Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IronChef

100 bonus point wins

Recommended Posts

I also would like to point out to all you guys in the "He can't be once in a generation because there are others just as good/better in his generation" camp...

 

By that rationalization...."once in a generation" almost does not even exist. Pat Smith and Cael Sanderson are in the "same generation". So, one of the 4 timers is left off the list? And, by some of your definitions Kyle Dake is also in their generation...so TWO of the 4-timers are now left off the list?

 

I think the reason people take issue with Taylor being called "once in a generation" is because they would prefer to have that distinction go to only one person. Yes, it can be very difficult to choose one person for that honor, but there are still cutoff points imo. In the case of Smith/Sanderson/Dake, many view them as so close that it could go either way between them. Not too much fuss would be made if you picked any of those guys for #1. As good as he is, that's not the case for Taylor. Not many non PSU fans would even consider listening to the argument for Taylor being on par, or even greater, than any of those guys. Historically speaking, he's about 2 notches below. In other words, introducing Taylor into the "once in a generation category" opens the door too wide for many people's taste. It does for mine. No offense intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First, "generaiton" is most commonly defined by offspring...not by a set number of years. One generation is born from the previous generation.

 

Second, you saying there have only been 4 generation of NCAA wrestlers is invalid to the argument I made. When I said "once in a generation" I made the argument that multiple "once in a generation - ers" can be in the same generation, considering averaging and total numbers...NOT the finite number we have had SO FAR.

 

Third, I am changing no definitions at all. I don't even know where you got that idea.

 

Fourth, a "100 year" storm can happen consistently (even though you threw that word in yourself, since it wasn't there to start) every 5 years for a finite period of time...and still be a "100 year storm" based on it's severity - which is why it is called that. Because given enough time, a storm of that severity will happen ON AVERAGE, only once every 100 years - regardless if it happened 5 times in the last 25 years. The same reason, as I have already explained, you can have multiple "once in a generation' wrestlers within the same generation.

 

You claim I am changing definitions and arguments...when you are the one adding words to twist things to fit your argument. Words like "consistently" and "Available (generations)". When you add those words you are countering an argument I never even made.

 

Without quantifying the word generation you have NO unit of measurement to use. Saying once in a generation would then become COMPLETELY arbitrary. Would you agree that ancestry.com would be an acceptable source for the most accepted measurement of time per generation? They use 25 by the way. Although they do state that 50 years ago 20 years was more accepted. 50 years ago a first time mother averaged 20 yrs of age. 20 years ago they averaged 25. Last year it was 29.1. I think 25 years is pretty much spot on.

 

Define consistent. Always acting or behaving in the same way. Not my definition but Webster's. Like I said if the storm CONSISTENTLY happens every 5 years it BY DEFINITION becomes a 5 year storm. I was not arguing that a 100 year storm can happen a few times every 5 years. I was saying it cannot CONSISTENTLY do so. I used that as an analogy to the once in a generation argument. In my opinion, the phrase is used TOO OFTEN. Again it is not a slight to Taylor. I just see once in a generation as considerably MORE RARE than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winning 100 matches in college is tough enough. getting bonus points in 100 matches is ridiculously absurd. the kid is as good as there is in college, and fun to watch. i'd pay to watch him scrap. good enough for me.

 

the candy a$$es offended because not everyone thinks DT's the greatest ever on the planet, or the ones bagging on him because he's apparently never won against anybody who was any good ... you're all insufferable. how about just respecting, or even enjoying, what he brings to the table. just a hunch, but none of you clowns are/were 107-3 or whatever with 100 bonus point wins in DI. and you never will be.

 

wrestling "fans" are their own worst enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats to David what an amazing accomplishment and a joy to watch as a fan of the sport!

 

 

Agreed. Taylor has been a rare and special talent to watch since his youth days and his dominance at this level is worth noting. As far as publicizing one's self, why not? That's what social media is for. At least he's not trolling for sympathy like half the people on facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one doubts Taylor is a great wrestler. No one is "hating" him. The question is whether he is over-hyped and over-praised. For perspective on this whole once-in-a-generation idea, here is an article from Intermat by TR Foley on the "Top ten college wrestlers of the 2000s." As you can see, just to make this Top 10 list, you'd need 2 NCAA titles at least. Indeed, there were at least a dozen two-time champs who did not make the list (including Hendricks and Varner). Four of these Top 10 (Cael, Abas, Rosholt and Jones) had three titles.

 

Taylor could not be on the list since it includes only those who finished their careers between 2000 and 2010. But everyone who is on the list is in Taylor's generation. You could easily argue Taylor would be on the list if it extended to 2014. (His career is similar to Metcalf, who had lots of bonus wins, two NCAA titles and one loss in the finals, and is ranked 8th.) But it's by no means certain he'd make it. So it's silly to call him once-in-a-generation. It would be more accurate to say he is in the top 10-20 of his generation.

 

 

http://www.intermatwrestle.com/articles/10428

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once in a generation sounds 5 every 100 years to me. so DT has to be in the top 5 most talented wrestlers ever, basically to be a once in a generation talent.

 

but even if he's not, i little hyperbole never hurt anyone in sports. if you want to call him that i wont quibble with semantics. he is also for my money the most exciting guy to watch in NCAA wrestling right now. i'm pumped to see what happens the rest of the year.

 

the only exaggeration i could do with less of is the super sensitive penn state fans. your team and wrestlers will get held up to higher scrutiny by fans of other teams. thats what happens when you have reached the commanding heights of a dynasty. learn to deal with it gracefully. you want to look magnanimous, not insecure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
once in a generation sounds 5 every 100 years to me. so DT has to be in the top 5 most talented wrestlers ever, basically to be a once in a generation talent.

I'm of the opinion that DT should not be in the top 5 over the last 100 years. There is a lot of talent in that time period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Taylor is a stud. If we had more wrestlers that competed like him, we would put more people in the stands.

 

I'm too lazy to track it down, but does anyone know how many bonus point wins that Askren had in his four year career?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Gene Mills laughing at this?

 

Seriously, Taylor is a stud and among the best to ever wrestle at the DI level, so why dog him for being proud about what he has accomplished? He never said, "Bibba and KD x2 were flukes" or anything of the sort. I, for one, applaud him on an achievement that all but a handful of us on this board can realistically fathom,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some one makes some inane off-the-cuff remark and on this site people crawl out of the woodwork to prove him wrong with sarcasm and snarky remarks.

 

Then the original poster feels obligated to defend his loosely considered opinion.

 

Call off the dogs, already! David Taylor is an extraordinary wrestler by any criteria. We've been blessed to have a few of those over the course of the last decade. If I were making my pantheon of greatest wrestlers, DT would appear somewhere, not sure where yet, but he certainly would be in the conversation.

 

I was raised on Yojiro Uetake, Dan Gable, Wade Schalles, guys like that being at the top of my all-time list.

Wrestlers like Dake and Ruth and yes, Taylor may well make their way somewhere on the list along with some of the other gods of recent wrestling generations. I personally haven't given it much thought.

 

But geez, give credit where credit is due and lay off the constant in-fighting. It's not amusing, it's boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without quantifying the word generation you have NO unit of measurement to use. Saying once in a generation would then become COMPLETELY arbitrary. Would you agree that ancestry.com would be an acceptable source for the most accepted measurement of time per generation? They use 25 by the way. Although they do state that 50 years ago 20 years was more accepted. 50 years ago a first time mother averaged 20 yrs of age. 20 years ago they averaged 25. Last year it was 29.1. I think 25 years is pretty much spot on.

 

Define consistent. Always acting or behaving in the same way. Not my definition but Webster's. Like I said if the storm CONSISTENTLY happens every 5 years it BY DEFINITION becomes a 5 year storm. I was not arguing that a 100 year storm can happen a few times every 5 years. I was saying it cannot CONSISTENTLY do so. I used that as an analogy to the once in a generation argument. In my opinion, the phrase is used TOO OFTEN. Again it is not a slight to Taylor. I just see once in a generation as considerably MORE RARE than you do.

 

Honestly, do you even read the things I write before responding? Quantifying the word "generation" is all well and good, go for it. Take it from ancestry.com or wherever else you want. But it does not change the actual meaning of the word when you attempt to put an average number to it. IT STILL MEANS groups separated by birth.

 

Again, you continue to make argument and counter things I am not saying. You just went on a huge rant about the word "consistently" .... a word that completely changes the context of the argument...and a word you added to the argument to make your counter-points more sensible. That is not how this works...especially if you are going to turn around and accuse me of the thing you just did.

 

You can see it as rare as you want....my point still stands....and will continue to stand. Once in a generation, given the concepts of averages and total # of all generations, CAN occur twice (or three, four, five, etc.) times in the same generation. Without adding any caveats or twists to the argument...this is a completely factual statement. So, considering that, you cannot argue against Taylor being once in a generation by saying "hey, Dake is in the same generation...so Taylor can't be once in a generation."

 

I really cannot explain that in any simpler terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love watching DT wrestling - think he is amazing. I don't want to rank the best of the best, you ladies can have fun doing that. But, in the pantheon of great wrestlers, I would only include those that are extraordinary in all three positions. I think DT only qualifies for two of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some one makes some inane off-the-cuff remark and on this site people crawl out of the woodwork to prove him wrong with sarcasm and snarky remarks.

 

Then the original poster feels obligated to defend his loosely considered opinion.

 

Call off the dogs, already! David Taylor is an extraordinary wrestler by any criteria. We've been blessed to have a few of those over the course of the last decade. If I were making my pantheon of greatest wrestlers, DT would appear somewhere, not sure where yet, but he certainly would be in the conversation.

 

I was raised on Yojiro Uetake, Dan Gable, Wade Schalles, guys like that being at the top of my all-time list.

Wrestlers like Dake and Ruth and yes, Taylor may well make their way somewhere on the list along with some of the other gods of recent wrestling generations. I personally haven't given it much thought.

 

But geez, give credit where credit is due and lay off the constant in-fighting. It's not amusing, it's boring.

 

What he said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some one makes some inane off-the-cuff remark and on this site people crawl out of the woodwork to prove him wrong with sarcasm and snarky remarks.

 

Then the original poster feels obligated to defend his loosely considered opinion.

 

Call off the dogs, already! David Taylor is an extraordinary wrestler by any criteria. We've been blessed to have a few of those over the course of the last decade. If I were making my pantheon of greatest wrestlers, DT would appear somewhere, not sure where yet, but he certainly would be in the conversation.

 

I was raised on Yojiro Uetake, Dan Gable, Wade Schalles, guys like that being at the top of my all-time list.

Wrestlers like Dake and Ruth and yes, Taylor may well make their way somewhere on the list along with some of the other gods of recent wrestling generations. I personally haven't given it much thought.

 

But geez, give credit where credit is due and lay off the constant in-fighting. It's not amusing, it's boring.

 

What he said...

 

I agree. I will let the argument(in-fighting) die out. Taylor is a great wrestler and 100 bonus pt. wins is an incredible accomplishment. What I think about once in a generation or 100 (5) year storms shouldn't take away from that. Congrats to David Taylor. Hopefully he can finish off his career on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read through this thread I saw A LOT of good posts. For once I didn't have to do all the dirty work and take all the backlash. I do think a lot of people are super sensitive to criticism of David Taylor. To a lot of you I'm a David Taylor hater (even though I don't feel that way personally). So coming from a hater my thoughts on DT are this, he's Ben Askren and Jake Varner. That is an awesome accomplishment to be in the same conversation as those two! I certainly wouldn't say he's a once in a generation talent any more than Askren and Varner were. I'd say Ruth is much more worthy of that praise. Dake certainly is. None of this makes DT suck. I hope none of you guys are ever afraid to call Taylor what he is for fear of the ridicule you'll receive on this message board. That would be sad. DT is very good. He's not as good as some think but he's very good. Other than PSU fans I don't think that many people who've met him or heard him speak would say he falls into the "humble" category but I really don't care about that. I don't need my wrestlers to be humble. Askren isn't humble. I need my wrestlers to win. So the kid is cocky, who cares. I don't and I'm a hater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some one makes some inane off-the-cuff remark and on this site people crawl out of the woodwork to prove him wrong with sarcasm and snarky remarks.

 

Then the original poster feels obligated to defend his loosely considered opinion.

 

Call off the dogs, already! David Taylor is an extraordinary wrestler by any criteria. We've been blessed to have a few of those over the course of the last decade. If I were making my pantheon of greatest wrestlers, DT would appear somewhere, not sure where yet, but he certainly would be in the conversation.

 

I was raised on Yojiro Uetake, Dan Gable, Wade Schalles, guys like that being at the top of my all-time list.

Wrestlers like Dake and Ruth and yes, Taylor may well make their way somewhere on the list along with some of the other gods of recent wrestling generations. I personally haven't given it much thought.

 

But geez, give credit where credit is due and lay off the constant in-fighting. It's not amusing, it's boring.

Thank you for some clarity. You are correct. It is very boring and childish.

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...