Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JerseyJoey

Taylor is never going to beat Dake

Recommended Posts

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....

 

It is not that they don't stand for anything. They put him into a very, very elite group of wrestlers.

My reasoning is not flawed. If Howe, DSJ and DT wind up in the same bracket and DT blows through it and he wins WTT, I'll put on the same level as JB was. I don't anticipate he'll be in the same bracket as either of them. Nor do I anticipate he'll beat either Dake or JB next spring. That being said, things happen.

There is no reason to believe that Taylor would turn JB nor is there reason to believe he could stop JBs offense.

I'm not interested in having a disussion with you about John Smith, Cael Sanderson or Kyle Dake. They are unrelated to this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plasmodium you won't say where you believe John Smith or Dake stands in this JB vs. DT comparison?

 

Why not?

 

This is a discussion board... Doesn't seem off topic at all to bring up where others wrestlers stand using the same criteria laid out for DT in this thread.

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.

 

Dake beats JB 80% of the time? The things that must go through some poster's heads baffles me.

 

Pass it to the left.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in having a disussion with you about John Smith, Cael Sanderson or Kyle Dake. They are unrelated to this topic.

 

It's not about what you are interested in. It is about the criteria and reasoning you use to put Burroughs (as a college wrestler) ahead of Taylor (as a college wrestler).

 

I showed you, that using the same criteria, Burroughs must be a better college wrestler than Dake, because Dake (like you pointed out of Taylor) was not able to win a world title a few months after graduating. Further than that, again using your criteria of evaluation, John Smith must be a better college wrestler than Burroughs (who is better than Taylor and Dake) because he won TWO world titles while still in college, and it took Burroughs a few months after he graduated.

 

You saying that this is off topic is just you avoiding how blatantly obvious it is that your evaluation system is flawed, and also that you are using it only when you see fit. Apparently it gets thrown out the window unless you are talking about Burroughs and Taylor...because even though you list Taylor as a worse college wrestler than Burroughs because he is "not on the level Burroughs was when he graduated" (meaning he can not win a world title a few months after graduation) - you still list Dake as a better college wrestler than Burroughs (51 out of 100), even though he, like Taylor, can also not be on the "level Burroughs was when he graduated", meaning winning a world title a few months out of college. This is a direct contradiction under the evaluation criteria you yourself set and use

 

You must realize that by now, which is why I venture to say that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in having a disussion with you about John Smith, Cael Sanderson or Kyle Dake. They are unrelated to this topic.

 

It's not about what you are interested in. It is about the criteria and reasoning you use to put Burroughs (as a college wrestler) ahead of Taylor (as a college wrestler).

 

I showed you, that using the same criteria, Burroughs must be a better college wrestler than Dake, because Dake (like you pointed out of Taylor) was not able to win a world title a few months after graduating. Further than that, again using your criteria of evaluation, John Smith must be a better college wrestler than Burroughs (who is better than Taylor and Dake) because he won TWO world titles while still in college, and it took Burroughs a few months after he graduated.

 

You saying that this is off topic is just you avoiding how blatantly obvious it is that your evaluation system is flawed, and also that you are using it only when you see fit. Apparently it gets thrown out the window unless you are talking about Burroughs and Taylor...because even though you list Taylor as a worse college wrestler than Burroughs because he is "not on the level Burroughs was when he graduated" (meaning he can not win a world title a few months after graduation) - you still list Dake as a better college wrestler than Burroughs (51 out of 100), even though he, like Taylor, can also not be on the "level Burroughs was when he graduated", meaning winning a world title a few months out of college. This is a direct contradiction under the evaluation criteria you yourself set and use

 

You must realize that by now, which is why I venture to say that you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

Each wrestler has a different set of credentials. Each unique comparison is based upon those merits and are therefore off topic.

I don't know where to go with this anymore, to the yes/no question of "Is March 2011 JB a better wrestler - than March 2014 DT?" My answer is yes. Therefore, he belongs at a higher place on a GOAT list than DT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plasmodium you won't say where you believe John Smith or Dake stands in this JB vs. DT comparison?

 

Why not?

 

This is a discussion board... Doesn't seem off topic at all to bring up where others wrestlers stand using the same criteria laid out for DT in this thread.

 

This is a different topic, I don't want PA-Fan to confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Each wrestler has a different set of credentials. Each unique comparison is based upon those merits and are therefore off topic.

I don't know where to go with this anymore, to the yes/no question of "Is March 2011 JB a better wrestler - than March 2014 DT?" My answer is yes. Therefore, he belongs at a higher place on a GOAT list than DT.

 

I see. So, in your mind, it is perfectly ok and logical to focus on specific reasons as to why one wrestler is better than another (i.e. Burroughs is a better college wrestler than Taylor because Taylor isn't on the "win a world title right after college" level) - and then throw out those same reasons when comparing different wrestlers (i.e. Dake is a better college wrestler than Burroughs even though, like Taylor, he isn't on the "win a world title right after college" level...OR...Smith is not a better college wrestler than Burroughs, even though he is on the higher "win two world titles while still in college" level, and Burroughs wasn't)

 

Perfectly logical and reasonable...Oh, wait, no it isn't. It is totally nonsensical. You can't just throw out your own line of reasoning when it doesn't fit - and keep it when it does. That is, and you are, absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plasmodium you won't say where you believe John Smith or Dake stands in this JB vs. DT comparison?

 

Why not?

 

This is a discussion board... Doesn't seem off topic at all to bring up where others wrestlers stand using the same criteria laid out for DT in this thread.

 

This is a different topic, I don't want PA-Fan to confuse the two.

 

It is not a different topic. I am challenging your reasoning for putting Burroughs (in college) ahead of Taylor (in college) - just using other examples to illustrate how nonsensical it is. I am not confused in the slightest...you are just being illogical, and at this point possibly intentionally dishonest - since I have repeatedly and meticulously showed how flawed your evaluation system is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay on topic. Kyle Dake has nothing to with this discussion. He is a different person with different credentials.

I have been clear what my reasoning is. I am comparing how good they are when at their best. I put more stock into how he performed as a developed wrestler than how he performed as a developing wrestler. Frankly, I put zero stock in the latter. That is neither illogical or dishonest. You don't agree, fair enough. Have the courage to answer the same yes/no question that I did and we'll move on to Bubba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stay on topic. Kyle Dake has nothing to with this discussion. He is a different person with different credentials.

I have been clear what my reasoning is. I am comparing how good they are when at their best. I put more stock into how he performed as a developed wrestler than how he performed as a developing wrestler. Frankly, I put zero stock in the latter. That is neither illogical or dishonest. You don't agree, fair enough. Have the courage to answer the same yes/no question that I did and we'll move on to Bubba.

 

Yes, you have been clear on what your reasoning is - and it is not only flawed, but also biased.

 

Yes, you are comparing how good they (JB and DT) were at their best, by bringing up the point that JB won a world title a few months after college and DT didnt. You did this because you stated that their overall career college statistics and accomplishments didnt matter as much as how high a level they were at during their peak at graduation. Fine, if you want to use that line of argument - I present Kyle Dake and John smith. Dake, same as Taylor, was not on the level you give Burroughs - yet you say Dake is the better college wrestler while Taylor is not. Smith is above the level you give Burroughs, yet you say Burroughs is the better college wrestler than Smith. You pick and choose when you want to use your criteria that you "put more stock into" - and when presented with other examples of why it simply does not work - you dump it and say it is "off topic". No, sir. Im sorry - but again, you cannot do that and be logical at the same time.

 

Your position is extremely illogical and inconsistent. In fact, it cannot be any more illogical or inconsistent...and it becomes dishonest when you continue to evade the implications by stating that you can pick and choose which criterion is most important whenever you want, and throw it out whenever you want. You can not do that and have a logically consistent and coherent argument. It is biased and dishonest, period.

 

You continue to be evasive and avoid addressing it - but it does not go away. Ill map it out more clearly, since maybe jumbled up in paragraph form is tough to see.

 

Comparing who was the better collegiate wrestler at the peak of their NCAA career...

**I know this is repetative, but I want to keep hammering it in so you can no longer avoid it...

Three examples:

 

1) JB is better than DT because he was able to win a World Title 3 months after graduation, and Taylor cannot do that.

2) Dake is better than JB, in spite of the fact that, like DT, he is not able to win a World Title 3 months after graduation.

3) JB is better than John Smith, in spite of the fact that Smith won two World Title while still in college, and it took Burroughs until after college to get to that level.

 

This is the single most inconsistent argument I've ever seen posted on these boards. The more you attempt to state that it is consistent, the more dishonest it becomes on top of the inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that there is no exact science, and that measuring athletes isn't done using a specific formula? JB reached a level in college that Taylor has not. Their finishes at the NCAA tourney don't tell the whole story.

Do I think a senior JB was better than a senior Dake? Yes, but I won't say he was the better college wrestler in large part, but not solely, due to Dake's four titles.

Many things impact that, as well. Dake was fortunate that Caldwell was injured his senior year, or Dake is likely a 3X champion, and that would change how some view him (not me, however).

DT hasn't faced a ton of elite competition in college (certainly nothing like JB faced), and the only truly elite guy that DT faced in college, he lost to every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that there is no exact science, and that measuring athletes isn't done using a specific formula? JB reached a level in college that Taylor has not. Their finishes at the NCAA tourney don't tell the whole story.

Do I think a senior JB was better than a senior Dake? Yes, but I won't say he was the better college wrestler in large part, but not solely, due to Dake's four titles.

Many things impact that, as well. Dake was fortunate that Caldwell was injured his senior year, or Dake is likely a 3X champion, and that would change how some view him (not me, however).

DT hasn't faced a ton of elite competition in college (certainly nothing like JB faced), and the only truly elite guy that DT faced in college, he lost to every time.

 

 

Of course there are many factors in evaluating two people. In the case of JB vs. DT (in college) I laid out a multitude of evidence for DT...and the trump card being played was "Burroughs was able to win a world title right out of college, and Taylor wasn't - therefor Burroughs was better." Fine - if you want to use that argument then you must deal with the things i've been trying to get Plasmodium to stop avoiding for 6 or 7 posts now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that there is no exact science, and that measuring athletes isn't done using a specific formula? JB reached a level in college that Taylor has not. Their finishes at the NCAA tourney don't tell the whole story.

Do I think a senior JB was better than a senior Dake? Yes, but I won't say he was the better college wrestler in large part, but not solely, due to Dake's four titles.

Many things impact that, as well. Dake was fortunate that Caldwell was injured his senior year, or Dake is likely a 3X champion, and that would change how some view him (not me, however).

DT hasn't faced a ton of elite competition in college (certainly nothing like JB faced), and the only truly elite guy that DT faced in college, he lost to every time.

 

 

Of course there are many factors in evaluating two people. In the case of JB vs. DT (in college) I laid out a multitude of evidence for DT...and the trump card being played was "Burroughs was able to win a world title right out of college, and Taylor wasn't - therefor Burroughs was better." Fine - if you want to use that argument then you must deal with the things i've been trying to get Plasmodium to stop avoiding for 6 or 7 posts now...

 

No, that fact is but a part of the overall puzzle, not the sole reason. JB was also a Hodge winner, and had proven himself by beating a ton of former AAs and champs. His list of victims far surpasses who Taylor has beaten. The fact that he was a world champ less than a semester's time period after graduating is just a validation of the level he was already at. DT isn't close to that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that there is no exact science, and that measuring athletes isn't done using a specific formula? JB reached a level in college that Taylor has not. Their finishes at the NCAA tourney don't tell the whole story.

Do I think a senior JB was better than a senior Dake? Yes, but I won't say he was the better college wrestler in large part, but not solely, due to Dake's four titles.

Many things impact that, as well. Dake was fortunate that Caldwell was injured his senior year, or Dake is likely a 3X champion, and that would change how some view him (not me, however).

DT hasn't faced a ton of elite competition in college (certainly nothing like JB faced), and the only truly elite guy that DT faced in college, he lost to every time.

 

 

Of course there are many factors in evaluating two people. In the case of JB vs. DT (in college) I laid out a multitude of evidence for DT...and the trump card being played was "Burroughs was able to win a world title right out of college, and Taylor wasn't - therefor Burroughs was better." Fine - if you want to use that argument then you must deal with the things i've been trying to get Plasmodium to stop avoiding for 6 or 7 posts now...

 

No, that fact is but a part of the overall puzzle, not the sole reason. JB was also a Hodge winner, and had proven himself by beating a ton of former AAs and champs. His list of victims far surpasses who Taylor has beaten. The fact that he was a world champ less than a semester's time period after graduating is just a validation of the level he was already at. DT isn't close to that level.

 

Nope...not how the argument was presented (multiple times in fact)...It can't be changed now to seem more reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stay on topic. Kyle Dake has nothing to with this discussion. He is a different person with different credentials.

I have been clear what my reasoning is. I am comparing how good they are when at their best. I put more stock into how he performed as a developed wrestler than how he performed as a developing wrestler. Frankly, I put zero stock in the latter. That is neither illogical or dishonest. You don't agree, fair enough. Have the courage to answer the same yes/no question that I did and we'll move on to Bubba.

 

Yes, you have been clear on what your reasoning is - and it is not only flawed, but also biased.

 

Yes, you are comparing how good they (JB and DT) were at their best, by bringing up the point that JB won a world title a few months after college and DT didnt. You did this because you stated that their overall career college statistics and accomplishments didnt matter as much as how high a level they were at during their peak at graduation. Fine, if you want to use that line of argument - I present Kyle Dake and John smith. Dake, same as Taylor, was not on the level you give Burroughs - yet you say Dake is the better college wrestler while Taylor is not. Smith is above the level you give Burroughs, yet you say Burroughs is the better college wrestler than Smith. You pick and choose when you want to use your criteria that you "put more stock into" - and when presented with other examples of why it simply does not work - you dump it and say it is "off topic". No, sir. Im sorry - but again, you cannot do that and be logical at the same time.

 

Your position is extremely illogical and inconsistent. In fact, it cannot be any more illogical or inconsistent...and it becomes dishonest when you continue to evade the implications by stating that you can pick and choose which criterion is most important whenever you want, and throw it out whenever you want. You can not do that and have a logically consistent and coherent argument. It is biased and dishonest, period.

 

You continue to be evasive and avoid addressing it - but it does not go away. Ill map it out more clearly, since maybe jumbled up in paragraph form is tough to see.

 

Comparing who was the better collegiate wrestler at the peak of their NCAA career...

**I know this is repetative, but I want to keep hammering it in so you can no longer avoid it...

Three examples:

 

1) JB is better than DT because he was able to win a World Title 3 months after graduation, and Taylor cannot do that.

2) Dake is better than JB, in spite of the fact that, like DT, he is not able to win a World Title 3 months after graduation.

3) JB is better than John Smith, in spite of the fact that Smith won two World Title while still in college, and it took Burroughs until after college to get to that level.

 

This is the single most inconsistent argument I've ever seen posted on these boards. The more you attempt to state that it is consistent, the more dishonest it becomes on top of the inconsistency.

 

Ask yourself this question:

Is the 3/14 DT better than 3/11 Burroughs?

Share it with the board. Typing the answer "NO" will be very liberating for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the lack of pins says it all and he was 0-5 against Metcalf. Dake and Taylor were at higher levels in college over JB case closed. JB had a 2-1 dec win over Caldwell his senior year. I think it is very possible that one of these guys beats and dethrones Burroughs before 2016. Any one of these three could bump up and win 84k also unless Cael returns or Q enters. If JB runs the table through 2016 against this then I will change my mind and call him the best of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly the lack of pins says it all and he was 0-5 against Metcalf. Dake and Taylor were at higher levels in college over JB case closed. JB had a 2-1 dec win over Caldwell his senior year. I think it is very possible that one of these guys beats and dethrones Burroughs before 2016. Any one of these three could bump up and win 84k also unless Cael returns or Q enters. If JB runs the table through 2016 against this then I will change my mind and call him the best of all time.

 

 

You are over emphasizing Jordan's freshman and sophomore years and discounting his junior and senior years. Not really fair at all. He did come back and dominate Caldwell in the NCAA finals. Not to mention Dake only beat Caldwell 2-0 at NCAAs this year. So the fact Burroughs beat him 2-1 doesn't really mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake was better than Burroughs and Burroughs was better than all the champs he beat then did'nt Taylor wrestle a better guy than Burroughs did?

 

Ok, but he lost to him.

 

You just opted out of our discussion and moved on? Thought we had a good back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused by a lot of people's logic here but I'll pose a question here.

 

Rank these wrestlers based on NCAA Career and matches exclusively.

 

Kyle Dake, Cael Sanderson, David Taylor, John Smith, Jordan Burroughs, Jordan Oliver, Brent Metcalf, Terry Brands, Tom Brands, Dan Gable, Greg Jones, Ben Askren, Travis Lee, Jake Rosholt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake was better than Burroughs and Burroughs was better than all the champs he beat then did'nt Taylor wrestle a better guy than Burroughs did?

 

Ok, but he lost to him.

 

You just opted out of our discussion and moved on? Thought we had a good back and forth.

 

With the new format, it's kind of hard to follow everything. WHere is this?

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...