Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jimmy Cinnabon

Looking back, who had the better career Nickal or Nolf?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I'm of the opposite view.

I believe Martin had his eye on the prize earlier. Decided long ago he wanted to chase 2020. He also did things for team purposes, such as no redshirt and going 184 his soph year and giving it a go his true frosh year.

I believe you line them up year by year Martin beats Ruth more than not and that Martin could have easily made the same weight classes as Ruth the same years(factor in a Martin redshirt).

Ruth just didn't have a Nickal. He could beat Nickal, however I don't see any version if him beating this seasons Nickal more often than not. Keep in mind Soph version of Nickal beat Senior Dean. Frosh Dean beat Senior Ruth. There are direct correlations that support Nickal > Dean.

My memory might be hazy but didn't Ruth lose to Dean in the preseason at Midlands or the Scuffle, then avenge that loss a few months later at Nationals? And I thought Bo beat Dean in the finals by the skin of his teeth on a somewhat controversial non-TD? I dunno, they're all on the same level and if you were to match the 3 up with one another you'd get totally different results on any given day .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, pamela said:

My memory might be hazy but didn't Ruth lose to Dean in the preseason at Midlands or the Scuffle, then avenge that loss a few months later at Nationals? And I thought Bo beat Dean in the finals by the skin of his teeth on a somewhat controversial non-TD? I dunno, they're all on the same level and if you were to match the 3 up with one another you'd get totally different results on any given day .

Even so.

Dean didn't beat Nickal.

Soph Nickal beat Senior Dean. 1-0 record against him.

Senior Ruth beat Frosh Dean and lost to Frosh Dean. 2-1 record against him.

Skin of the teeth or not.  Results are results.

Share this post


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

You make it sound like we could have the three of them wrestle again and we'd get the exact same results each time, and that's where we disagree.

I comfortably believe that Senior Dean beats Senior Ruth. Typical Dean style match.

Soph Nickal beat Senior Dean in a Dean style match 

That makes me believe that Senior Nickal comfortably beats either Senior Dean or Senior Ruth.

Keep your beer goggles on all you want, but Nickal may have improved as much as anyone the last two years and the Soph version of him beat the Senior version of someone whom the Frosh version beat the Senior version of.

Quit ignoring statistical fact. Accept what is a reasonable statement as a reasonable statement.

Unless you believe Senior Dean was considerably worse than Frosh Dean.

Then you have a very strong case.

Otherwise sit down.

Edited by nhs67
I have fat fingers and need to spellcheck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I comfortably believe that Senior Dean beats Senior Ruth. Typical Dean style match.

Soph Nickal beat Senior Dean in a Dean style match 

That makes me believe that Senior Nickal comfortably beats either Senior Dean or Senior Ruth.

Keep your beer goggles on all you want, but Nickal may have improved as much as anyone the last two years and the Soph version of him beat the Senior version of someone whom the Frosh version beat the Senior version of.

Quit ignoring statistical fact. Accept what is a reasonable statement as a reasonable statement.

Unless you believe Senior Dean was considerably worse than Frosh Dean.

Then you have a very strong case.

Otherwise sit down.

That's not a statistical fact. You're making an inferential leap based on one data point in which Nickal beat Dean by a hair. Neither a trend nor a "statistical fact" does a single data point make.

No one is saying that it isn't possible for Senior Nickal to beat Senior Dean, or that Senior Dean could beat Senior Ruth; you're just implying that both would happen 100 times out of 100, which is not statistically proven to the confidence level you presume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, pamela said:

That's not a statistical fact. You're making an inferential leap based on one data point in which Nickal beat Dean by a hair. Neither a trend nor a "statistical fact" does a single data point make.

No one is saying that it isn't possible for Senior Nickal to beat Senior Dean, or that Senior Dean could beat Senior Ruth; you're just implying that both would happen 100 times out of 100, which is not statistically proven to the confidence level you presume.

No I'm not, quit being a Diva.

I am saying that my opinion is that Nickal wins much more than he loses against Ruth then I am backing my basis up with statistical data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

No I'm not, quit being a Diva.

I am saying that my opinion is that Nickal wins much more than he loses against Ruth then I am backing my basis up with statistical data.

Again, one data point is not "statistical data". That's like saying you know the White Sox are going to win the World Series based on the "statistical data" that they won a game yesterday.

Also, who's being a diva? You're the one resorting to name-calling and clap-back language.

Share this post


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

Again, one data point is not "statistical data". That's like saying you know the White Sox are going to win the World Series based on the "statistical data" that they won a game yesterday.

Also, who's being a diva? You're the one resorting to name-calling and clap-back language.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

You are refuting statistical data as not being statistical data. Whether one match, three matches, or twenty matches, numbers are numbers and numbers equal data.

I never said any result was certain and merely stated how I believed it would happen. I never said Bo from this year would pin Senior Dean 100/100 times and Senior Dean would pin Senior Ruth 100/100 times so Senior Nickal would pin Senior Ruth 100/100 times. Because you want to jump to conclusions and trip over actual results, that is what makes you a Diva.

While we're going about ignoring results I would like to also act like the 2017 All-Star classic didn't actually happen. Hall should have been the 1 seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

You are refuting statistical data as not being statistical data. Whether one match, three matches, or twenty matches, numbers are numbers and numbers equal data.

 I never said any result was certain and merely stated how I believed it would happen. I never said Bo from this year would pin Senior Dean 100/100 times and Senior Dean would pin Senior Ruth 100/100 times so Senior Nickal would pin Senior Ruth 100/100 times. Because you want to jump to conclusions and trip over actual results, that is what makes you a Diva.

 While we're going about ignoring results I would like to also act like the 2017 All-Star classic didn't actually happen. Hall should have been the 1 seed.

Sorry, but data is not the same as a statistics and you are implying that because of your "statistical facts" (aka, one data point) you can predict a result with certainty. That's not how it works.

Share this post


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

Sorry, but data is not the same as a statistics and you are implying that because of your "statistical facts" (aka, one data point) you can predict a result with certainty. That's not how it works.

Eh, I mean... okay. Whatever you need to tell yourself to help you sleep better tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Eh, I mean... okay. Whatever you need to tell yourself to help you sleep better tonight.

You're projecting. I can tell that you don't even believe your own BS. That's why you're getting so emotionally charged, like a - what's the word? - diva?

Your responses have literally been: 

  • "even so"
  • this one data point makes me right
  • "sit down"
  • some name-calling
  • but, but, but this one data point is makes me statistically correct
  • slight pivot
  • more name-calling
  • but, my single data poiiiinnnnt
  • more pivoting
  • now I'll try to end this with an insult because I know deep down that I'm wrong but I'm too ashamed to admit it

lol

Share this post


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

You're projecting. I can tell that you don't even believe your own BS. That's why you're getting so emotionally charged, like a - what's the word? - diva?

Your responses have literally been: 

  • "even so"
  • this one data point makes me right
  • "sit down"
  • some name-calling
  • but, but, but this one data point is makes me statistically correct
  • slight pivot
  • more name-calling
  • but, my single data poiiiinnnnt
  • more pivoting
  • now I'll try to end this with an insult because I know deep down that I'm wrong but I'm too ashamed to admit it

lol

I mean... as I already said... just tell yourself whatever makes you feel better. Laugh about it. Inside. Outside. Whatever. I frankly don't care much further. I tried to explain reason. It didn't work. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

I mean... as I already said... just tell yourself whatever makes you feel better. Laugh about it. Inside. Outside. Whatever. I frankly don't care much further. I tried to explain reason. It didn't work. Oh well.

Your backpedaling does make me feel better, thanks! 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×