Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rodneydeeeee

Ed Ruth all time

Recommended Posts

No sir, I am not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that Taylor losing to Dake is comparable to Dick losing to Verne in one manner, which is exactly pertinent to the conversation. No one will ever ear mark any of Ruth's losses as historically significant, or that his last collegiate loss was to a historically significant wrestler. Kyle Dake was a 1 point winner over the defending Hodge Award winner. Both opponents were of historical significance. There are very, very few losses in the history of the NCAA, which would not exclude you from the All Time list. In my honest opinion, those are two great examples of that very thing. ( Both the Gagne Judges Decision over Hutton, and Dake's one point victory over Taylor) While I'm getting pretty darned old, I was close enough to run into old timers that would tell you of men you just frankly would not be able to fathom in this day and time. The difference is, that my generation accepted that the link to the past was different, but well worn with the same time and energy devoted to becoming great as is the case today. I dare say, you have 500 # bench press guys that would squeal like a pig stuck in a gate if Danny Hodge grabbed them in his prime. They were as great as the rules and techniques of their time made them. Doug Blubaugh, who was a great inspiration to Dan Gable for instance...ah, never mind. I'm just babbling on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No sir, I am not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that Taylor losing to Dake is comparable to Dick losing to Verne in one manner, which is exactly pertinent to the conversation. No one will ever ear mark any of Ruth's losses as historically significant, or that his last collegiate loss was to a historically significant wrestler. Kyle Dake was a 1 point winner over the defending Hodge Award winner. Both opponents were of historical significance. There are very, very few losses in the history of the NCAA, which would not exclude you from the All Time list. In my honest opinion, those are two great examples of that very thing. ( Both the Gagne Judges Decision over Hutton, and Dake's one point victory over Taylor) While I'm getting pretty darned old, I was close enough to run into old timers that would tell you of men you just frankly would not be able to fathom in this day and time. The difference is, that my generation accepted that the link to the past was different, but well worn with the same time and energy devoted to becoming great as is the case today. I dare say, you have 500 # bench press guys that would squeal like a pig stuck in a gate if Danny Hodge grabbed them in his prime. They were as great as the rules and techniques of their time made them. Doug Blubaugh, who was a great inspiration to Dan Gable for instance...ah, never mind. I'm just babbling on.

Would you consider Kemp's split referee decision loss in the NCAA finals his freshman year to be another one of those losses that do not exclude one from the all-time great list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is not the Gold Standard. Chuck was good, but the historical significance of Lee Roy Kemp is determined by many events. The Kemp/Yagla/Schultz/Gable careers are all kind of intertwined. I suppose in answer to your question it was more a matter of a freshman losing by referees decision in his first of four consecutive finals that would indeed be the type of loss that is over looked. Chuck was a tough son of a gun, but to be clear, Chuck, as tough as he was, would never be compared to Gagne, Hutton, Taylor, Dake.

 

Interesting to me at least. Lee Kemp beat Dan Gable, when Kemp was a freshman at Wisconsin. The following season after Chuck had defeated Lee in the NCAA finals, he was defeated by a high school senior named Dave Schultz. I know Dave/Chuck was freestyle, but I can't remember where the Kemp/Gable match was. That's a great example of how complex it gets when trying to figure out the best of all time. Every season there are a ton of guys that are 6 moves away from being one of the best, but many on here have no idea what that list actually looks like. It's a marvelous sport with amazing history. If you are quick to say todays guys are better, it's because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. The guys from the 50's that were the best of the best, would not wrestle in black and white if they competed today. They would be the innovators, and the most well trained using today's training knowledge. If you don't think Blubaugh training with Jack Dempsey running 20 miles and training all day in between the two 10 mile mountain runs would have been a guy that would be well trained today, you are fooling yourself. He would have been as tough as anyone competing before/during/after today's guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many tough guys who were so good.

 

Given time and distance I'll take John Smith, Yojo Uetake, Bruce Barnbaum and Dan Gable as my top guys, with Uetake and Smith at the very top.

 

and remember, Bobby Douglas is the only guy to beat Dan Gable five times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but every time I see Ruth wrestle, I can't help but think his skill level doesn't approach a guy like Taylor's.

That floating on top/looking for nothing but a cradle style works because he has freakishly long arms, and he's able to physically overwhelm college kids. He gets thumped in freestyle because his skill level isn't nearly as high as many others, and he's wrestling guys that have the same horsepower.

He'll never win a world medal at the senior level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but every time I see Ruth wrestle, I can't help but think his skill level doesn't approach a guy like Taylor's.

That floating on top/looking for nothing but a cradle style works because he has freakishly long arms, and he's able to physically overwhelm college kids. He gets thumped in freestyle because his skill level isn't nearly as high as many others, and he's wrestling guys that have the same horsepower.

He'll never win a world medal at the senior level.

Not going to rip on you but have to disagree I think Ruth looks very good not sloppy with his takedowns or riding. I have watched him at the Open and I did not think he got thumped just needs to focus 100% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but every time I see Ruth wrestle, I can't help but think his skill level doesn't approach a guy like Taylor's.

That floating on top/looking for nothing but a cradle style works because he has freakishly long arms, and he's able to physically overwhelm college kids. He gets thumped in freestyle because his skill level isn't nearly as high as many others, and he's wrestling guys that have the same horsepower.

He'll never win a world medal at the senior level.

 

Ruth hasn't really impressed in freestyle, that's true. I think he should get a little less harsh treatment though. After his freshman and sophomore years, at 174, he had to wrestle at 185 pounds. He didn't have a freestyle weight close to his collegiate weight like Taylor. 74 kgs is great for Taylor, he was both the weight and height to compete at that weight class. His length is something that other top guys need to watch out for. Ruth at 185, after his sophomore year, was both small and had his length advantage watered down.

 

When Ruth competed at 185, after competing at 184 in college, he seemed to do a lot better. He qualified for university worlds, although he didn't medal. He lost to a tough Iranian who took bronze. That was the only match he wrestled there so it's hard to tell how many of those guys were better than him. Ruth also took 4th at the U.S Open. Ruth's not great, but he's also not horrible. Earlier this year was the first time that Ruth wrestled a class closer to his weight. We'll see what the future holds.

 

Right now, I don't see either Taylor or Ruth as a threat to win worlds. As far as each of their skill levels go, I put them both at about the same level. In the future we may even see the square off at 185, Taylor definitely has the height for that weight class.

 

This is far from a perfect measure, but my sources tell me that Ruth has always beaten Taylor in the room. He said Taylor doesn't have an answer for Ruth, and this was when they were only one weight class apart (Taylor at 165, Ruth at 174).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but every time I see Ruth wrestle, I can't help but think his skill level doesn't approach a guy like Taylor's.

That floating on top/looking for nothing but a cradle style works because he has freakishly long arms, and he's able to physically overwhelm college kids. He gets thumped in freestyle because his skill level isn't nearly as high as many others, and he's wrestling guys that have the same horsepower.

He'll never win a world medal at the senior level.

Not going to rip on you but have to disagree I think Ruth looks very good not sloppy with his takedowns or riding. I have watched him at the Open and I did not think he got thumped just needs to focus 100% of the time.

 

 

If we are grading on a world class level scale, then Ruth's wrestling from his feet is often times sloppy. Again, talking about grading on a world class scale. Same goes for Taylor when he's in any sort of tieup. Look again closely at the Iowa dual and you'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's awfully good! In the top 50 list put out for the 80th anniversary team, I have a hard time seeing who he replaces.

 

He should replace about 47 or so. The biggest problem/argument used in the GOAT argument is 4 years wrestling vs. 3. A lot of people bring up 3 year wrestlers when comparing and I think this argument would actually HELP Ruth. He, in all likelihood will finish UNDEFEATED his final 3 years. Since the 3 year wrestlers only wrestled 3 because they couldn't wrestle Varsity as freshman Ruth fits right in. As far as 4 year guys go his career record will be better than EVERYONE not named Sanderson. If he finishes this year undefeated, and more importantly, as dominant as the last 2 years he has a GREAT argument to be a TOP5 guy.

 

Would you place him ahead of this man?

 

• Bill Koll: Some present-day fans may be familiar with Koll's rough, tough image; reportedly the "slam" rule was instituted because of him. While wrestling at what is now Northern Iowa, Koll earned three college titles (1946-47 at 145 lbs; 1948 at 147.5 lbs) and Outstanding Wrestler honors two years in a row (the first to do so). Even more impressive than Koll's perfect 72-0 record: in his entire college career, he was taken down only once, reversed just twice … and pinned all five opponents at the 1948 NCAAs.

 

I think it is next to impossible to compare wrestlers from 70 years ago with those of today. They wrestled considerably less matches and had inferior training facilities and equipment compared to today. I would not argue with you that the talent of yesteryear COULD be just as good with today's access to training through internet, camps, facilities, nutrition, etc. The problem is they did NOT have access to them. I simply do not see them competing, EXACTLY as they were then, with today's rigorous season and competition level. You would see this in every sport. Football, Basketball, and keep going down the list.

 

Ruth plays with his opponents like no one I have seen. His Finals match with Amuchestegui convinced me he is levels ahead of anyone over the last 3 years. With the amount of matches current DI guys wrestle, I cannot put more than the 4 timers, and MAYBE Kemp ahead of someone with 2 freshman losses, one of which I am now convinced was injury related. I have no issue with your arguments. The greats of the past COULD be as great today with the same access but since they did NOT have that access I simply cannot compare them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Ruth is a freakish athlete by any standard. He's on a different level than even D1 wrestlers.

 

What looks like "lazy" wrestling is anything but that. He's very coordinated, flexible, strong, and long limbed, and he has impeccable timing. When you put these thing together, you get a guy who looks loose and almost playful most of the time, and who scores in short bursts here and there. Before you know it, you're majored, teched, or pinned. Honestly, I think it's phenomenal.

 

He's so exceptionally gifted he can turn wrestling into something that looks rhythmic and artful, sort of like Muhammad Ali did with boxing, or Anderson Silva is doing with MMA.

 

If he decides to pursue freestyle full time, I think he has an excellent shot at a world medal. If he decides to train MMA, I think you'll see him in the UFC. He's from the same part of PA as Phil Davis, and they know each other, so don't rule out MMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is next to impossible to compare wrestlers from 70 years ago with those of today. They wrestled considerably less matches and had inferior training facilities and equipment compared to today. I would not argue with you that the talent of yesteryear COULD be just as good with today's access to training through internet, camps, facilities, nutrition, etc. The problem is they did NOT have access to them. I simply do not see them competing, EXACTLY as they were then, with today's rigorous season and competition level. You would see this in every sport. Football, Basketball, and keep going down the list.

 

Ruth plays with his opponents like no one I have seen. His Finals match with Amuchestegui convinced me he is levels ahead of anyone over the last 3 years. With the amount of matches current DI guys wrestle, I cannot put more than the 4 timers, and MAYBE Kemp ahead of someone with 2 freshman losses, one of which I am now convinced was injury related. I have no issue with your arguments. The greats of the past COULD be as great today with the same access but since they did NOT have that access I simply cannot compare them.

 

 

How are you convinced Ruth is levels beyond Dake? If Taylor hadn't ran into Dake, he'd be toying with the vast majority just like Ruth. Taylor likely would have less losses with better ncaa placements, but Dake came along.

 

I think we get carried away with the top wresters killing lesser competition, especially since the majority of the competition isn't very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is next to impossible to compare wrestlers from 70 years ago with those of today. They wrestled considerably less matches and had inferior training facilities and equipment compared to today. I would not argue with you that the talent of yesteryear COULD be just as good with today's access to training through internet, camps, facilities, nutrition, etc. The problem is they did NOT have access to them. I simply do not see them competing, EXACTLY as they were then, with today's rigorous season and competition level. You would see this in every sport. Football, Basketball, and keep going down the list.

 

Ruth plays with his opponents like no one I have seen. His Finals match with Amuchestegui convinced me he is levels ahead of anyone over the last 3 years. With the amount of matches current DI guys wrestle, I cannot put more than the 4 timers, and MAYBE Kemp ahead of someone with 2 freshman losses, one of which I am now convinced was injury related. I have no issue with your arguments. The greats of the past COULD be as great today with the same access but since they did NOT have that access I simply cannot compare them.

 

 

How are you convinced Ruth is levels beyond Dake? If Taylor hadn't ran into Dake, he'd be toying with the vast majority just like Ruth. Taylor likely would have less losses with better ncaa placements, but Dake came along.

 

I think we get carried away with the top wresters killing lesser competition, especially since the majority of the competition isn't very good.

 

I wouldn't put Ruth ahead of Dake due to Dake's career accomplishments, but I do think over his last 3 years Ruth's style and length makes him the best DI wrestler I have seen since Cael(Burroughs in his senior year has an argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Burroughs as a senior was better than Sanderson as a senior. Burroughs's improvement every year was stratospheric, and that included his improvement from his undefeated junior year to his undefeated senior year. I think Burroughs was the best college wrestler since Smith.

 

Where does Ruth fit into all this? It's hard to tell. Ruth only has two losses, and it's clear he was better than both guys he lost to. The only question mark is how he would have done against Reader during Ruth's freshman year. Many of us were shocked when he beat studs like Lewnes and Henrich with relative ease.

 

My best guess is Ruth is up there with Taylor, Dake, Askren, etc. If someone thinks Ruth is the best since Cael, I'd say that's fair. It's just tough to say with different opponents, weight classes, styles, and chance occurrences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One FS issue Ruth has is he just stands too high (like Askren used to). Even non-elite wrestlers are able to blast in and take him down. Not sure if this is because he is used to scrambling out of those same situations on folkstyle, or what.

 

He is also pretty akward in back exposure situations. This is where Taylor has made huge strides, to the point where he is lighting up grear wrestlers on the mat (Howe, the admittedly smaller Russian bronze medallist) but Ruth still looks akward.

 

The plus side is, par terre was not an area which came too naturally to Sanderson either, but he became Olympic champion with hard work and dedication. I think Ruth has sa similar celing if he can harness it the way CS did and at the very least be solid defensiely on the mat. The lat few 84 kg world champions have been exceptional ground wrestlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth will be back in the finals and will win his 3rd title in March. This probably lit a fire under him that he hasn't had in sometime. It was certainly a big upset, but if Dean continues to progress and wins a couple of titles himself...it won't look like such a big upset a few years from now.

 

Ruth will more than likely finish as a 3x champ with only 3 losses. How many guys have fewer losses over a 4 year period than him? Cael and Gable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, Burroughs as a senior was better than Sanderson as a senior. Burroughs's improvement every year was stratospheric, and that included his improvement from his undefeated junior year to his undefeated senior year. I think Burroughs was the best college wrestler since Smith.

 

Where does Ruth fit into all this? It's hard to tell. Ruth only has two losses, and it's clear he was better than both guys he lost to. The only question mark is how he would have done against Reader during Ruth's freshman year. Many of us were shocked when he beat studs like Lewnes and Henrich with relative ease.

 

My best guess is Ruth is up there with Taylor, Dake, Askren, etc. If someone thinks Ruth is the best since Cael, I'd say that's fair. It's just tough to say with different opponents, weight classes, styles, and chance occurrences.

I'm not even sure Burroughs was one of the top 2 165 lbers of the past 4 years. There is no doubt in my mind that Senior Dake beats Senior Burroughs in a folkstyle match. I also have a feeling Taylor could turn Burroughs from top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed is a stud, that's for sure. In this day of video taping and scouting being so much more available, it's a wonder any of these guys can go undefeated. I know everyone thinks of John Smith's Low Single as changing the wrestling world forever, and it did, but there have been a few College Wrestlers, that have had dominant techniques, that I was surprised no one could stop. About 90% of high school coaches would have laughed at Johnny Thompsons Snake (advanced Cow Catcher) and tell you that it wouldn't work at the college level. Before Kendall Cross, I thought it was crazy to step over a whizzer. Cael, and his single that looked a little bit like a head and heel just shocked me that no one, and I mean no one until he hit international level, could stop that thing. All of those guys had many other techniques to go to, like Johnny's double leg, Caels, everything, but Ruth really has shocked me more than anyone else. He seems pretty fair in all positions, but with a cradle that makes you want to see if he has a big S on his chest. That does, seem to be the one thing you have to stop to defeat him...now that someone has done it, I wonder if it will require an adjustment on his part to keep the magic alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dake is NOT in there, sorry- he and Ruth, M Scultz , P Smith will be on the 2nd tier.

Shows how little you know, pal.

 

Listen Pal,

 

It is just my opinion. Dake, P Smith, Ruth, M schultz do NOT belong on the same tier as Gable, Sanderson or Hodge but they belong in the argument sure-I just don't think they are GOAT finalists. 4 titles does not automatically get you in the GOAT conversation. Dake and P smith had 5 or 6 loses. What Gable did with two titles with dominance for three years going 118-1 is a greater feat, in my opinion. The only way to top the GOAT ie Sanderson is to be dominant all 4 years and start as a true freshmen. Almost impossible. Sanderson's feat was amazing and he even had three world medalist to go against in Eggum, Cormier and Vering. No one competing the last 10 years is worthy to be in the GOAT conversation-alright maybe Dake but he had 6 loses and a lot of 1 point wins. Again, my opinion.

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...