Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DoubleUp

Ruth All-Time?

Recommended Posts

Assuming he is unbeaten this year, I think Ruth blows away (relatively speaking) McIlravy on the all time list argument. Mac will have had one more loss, and Mac's last loss came in his junior year (granted, without a redshirt) - by Ruth's junior year nobody gave anyone else a chance against him and Ruth proved those predictions correct. And even in Mac's senior year, there was still a competitor who kept it reasonably close with him (Bono). Granted, Mac may have been in a tougher weight class, but most are not seeing anyone keeping it close with Ruth this coming season.

 

I think Ruth was so unchallenged last year (and even his sophmore year) and there were so many other really big stories/rivalries for the season (Dake/Taylor, Steiber/Ramos, could Oliver dominate/win 2 weights up, etc.), that what Ruth has been doing has gone somewhat under the radar.

 

I believe he will be in the mix for any argument on top 10 all time once his career is done.

 

 

Mcilravy competing and winning as a true freshman is a big advantage imo. He had two losses as a true freshman, what would Ruth have done as a true freshman? Can't say for sure, but I'm guessing he would have lost more than two matches. He lost 2 times after a redshirt afterall.

 

For Ruth all time, he may be top 10 if we're only considering wrestler's with 4 years of varsity competition. If we are truly going all time, there are plenty of guys with phenomenal records in the past that I don't believe Ruth could/should be ahead of. There are so many great wrestlers that have been forgotten. Heck, someone a few posts up already forgot Pat Smith. Well, unless they are arguing for Ruth over Pat Smith. I completely disagree with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 10. If he finishes like he's wrestled for the past two seasons (4 really) he is without a doubt in the top 10 all time. We give Dake a pass on his in season losses since he came away with 4 titles but does anyone think Dake is head and shoulders above Ruth? Or Taylor for that matter. I would argue both in my top 10 at least of the last 30-40 years. Assuming they end with their current pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming he is unbeaten this year, I think Ruth blows away (relatively speaking) McIlravy on the all time list argument. Mac will have had one more loss, and Mac's last loss came in his junior year (granted, without a redshirt) - by Ruth's junior year nobody gave anyone else a chance against him and Ruth proved those predictions correct. And even in Mac's senior year, there was still a competitor who kept it reasonably close with him (Bono). Granted, Mac may have been in a tougher weight class, but most are not seeing anyone keeping it close with Ruth this coming season.

 

I think Ruth was so unchallenged last year (and even his sophmore year) and there were so many other really big stories/rivalries for the season (Dake/Taylor, Steiber/Ramos, could Oliver dominate/win 2 weights up, etc.), that what Ruth has been doing has gone somewhat under the radar.

 

I believe he will be in the mix for any argument on top 10 all time once his career is done.

 

 

Mcilravy competing and winning as a true freshman is a big advantage imo. He had two losses as a true freshman, what would Ruth have done as a true freshman? Can't say for sure, but I'm guessing he would have lost more than two matches. He lost 2 times after a redshirt afterall.

 

For Ruth all time, he may be top 10 if we're only considering wrestler's with 4 years of varsity competition. If we are truly going all time, there are plenty of guys with phenomenal records in the past that I don't believe Ruth could/should be ahead of. There are so many great wrestlers that have been forgotten. Heck, someone a few posts up already forgot Pat Smith. Well, unless they are arguing for Ruth over Pat Smith. I completely disagree with that one.

 

If we are talking about wrestlers in the modern era (1960's-present), then Ruth would be Top 10 if he has another season like the previous two. I don't want to get into the 1940's and 50's, or before. That is like trying to compare Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch to Calvin Johnson as wide receivers. Can't really compare the two. McIlravy only had 2 losses as a Freshman, which is true. However, he lost his Junior Year to Steve Marienetti, while giving up 13 pts. Ruth lost twice as a RS Freshman, once at the NCAA's, and tore his knee up in the process. The amazing thing about that tournament is that he battled back to win by pin, and then beat Mack Lewnes to earn 3rd place...on a bum knee. The following year he absolutely manhandled the guy who beat him and tore up his knee. There hasn't been a match that has been close since his Freshman NCAA tournament. If complete and total domination isn't a factor in ranking guys, then they mean nothing. Pat Smith won 4 titles, but he also had 5 losses and 2 ties. If we look at titles only, then we have to rank Jake Rosholt above John Smith, Brent Metcalf, Terry Brands, Cary Kolat and Jordan Oliver. Rosholt had 20 career losses. Those other guys had single digit career losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another wrestler like Taylor / Ruth in the NCAAs right now. His name is Logan Stieber.

He puts up incredible bonus numbers and is on his way to 4 titles. I realize a lot can change between now and then, but he is definitely on the Ruth/Taylor level.

 

Speaking of which, what do you do with Stieber if he wins out like expected? On one hand, he will have 4 titles and 3 undefeated seasons with two losses as a freshman. On the other hand, he did compete his true freshman year before getting injured and lost five times, including to some so-so NCAA wrestlers (Jason Lara comes to mind).

 

I think most people would put Dan Gable on a top 10 list. Yet, he only has two NCAA titles (in 3 years he could compete). Not winning a title every year does not automatically put you out of contention for the top 10. Another example is Lee Kemp. He went 2-1-1-1 and went undefeated the last three years (he did have one tie). Kemp lost five times his true freshman year including a controversial loss in the finals.

 

I think there is a fair way to compare wrestlers from the three year era to the four year era. Compare the three years that, say, Dan Hodge wrestled to the last three years of, say, Ed Ruth's career. You are looking at sophomore, junior, and senior years of both wrestlers.

 

Now, you still have to consider Ed Ruth's freshman year. Is it so good that is automatically places him ahead of Dan Hodge? Think Cael Sanderson. Going 40-0 and winning a title as a freshman definitely does. Or is the freshman year so bad that it places him behind? Think Tom Brands, who was not an AA and lost multiple times.

 

I think with Ruth, going 37-2 and placing third is pretty much a wash. It certainly isn't incredible enough to vault him above the undefeated 3xers. But it isn't so horrendous that he is automatically behind them either.

 

Now here's something else to consider: Ed Ruth, if he goes undefeated this year, is going to have the longest undefeated streak (and no ties) in NCAA history, except Cael Sanderson and Dan Gable. Ruth will be at 95 or so matches, with Cael at 159 and Gable at 98. I feel comfortable denying ties because Ruth has never gone into OT.

 

So, in my opinion, Ed Ruth, assuming he goes undefeated this year in dominant fashion, definitely makes the top 10. Only a few wrestlers will be definitely ahead: Cael Sanderson, Kyle Dake, and Pat Smith. Dan Gable probably is ahead as well because of sheer domination and legendary status. Ruth fits in somewhere along the likes of Lee Kemp, Yojiro Uetake, Dan Hodge, and Lincoln McIlravy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is another wrestler like Taylor / Ruth in the NCAAs right now. His name is Logan Stieber.

He puts up incredible bonus numbers and is on his way to 4 titles. I realize a lot can change between now and then, but he is definitely on the Ruth/Taylor level.

 

Speaking of which, what do you do with Stieber if he wins out like expected? On one hand, he will have 4 titles and 3 undefeated seasons with two losses as a freshman. On the other hand, he did compete his true freshman year before getting injured and lost five times, including to some so-so NCAA wrestlers (Jason Lara comes to mind).

 

I think most people would put Dan Gable on a top 10 list. Yet, he only has two NCAA titles (in 3 years he could compete). Not winning a title every year does not automatically put you out of contention for the top 10. Another example is Lee Kemp. He went 2-1-1-1 and went undefeated the last three years (he did have one tie). Kemp lost five times his true freshman year including a controversial loss in the finals.

 

I think there is a fair way to compare wrestlers from the three year era to the four year era. Compare the three years that, say, Dan Hodge wrestled to the last three years of, say, Ed Ruth's career. You are looking at sophomore, junior, and senior years of both wrestlers.

 

Now, you still have to consider Ed Ruth's freshman year. Is it so good that is automatically places him ahead of Dan Hodge? Think Cael Sanderson. Going 40-0 and winning a title as a freshman definitely does. Or is the freshman year so bad that it places him behind? Think Tom Brands, who was not an AA and lost multiple times.

I think with Ruth, going 37-2 and placing third is pretty much a wash. It certainly isn't incredible enough to vault him above the undefeated 3xers. But it isn't so horrendous that he is automatically behind them either.

 

Now here's something else to consider: Ed Ruth, if he goes undefeated this year, is going to have the longest undefeated streak (and no ties) in NCAA history, except Cael Sanderson and Dan Gable. Ruth will be at 95 or so matches, with Cael at 159 and Gable at 98. I feel comfortable denying ties because Ruth has never gone into OT.

 

So, in my opinion, Ed Ruth, assuming he goes undefeated this year in dominant fashion, definitely makes the top 10. Only a few wrestlers will be definitely ahead: Cael Sanderson, Kyle Dake, and Pat Smith. Dan Gable probably is ahead as well because of sheer domination and legendary status. Ruth fits in somewhere along the likes of Lee Kemp, Yojiro Uetake, Dan Hodge, and Lincoln McIlravy.

 

think you meant Terry Brands, not Tom....Tom was an AA as a freshman, 4th. Terry, even with some very good results during regular season, was not the post-season starter, Steve Martin was the Iowa 118.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.
And, that is really the difference between the best ever and everyone else.

 

 

That and the fact that we talk about the first again and again and again redundantly with all of our energy, focus and attention, while sparingly if ever acknowledging the latter as fans.

 

You have to understand this is true in ALL sports. hence the term "bandwagon fans." I will, however, throw you a bone. I still put Darren McKnight of MSU at the top of my list of who I was most excited to watch wrestle. I knew he was at a weight (149) where he was outclassed by the elite, but he wrestled SO HARD and was on the TOP10 fringe his last 3 years because of it. I pulled hard for him every year but it just wasn't meant to be. Alot more of us are fans of the wrestlers you want to push than you realize. It simply is easier to start and KEEP a topic going when it is about the CREAM of the crop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mcilravy competing and winning as a true freshman is a big advantage imo. He had two losses as a true freshman, what would Ruth have done as a true freshman? Can't say for sure, but I'm guessing he would have lost more than two matches. He lost 2 times after a redshirt afterall.

 

Doesn't Lincoln's 2nd place finish as an upper classman and after a redshirt nullify all the advantage he gained by winning as a freshman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If we are talking about wrestlers in the modern era (1960's-present), then Ruth would be Top 10 if he has another season like the previous two. I don't want to get into the 1940's and 50's, or before. That is like trying to compare Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch to Calvin Johnson as wide receivers. Can't really compare the two. McIlravy only had 2 losses as a Freshman, which is true. However, he lost his Junior Year to Steve Marienetti, while giving up 13 pts. Ruth lost twice as a RS Freshman, once at the NCAA's, and tore his knee up in the process. The amazing thing about that tournament is that he battled back to win by pin, and then beat Mack Lewnes to earn 3rd place...on a bum knee. The following year he absolutely manhandled the guy who beat him and tore up his knee. There hasn't been a match that has been close since his Freshman NCAA tournament. If complete and total domination isn't a factor in ranking guys, then they mean nothing. Pat Smith won 4 titles, but he also had 5 losses and 2 ties. If we look at titles only, then we have to rank Jake Rosholt above John Smith, Brent Metcalf, Terry Brands, Cary Kolat and Jordan Oliver. Rosholt had 20 career losses. Those other guys had single digit career losses.

 

So you're arguing for Ruth over Pat Smith if he finishes with another great season next year? Even considering Pat Smith won ncaas as a true freshman? Even considering Pat Smith never lost a match after his true freshman season? That's crazy if you ask me. You would have to treat their freshman years as if they didn't exist. That unfairly tips the scales toward Ruth who lost twice as a REDSHIRT freshman and DIDN'T win the ncaas.

 

While your at it, you would have to start considering arguments for Ruth over Dake depending on what he does next year. Also, "complete and total domination" is very ambiguous. If you ask me, Pat Smith was more dominant than Ruth and Taylor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Smith was most dominant in the NCAA tournament his Freshman year. He majored everyone except in the finals against Schleicher. The following years, he had several 1 point matches and nearly lost to Tom Ryan in the finals. I realize it is almost ludicrous to "pick on" a 4x champ, but the issue of a match being over before it starts is pretty much the case with Ed Ruth (my version of complete & total domination). That has to be consideration when ranking the best ever. Outside of his 4-1 win over Defending NCAA champ Steve Bosak and 6-2 win over multi time AA Mack Lewnes (on a bum knee), he has majors, TF's or pins throughout the NCAA brackets. I don't think he can be ranked over Smith or Dake based on the 4 titles, but he should certainly be at the top of the next tier (McIlravy, Tom Brands, Lee Kemp, Jim Zalesky, Stephen Abas, Eric Guerrero, Barry Davis). Of course, this is all predicated on him running the table in a dominating fashion this year. If that doesn't happen, then this is all moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat Smith was most dominant in the NCAA tournament his Freshman year. He majored everyone except in the finals against Schleicher. The following years, he had several 1 point matches and nearly lost to Tom Ryan in the finals. I realize it is almost ludicrous to "pick on" a 4x champ, but the issue of a match being over before it starts is pretty much the case with Ed Ruth (my version of complete & total domination). That has to be consideration when ranking the best ever. Outside of his 4-1 win over Defending NCAA champ Steve Bosak and 6-2 win over multi time AA Mack Lewnes (on a bum knee), he has majors, TF's or pins throughout the NCAA brackets. I don't think he can be ranked over Smith or Dake based on the 4 titles, but he should certainly be at the top of the next tier (McIlravy, Tom Brands, Lee Kemp, Jim Zalesky, Stephen Abas, Eric Guerrero, Barry Davis). Of course, this is all predicated on him running the table in a dominating fashion this year. If that doesn't happen, then this is all moot.

 

Okay, we agree then that he can't be above Pat Smith. He does make a case for going very high in the next tier. However, I would put him behind Lee Kemp and Mcilravy on the strength of their true freshman seasons.

Margin of victory is nice, but I believe it's overrated. Every wrestler goes out and tries to win every match, not every wrestler tries to pin or tech fall. Some of the greats of the past were more or less coached to NOT wrestle that way.

 

We need to look no further than last year to see how margin of victory doesn't always mean much. Dake beat Taylor everytime and Taylor is definitely better at putting up bonus points on inferior competition. I'd like to see Dake's career bonus % vs Taylor's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.
And, that is really the difference between the best ever and everyone else.

 

 

That and the fact that we talk about the first again and again and again redundantly with all of our energy, focus and attention, while sparingly if ever acknowledging the latter as fans.

 

You have to understand this is true in ALL sports. hence the term "bandwagon fans." I will, however, throw you a bone. I still put Darren McKnight of MSU at the top of my list of who I was most excited to watch wrestle. I knew he was at a weight (149) where he was outclassed by the elite, but he wrestled SO HARD and was on the TOP10 fringe his last 3 years because of it. I pulled hard for him every year but it just wasn't meant to be. Alot more of us are fans of the wrestlers you want to push than you realize. It simply is easier to start and KEEP a topic going when it is about the CREAM of the crop.

 

The particular topic, yes I most certainly agree, but my statement was about wrestling fans in general, not just this particular topic....and No, I do not agree that it is true in all sports. Matter of fact I think it is what makes wrestling very unique among its peers. You want to get large groups of wrestling fans, it is the teams that contend for the title, THE title, and that's it.

 

With exception to the Chicago Cubs, all other sports have some sort of bragging rights, that allude wrestling. In Football you can have a team with a mediocre record, as long as they make a bowl game and win it, it doesn't matter if 20 other teams are better than them, they still did something that gives the fans bragging rights. In basketball you don't even have to make the NCAA tournament, you make and do well in the NIT, you did something of accomplishment. In wrestling you finish 2nd in the nation as a team, that sucks because it wasn't first. We need to allow guys to be a bit more proud of themselves and act like winning a title as the Southern Scuffle actually means something and isn't "just practice" I'm not saying dance around like a hooligan and celebrate as if they just won $400 million dollars but it seems that we look being an NCAA champion as the peak of Mount Everest and NCAA runner up and anything below, seems to float at the bottom of the stream running below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat Smith was most dominant in the NCAA tournament his Freshman year. He majored everyone except in the finals against Schleicher. The following years, he had several 1 point matches and nearly lost to Tom Ryan in the finals. I realize it is almost ludicrous to "pick on" a 4x champ, but the issue of a match being over before it starts is pretty much the case with Ed Ruth (my version of complete & total domination). That has to be consideration when ranking the best ever. Outside of his 4-1 win over Defending NCAA champ Steve Bosak and 6-2 win over multi time AA Mack Lewnes (on a bum knee), he has majors, TF's or pins throughout the NCAA brackets. I don't think he can be ranked over Smith or Dake based on the 4 titles, but he should certainly be at the top of the next tier (McIlravy, Tom Brands, Lee Kemp, Jim Zalesky, Stephen Abas, Eric Guerrero, Barry Davis). Of course, this is all predicated on him running the table in a dominating fashion this year. If that doesn't happen, then this is all moot.

 

Okay, we agree then that he can't be above Pat Smith. He does make a case for going very high in the next tier. However, I would put him behind Lee Kemp and Mcilravy on the strength of their true freshman seasons.

Margin of victory is nice, but I believe it's overrated. Every wrestler goes out and tries to win every match, not every wrestler tries to pin or tech fall. Some of the greats of the past were more or less coached to NOT wrestle that way.

 

We need to look no further than last year to see how margin of victory doesn't always mean much. Dake beat Taylor everytime and Taylor is definitely better at putting up bonus points on inferior competition. I'd like to see Dake's career bonus % vs Taylor's.

 

LM lost as a Jr. and had some stall call help as a freshman. Ruth has been untouchable the past 2 years. Why does true freshamn year count more than Jr.?

 

Is Kolat better than John Smith because of their True Freshman years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We may not see their like again.

 

We have seen it before, we will certainly see it again.

 

If you had said "We may not see their like on the same team and at the same time again" I would agree. We may not. Forever is a real long time though.

 

How about Tom and Terry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We may not see their like again.

 

We have seen it before, we will certainly see it again.

 

If you had said "We may not see their like on the same team and at the same time again" I would agree. We may not. Forever is a real long time though.

 

How about Tom and Terry?

 

 

I doubt we see Tom and Terry again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat Smith was most dominant in the NCAA tournament his Freshman year. He majored everyone except in the finals against Schleicher. The following years, he had several 1 point matches and nearly lost to Tom Ryan in the finals. I realize it is almost ludicrous to "pick on" a 4x champ, but the issue of a match being over before it starts is pretty much the case with Ed Ruth (my version of complete & total domination). That has to be consideration when ranking the best ever. Outside of his 4-1 win over Defending NCAA champ Steve Bosak and 6-2 win over multi time AA Mack Lewnes (on a bum knee), he has majors, TF's or pins throughout the NCAA brackets. I don't think he can be ranked over Smith or Dake based on the 4 titles, but he should certainly be at the top of the next tier (McIlravy, Tom Brands, Lee Kemp, Jim Zalesky, Stephen Abas, Eric Guerrero, Barry Davis). Of course, this is all predicated on him running the table in a dominating fashion this year. If that doesn't happen, then this is all moot.

 

Okay, we agree then that he can't be above Pat Smith. He does make a case for going very high in the next tier. However, I would put him behind Lee Kemp and Mcilravy on the strength of their true freshman seasons.

Margin of victory is nice, but I believe it's overrated. Every wrestler goes out and tries to win every match, not every wrestler tries to pin or tech fall. Some of the greats of the past were more or less coached to NOT wrestle that way.

 

We need to look no further than last year to see how margin of victory doesn't always mean much. Dake beat Taylor everytime and Taylor is definitely better at putting up bonus points on inferior competition. I'd like to see Dake's career bonus % vs Taylor's.

 

LM lost as a Jr. and had some stall call help as a freshman. Ruth has been untouchable the past 2 years. Why does true freshamn year count more than Jr.?

 

Is Kolat better than John Smith because of their True Freshman years?

 

Perhaps I should think more before I speak! I'd still have Ruth behind Kemp. Let me think about Mcilravy after I take a nap. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny I have no idea what that last post of yours was even about? Nor do I want you to try to explain it to me I thought this was about Ruth being in the top ten of all time?

 

He thinks wrestling fans, EXCLUSIVELY, only care about the best team or wrestler. I made a point that in every sport the SAME perception is true. He disagreed.

 

The thing he overlooks in his argument is the MILLIONS of fans other sports have compared to our wrestling fan niche. PERCENTAGE wise the same amount of fans of other sports prioritize the ELITE the same way wrestling does. It simply is more at the forefront and easier to follow. Most fans are lazy and don't want to research who is a 5th year senior fighting to finally make varsity and whether or not he can break .500 for the season. I think it is a great accomplishment and with my limited firsthand experience KNOW how hard that is to achieve. I respect it and cheer for it but DO NOT expect most fans to PRIORITIZE it while DE-PRIORITIZING the best of the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny I have no idea what that last post of yours was even about? Nor do I want you to try to explain it to me I thought this was about Ruth being in the top ten of all time?

 

He thinks wrestling fans, EXCLUSIVELY, only care about the best team or wrestler. I made a point that in every sport the SAME perception is true. He disagreed.

 

The thing he overlooks in his argument is the MILLIONS of fans other sports have compared to our wrestling fan niche. PERCENTAGE wise the same amount of fans of other sports prioritize the ELITE the same way wrestling does. It simply is more at the forefront and easier to follow. Most fans are lazy and don't want to research who is a 5th year senior fighting to finally make varsity and whether or not he can break .500 for the season. I think it is a great accomplishment and with my limited firsthand experience KNOW how hard that is to achieve. I respect it and cheer for it but DO NOT expect most fans to PRIORITIZE it while DE-PRIORITIZING the best of the best.

 

Ok, point made, but you are still ignoring a premier fact that if football were the same way, the only team worth mentioning would be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Some fans dont' even accredit Greg Jones, and he won 3 titles and only faced defeat 3 times in his career. Yet he didn't win four and he didn't go undefeated. Sorry, that I think he's still worth mentioning in spite of those horrible mishaps within his career. Forgive me.

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...