Jump to content
fadzaev2

Toughest weight bracket, all-time at the NCAA's

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mokoma said:

And 125 has first year wrestler Lee and Suriano who was competing at NCAA for first time.  I would take Lee and Suriano over Metcalf every day.

Lee?  Debatable.  Suriano?  I just don't see it.  But, hey opinions differ and that is why we aren't agreeing on this topic.  Thanks for the discussion and agree to disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MSU158 said:

No, what I quoted and responded to left out the MAYBE and inaccurately said I stated he was better as a Junior than a Soph with both being better than his Senior season.

 

47 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

As far as Metcalf goes, I firmly disagree.  He was at his best in 2008 because he wrestled truly free, his motor was at an all time high. and he hadn't really been scouted to the detail he had later on.  But, I do agree that gauging everyone is hard.  Still, I don't believe many of them improved all that much except for Burroughs and some either fell to injury or just didn't progress after.

You firmly disgreed when i said Metcalf was better as a junior than as a sophomore. and said he was "at his best in 2008"

Now you're saying he was the same as a soph and junior.

Share this post


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

 

You firmly disgreed when i said Metcalf was better as a junior than as a sophomore. and said he was "at his best in 2008"

Now you're saying he was the same as a soph and junior.

At his best in 2008 doesn't in ANY WAY say he wasn't ALSO at his best in 2009 or 2010 for that matter.  It JUST means he wasn't better than he was in 2008 after that.  It is possible to peak AND plateau.  You don't have to peak and then "drop off".   I also clarified right after that that I thought he was the same in 08 and 09 while MAYBE there was a tiny bit of a difference the last year.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


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

At his best in 2008 doesn't in ANY WAY say he wasn't ALSO at his best in 2009 or 2010 for that matter.  I also clarified right after that that I thought he was the same in 08 and 09 while MAYBE there was a tiny bit of a difference the last year.

ok so..

Soph = Junior... slightly teensie, weensie, tiny, ittie, bittie, weaker Senior year?

Personally I felt he was the best college version of himself as a junior.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


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

ok so..

Soph = Junior... slightly teensie, weensie, tiny, ittie, bittie, weaker Senior year?

Again, M A Y B E.  I wouldn't be confident in picking one over the other.  Although I think 2008 was fresher, 2010 made up for it in craftiness.

Any which way, my point was that I don't think Metcalf made any substantial improvement where using his career stats would be disingenuous due to improvement after 2008.  That is what I think is germane to this argument.

Share this post


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

Again, M A Y B E.  I wouldn't be confident in picking one over the other.  Although I think 2008 was fresher, 2010 made up for it in craftiness.

Any which way, my point was that I don't think Metcalf made any substantial improvement where using his career stats would be disingenuous due to improvement after 2008.  That is what I think is germane to this argument.

Ok. Thanks for the classification. When you said you firmly disagreed with me when i said I felt he was better as a junior than as a soph  and that he was at his best in 2008 I interpreted that to mean you felt he was better as a sophomore than as a junior.

as for plateauing... do you think he improved from his college career to his international senior level career? or was he the same?

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


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

Ok. Thanks for the classification. When you said you firmly disagreed with me when i said I felt he was better as a junior than as a soph  and that he was at his best in 2008 I interpreted that to mean you felt he was better as a sophomore than as a junior.

as for plateauing... do you think he improved from his college career to his international senior level career? or was he the same?

I think he improved his International style considerably, but Folkstyle was his better style and his greatest assets didn't transfer over as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MSU158 said:

I think he improved his International style considerably, but Folkstyle was his better style and his greatest assets didn't transfer over as well.

I agree tremendously with that last part. He wrestled quite a bit during the ball grab clinch time. also the potential for 4 min matches hurt his since he heavily relied on his gas tank to beat guys.

Metcalf was always one of my favorites. 

Share this post


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

I agree tremendously with that last part. He wrestled quite a bit during the ball grab clinch time. also the potential for 4 min matches hurt his since he heavily relied on his gas tank to beat guys.

Metcalf was always one of my favorites. 

Ball grab era was just bad for Americans in general. Much rather would have seen Metcalf come out of college in our current era. He essential went 3 different styles of wrestling from college, to free, to post ball grab era. 

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


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

Article about this weak weight class going into big tens:  http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=3277633

That's only big 10 specific and they still only had as many all Americans as the previous year in the big 10 at that weight class.

When I say "weak class" I mean compared to the other all time top classes.  It's not weak compared to other weights that year necessarily, just weak compared to some of the others mentioned in this thread.

Share this post


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

Lee?  Debatable.  Suriano?  I just don't see it.  But, hey opinions differ and that is why we aren't agreeing on this topic.  Thanks for the discussion and agree to disagree?

I was saying collectively Suriano and Lee make a tougher weight than Metcalf, who was absolutely a beast going 1-2-1.  That's with Lee going 1-1 and Suriano 2-1 so far.

Share this post


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

Lee?  Debatable.  Suriano?  I just don't see it.  But, hey opinions differ and that is why we aren't agreeing on this topic.  Thanks for the discussion and agree to disagree?

I would like to hear your debate on why Metcalf is better than Lee tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the new tour of the Dan Gable Museum, with Kyle Klingman, even Klingman mentions the 2008/149 as perhaps the greatest bracket of all time, which goes back to my OP.  Fadz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

That's only big 10 specific and they still only had as many all Americans as the previous year in the big 10 at that weight class.

That doesn't really mean anything though. If anything it says that 149 was extremely tough because it not only had the Big10 guys, but then you add Burroughs, O'Connor, and Caldwell.

 

15 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

When I say "weak class" I mean compared to the other all time top classes.  It's not weak compared to other weights that year necessarily, just weak compared to some of the others mentioned in this thread.

This weight is widely considered to be the best of all-time. I am fine with you thinking a different bracket is better, but you haven't been able to make a significant argument for why 125 last year was better let alone all the other brackets. To suggest it is weak though, is ludicrous. It tells me you either were not a fan of wrestling at that time, trying to troll, or don't have a clue in general. 

Share this post


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

Ball grab era was just bad for Americans in general. Much rather would have seen Metcalf come out of college in our current era. He essential went 3 different styles of wrestling from college, to free, to post ball grab era. 

The Ball Grab era was an embarrassment to the sport. In a close second place is the leg clinch era in freestyle. My god, FILA was awful. 

Share this post


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

I thought they were the same thing. 

Might be. All of the rule changes run together for me. Whats worse is that I was a competitor during that time and should probably remember....

Share this post


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

Might be. All of the rule changes run together for me. Whats worse is that I was a competitor during that time and should probably remember....

Yeah, 2000 to 2012 there were lots of changes. I think the winner of the ball grab got to clinch the leg, which was essentially a win.

Share this post


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

Yeah, 2000 to 2012 there were lots of changes. I think the winner of the ball grab got to clinch the leg, which was essentially a win.

I'll admit, I liked the greco era when the top guy started with a reverse gut lift. But it sucked giving up position based on a rule.

Share this post


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

I'll admit, I liked the greco era when the top guy started with a reverse gut lift. But it sucked giving up position based on a rule.

Well that position wasn't a forgone conclusion who would win and it did add more action.

Share this post


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

Well that position wasn't a forgone conclusion who would win and it did add more action.

so many throws in that era. Greco became pretty much a must see tournament vs. where its at now - the ugly step sister to freestyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DrStrange said:

so many throws in that era. Greco became pretty much a must see tournament vs. where its at now - the ugly step sister to freestyle. 

Hard to watch now. I dont know how some countries still give it so much support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, russelscout said:

Hard to watch now. I dont know how some countries still give it so much support.

You don't? Yes you do :)

Can the countries that prop up greco compete in freestyle? 

Also, shame on the CYC club in California for taking all of the best kids in Northern California and turning them into greco bums. Its sad to see so much potential reduced to being headlocking bums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, russelscout said:

That doesn't really mean anything though. If anything it says that 149 was extremely tough because it not only had the Big10 guys, but then you add Burroughs, O'Connor, and Caldwell.

 

This weight is widely considered to be the best of all-time. I am fine with you thinking a different bracket is better, but you haven't been able to make a significant argument for why 125 last year was better let alone all the other brackets. To suggest it is weak though, is ludicrous. It tells me you either were not a fan of wrestling at that time, trying to troll, or don't have a clue in general. 

Adding Caldwell, Burroughs and O'Connor added exactly 1 AA finish a 5th place going into that bracket.

 

Here is why 125 in 2018 is better.  Going into the tournament it had 2 returning champs and 2 returning finalists, none of which even made the finals.  That is why it's better if only considering prior results.  

If incorporating future results (which I think is misleading), then this weight class will finish with more finalist and AA finishers.  149 has 22 AA's, 125 has 20 already with Lee and Rivera 2 more years and Suriano 1 more year and will likely finish with 25 AA's.

At the end of the each tourney 125 had 3 champions (Lee, Cruz and Tomasello) 6 finalists and 15 AA's. 149 had 2 champions (Metcalf and Schlatter), 4 finalists and 14 AA's.  So it's better in all 3 areas.  Tell me why again 149 in 2008 is better than 125 in 2018?  I just don't see it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Adding Caldwell, Burroughs and O'Connor added exactly 1 AA finish a 5th place going into that bracket.

 

Here is why 125 in 2018 is better.  Going into the tournament it had 2 returning champs and 2 returning finalists, none of which even made the finals.  That is why it's better if only considering prior results.  

If incorporating future results (which I think is misleading), then this weight class will finish with more finalist and AA finishers.  149 has 22 AA's, 125 has 20 already with Lee and Rivera 2 more years and Suriano 1 more year and will likely finish with 25 AA's.

At the end of the each tourney 125 had 3 champions (Lee, Cruz and Tomasello) 6 finalists and 15 AA's. 149 had 2 champions (Metcalf and Schlatter), 4 finalists and 14 AA's.  So it's better in all 3 areas.  Tell me why again 149 in 2008 is better than 125 in 2018?  I just don't see it.  

And THAT is where the subjective reasoning comes in. And my answer to you is: Because the top 12 wrestlers at 149 were considerably better than their 125 counterparts, which is why I said agree to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×