Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tech_fall15

How will Marstellar do in College?

Recommended Posts

Marstellar is one of the very best high school wrestlers I've ever seen. Undefeated in PA AAA, with no one other than Wiercioch even coming close? Are you kidding me?

 

The only things obstructing his path to multiple national titles in college are injuries and burnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then, lets have it! What part of his technique was flawed? Please enlighten us with your analytic skills!

 

 

Look at his head position on his shots in his match vs. Rhoads. Also notice how he fails sink in his arm elbow deep when he's going for the finish to his single legs, his elbow is too far away from his body. He also had trouble with his footwork; he had trouble getting his legs under him when he got in on a few of his shots.

 

Those are a few flaws there, and there's more where that came from.

 

 

And away we go! Let's take a look at Chance's "flawed technique" shall we:

 

(times are running time on video)

 

1:20 - Setup: Front headlock, left-handed arm drag, to a single

Technique - Anticipates he will not be able to score on the mat with his front headlock, changes off to a leg attack. Moves his feet out of the way, shoots elbow deep, Rhoades kicks out.

 

Conclusion - Rhoades is a half-step quicker on this particular exchange, something Chance is probably not used to at this stage in his career.

 

Score - superold 0, vhsalum 1

 

1:40 - Set up: Left-handed underhook, outside step, single.

Sequence: Chance initially is not in good position after a great sprawl by Rhoades and knee-slides to his feet. Rhoades goes over top is able to get Chances knees back on the mat, and get to a crotch lift. Chance immediately changes off to a low single, drops his hips to the mat and arches, to stop the crotch lift.

 

Conclusion. superold will get a half-point for Chance's initial shot that did not allow him to get his hips in. I will secure two "technique points" as Chance is able to knee slide to his feet, and after being hipped back down to the mat, defend Rhoades scoring opportunity by properly dropping to an ankle and arching his back to defend the crotch lift.

 

Score - superold .5, vhsalum 3

 

2:00 - Set up: Right hand post, straight ahead single

 

Sequence: Chance's head is up, head underneath on a straight ahead single. He is initially elbow-deep and is stuffed by Rhoads with a great sprawl and whizzer that allows him to cover Chance's head. Rhoades attempts to reach over top to Chance's trail knee, but is unable to as Chance hits a cut-back to the opposite side. Chance again knee slides, posting his right hand, and Rhoades is able to square up and cover Chance's head again. Chance circles back in an attempt to sit Rhoades to his butt, but Rhoades is able to get his foot back on the ground. STILL on the leg, Chance circles to the front again, and gets his hands locked in an attempt to get Rhoades foot off the mat. In a very slick maneuver, not only does Rhoades keep his foot on the mat, but is able to hit a counter shot to chance's left leg.

 

Conclusion: This is where your "flawed technique" argument begins to die. In one, sixteen second sequence, Chance is able to chain wrestle that reads as follows: Cut-back, Knee Slide, Hand Post, Knee Slide, Circle back, Circle back. You are not able to execute that sequence with flawed technique. You pundits that believe a leg attack should be "photo" perfect every time do not truly understand the sport. I could easily give myself 7 "technique points" for that exchange. But I won't. One is enough.

 

Score - superold .5, vhsalum 4

 

No one cares about the ball-grab... YUCK!

 

5:40 - Set up - Touch and Go, Straight on Single

 

Sequence: Chance hits a straight on single, Rhoades is able to sprawl and whizzer, extending Chance. Chance is initially elbow deep, NEVER LETS HITS TRAIL KNEE HIT THE MAT, and attempts to cut the corner with a back step. Rhoades is able to cover Chance's head and stay in a sprawl position. Extended, Chance attempts to Iranian, Rhoades keeps his hips on the mat. Chance knee slides, is able to lock his hands, and changes his lock to high in the crotch (thereby no longer needing elbow deep). Rhoades squares up again and is able to get his foot on the mat.

 

Conclusion: Again, with "flawed technique" Chance is able to get to Rhoades legs, initially in good position. Now here's what's next level. Instead of trying to hit a Cut Back or a knee slide, Chance attempts a back step to secure the corner and an Iranian to get Rhoades feet in the air. In every one of these attempts, Rhoades is able to square up, and keep Chance extended. This is a compliment to Rhoades. His hips are clearly stronger than anything Chance is able to hit.

 

Score - superold .5, vhsalum 5

 

Ball grab yuck. on to the 3rd period.

 

9:55 - Setup: Level change single

 

Sequence: Chance hits a head inside single, with no clear set up. His head is down his hips are out. Rhoades immediately stuffs Chance, and has both of his knees on the mat. Chance is able to get to the Iranian (with his butt covering his ankles) and steps up with right leg, and heads out the back door. Rhoades reacts, jumping away from Chance, and turns back in, covering Chance and gets to a crotch lift.

 

Conclusion: Superold, you will get one point for Chance's terrible shot at the end of the period. It was clear that Chance was frustrated at this point and had no desire to head to the ball grab. If we concede that, you must concede Chance's "technique" after his stuffed leads less credence to your theory. Chance is able to turn bad position into a good one, coming out the back door and securing the leg of Rhoades. Now, above, I parenthesized "with his butt covering his ankles." Here is why I will give myself another technique point - as a high school sophomore, Chance is hitting technique that some college guys don't have down. Steve Garland said it best - "learn how to cover your ankles, or you're going to get your knees ripped out."

 

Final Score - superold 1.5, vhsalum 6

 

Final Conclusion: It goes more with what I said, Chance clearly did not have the strength to finish his shots. I actually said that in a post immediately following FILA JRs that year. Whether that was through his pneumonia or just his strength level at the time, his technique is far from "flawed." Keep in mind that this is a high school wrestler who is able to snap hands, control under hooks, has an outside and inside step, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, is able to chain wrestle through multiple sequences. Please pay attention to college wrestling, because other than Jordan Burroughs, David Taylor and Metcalf when he was doing his thing, there is no such thing as getting to a leg and scoring. You are going to have to defend one, two, three, seven counter attacks to finish a single shot.

 

Your turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vhsalum,

 

You've admitted that Chance displayed poor technique in certain situations. That's all that needs to be proven. I don't need to go point for point with you because you've already admitted my major point. You respond to me as if I said that Marsteller did everything wrong. He didn't, but he did show poor technique on his setups and finishes. You agree with that. Point made.

 

Also it's funny that you seem to be making the argument, that "because he did some things right, he did everything right". That's clearly a flawed argument.

 

Another thing. I don't understand why you believe explaining exactly how Chance failed all of a sudden explains away the poor technique??? Merely explaining what he was trying to do isn't enough. He wasn't able to do much of what he was trying to do because of poor technique. Also you have flawed reasoning. Just because his opponent was allegedly stronger than him that doesn't excuse everything that he did. It's possible to be outmuscled due to flawed positioning. You seemingly act as if Chance either displayed poor technique OR he got outmuscled... do you realize that it's not necessarily an either/or? It can be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have you ever met a perfect person/wrestler superold?

 

Not even Cael hit every technique perfectly while going 159-0.

 

No, I never met a perfect wrestler. And you are correct, Cael didn't hit every technique perfectly. I don't see why that fact is relevant? Many of the times Cael didn't score, it was because his technique was off in those particular situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you say you somehow win an argument because someone admits Chance didn't hit EVERY technique perfectly. In a match that was Chance hitting very high level technique (chain wrestling, mid move changes in direction, footwork, multiple setups to takedowns, etc) as a sophomore against a good D1 wrestler.

 

And since even you admit perfection is not possible how is his technique anything but extraordinary.

 

That is why it is relevant. Anyone can find things people can do better. Even watching video of John Smith or Cael Sanderson at their best. Does that make their technique any less than what it was? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why must you make excuses Tbar? Chance was healthy enough to take the mat. He wrestled those guys and was able to even be competitive. The reason he lost is because he had poor technique on his TD finishes late in the match. His fundamentals need work if he is going to do well on the college level. They're fine when he wrestles lower level HS, but he will be seeing a significant increase in competition when he enters college.

 

Here is your original statement, so that we all understand exactly what it is we are arguing.

 

Your FIRST STATEMENT: "The reason he lost is because he had poor technique on his TD finishes late in the match."

 

He was in on the legs in all three periods. I admitted he was in bad position on the START of ONE single late in the third period. If Chance finishes the single in the second period, he wins the match, per the rules at that time. So stating that the reason he lost the "match" because "he had poor technique on his TD finishes" is FALSE and WRONG. If anything his technique on his "finishes" were far better than his initial shots on just ONE of his leg attacks.

 

superold 1.5, vhsalum 7

 

Your SECOND statement: "His fundamentals need work if he is going to do well on the college level."

 

This is a false in every degree of being false. In matters concerning Chance Marsteller, one fact that cannot be argued is that his "fundamentals" are far advance for a high schooler. His head position in neutral is beyond reproach, and that is one of the first traits college coaches noticed about him as an 8th grader. Please tell me how many times you've seen someone even get their hands locked on him.

 

His feet - as a left leg lead, i've never seen anyone get to his right leg. He does a great job of making himself a small target, and there being only ONE target you may be thinking of attacking. His back leg is too far back, his feet stay shoulder width apart - which allows him to keep his back straight in a lead leg stance.

 

Elbows - No one gets underhooks on the kid. His elbows are sealed to his body, and his attack hand rarely touches the head.

 

Handfighting - Again, clearly above reproach. You clearly underestimate just how hard it is to snap someone's hand off you and get their hands on the mat. Chance did it three times in the match against Rhoades. Before Pico, I was saying Chance is the best hand fighter I've ever seen at the high school level.

 

So please. Feel free to defend your argument as originally stated.

 

Score superold 1.5, vhsalum 8

 

This is fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

 

MSU158, I do take into account illness and injuries. I've done so in every case that I've discussed involving injury/illness on this discussion board. It's just that in every single case, poor technique/tactics/strategy could be pointed to as a big reason for a particular wrestler losing a match. There seems to be this fallacious reasoning on these forums, that anytime a wrestler gets hurt/injured every single failure on the mat is because of it. That's clearly false. If anyone can watch the McD's or the Alton's matches at ncaas last year and tell me that some very poor wrestling wasn't done by those kids, and that they didn't have enough in them physically to do better, I don't exactly what to them. One thing I could say is that they're letting something else other than the objective evidence influence their conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no way marsteller walks in room and runs through crutchmer. The kid is tough and has been asked to wrestle up at 184 all year when he is a 174 or possibly 165 pounder. You are way underestimating what okie state has in that room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at the head table Thursday of PIAA and saw Marsteller drilling with the 113 pounder. They were the same height. We got a kick out of it given the disparity in weight.

 

So what is he 5'5" or taller? shorter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

 

MSU158, I do take into account illness and injuries. I've done so in every case that I've discussed involving injury/illness on this discussion board. It's just that in every single case, poor technique/tactics/strategy could be pointed to as a big reason for a particular wrestler losing a match. There seems to be this fallacious reasoning on these forums, that anytime a wrestler gets hurt/injured every single failure on the mat is because of it. That's clearly false. If anyone can watch the McD's or the Alton's matches at ncaas last year and tell me that some very poor wrestling wasn't done by those kids, and that they didn't have enough in them physically to do better, I don't exactly what to them. One thing I could say is that they're letting something else other than the objective evidence influence their conclusions.

 

Now you're just acting like a Millenial! You do realize real life is NOT a video game? You don't get re-dos, and your athletic career hinges ENTIRELY UPON your ability to PHYSICALLY complete a task. The problem is, wrestling is not forthcoming with regard to injuries, but if you think you saw a perfectly CAPABLE McDonough last year, you are making me understand a lot about you as a person. It was later found out that he was wrestling a torn shoulder (whether it was the rotator cuff or the labrum, i'm not sure).

 

Have you ever competed at a high level with an injury? Because guess what, that's what makes this sport great. It is one of attrition. YOU are not being objective a when you say a wrestler, LET ALONE ANY ATHLETE, is capable of wrestling at their best with a full-blown injury. It is you who are operating under the "fan" fallacy. The argument that says "Well, all he has to do is...."

 

Guess what? That is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and one that I dare you to bring up with any wrestler worth his salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at the head table Thursday of PIAA and saw Marsteller drilling with the 113 pounder. They were the same height. We got a kick out of it given the disparity in weight.

 

So what is he 5'5" or taller? shorter?

 

 

I forgot to use my tape measure app.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

 

MSU158, I do take into account illness and injuries. I've done so in every case that I've discussed involving injury/illness on this discussion board. It's just that in every single case, poor technique/tactics/strategy could be pointed to as a big reason for a particular wrestler losing a match. There seems to be this fallacious reasoning on these forums, that anytime a wrestler gets hurt/injured every single failure on the mat is because of it. That's clearly false. If anyone can watch the McD's or the Alton's matches at ncaas last year and tell me that some very poor wrestling wasn't done by those kids, and that they didn't have enough in them physically to do better, I don't exactly what to them. One thing I could say is that they're letting something else other than the objective evidence influence their conclusions.

Illness and injury damage technique. The fact that McD was able to be so competitive despite his injury is a testament to just how good he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was in on the legs in all three periods. I admitted he was in bad position on the START of ONE single late in the third period. If Chance finishes the single in the second period, he wins the match, per the rules at that time. So stating that the reason he lost the "match" because "he had poor technique on his TD finishes" is FALSE and WRONG.

 

He was in bad position due to poor technique. You have done nothing to show that that is "False and Wrong". Nothing.

 

if anything his technique on his "finishes" were far better than his initial shots on just ONE of his leg attacks.

 

And better doesn't mean perfect. His technique wasn't up to par.

 

Your SECOND statement: "His fundamentals need work if he is going to do well on the college level." This is a false in every degree of being false. In matters concerning Chance Marsteller, one fact that cannot be argued is that his "fundamentals" are far advance for a high schooler.

 

It's not false. You even tacitly admit this when you qualify your statement. Look at your own statement, "his fundamentals are far advanced for a high schooler". It's fine if you want to say that, but the fact remains that D1 college wrestling and HS wrestling are two completely different levels.

 

If you still want to disagree, let me ask you, are Marsteller's fundamentals far advanced for a D1 college wrestler? I'd like to hear your honest answer.

 

His head position in neutral is beyond reproach, and that is one of the first traits college coaches noticed about him as an 8th grader. Please tell me how many times you've seen someone even get their hands locked on him.

 

If we are talking big picture, Marsteller has wrestled very few quality opponents. It doesn't matter to me that many HS wrestlers aren't able to get their "hands locked on him". Hardly any HS wrestler could get their hands locked onto Gulibon either.

 

 

His feet - as a left leg lead, i've never seen anyone get to his right leg. He does a great job of making himself a small target, and there being only ONE target you may be thinking of attacking. His back leg is too far back, his feet stay shoulder width apart - which allows him to keep his back straight in a lead leg stance.

 

And how many quality opponents has he faced?

 

Elbows - No one gets underhooks on the kid. His elbows are sealed to his body, and his attack hand rarely touches the head
.

 

And has he faced any quality opponents who were top notch TD artists with the underhook? You keep mentioning "nobody had done this or that to him", but the exact same things could be said before he entered the Fila Jrs and lost twice. Before then, no one was able to consistently stuff his shots either. No one was able to beat him. No one could even give him a good match. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

 

Handfighting - Again, clearly above reproach. You clearly underestimate just how hard it is to snap someone's hand off you and get their hands on the mat. Chance did it three times in the match against Rhoades. Before Pico, I was saying Chance is the best hand fighter I've ever seen at the high school level.

 

Above reproach to who? Do you believe Marsteller is a world class handfighter?

 

 

 

So please. Feel free to defend your argument as originally stated.

 

I did and you agreed with me.

 

 

Score superold 1.5, vhsalum 8

 

Interesting scoring system. You even had to give me points! Even while ignoring some of what I said, you still had to concede my main point. Your argument is basically because Chance didn't do everything completely wrong, he can't be called out on showing poor technique. Or at least that's what it seems like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illness and injury damage technique

 

Yes, It's certainly possible that those thing can damage technique. I always take that into account when I'm formulating my opinion. I did when I posted what I did on McDonough and the Alton bros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

 

MSU158, I do take into account illness and injuries. I've done so in every case that I've discussed involving injury/illness on this discussion board. It's just that in every single case, poor technique/tactics/strategy could be pointed to as a big reason for a particular wrestler losing a match. There seems to be this fallacious reasoning on these forums, that anytime a wrestler gets hurt/injured every single failure on the mat is because of it. That's clearly false. If anyone can watch the McD's or the Alton's matches at ncaas last year and tell me that some very poor wrestling wasn't done by those kids, and that they didn't have enough in them physically to do better, I don't exactly what to them. One thing I could say is that they're letting something else other than the objective evidence influence their conclusions.

 

Now you're just acting like a Millenial! You do realize real life is NOT a video game? You don't get re-dos, and your athletic career hinges ENTIRELY UPON your ability to PHYSICALLY complete a task. The problem is, wrestling is not forthcoming with regard to injuries, but if you think you saw a perfectly CAPABLE McDonough last year, you are making me understand a lot about you as a person. It was later found out that he was wrestling a torn shoulder (whether it was the rotator cuff or the labrum, i'm not sure).

 

Have you ever competed at a high level with an injury? Because guess what, that's what makes this sport great. It is one of attrition. YOU are not being objective a when you say a wrestler, LET ALONE ANY ATHLETE, is capable of wrestling at their best with a full-blown injury. It is you who are operating under the "fan" fallacy. The argument that says "Well, all he has to do is...."

 

Guess what? That is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and one that I dare you to bring up with any wrestler worth his salt.

 

Why don't you try reading my posts on the topic before responding? I've taken a lot of time carefully explaining my position on past threads. Many of your questions are answered there. And the false conclusions that you have come to are also discussed there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you have to give superold credit for is he is 100% consistent. He is NOT a proponent of the injury/illness arguments. If the wrestler gets on the mat it is only his technique that decides if he wins or loses(his stance NOT mine). Although I disagree with him regarding his stance on these topics, I respect the fact that he has not flip-flopped.

 

MSU158, I do take into account illness and injuries. I've done so in every case that I've discussed involving injury/illness on this discussion board. It's just that in every single case, poor technique/tactics/strategy could be pointed to as a big reason for a particular wrestler losing a match. There seems to be this fallacious reasoning on these forums, that anytime a wrestler gets hurt/injured every single failure on the mat is because of it. That's clearly false. If anyone can watch the McD's or the Alton's matches at ncaas last year and tell me that some very poor wrestling wasn't done by those kids, and that they didn't have enough in them physically to do better, I don't exactly what to them. One thing I could say is that they're letting something else other than the objective evidence influence their conclusions.

 

You do acknowledge it, BUT you basically dismiss it or minimize it by every argument you use immediately after. Here is the MAJOR difference between your reasoning and everyone disagreeing with you. It seems you attribute roughly 20% or less to injury or illness while a majority with the dissenting opinion attribute 80% or more. My biggest argument AGAINST you is that, I believe, the poor technique you constantly site is a DIRECT by-product of the injury or illness being discussed. I do not have the first hand experience some of the elite on here do, but I do have significant first hand knowledge. In my experience, especially at the DI level, injuries and illnesses are the TOUGHEST opponent ANYONE faces each year. More letdowns by the best of the best can be directly attributed to this than anyone on here realizes. Simply put, a lot have too much pride, not saying that in any negative way, to make any excuses. That doesn't make it ANY less true. Fans simply haven't been exposed to this fact until recently because social media allows us to get inside info not available prior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And since even you admit perfection is not possible how is his technique anything but extraordinary.

 

Where did I admit that perfection is not possible? I never said that. It's possible to execute certain techniques perfectly. Perfectly executed technique happens everyday. I said that I don't know of a single wrestler that has always hit every move perfectly. That's completely different from saying that "perfection is not possible". Surely you can see that.

 

HuskyHero, most of your posts is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying. You are addressing a position that I'm not even taking.

.

That is why it is relevant. Anyone can find things people can do better. Even watching video of John Smith or Cael Sanderson at their best. Does that make their technique any less than what it was? I think not.

 

"Does that make their technique any less than what it was"? I don't get what point you're trying to make with this question. If you are asking if Smith or Sanderson missing techniques decreases their overall status as technicians, then the answer would obviously be yes, but you already know that. Instead of being remembered as perfect technicians, they will only be remembered as great technicians.

 

If you are asking if their technique failures take away from the techniques that they performed perfectly, then no. Every technique stands alone. Executing a move perfectly in one match doesn't mean you'll will execute it perfectly in another mach. If you execute a perfect ankle pick in one match, it's still perfect even if the next 10 you attempt are terrible. The answers to these questions are so simple that I feel that I may be missing the point that you were trying to make.

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...