Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

I am sorry, but it is a VERY disingenuous argument.  Early rankings don't mean a ton if they don't end up proving themselves when they matter.  Sort of like Clemson in football this year.  In hindsight, are you really saying that Georgia vs. Clemson was a tossup after seeing how much better Georgia actually proved themselves to be?

To the contrary, it is a completely genuine argument.

And it is why most people are very bad at picking stocks. They repeat mistakes because they find it nearly impossible to go back to a state of mind when they did not know something. The cure is to enforce the discipline of writing down your investment thesis before investing. Then you can check the accuracy of your a priori thinking ex post.

The good news is with the search function on this website we can know exactly what the consensus thinking was before the dual meet. In this way we can know who were thought to be toss ups before the meet (just as you are attempting to asses favorites before this year's meet). It is disingenuous to claim that RBY/DeSanto was not considered a toss up going in just because you know what the ultimate result was, particularly since the last data points we all had prior to that match up were DeSanto wins by 5 at NCAAs and by 4 at Big 10s.

While I appreciate you attempting to argue your point with an irrelevant tangent, the proper question is what was the point spread going into the Georgia vs. Clemson game? You can not define what is thought to be a toss up before the game by observing the results after the game. The whole point here is you are criticizing a prediction, which definitionally means you do not yet know the result.

Share this post


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

Let me add, to put some egg on my face, I absolutely thought DeSanto would beat RBY going into that match.  He had proven to be so much more physical and active in their prior matches.  I simply didn't see how RBY could negate his advantage in the ties and RBY wasn't going to simply wrestle from space because that had never really been his style.  Putting the arm back was ingenious and I never would have even considered it.

As soon as I saw you write that I knew you didn't watch closely enough, or even listen closely enough. Pretty sure I even brought this up to you at some point that off season, although I won't look for it. 

 

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

While I appreciate you turning up the volume and spelling your punctuation, you are just using confirmation bias. The reality is that before we knew what we knew after the match, Brooks and RBY were considered toss ups. Try reading the statements from before, since you can't forget what you know after.

Well done. 

Share this post


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

To the contrary, it is a completely genuine argument.

And it is why most people are very bad at picking stocks. They repeat mistakes because they find it nearly impossible to go back to a state of mind when they did not know something. The cure is to enforce the discipline of writing down your investment thesis before investing. Then you can check the accuracy of your a priori thinking ex post.

The good news is with the search function on this website we can know exactly what the consensus thinking was before the dual meet. In this way we can know who were thought to be toss ups before the meet (just as you are attempting to asses favorites before this year's meet). It is disingenuous to claim that RBY/DeSanto was not considered a toss up going in just because you know what the ultimate result was, particularly since the last data points we all had prior to that match up were DeSanto wins by 5 at NCAAs and by 4 at Big 10s.

While I appreciate you attempting to argue your point with an irrelevant tangent, the proper question is what was the point spread going into the Georgia vs. Clemson game? You can not define what is thought to be a toss up before the game by observing the results after the game. The whole point here is you are criticizing a prediction, which definitionally means you do not yet know the result.

 I am not arguing what was considered a toss up prior to the match. I am arguing whether or not the wrestlers themselves were actually that close of a matchup that something like Carver could have actually influenced the result. I will happily concede they were rightly considered toss ups at that time. But, that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument. 
 

The argument is about Carver’s influence and I would say it was paramount in the Hall match and gave momentum to Iowa in every winnable match with the exception of Joseph and Marinelli.  To me, I don’t think DeSanto beats RBY that day no matter where they wrestle and Brooks proved he was considerably better than Assad that day and every day thereafter. 
 

if you disagree with that, we can agree to disagree or you can disagree all the way and I will digress. Either way we will see how it pans out in a few weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

As soon as I saw you write that I knew you didn't watch closely enough, or even listen closely enough. Pretty sure I even brought this up to you at some point that off season, although I won't look for it. 

I conceded everything about that after it happened and have ever since. Have I  not?  Hell, I just did it again. 
 

As far as the well done goes, I am not arguing against PSU winning those matches, I am actually arguing that those 2 PROVED to be much better that day and have shown it ever since, especially Brooks. All I was saying was no matter where those matches were wrestled RBY and Brooks were winning those matches that day. Period.  Not sure why it is deserving of a well done, other than you are happy someone else is debating on PSU’s behalf on a topic where I am actually the one arguing RBY and Brooks were clearly better than their Iowa opponents that day and have proven to be ever since.

I would think what I posted would be what makes you happy…

Share this post


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

I conceded everything about that after it happened and have ever since. Have I  not?  Hell, I just did it again. 
 

As far as the well done goes, I am not arguing against PSU winning those matches, I am actually arguing that those 2 PROVED to be much better that day and have shown it ever since, especially Brooks. All I was saying was no matter where those matches were wrestled RBY and Brooks were winning those matches that day. Period.  Not sure why it is deserving of a well done, other than you are happy someone else is debating on PSU’s behalf on a topic where I am actually the one arguing RBY and Brooks were clearly better than their Iowa opponents that day and have proven to be ever since.

I would think what I posted would be what makes you happy…

The Well Done was not intended for you, but rather for Wrestleknownothing for his keen observation. 

Share this post


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

 I am not arguing what was considered a toss up prior to the match. I am arguing whether or not the wrestlers themselves were actually that close of a matchup that something like Carver could have actually influenced the result. I will happily concede they were rightly considered toss ups at that time. But, that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument. 
 

The argument is about Carver’s influence and I would say it was paramount in the Hall match and gave momentum to Iowa in every winnable match with the exception of Joseph and Marinelli.  To me, I don’t think DeSanto beats RBY that day no matter where they wrestle and Brooks proved he was considerably better than Assad that day and every day thereafter. 
 

if you disagree with that, we can agree to disagree or you can disagree all the way and I will digress. Either way we will see how it pans out in a few weeks. 

I am arguing against the Carver effect (rather than for PSU).

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the Kemerer/Hall match is an example of the Carver effect, but the RBY/DeSanto and Assad/Brooks matches don't count. If there was a Carver effect it would apply in all cases. Why didn't the Carver effect help Happel keep it to a MD or regular decision rather than a tech (and who are we kidding? it was a pin)? I just think the Carver effect is not really a thing. 

Share this post


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

I conceded everything about that after it happened and have ever since. Have I  not?  Hell, I just did it again. 
 

As far as the well done goes, I am not arguing against PSU winning those matches, I am actually arguing that those 2 PROVED to be much better that day and have shown it ever since, especially Brooks. All I was saying was no matter where those matches were wrestled RBY and Brooks were winning those matches that day. Period.  Not sure why it is deserving of a well done, other than you are happy someone else is debating on PSU’s behalf on a topic where I am actually the one arguing RBY and Brooks were clearly better than their Iowa opponents that day and have proven to be ever since.

I would think what I posted would be what makes you happy…

By the way, I will be at Carver again for the PSU / Iowa dual this year. Can we start calling it a Wrestleknownothing effect? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it start at 125 for sure?  If so, I could see Ayala pumped up, winning and getting Iowa all pumped up.
I also see the Brands Bros and the entire state of Iowa coming up with a counter for the "one armed man" at 133.  I would not be suprised to see DeSanto win (one for the Gipper/S. Lee).
41, 49, 57 toss ups.  2-1 one team or the other.
Marinelli by decision.
Kemmerer wins one for the Gipper/S. Lee, his home boy.  
84, 97 to PSU by decisions
Cass Lite wins a very close one, Carver goes wild.

Lots of very close matches.  Very close match.  Iowa needs a good start for the home field advantage.  Assuming it starts at 125, they have to win at least 2 of the first 3.  The Brands Bros have to stay off the (blanking)mat.  One team point deduction could be critical.  I hope Covid tests don't rob us of a great match.  Iowa by 3-5.
 

Edited by BerniePragle

Share this post


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

Will it start at 125 for sure?  If so, I could see Ayala pumped up, winning and getting Iowa all pumped up.
I also see the Brands Bros and the entire state of Iowa coming up with a counter for the "one armed man" at 133.  I would not be suprised to see DeSanto win (one for the Gipper/S. Lee).
41, 49, 57 toss ups.  2-1 one team or the other.
Marinelli by decision.
Kemmerer wins one for the Gipper/S. Lee, his home boy.  
84, 97 to PSU by decisions
Cass Lite wins a very close one, Carver goes wild.

Lots of very close matches.  Very close match.  Iowa needs a good start for the home field advantage.  Assuming it starts at 125, they have to win at least 2 of the first 3.  The Brands Bros have to stay off the (blanking)mat.  One team point deduction could be critical.  I hope Covid tests don't rob us of a great match.  Iowa by 3-5.
 

could happen and would be an epic win for hawkeyes - so looking forward to it

 

Share this post


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

Will it start at 125 for sure?  If so, I could see Ayala pumped up, winning and getting Iowa all pumped up.
I also see the Brands Bros and the entire state of Iowa coming up with a counter for the "one armed man" at 133.  I would not be suprised to see DeSanto win (one for the Gipper/S. Lee).
41, 49, 57 toss ups.  2-1 one team or the other.
Marinelli by decision.
Kemmerer wins one for the Gipper/S. Lee, his home boy.  
84, 97 to PSU by decisions
Cass Lite wins a very close one, Carver goes wild.

Lots of very close matches.  Very close match.  Iowa needs a good start for the home field advantage.  Assuming it starts at 125, they have to win at least 2 of the first 3.  The Brands Bros have to stay off the (blanking)mat.  One team point deduction could be critical.  I hope Covid tests don't rob us of a great match.  Iowa by 3-5.
 

I saw something today but don’t know if true, NCAA is accepting a past case of covid as fully vaccinated, in other words acknowledging natural immunity as same as vaccinated. If nothing else can cut down time to return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HoundedHawk said:

Good lord, have you ever heard of the home field advantage?  

Do you actually think it doesn't exist?

Oh, it exists to varying degrees in some sports, but to call the Carver Effect something as plain Jane as a simple home court advantage is a bit of an insult to its mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrestlers have acknowledged the "Carver effect" personally so I'll defer to them. The last one I remember clearly talking about it was Pletcher but I know there have been others. I'll try to hunt the interviews down. Even Iowa wrestlers have spoken about it: the question of "what's it like wrestling in carver" is asked every year for a first time starter so there is something to it.

Share this post


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

I saw something today but don’t know if true, NCAA is accepting a past case of covid as fully vaccinated, in other words acknowledging natural immunity as same as vaccinated. If nothing else can cut down time to return. 

That seems highly unlikely. Mainly because it is over-the-top ridiculously stupid. But at the same time, also somewhat possible because it is the NCAA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lurker said:

I saw something today but don’t know if true, NCAA is accepting a past case of covid as fully vaccinated, in other words acknowledging natural immunity as same as vaccinated. If nothing else can cut down time to return. 

https://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2022-01-06/ncaa-releases-updated-covid-19-guidance-winter-sports

But only for 90 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

That seems highly unlikely. Mainly because it is over-the-top ridiculously stupid. But at the same time, also somewhat possible because it is the NCAA. 

And why is natural immunity stupid especially when the shot is not preventing spread of the new variant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I am arguing against the Carver effect (rather than for PSU).

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the Kemerer/Hall match is an example of the Carver effect, but the RBY/DeSanto and Assad/Brooks matches don't count. If there was a Carver effect it would apply in all cases. Why didn't the Carver effect help Happel keep it to a MD or regular decision rather than a tech (and who are we kidding? it was a pin)? I just think the Carver effect is not really a thing. 

Why does it have to apply to all cases?  Some Iowa guys are more pumped up by the crowd, and some visiting team guys get more nervous from the crowd compared to others.

I’d probably also put often getting favorable calls into the Carver effect, which can vary by ref.

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...