Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JerseyJoey

Taylor is never going to beat Dake

Recommended Posts

Lets not change the subject. We are comparing the wrestling skill of JB two years ago against the anticipated skill of DT 8 months from now.

It is absolutely relevant to use JB's freestyle skills as a data point when evaluating him as a wrestler.

 

Now you add evaluating him "as a wrestler"...I like that little qualification you snuck in that. Except, we aren't evaluating him "as a wrestler" - we are comparing him as a collegiate wrestler to another collegiate wrestler...in folkstyle - the style of collegiate wrestling.

 

I mean is there some sort of physical block in you brain preventing you from understanding this?

 

Burrough's freestyle skills/accomplishments have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE when comparing him as a college wrestler to Taylor as a college wrestler. None...none at all. You know why? Because...and this is where it gets a bit tricky... in the hypothetical world of the comparison we are making, Jordan Burroughs as a freestyle wrestler/World and Olympic Champion on the post-college Senior level does not exist. We are comparing JB to DT in college - so just imaging that It is 2010 and Taylor and Burroughs are the same age and graduating the same year and they are about to wrestle each other...the last 2 years (JB's freestyle career) have not occurred yet. It is honestly not a very hard concept to grasp...Do you see now why Burrough's freestyle accomplishments have absolutely no bearing on the discussion? Im honestly asking - are you really unable to conceptualize what it is we are discussing?

 

It really should not have to be said, let alone 4-5 times, that POST-COLLEGE wrestling should not be considered when comparing guys WHILE THEY WERE IN COLLEGE.

 

Not sure where your reality disconnect is occurring. Going LIM with the CAPS does not bolster your argument. What JB did immediately after college is strongly indicative of the skill he had while in college just a few months prior to that. He did not pick up those skills in three months. His immediate post collegiate career success merely augments the fact that he was undefeated his last two years and won, in dominating fashion, brackets with at least 4 NCAA champions in them. It distinguishes and separates him from his peers. One of those peers is DT. Is there anything he can do to separate himself from JB in the last two years of their college career?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets not change the subject. We are comparing the wrestling skill of JB two years ago against the anticipated skill of DT 8 months from now.

It is absolutely relevant to use JB's freestyle skills as a data point when evaluating him as a wrestler.

 

Now you add evaluating him "as a wrestler"...I like that little qualification you snuck in that. Except, we aren't evaluating him "as a wrestler" - we are comparing him as a collegiate wrestler to another collegiate wrestler...in folkstyle - the style of collegiate wrestling.

 

I mean is there some sort of physical block in you brain preventing you from understanding this?

 

Burrough's freestyle skills/accomplishments have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE when comparing him as a college wrestler to Taylor as a college wrestler. None...none at all. You know why? Because...and this is where it gets a bit tricky... in the hypothetical world of the comparison we are making, Jordan Burroughs as a freestyle wrestler/World and Olympic Champion on the post-college Senior level does not exist. We are comparing JB to DT in college - so just imaging that It is 2010 and Taylor and Burroughs are the same age and graduating the same year and they are about to wrestle each other...the last 2 years (JB's freestyle career) have not occurred yet. It is honestly not a very hard concept to grasp...Do you see now why Burrough's freestyle accomplishments have absolutely no bearing on the discussion? Im honestly asking - are you really unable to conceptualize what it is we are discussing?

 

It really should not have to be said, let alone 4-5 times, that POST-COLLEGE wrestling should not be considered when comparing guys WHILE THEY WERE IN COLLEGE.

 

Not sure where your reality disconnect is occurring. Going LIM with the CAPS does not bolster your argument. What JB did immediately after college is strongly indicative of the skill he had while in college just a few months prior to that. He did not pick up those skills in three months. His immediate post collegiate career success merely augments the fact that he was undefeated his last two years and won, in dominating fashion, brackets with at least 4 NCAA champions in them. It distinguishes and separates him from his peers. One of those peers is DT. Is there anything he can do to separate himself from JB in the last two years of their college career?

 

I used the caps to illustrate the reasons you were missing/ignoring/whatever. I literally don't know how to make it any more clear that post-collegiate wrestling should not be considered when evaluating a college career or comparing two guys while they were in college. I mean literally, there is no other way to explain it after the way I just did.

 

"He did not pick up those skills in three months" Ok. This is nonsense. No, he did not completely pick up those skill in only three months. But you are out of your mind if you don't think focusing full time on freestyle for those months is what propelled Burroughs to his World title. Honestly...the suggestion you are making with this statement is a little out of bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that collegiate accomplishments are irrelevant. Obviously. The tournaments he competed in happened in a very, very short time frame. The success in each of them are hardly independent. This is an evaluation tool to use. It distinguishes one from the other. One has two NCAA titles and a World title in a year and some change. The other is an NCAA runner up and NCAA champion in the same length of time. Which is the better wrestler? Your argument makes no sense.

Do you assert that DT is the better wrestler the last two years of their respective careers? Have they both experienced continuous improvement throughout their career such that the last two years are their best years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe I am weighing in on this endless topic, but has anyone mentioned that there are roughly 40 3x NCAA champions? Even if you ignore the guys who competed before, say, 1972, you still probably have 20 three-timers. Would they presumptively be ranked ahead of Taylor (despite his dominance and given that he has beaten just one NCAA champ)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot believe I am weighing in on this endless topic, but has anyone mentioned that there are roughly 40 3x NCAA champions? Even if you ignore the guys who competed before, say, 1972, you still probably have 20 three-timers. Would they presumptively be ranked ahead of Taylor (despite his dominance and given that he has beaten just one NCAA champ)?

 

 

If one were to use the same logic these guys promoting Burroughs' college career over Taylor's college career i.e. the use of non college freestyle results, then Taylor has beaten three NCAA champions - Howe, Paulsen, and St. Johns.

 

I would not use that criteria, so I'm with you. He's only beaten 1 champ during his college career. He does have loads of other metrics going for him, though. His sheer dominance in 97% of his matches means something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So its only "who cares" if you win 4 titles? not 2 with 4 finals appearances?

 

Umm, yes. This is pretty cut and dry. You can bring up in season losses when people try to compare Dake vs. Sanderson, but when it's Dake vs. anyone else, I couldn't care less.

 

Vak you brought up Taylors losses, clearly its fair to bring up Dakes losses (one of which during post-season conference tournament). If Dake's career w/ losing to 4 arguably worse or "as good" wrestlers as Bubba (maybe just Hump?) do not diminish what he did at NCAA's then neither should it diminish Taylor's dominance (Hodge trophy sophomore year) or finals appearances (with Gorriarian awards).

 

No, it isn't "fair". Dake is a 4 time champion, and there is a HUGE jump when discussing credentials from 4 time champ to 2 time champ, 4 time Finalist. This is the NCAA most of you wanted, where the NCAA tournament is the only thing that really counts for determining anything, this is the NCAA you get. ANd who cares about the GOrrarian Award? My guess is you couldn't tell me the winner of this award 95% of the time.

 

Taylor will end up on a very small list of 4x NCAA finalists and a 2x champ with possibly 2 Hodge trophies (unless Ruth gets it which he probably should).

 

Not small enough that he should be ahead of any of the 4 time champs and many of the 3 time champs.

 

 

Comparing in-season losses are ALWAYS fair whether you are comparing Dake and Sanderson or Dake and DT, don't know why they wouldn't be. That is a ridiculous position IMO. 4 titles does not equal undefeated college wrestling career unless your name is Cael Sanderson.

 

Either in-season losses matter or they do not, for everyone equally. There is no magic number of titles that suddenly washes away every other match from relevance or discussion. And as I brought up before Dake is not even a 4x conference champ, where Taylor will end up a 4x B1G champ, so we can still compare the two without putting DT ahead of Dake or Sanderson or even Smith for that matter. No one is putting David Taylor ahead of any 4 timer, where are you getting that? Still doesn't mean Smith and Dakes losses do not matter.

 

It would only be fair to say "who cares" when their credentials are so different that any comparison is absurd. That is not the case with DT and Dake.

 

The point of bringing up his Gorriarian Award is not that I think it's the most important award in wrestling but he will end up with more Gorriarian's than ANYONE else, ever. Which is significant if only because he will be the first to something like Dake was the first to 4 weight classes and 4 titles. It isn't equivalent to Dakes accomplishment, not even close but other people had the opportunity to dominate like that and no one ever has.

 

Also, wanting to keep the NCAA tournament as is has nothing to do with not wanting anything else in the season to count. It counts, in its own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with your assertion that collegiate accomplishments are irrelevant. Obviously. The tournaments he competed in happened in a very, very short time frame. The success in each of them are hardly independent. This is an evaluation tool to use. It distinguishes one from the other. One has two NCAA titles and a World title in a year and some change. The other is an NCAA runner up and NCAA champion in the same length of time. Which is the better wrestler? Your argument makes no sense.

Do you assert that DT is the better wrestler the last two years of their respective careers? Have they both experienced continuous improvement throughout their career such that the last two years are their best years?

 

First, I assumeyou mean post-collegiate accomplishments.

 

Secondly, again I cannot explain any further or in any more detail why post-collegite (Senior level freestyle) competition has no bearing on evaluating someone while they are in college.

 

Thirdly, if you have been paying attention I never attempted to argue that Taylor was better. What I did argue was 1) Burroughs doesn't belong in a grouping with Cael and Dake (in terms of NCAA) 2) Taylor's NCAA career is better than Burroughs (assuming he wins this year as he is expected to). 3) That Burroughs as an NCAA wrestler is not clearly ahead of Taylor - as you are asserting by trying to bring in his Senior level accomplishments. You can certainly argue this point both ways...but to make a claim that it is so obvious and clear is just insane.

 

Finally, and I am addressing this to you and NJWC since you are both proponents of the "Burroughs was a World Champion within a couple months of graduating - therefore he is a much better college wrestler than Taylor because he won't be at that level within a few months of graduating" argument....

 

According to this logic you guys are using, in order to be consistent in your argument and reasoning you must believe the following things as well:

 

1) As I already pointed out... you guys have to consider Burroughs a better College wrestler than Dake (since Dake also can not be a World champ within a few months of graduation as Burroughs was)

 

**Here is the kicker

2) You guys also have to consider John Smith perhaps the best College wrestler of all time (ahead of Dake, Burroughs and even Cael) since he was a multiple time World/Olympic champion while still in college - not just within a few months of college mind you, while he was still in college.

 

Do you still not see why this argument is nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burroughs wrestled as a true fresh,an, Taylor didnt. That is so huge in this discussion. (It is also why Dake's feat is more impressive than Cael's, but I digress. )

 

If the roles were reversed, very likely:

Burroughs 3-1-1-1

Taylor DNP-2-1-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burroughs wrestled as a true fresh,an, Taylor didnt. That is so huge in this discussion. (It is also why Dake's feat is more impressive than Cael's, but I digress. )

 

If the roles were reversed, very likely:

Burroughs 3-1-1-1

Taylor DNP-2-1-2

 

Couple things... Dake lost during his sophomore season so the whole not using a "Redshirt" is invalidated

 

If the roles were reversed..

 

Taylor - Freshman year - Cant tell.. only speculation, Sophomore year - speculation again, but probably wins NCAA and beats Bubba Jenkins as he will have had more experience and not gotten caught.

 

As for Burroughs, he did take a medical redshirt.

 

All of these things that you state in your argument are purely speculation there for hold no weight or value what-so-ever. If the question is who is the better wrestler, it would clearly go to Burroughs. But IMO if the question is who has the better NCAA career based SOLELY AND ONLY ON NCAA Matches it has to be Taylor.

 

That all being said, this is a stupid argument all together. Burroughs is the best in the world. He may not have been the best NCAA wrestler but then again he wasnt THAT big time of a high school wrestler either. What he has done is hes improved leaps and bounds as he moved on to the next level and THAT is certainly something to be considered a real accolade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep switching around between credentials and "top level" whenever it suits you. There are several guys with better credentials than Taylor, and when you get to "top level" you're being completely subjective. Don't you then have to include the completely subjective "level of competition"? Who's the best guy Taylor beat? Derek St. John, maybe? A very good wrestler, but hardly an all-timer. Is it fair to knock down his accomplishments because of the level of competition he faced? Not really, but when you're in discussion about the greats, you have to pick nits, right?

 

No I don't. I'm saying, and have said, that they both should be considered as well as some other considerations of which you've mentioned a few. Best win is DSJ? Sure I guess how you qualify "best" matters but he's probably the most credentialed of DT's wins. He did, by the way, major decision him twice and beat him soundly again. So its not like he squeaked out wins against him. Subjective? Again, this is all subjective. I've watched from 1990 on so there are a few guys maybe deserving of a top 10 pick that came before that won't necessarily make my list. Just as an old-timer might always remember those early guys as better than they actually were. Since I've been paying attention the only NCAA wrestlers that you HAVE to put ahead of Taylor are Dake and Cael. And honestly, if Dake never goes up and Taylor beats Tyler Caldwell 10-0 in the finals we're probably talking about him as the better wrestler over Dake. I digress. The guy has pinned his way to the national finals. Twice. I don't care who is competition was. Its always a tough tournament and he's in my top 10. Guys have fewer losses and more titles, but few have dominated all aspects like he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. He majored St. John once, the first time they wrestled collegiate. He beat St. John 8-3 and 6-3 in the subsequent match ups.

 

2. The tournament is always tough, so shouldn't the guys who, you know, won it more be given more credit than Taylor just getting to the last match 3 times and losing twice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coach DP- My argument isn't that Dake would have gone undefeated with a redshirt. I'm saying Cael doesn't win 4 without one.

 

Regardless, Taylor isn't as good as Dake or Burroughs in any way shape or form, college or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. He majored St. John once, the first time they wrestled collegiate. He beat St. John 8-3 and 6-3 in the subsequent match ups.

 

2. The tournament is always tough, so shouldn't the guys who, you know, won it more be given more credit than Taylor just getting to the last match 3 times and losing twice?

 

My mistake, his matches with St. John were never in doubt nonetheless. Much like every match he's wrestled in college minus his four losses (3 to a 4x GOAT champ). Well, I guess it depends on how YOU view that wrestler's losses and reasons he was kept from winning as many or more than other wrestlers. DSJ and Taylor likely both end up 2x champs. DSJ is no Taylor. You can't just lump these guys together by titles won. Agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Askren and Taylor. Very similar careers. Both 4x finalist, 2x champs (I'm making an assumption here, doesn't need to be pointed out). Askren was nearly perfect minus one opponent. Taylor was nearly perfect minus one opponent. The way Taylor has dominated from the onset to me is more impressive than the way Askren did. Taylor getting pinned by Bubba in an even match up to that point, and losing 3 nail biters to Dake I rank as higher than Askren getting dominated by Pendleton. I have Askren over some 3x champs and I have DT over Askren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. He majored St. John once, the first time they wrestled collegiate. He beat St. John 8-3 and 6-3 in the subsequent match ups.

 

2. The tournament is always tough, so shouldn't the guys who, you know, won it more be given more credit than Taylor just getting to the last match 3 times and losing twice?

 

Last question. Hypothetically, let's say there was a wrestler out there who pinned every opponent he faced except lost all four years in the NCAA finals in max OT to Cael. How do you view this wrestler's place in history? Behind every one-time NCAA champ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with your assertion that collegiate accomplishments are irrelevant. Obviously. The tournaments he competed in happened in a very, very short time frame. The success in each of them are hardly independent. This is an evaluation tool to use. It distinguishes one from the other. One has two NCAA titles and a World title in a year and some change. The other is an NCAA runner up and NCAA champion in the same length of time. Which is the better wrestler? Your argument makes no sense.

Do you assert that DT is the better wrestler the last two years of their respective careers? Have they both experienced continuous improvement throughout their career such that the last two years are their best years?

 

First, I assumeyou mean post-collegiate accomplishments.

 

Secondly, again I cannot explain any further or in any more detail why post-collegite (Senior level freestyle) competition has no bearing on evaluating someone while they are in college.

 

Thirdly, if you have been paying attention I never attempted to argue that Taylor was better. What I did argue was 1) Burroughs doesn't belong in a grouping with Cael and Dake (in terms of NCAA) 2) Taylor's NCAA career is better than Burroughs (assuming he wins this year as he is expected to). 3) That Burroughs as an NCAA wrestler is not clearly ahead of Taylor - as you are asserting by trying to bring in his Senior level accomplishments. You can certainly argue this point both ways...but to make a claim that it is so obvious and clear is just insane.

 

Finally, and I am addressing this to you and NJWC since you are both proponents of the "Burroughs was a World Champion within a couple months of graduating - therefore he is a much better college wrestler than Taylor because he won't be at that level within a few months of graduating" argument....

 

According to this logic you guys are using, in order to be consistent in your argument and reasoning you must believe the following things as well:

 

1) As I already pointed out... you guys have to consider Burroughs a better College wrestler than Dake (since Dake also can not be a World champ within a few months of graduation as Burroughs was)

 

**Here is the kicker

2) You guys also have to consider John Smith perhaps the best College wrestler of all time (ahead of Dake, Burroughs and even Cael) since he was a multiple time World/Olympic champion while still in college - not just within a few months of college mind you, while he was still in college.

 

Do you still not see why this argument is nonsense?

 

First, yes post collegiate

Second, we agree to disagree that wrestling accomplishments have no place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler.

Thirdly. (Interesting outline numbering system!)

1) that has never been part of the discussion

2)every time you go to this 'career' thing, I quickly point out that I am only interested in how good they are at their best.

3)call me insane, cause DT is not close to where Burroughs was.

 

The other stuff is off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burroughs wrestled as a true fresh,an, Taylor didnt. That is so huge in this discussion. (It is also why Dake's feat is more impressive than Cael's, but I digress. )

 

If the roles were reversed, very likely:

Burroughs 3-1-1-1

Taylor DNP-2-1-2

 

:roll:

I love how people throw in those caveats when it suits their side of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Second, we agree to disagree that wrestling accomplishments have no place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler.

Thirdly. (Interesting outline numbering system!)

1) that has never been part of the discussion

2)every time you go to this 'career' thing, I quickly point out that I am only interested in how good they are at their best.

3)call me insane, cause DT is not close to where Burroughs was.

 

The other stuff is off topic.

 

There you go again with the slick wording - ofcourse "wrestling accomplishments" have a place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler...but that is not what you are asserting. You are asserting that wrestling accomplishments after college are relevant (you even said more relevant than in college accomplishments) to evaluating a wrestler while he was in college. I don't know if you are purposely being vague like this to make your argument seem more plausible, or what...but either way please stop it.

 

1) Has never been part of the discussion!? It started the discussion - when you grouped Cael, Dake, and Burroughs as ahead of Taylor.

2)I don't care what you are interested in...you (and other) have attempted to argue in this thread that Burroughs career was better. This is a fact...it happened. I am pointing that out. What you consider more important or meaningful is beside the point.

3)You're insane. If David Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was", then who was (in college) close to where Burroughs was? The kid has 3 career losses (two of them to a top two wrestler EVER), 3 Big 10 Championships, an NCAA title and 3 finals appearances, a Hodge trophy, 85%(give or take) wins by bonus, and 3 Gregorian awards. He has exactly the same number of titles, and more of every other accolade, as Burroughs coming into his Senior year...plus he is just as dominant (if not more so) over the field as Burroughs was his Senior year. Not to mention he is an overwhelming favorite to win again this year. You can think all you want that Burroughs was better and he'd win if they could wrestle each other at the same development level, that's fine. But for you to say that Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was" is absolutely absurd.

 

Lastly, NO WAY. You don't get to duck out of this. What I said was not "off topic". It is extremely on topic. I showed how nonsensical and logically inconsistent your rationale was. By your system of evaluation (that system being that Burroughs post-collegiate accomplishments, being so close to his college career, makes him a better college wrestler...)you must also believe the two things I pointed out. Let me repeat them for you:

 

1) As I already pointed out... you guys have to consider Burroughs a better College wrestler than Dake (since Dake also can not be a World champ within a few months of graduation as Burroughs was)

 

**Here is the kicker

2) You guys also have to consider John Smith perhaps the best College wrestler of all time (ahead of Dake, Burroughs and even Cael) since he was a multiple time World/Olympic champion while still in college - not just within a few months of college mind you, while he was still in college.

 

You have two choices here:

 

1) Realize that your reasoning behind your argument is flawed because of these two ridiculous examples I gave you....

2) You stick to your reasoning and say that these two statements are also true, given that they would have to be for your reasoning to be sound.

 

You don't get to just say this is "off topic" and ignore it completely....it is very, very on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Second, we agree to disagree that wrestling accomplishments have no place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler.

Thirdly. (Interesting outline numbering system!)

1) that has never been part of the discussion

2)every time you go to this 'career' thing, I quickly point out that I am only interested in how good they are at their best.

3)call me insane, cause DT is not close to where Burroughs was.

 

The other stuff is off topic.

 

There you go again with the slick wording - ofcourse "wrestling accomplishments" have a place in evaluating the skill of a wrestler...but that is not what you are asserting. You are asserting that wrestling accomplishments after college are relevant (you even said more relevant than in college accomplishments) to evaluating a wrestler while he was in college. I don't know if you are purposely being vague like this to make your argument seem more plausible, or what...but either way please stop it.

 

1) Has never been part of the discussion!? It started the discussion - when you grouped Cael, Dake, and Burroughs as ahead of Taylor.

2)I don't care what you are interested in...you (and other) have attempted to argue in this thread that Burroughs career was better. This is a fact...it happened. I am pointing that out. What you consider more important or meaningful is beside the point.

3)You're insane. If David Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was", then who was (in college) close to where Burroughs was? The kid has 3 career losses (two of them to a top two wrestler EVER), 3 Big 10 Championships, an NCAA title and 3 finals appearances, a Hodge trophy, 85%(give or take) wins by bonus, and 3 Gregorian awards. He has exactly the same number of titles, and more of every other accolade, as Burroughs coming into his Senior year...plus he is just as dominant (if not more so) over the field as Burroughs was his Senior year. Not to mention he is an overwhelming favorite to win again this year. You can think all you want that Burroughs was better and he'd win if they could wrestle each other at the same development level, that's fine. But for you to say that Taylor is "not close to where Burroughs was" is absolutely absurd.

 

Lastly, NO WAY. You don't get to duck out of this. What I said was not "off topic". It is extremely on topic. I showed how nonsensical and logically inconsistent your rationale was. By your system of evaluation (that system being that Burroughs post-collegiate accomplishments, being so close to his college career, makes him a better college wrestler...)you must also believe the two things I pointed out. Let me repeat them for you:

 

1) As I already pointed out... you guys have to consider Burroughs a better College wrestler than Dake (since Dake also can not be a World champ within a few months of graduation as Burroughs was)

 

**Here is the kicker

2) You guys also have to consider John Smith perhaps the best College wrestler of all time (ahead of Dake, Burroughs and even Cael) since he was a multiple time World/Olympic champion while still in college - not just within a few months of college mind you, while he was still in college.

 

You have two choices here:

 

1) Realize that your reasoning behind your argument is flawed because of these two ridiculous examples I gave you....

2) You stick to your reasoning and say that these two statements are also true, given that they would have to be for your reasoning to be sound.

 

You don't get to just say this is "off topic" and ignore it completely....it is very, very on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jb is in the group of people who are better collegiate wrestlers than DT. I don't control who is in the group, but it contains other people. I am not vague. I am very explicit. Its fine that you want to include freshman and sophomore years in your evaluation of how good someone was, but this is a discussion of how good someone is. Two dominating years as a Jr and sr clearly demonstrates that he is no longer the skinny 18 year old he was in the distant past.

To sum it up -- you agree Burroughs is the better, but disagree as to the degree that he is better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two dominating years as a Jr and sr clearly demonstrates that he is no longer the skinny 18 year old he was in the distant past.

To sum it up -- you agree Burroughs is the better, but disagree as to the degree that he is better?

 

So 2 dominating years for Burroughs stands for something very significant, but 4 dominating years (assuming he wins this year) for DT (save for 3 matches, two against the 2nd best NCAA wrestler ever and one as a RS freshman against a RS senior) don't stand for anything?

 

To sum up - No. Do I think Burroughs as a Senior would win against Taylor as a Senior at 165? I don't know. I think it would be a toss up and be determined by 1) If Taylor could stop Burroughs double 2) If Burroughs could keep from being dominated on the mat. It would be a style clash, and very interesting to watch. What is ridiculous is for you to say that Taylor isn't even close - for all the reasons I stated already.

 

And, Ill say it again...stop ignoring me demonstrating how flawed your reasoning is. Please address that - i've stated it 3 times now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dake takes 8 of 10 with JB his sr year and Taylor splits 5-5. Would be great matches.

 

currently Freestyle I think Dake take 1 or 2 of 10 w JB and Taylor takes 0 of 10. But not so certain it stays this way in the coming years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Dake takes 8 of 10 with JB his sr year and Taylor splits 5-5. Would be great matches.

 

currently Freestyle I think Dake take 1 or 2 of 10 w JB and Taylor takes 0 of 10. But not so certain it stays this way in the coming years.

 

 

Versus Dake, I make it 51 out of 100 JB. Versus Taylor, I make 7 out of 10 JB. Dake versus Taylor is clearly 10 out of 10 Dake.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...