Jump to content
Jimmy Cinnabon

Nolf and Nickal are amazing, but...

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

It's crazy that they will, at most, finish with 60 some pins for their careers...and that doesn't come close to the top...Mills (106), Schalles (106), Bilenberg (94), Askren with 91 pins.  How did Askren get 50% more pins than the Nolf and Nickal?

Askren was an all-time great and an innovator who no doubt influenced a generation of wrestlers.  Nolf and Nickal's opponents grew up wrestling in an era of awareness of funk and funk counters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Askren was amazing, and was the most underwhelming dominant wrestler ever (it wasn't as impressive looking as Nolf, Nickal, Taylor etc...).  He also wrestled 160 times in college.  Looks like Nolf and Nickal will be closer to 120-125 career bouts.   Big 10 is the toughest conference as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tightwaist said:

Askren was amazing, and was the most underwhelming dominant wrestler ever (it wasn't as impressive looking as Nolf, Nickal, Taylor etc...).  He also wrestled 160 times in college.  Looks like Nolf and Nickal will be closer to 120-125 career bouts.   Big 10 is the toughest conference as well.  

He was impressive to me because it looked like he was just rolling around at half speed.  It was like he had been in every position imaginable 100 times before and he knew 10 different counters to every possible counter his opponent could try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing is to look at overall matches.

For instance the all time win leader at PSU is Jim Martin (late '80's)at 155 with a total of 168 matches. Ed Ruth drops to 139 matches.

Nickal will end up around 123 matches.

Guys don't wrestle nearly as many matches.

There will never be another 159-0 wrestler. There might be a 4 time undefeated but they won't approach 159 wins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tightwaist said:

Askren was amazing, and was the most underwhelming dominant wrestler ever (it wasn't as impressive looking as Nolf, Nickal, Taylor etc...).  He also wrestled 160 times in college.  Looks like Nolf and Nickal will be closer to 120-125 career bouts.   Big 10 is the toughest conference as well.  

Big 12 was awfully tough in Askren's tenure at Mizzou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Askren was a monster when it came to scrambling, and nobody could approach the level he was at. It led to tons of pins.

However, 2007 Askren (senior year at 174) would have lost decisively to 2011 Burroughs (senior year at 165).  

The reason is that Askren needs scrambles to be effective against the most elite wrestlers. But 2011 Burroughs would be so overwhelming and crisp from neutral that Askren wouldn’t be able to get to his funk.

That was essentially Askren’s trouble with Pendleton in 2004 and 2005. 

Respect to Askren, of course. 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jchapman said:

Askren was an all-time great and an innovator who no doubt influenced a generation of wrestlers.  Nolf and Nickal's opponents grew up wrestling in an era of awareness of funk and funk counters.

I’d say the Abas brothers popularized funk, and Askren then took it to a whole new level.

Share this post


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

Askren and Dake sure have a lot in common when it comes to fantasy match ups.

That’s funny (I guess) but watch the Askren-Pendleton matches and tell me what went wrong for Askren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think because people started to realize that at this level you don't need the match experience of 40 matches a year.  Less grind and more fresh bodies for the post season is more of a benefit than those extra matches and weigh-ins.  I also believe that now that Americans can make a good living by just competing for years out of college, instead of one olympics then time to get a "job", people are aware of that and saving their bodies for a longer haul.  These are just guesses on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Katie said:

That’s funny (I guess) but watch the Askren-Pendleton matches and tell me what went wrong for Askren. 

I'll never convince you, so why bother? Fact is Burroughs wasn't unstoppable, he beat Tyler Caldwell 2-1 for crying out loud.  Askren destroyed World Silver Herbert after a 2 year layoff. That's all the evidence I need that he would have forced anyone into positions that were advantageous to him as a Senior.  Sophomore Askren wasn't as good at forcing those positions, and Pendleton didn't volunteer them. Again, it's not like it isn't arguable, and I'll never change your mind.  Your opinion is every bit as valid as mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tigerfan said:

I'll never convince you, so why bother? Fact is Burroughs wasn't unstoppable, he beat Tyler Caldwell 2-1 for crying out loud.  Askren destroyed World Silver Herbert after a 2 year layoff. That's all the evidence I need that he would have forced anyone into positions that were advantageous to him as a Senior.  Sophomore Askren wasn't as good at forcing those positions, and Pendleton didn't volunteer them. Again, it's not like it isn't arguable, and I'll never change your mind.  Your opinion is every bit as valid as mine.

Herbert relied heavily on a sweep single, which is asking for a scramble. 

Burroughs, on the other hand, has that blast double and singles he finishes cleanly. Burroughs is also more explosive than Herbert. 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jchapman said:

He was impressive to me because it looked like he was just rolling around at half speed.  It was like he had been in every position imaginable 100 times before and he knew 10 different counters to every possible counter his opponent could try.

He was impressive because of his overall unimpressiveness (is that a word?).  He wasn't quick, he was lanky, didn't look strong and he wasn't particularly athletic or explosive...yet he absolutely mauled guys.  He must have surreal grip strength, to go along with his incredible funkiness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tightwaist said:

He was impressive because of his overall unimpressiveness (is that a word?).  He wasn't quick, he was lanky, didn't look strong and he wasn't particularly athletic or explosive...yet he absolutely mauled guys.  He must have surreal grip strength, to go along with his incredible funkiness.  

Some guys just don't look the part in wrestling.  It's a really deceiving sport to watch.  You can see two guys walk out and put on the bands and think that the guy who looks like a brick ****house is going to destroy the other guy who looks lanky and unassuming.  Then you watch the lanky and unassuming kid tear the guy a new ******* in two minutes flat.  I wrestled plenty of guys who looked the part that I took apart because I was simply better.

Bo Nickal is a great example.  He's lanky and doesn't look hulking.  He still crumples up big hulking 197lbers into small little balls in under two minutes, though.  

Edited by StallWarning

Share this post


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

The big thing is to look at overall matches.

For instance the all time win leader at PSU is Jim Martin (late '80's)at 155 with a total of 168 matches. Ed Ruth drops to 139 matches.

Nickal will end up around 123 matches.

Guys don't wrestle nearly as many matches.

There will never be another 159-0 wrestler. There might be a 4 time undefeated but they won't approach 159 wins

Ben Darmstadt had 16 D1 pins, going 32-4.

Gabe Dean went 152-7 through 2017 (D1 wins).  16 D1 pins his senior year.

Lewnes had 150 wins through 2011; Garrett had 149 through 2016.  Each lost 12 matches.

Cornell had seven guys who wrestled into this decade with 159 or more matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tightwaist said:

He was impressive because of his overall unimpressiveness (is that a word?).  He wasn't quick, he was lanky, didn't look strong and he wasn't particularly athletic or explosive...yet he absolutely mauled guys.  He must have surreal grip strength, to go along with his incredible funkiness.  

That's it. He wasn't freakishly strong, quick, or explosive.

What he did have was a much better sense of proprioception than everyone he faced, as well as a ton of creativity. He also happened to be good enough from neutral to either take most guys down, or at least force them into a scramble.

The only response to Askren is to either outscramble him (good luck with that) or to take him down so cleanly that he can't do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Katie said:

However, 2007 Askren (senior year at 174) would have lost decisively to 2011 Burroughs (senior year at 165).  

 

That's just ridiculous.  Hard to argue hypotheticals, but there's zero evidence that would indicate Burroughs could even hang with Ben.

Edited by KCMO2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, KCMO2 said:

That's just ridiculous.  Hard to argue hypotheticals, but there's zero evidence that would indicate Burroughs could even hang with Ben.

Sure there is.

2007 Askren did not even place in the top three at the 2007 World Team Trials while 2011 Burroughs was a world champion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KCMO2 said:

Folkstyle

In NCAA wrestling, 2007 Askren and 2011 Burroughs were both undefeated national champs and Hodge winners.

In freestyle, 2007 Askren couldn't crack the top three in the country, while 2011 Burroughs was a world champion.

You have presented no evidence that 2007 Askren was better than 2011 Burroughs.

So it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2011 Burroughs was better than 2007 Askren.

Edited by Katie

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...

×
×
  • Create New...