Jump to content
irani

Three gold olympic medal club

Recommended Posts

As far as I know, only two people have three gold medals in freestyle wrestling, Medved and Satiev (should have had four)

Who are others who came close, and could have had three.  Below is my list

  1. Most obvious, Arsen Fadzehev - won gold from 1983 - 1992.  Almost a sure bet to win the 1984 gold if it wasn't for the stupid boycott
  2. Sergei Beloglazov - Another obvious choise, victimized by the stupid boycott
  3. Yarygin -  won gold in 1972 and 1974, but allegedly While preparing for the Moscow Olympics herealized that the young Soviet wrestler Ilya Mate has a better chance for the gold medal (which he indeed won), decided to retire.  He was the 1979 gold medadlist, so if the story is true, I think he made a terrible mistake and missed an opportunity to be a member of a very elite club
  4. Khadartsev Two golds and one silver, one match away
  5. Bruce Baumgartner -  The man has two golds, one silver, and one bronze.  He was probably one match away from getting three golds
  6. Gholam Reza  -  He has one gold, one silver, one bronze and one forth place .  Not as close as others, but still had a shot

Who did I miss?

 

Edited by irani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, irani said:

As far as I know, only two people have three gold medals in freestyle wrestling, Medved and Satiev (should have had four)

Who are others who came close, and could have had three.  Below is my list

  1. Most obvious, Arsen Fadzehev - won gold from 1983 - 1992.  Almost a sure bet to win the 1984 gold if it wasn't for the stupid boycott
  2. Sergei Beloglazov - Another obvious choise, victimized by the stupid boycott
  3. Yarygin -  won gold in 1972 and 1974, but allegedly While preparing for the Moscow Olympics herealized that the young Soviet wrestler Ilya Mate has a better chance for the gold medal (which he indeed won), decided to retire.  He was the 1979 gold medadlist, so if the story is true, I think he made a terrible mistake and missed an opportunity to be a member of a very elite club
  4. Khadartsev Two golds and one silver, one match away
  5. Bruce Baumgartner -  The man has two golds, one silver, and one bronze.  He was probably one match away from getting three golds
  6. Gholam Reza  -  He has one gold, one silver, one bronze and one forth place .  Not as close as others, but still had a shot

Who did I miss?

 

Why should Satiev have had 4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bozak2018 said:

Why should Satiev have had 4?

Slay won it fair and square, but I believe Satiev was the better wreslter, and 9 out of 10 times, he would have won

Share this post


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

Slay won it fair and square, but I believe Satiev was the better wreslter, and 9 out of 10 times, he would have won

Could have 4, is a much better way of saying it than should have 4

Share this post


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

Slay won it fair and square, but I believe Satiev was the better wreslter, and 9 out of 10 times, he would have won

Alexander Karelin, should've won 4 by your thinking.  But there's no awards for shoulda could woulda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nutterbutter said:

Alexander Karelin, should've won 4 by your thinking.  But there's no awards for shoulda could woulda.

Not sure there is a disagreement here.  There is no award for Satiev other than the 3 gold medals.  However, he had the best chance of anyone in history to get 4 gold Olympid medals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nutterbutter said:

Alexander Karelin, should've won 4 by your thinking.  But there's no awards for shoulda could woulda.

In the spirit of being picky for something to argue about, I'll disagree with that comparison.  When Karelin lost, he was obviously on much decline, at the lowest "level" he had been throughout his tremendous 13 years.  Karelin never wrestled another match, and his defeater would win Gold again the following year plus another medal in the following Olympics.  Satiev on the other hand would go on to win two olympic and three world gold after that shocking defeat, only losing one in those eight years.  Two entirely different situations.  

Share this post


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

In the spirit of being picky for something to argue about, I'll disagree with that comparison.  When Karelin lost, he was obviously on much decline, at the lowest "level" he had been throughout his tremendous 13 years.  Karelin never wrestled another match, and his defeater would win Gold again the following year plus another medal in the following Olympics.  Satiev on the other hand would go on to win two olympic and three world gold after that shocking defeat, only losing one in those eight years.  Two entirely different situations.  

Excellent point!

Share this post


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

In the spirit of being picky for something to argue about, I'll disagree with that comparison.  When Karelin lost, he was obviously on much decline, at the lowest "level" he had been throughout his tremendous 13 years.  Karelin never wrestled another match, and his defeater would win Gold again the following year plus another medal in the following Olympics.  Satiev on the other hand would go on to win two olympic and three world gold after that shocking defeat, only losing one in those eight years.  Two entirely different situations.  

Neither "should've" won which is my point.  I agree though with your premise.  Just the language of should've is what I disagreed with.  I think we're all on the same page, it's just verbiage semantics.

Edited by Nutterbutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, irani said:

Not sure there is a disagreement here.  There is no award for Satiev other than the 3 gold medals.  However, he had the best chance of anyone in history to get 4 gold Olympid medals

I agree that he had the best chance.

Share this post


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

Neither "should've" won which is my point.  I agree though with your premise.  Just the language of should've is what I disagreed with.  I think we're all on the same page, it's just verbiage semantics.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lurker said:

agreed

I think we are all in agreement.  I did not mean "should have" as in "he was robbed" or "there was a bad call"  .  I mean't given his skills and abilitiy and performance before and after that match, that is a match that he could have and should have won

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, irani said:

I think we are all in agreement.  I did not mean "should have" as in "he was robbed" or "there was a bad call"  .  I mean't given his skills and abilitiy and performance before and after that match, that is a match that he could have and should have won

Agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the spirit of being picky for something to argue about, I'll disagree with that comparison.  When Karelin lost, he was obviously on much decline, at the lowest "level" he had been throughout his tremendous 13 years.  Karelin never wrestled another match, and his defeater would win Gold again the following year plus another medal in the following Olympics.  Satiev on the other hand would go on to win two olympic and three world gold after that shocking defeat, only losing one in those eight years.  Two entirely different situations.  

Beat me to it! Saitiev was coming off of a dominating performance 1996 at a very young age. He was hitting what most would consider to be a wrestlers prime in 2000.

I’d also add that Karelian was a heavyweight, and they generally have more longevity. Strength is the last thing to go, while for a lighter weight speed and agility’s the first to go That’s why We say John Smith was our greatest, instead of Big Bruce. That’s why we consider Saitiev the best, instead of Medved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 5 favorites are #1 Fadzaev  #2 Sergei Belaglozov and after that Burroughs, Smith and Baumgartner....I don't think 1 and 2 will ever change for me....both were "machines", and ironically team mates and have almost identical results/resumes.  (I just realized this probably is in the wrong post....sorry about that)

Edited by fadzaev2

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...