Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superold

Is Dake better than Taylor?

Recommended Posts

Nerd-That was a spot on post bro. I hope some PSU fans (not all) read that and realize that is exactly what you sound like. Over and over regardless of results and what you see on the mat, that is what you sound like. To be fair a lot of you PSU guys are not like that, but Tigs and Mopar and their buddies could really benefit from reading Nerd's post. Good job Nerd!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would Taylor fans argue that Larry Owings was a better wrestler than Gable?

 

He actually has a win against him and Gable had a win against him in freestyle (which we know only counts when it helps your argument)

 

Also, factor in that Owings was cutting something like 40 pounds.

 

Wow Owings was cutting 40 pounds and was still able to beat Gable? I didn't know that. That's even more reason to be impressed with the accomplishment.

 

I'm not sure I can speak for "Taylor fans" but this does fall into the category of "lessor wrestlers" beating a superior opponent head to head but not being the better wrestler. I'm sure "Taylor fans" would agree with that. In fact I think anyone, regardless of who you are a fan of would agree with that. What do you think, who was the better wrestler, the winner or Gable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure I can speak for "Taylor fans" but this does fall into the category of "lessor wrestlers" beating a superior opponent head to head but not being the better wrestler. I'm sure "Taylor fans" would agree with that. In fact I think anyone, regardless of who you are a fan of would agree with that. What do you think, who was the better wrestler, the winner or Gable?

 

Are you saying here that the results of the Dake-Taylor matchups fall into this category and that Taylor is the superior opponent?

 

Or are you saying that Gable-Owings falls into this category? Because that I (somewhat) agree with. I believe Gable was the better overall NCAA wrestler of the two - but I think Owings was better than Gable on the day when he beat him. From what I understand, Owings trained specifically to beat Gable. His goal was to beat Gable. He woke every morning and went to bed every night for the entire season dreaming and focusing on how he was going to beat Gable. Everything he did, everything he ate (or didnt eat), every move he practiced - everything - was done towards accomplishing his goal of beating Gable. He was so focused on his goal, that he pinned his way to the finals that year in the bottom bracket, as Gable pinned his way to the finals in the top bracket. Then, in the finals - Owings accomplished his goal - he beat Gable.

 

So, I believe that Owings studied Gable's every move, learned counters to Gable's moves, learned how to exploit Gable's (few) weaknesses - and trained himself to be better than Gable that year in the finals. And, I don't believe Owings' victory over Gable was a fluke because he trained all year for it.

 

This one-dimensional focus of beating Gable did not translate to Owings being a better wrestler because Gable had better technique, better mat sense, etc. But, it did make Owings better for that one day, which is why we are still talking about him 40 years later.

 

This is not the same situation as Dake-Taylor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is arguably the dumbest of the year so far. I am a PSU fan and a Taylor fan, and right now Dake just plain owns him. This may or may not change in freestyle but as far as folkstyle is concern the verdict has already been rendered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not. I'm saying sometimes the better wrestler loses to an opponent he is better than. I think the Gable/Owings match showcases this perfectly and the argument has been made for Taylor/Dake being the same thing.

 

So this happened four times the better wrestler was not victorious, what bad luck. And not just in folk style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not. I'm saying sometimes the better wrestler loses to an opponent he is better than. I think the Gable/Owings match showcases this perfectly and the argument has been made for Taylor/Dake being the same thing.

 

A weak argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dake/Taylor happened once in the NCAA finals, it would be compared to Gable/Owings. But it happened four times, and Dake is 4-0. If Owings was 4-0 against Gable, Gable would never have become the legend he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not. I'm saying sometimes the better wrestler loses to an opponent he is better than. I think the Gable/Owings match showcases this perfectly and the argument has been made for Taylor/Dake being the same thing.

 

Which might have made a small bit of sense the first time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And less sense the second time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And none at all the third time Dake beat Taylor this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not. I'm saying sometimes the better wrestler loses to an opponent he is better than. I think the Gable/Owings match showcases this perfectly and the argument has been made for Taylor/Dake being the same thing.

 

Which might have made a small bit of sense the first time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And less sense the second time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And none at all the third time Dake beat Taylor this season.

I'm a firm believer that Dake is better than Taylor. However, there are some cases where a lesser wrestler is simply a bad style matchup for the better wrestler. As I said though, I don't think that's the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not. I'm saying sometimes the better wrestler loses to an opponent he is better than. I think the Gable/Owings match showcases this perfectly and the argument has been made for Taylor/Dake being the same thing.

 

So this happened four times the better wrestler was not victorious, what bad luck. And not just in folk style.

 

Well if we're discussing folkstyle, I really don't see what results in other styles have to do with it. Lets say Dake is the better thumb wrestler, or the better sumo wrestler, great, so what? And I'm not sure anyone other than you is attributing it to luck. What was being discussed here is one wrestler being a bad match up for another, in spite of the other wrestler being better. You're usually a little sharper when discussing Burroughs or Caldwell, in this case seems like you're out to lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not. I'm saying sometimes the better wrestler loses to an opponent he is better than. I think the Gable/Owings match showcases this perfectly and the argument has been made for Taylor/Dake being the same thing.

 

Which might have made a small bit of sense the first time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And less sense the second time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And none at all the third time Dake beat Taylor this season.

I'm a firm believer that Dake is better than Taylor. However, there are some cases where a lesser wrestler is simply a bad style matchup for the better wrestler. As I said though, I don't think that's the case here.

 

I think Dake is significantly better than Taylor in Freestyle or Greco and with their rivalry done in college, the talk will eventually shift to who is the better international wrestler. Fortunately that one we should get many chances at finding out. I don't necessarily subscribe to the bad match up argument but it certainly is plausible. The one that is compelling to me is how Taylor dismantles guys Dake squeaks by. That and the eye test. Taylor just looks like the better wrestler. Those make me wonder if Dake is better, or if he is simply a bad match up for Taylor in folk. I lean slightly, perhaps 50.5 % to 49.5% in Dake's favor but I certainly wouldn't argue one way or the other. Now in the international style, I don't see Taylor having much of a chance. Dake is clearly better. Watch their matches against Howe, ignore the head to head if you wish, and you see guys at different levels out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which might have made a small bit of sense the first time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And less sense the second time Dake beat Taylor this season.

 

And none at all the third time Dake beat Taylor this season.

I'm a firm believer that Dake is better than Taylor. However, there are some cases where a lesser wrestler is simply a bad style matchup for the better wrestler. As I said though, I don't think that's the case here.

 

I think Dake is significantly better than Taylor in Freestyle or Greco and with their rivalry done in college, the talk will eventually shift to who is the better international wrestler. Fortunately that one we should get many chances at finding out. I don't necessarily subscribe to the bad match up argument but it certainly is plausible. The one that is compelling to me is how Taylor dismantles guys Dake squeaks by. That and the eye test. Taylor just looks like the better wrestler. Those make me wonder if Dake is better, or if he is simply a bad match up for Taylor in folk. I lean slightly, perhaps 50.5 % to 49.5% in Dake's favor but I certainly wouldn't argue one way or the other. Now in the international style, I don't see Taylor having much of a chance. Dake is clearly better. Watch their matches against Howe, ignore the head to head if you wish, and you see guys at different levels out there.

 

That's just it though, Dake isn't squeaking by anyone. He just isn't putting up a ton of points. I can see if Dake winning matches 8-7 on last second takedowns, you could call that squeaking by, but him isn't. His matches are never in doubt even for a second. He could wrestle Caldwell and Yates for hours and not give up a single offensive point. All the while, he can scores when he needs to and won't put himself at unnecessary risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "eye test" means nothing because superiority is always in the eye of the beholder so to speak. What could be a plausible argument would be comparing results against common opponents, however, what goes hand in hand with this is overall performance. For example, if you are going to use the "bad matchup" theory, Wrestler A must have consistently superior results to Wrestler B, yet always lose to Wrestler B head to head, and then you could say that wrestler A is better but for some reason can't beat B. However, if this were the case, Wrestler A would be a NCAA champ caliber wrester, and Wrestler B would be borderline All American or non-placer, and then you could say the B simply has A's number despite not being as good. This exact reason is why USA wrestling makes it difficult to take away a returning World medalists spot on the team. Like if Howe beats Burroughs, he might have had his number at the Trials, but would not be better on the World stage.

 

But then try to apply this logic to Dake and Taylor. If Taylor was so much better, despite losing head to head every time to Dake, then Taylor must have superior college credentials. But this is not the case. Dake went 1-1-1-1 with no redshirt, including the final title over Taylor. Taylor has gone 2-1-2, with a redshirt, losing twice in the finals so far (something Dake never did), and if he hadn't redshirted most likely would have finished his career this year having gone DNP-2-1-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's another thing to consider. Many people keep saying that if they were going to build a team, they would take Taylor because of his bonus point wins and falls against guys that Dake only beat 10-0, or maybe even 4-0. Well, since we're living in fantasy land here, let's imagine making up a fantasy tournament, with the bracket filled out with the best wrestlers to come through 165 in the last 15 years or so. So guys like Burroughs, Hendricks, Letters, Perry, Howe, Dake, Taylor, Heskett, Pritzlaff, Lackey, etc. And you had to put money on either Dake or Taylor to make it farther in the tournament. Forget bonus point wins. In normal sports people pay attention to the bottom line, how far did you make it in the tournament? Not how much did you win each game by. So, who do you put money on to make it farther in a tournament against an elite field like that? It would be a tall order to expect anyone to advance through a field like that, but my money would be on Dake to make it farther than Taylor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here's another thing to consider. Many people keep saying that if they were going to build a team, they would take Taylor because of his bonus point wins and falls against guys that Dake only beat 10-0, or maybe even 4-0. Well, since we're living in fantasy land here, let's imagine making up a fantasy tournament, with the bracket filled out with the best wrestlers to come through 165 in the last 15 years or so. So guys like Burroughs, Hendricks, Letters, Perry, Howe, Dake, Taylor, Heskett, Pritzlaff, Lackey, etc. And you had to put money on either Dake or Taylor to make it farther in the tournament. Forget bonus point wins. In normal sports people pay attention to the bottom line, how far did you make it in the tournament? Not how much did you win each game by. So, who do you put money on to make it farther in a tournament against an elite field like that? It would be a tall order to expect anyone to advance through a field like that, but my money would be on Dake to make it farther than Taylor.

 

 

Interesting, I had thought of this exact thing. The way to really tell who is better, is to put them in against better folk competition and see who makes it further. With them being the 2 best, we are left with having to speculate as to whether we're seeing a bad match up type situation. The best way would be this exact scenario. Who advances further in the tournament, that's the better wrestler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "eye test" means nothing because superiority is always in the eye of the beholder so to speak. What could be a plausible argument would be comparing results against common opponents, however, what goes hand in hand with this is overall performance. For example, if you are going to use the "bad matchup" theory, Wrestler A must have consistently superior results to Wrestler B, yet always lose to Wrestler B head to head, and then you could say that wrestler A is better but for some reason can't beat B. However, if this were the case, Wrestler A would be a NCAA champ caliber wrester, and Wrestler B would be borderline All American or non-placer, and then you could say the B simply has A's number despite not being as good. This exact reason is why USA wrestling makes it difficult to take away a returning World medalists spot on the team. Like if Howe beats Burroughs, he might have had his number at the Trials, but would not be better on the World stage.

 

But then try to apply this logic to Dake and Taylor. If Taylor was so much better, despite losing head to head every time to Dake, then Taylor must have superior college credentials. But this is not the case. Dake went 1-1-1-1 with no redshirt, including the final title over Taylor. Taylor has gone 2-1-2, with a redshirt, losing twice in the finals so far (something Dake never did), and if he hadn't redshirted most likely would have finished his career this year having gone DNP-2-1-2.

 

But lets not kid ourselves, Taylor walks right through the weight classes Dake had to go through his first 3 years. There's a reason Dake was cutting so hard and rightfully so, he had to get to the ideal weight class for him to have success. As a big weight cutter myself back in HS and college, he has all my respect for making the sacrifice and getting it done. Taylor was more content to wrestle up as a frosh and take his lumps then prior to starting the following season. Two different situations altogether that really have no bearing on who is better than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, I had thought of this exact thing. The way to really tell who is better, is to put them in against better folk competition and see who makes it further. With them being the 2 best, we are left with having to speculate as to whether we're seeing a bad match up type situation. The best way would be this exact scenario. Who advances further in the tournament, that's the better wrestler.

 

If only there had been a tournament just a few weeks ago that allowed us to see who got further between the two of them.

 

If only.

 

p3gKhvl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And none at all the third time Dake beat Taylor this season.

I'm a firm believer that Dake is better than Taylor. However, there are some cases where a lesser wrestler is simply a bad style matchup for the better wrestler. As I said though, I don't think that's the case here.

 

I think Dake is significantly better than Taylor in Freestyle or Greco and with their rivalry done in college, the talk will eventually shift to who is the better international wrestler. Fortunately that one we should get many chances at finding out. I don't necessarily subscribe to the bad match up argument but it certainly is plausible. The one that is compelling to me is how Taylor dismantles guys Dake squeaks by. That and the eye test. Taylor just looks like the better wrestler. Those make me wonder if Dake is better, or if he is simply a bad match up for Taylor in folk. I lean slightly, perhaps 50.5 % to 49.5% in Dake's favor but I certainly wouldn't argue one way or the other. Now in the international style, I don't see Taylor having much of a chance. Dake is clearly better. Watch their matches against Howe, ignore the head to head if you wish, and you see guys at different levels out there.

 

That's just it though, Dake isn't squeaking by anyone. He just isn't putting up a ton of points. I can see if Dake winning matches 8-7 on last second takedowns, you could call that squeaking by, but him isn't. His matches are never in doubt even for a second. He could wrestle Caldwell and Yates for hours and not give up a single offensive point. All the while, he can scores when he needs to and won't put himself at unnecessary risk.

 

 

Relative to what Taylor does, Dake squeaks by. No one thinks he is barely winning at the buzzer, the performances are relative. And that makes many people believe that Taylor is better and is merely the victim of a bad match up. I personally believe Dake is probably a smidgen better, because of being stronger. If Taylor ever hits puberty and gets his man muscles, I'd expect him to be better in folk than Dake. Of course Dake is done with folk but you never know. Maybe when they're both 40 they'll meet up in a closed room and settle it once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...