class isn't all of a sudden going to be dominated by just Snyder, Cassar and White body types and styles.....

 

Also, you have proven you are THE most stubborn poster on here, and there are a lot of us that are ridiculously stubborn.  So, as to not clutter this board with another nonstop back and forth, I will stand by what I said above and, knowing you will respond, I will happily give you the last word and move on!

 

 

 

The year Dustin Fox was one if the weakest years for 285 ever. Imo he doesnt beat any of the 285 champs from the past 10 years. Make a point that is valid and I will change my mind. You can say I'm stubborn, but when I know I'm right I know I'm right.

Coon was a 285 that was athletic and could actually move. That's what made him good. Add his size and strength and then you have a world class heavyweight. An anomaly. Sure he did his fair share if sumo pushing and countering because thats all he needed to do. If he wrestled a more athletic 285 his move set would be more dynamic. Many heavyweights of the past were just size and strength without much athleticism. Coon was far from a "lumbering giant." Lumbering giants are stationary and pretty immobile.

As for seeing more athletic and smaller sized heavyweights, I dont just think it. We're seeing it now with the current heavyweights and with the upcoming talent coming in as well. It's the current trend. Will is last forever? No one knows. We'll have to see what comes over the next ten years or so, but imo I think we will start seeing more Jakob Kaspers, Anthony Cassars, and Derek Whites. tOSU has Daniel Kerkvliet coming who fits the mold of the "athletic over girth" mold and he gave Gable Steveson quite the match last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Novak said:

Stoll is actually wildly athletic.  He can throw down a bucket of chicken wings faster than anyone would believe.

but unfortunately unable to dodge bullets at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see Stoll holding his number one ranking so perhaps the point is mute. My prediction is that he will duck and dodge Stevenson, and lose his #1 rank which will go to Stevenson, thus guaranteeing that he face Cassar in the semis of B10. If he slips to #2 rank he will make a last ditch effort to beat White in Iowa's last dual of the year hoping that he regains the number one seed in B10s only to come up short against White and possibly lose his 2nd seed to Cassar. No change, they'll still face each other in the Semis, and Sam can go home with a 3rd place finish at B10s, and a secure a four seed at NCAAs. The battle for a #1 seed at NCAAs is between Stevenson, White, and Cassar. If Cassar beats Stevenson in the B10 finals, #1 can go to White, otherwise Stevenson owns #1, White #2, and Cassar #3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Guys, it's Steveson, not Stevenson.  There's no N.  That's S.T.E.V.E._BLANK_.SON.  Steve Son.  

and its Peternson, theres two Ns in banana thus two Ns in Peternson ;_;

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...