Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tech_fall15

How will Marstellar do in College?

Recommended Posts

Dude your argument is that if a wrestler ever makes a mistake that means he has bad technique.vhcalum pointed out a bunch of high level stuff he did to show that he has very strong technique and your rebuttal was he made a couple of mistakes.

 

That's not my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said Chance showed poor technique in his matches at Fila Jrs. It's funny that you want to take a mere caricature of my actual position and then attack that.

 

Every time Chances name comes up you run top this match, the one where he had pneumonia. I'd say that makes you the classic critic.

 

166-0 in h.s. wrestling in PIAA. Another 100-0 or something like that against high school wrestlers, many of them among the very6 best in the country, when wrestling outside his Kennard Dale singlet. And you begrudge the kid any respect and always ALWAYS run to a match where he wrestled a college guy a few years older despite having pneumonia.

 

You'd be lucky to ever be 1/10th as mentally tough as that kid. You asked for predictions a while ago. I hope that Rhoads get both heavier and somehow gets onto a mat against Chance someday. I don't see it happening for two reasons, not big enough nor good enough, but I hope it happens. He won't make the 7 minutes. That is a prediction for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was extremely straight forward super. No one is perfect, no technique is perfect, these are real life people going up against other actively moving and fighting people. John Smith even at his pinnacle would (by using the standards applied to Chance) have regularly been a poor technician
.

 

I disagree that no technique is perfect. I don't know why it's being said that I'm using unusual standards when it applies to Chance. I'm using the same standards that I use for everyone. Yes, John Smith at his pinnacle did use poor technique at times. That is obvious. And in those situations, his technique was poor. Just because he did those moves correctly many times doesn't erase those situation when he didn't. I'm not sure why you think it does.

 

If Chances technique was poor then just about every wrestler ever no matter what they accomplished had poor technique as well. Under those standards words lose all meaning.

 

 

WAIT, WHAT???? John Smith at his PINNACLE USED POOR TECHNIQUE AT TIMES? Now I know you have the ability to not analyze this sport in any OBJECTIVE way at all. At his peak, John Smith was the 1990 World Champion. This was the year he was named the first, and still only, Master of Technique Award by FILA. Please regale us with A SINGLE match in this entire year that John Smith demonstrated poor technique!

 

And here is where we meet a crossroads, that, THANKFULLY, EVERY ONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD, seems to grasp. Chance's technique is/was superb in that match against Rhoades. He simply wasn't strong enough to finish those shots DESPITE his great technique (which I have illustrated, YOU HAVE NOT).

 

And PLEASE tell me the college coaches who have in ANY WAY said chance has bad 'fundamentals." And because I coach a high school program with Division I wrestlers on the roster, I won't name names, but here is the list of coaches I've PERSONALLY heard rave about Chance Marsteller (especially in regards to his ability to hand fight 'like a college wrestler'):

 

Cornell

Penn State

Michigan State

OTC

Air Force

Iowa

NC STATE

Arizona State

Missouri

Rutgers

Virginia.

 

Your ball. BISH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WAIT, WHAT???? John Smith at his PINNACLE USED POOR TECHNIQUE AT TIMES? Now I know you have the ability to not analyze this sport in any OBJECTIVE way at all. At his peak, John Smith was the 1990 World Champion. This was the year he was named the first, and still only, Master of Technique Award by FILA. Please regale us with A SINGLE match in this entire year that John Smith demonstrated poor technique!

 

This is where I have you. Yes, at times John Smith used poor technique at his pinnacle. AT TIMES means some of the time. I don't know why you point out 1990 specifically, 1991 was John Smith's best year btw. It's obvious to anyone who saw Smith lose in 1990, but even if it isn't, I have personal testimony from John Smith himself directly after he left the mat after one of his matches at the World Championships. I repeat directly from Smith himself at the World championships. Well that's it for your argument. Btw, I'm shocked that you believe that even an elite wrestler can be off at times in a match with technique.

 

 

And here is where we meet a crossroads, that, THANKFULLY, EVERY ONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD, seems to grasp. Chance's technique is/was superb in that match against Rhoades.

 

No it wasn't. If it were superb, he would have scored. He had several chances and he came up with no points. That's not superb in any possible world I can imagine.

 

Why do you constantly overestimate yourself VHS? When did you ask everyone else on this board if they agreed with you? Haha. You even put it in all caps lock as if you've polled everyone on this board. :) You can't be serious.

 

 

He simply wasn't strong enough to finish those shots DESPITE his great technique (which I have illustrated, YOU HAVE NOT).

 

You haven't once illustrated that Marsteller used great technique that match. You tried and failed. You even admit that you failed, but you want to pretend that you didn't. Also, I already asked you how do you know that Marsteller wasn't strong enough to finish those shots? How do you know if Rhoades was stronger than Marsteller. You merely assert this, and you haven't come close to backing that up in the slightest.

 

 

And PLEASE tell me the college coaches who have in ANY WAY said chance has bad 'fundamentals."

 

No. I said he needed to work on his fundamentals. I never said they were bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

166-0 in h.s. wrestling in PIAA. Another 100-0 or something like that against high school wrestlers, many of them among the very6 best in the country, when wrestling outside his Kennard Dale singlet. And you begrudge the kid any respect and always ALWAYS run to a match where he wrestled a college guy a few years older despite having pneumonia.

 

Again you mention the pneumonia, but we don't know exactly how much it affected his wrestling or the outcome of the match. What I know is Marsteller was healthy enough to wrestle the match and put up a pretty good fight. Due to poor technique, he lost the match. No big deal really. With hard work he can change his luck in the future.

 

And the reason I bring up that match is simple. I mention his 0-2 record at Fila Jrs. because that's where he wrestled college kids. Remember he was being compared to Kolat, so his lack of success had to be discussed. That's how we know that the Kolat comparisons were ridiculous. Yes, they were similar when it came to wrestling lower level HS kids, but against elite college competition they are in two completely different categories. I also mention it because we are discussing how Chance would do at the next level, and these are the relevant matches to discuss. It wouldn't make sense to mention one of his matches against an overmatched HS kid.

 

 

You'd be lucky to ever be 1/10th as mentally tough as that kid. You asked for predictions a while ago. I hope that Rhoads get both heavier and somehow gets onto a mat against Chance someday. I don't see it happening for two reasons, not big enough nor good enough, but I hope it happens. He won't make the 7 minutes. That is a prediction for you.

 

Tbar, stop acting like you are answering my question. You know good and well when I asked for a prediction, I wasn't talking specifically about a rematch with Rhoades. I was asking how you believe that Chance would do in college. Are you afraid to answer? Without hesitation you give predictions on Taylor and Ruth, you even give your prediction on J'den Cox, but when it comes to Marsteller you're tight lipped. Why???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WAIT, WHAT???? John Smith at his PINNACLE USED POOR TECHNIQUE AT TIMES? Now I know you have the ability to not analyze this sport in any OBJECTIVE way at all. At his peak, John Smith was the 1990 World Champion. This was the year he was named the first, and still only, Master of Technique Award by FILA. Please regale us with A SINGLE match in this entire year that John Smith demonstrated poor technique!

 

This is where I have you. Yes, at times John Smith used poor technique at his pinnacle. AT TIMES means some of the time. I don't know why you point out 1990 specifically, 1991 was John Smith's best year btw. It's obvious to anyone who saw Smith lose in 1990, but even if it isn't, I have personal testimony from John Smith himself directly after he left the mat after one of his matches at the World Championships. I repeat directly from Smith himself at the World championships. Well that's it for your argument. Btw, I'm shocked that you believe that even an elite wrestler can be off at times in a match with technique.

 

Man, that was SOOOOOO CLOSE! Yes, you almost had me there. Being that I am a fair man, and one with the obvious ability to tolerate such ignorance. I will grant you one point for your anecdotal argument that Smith himself used "poor technique." I simply state 1990 as the year he won the Master of Technique Award, because, while you clearly do not know the meaning of the word, this is an OBJECTIVE way of solidifying one portion of my argument.

 

 

And here is where we meet a crossroads, that, THANKFULLY, EVERY ONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD, seems to grasp. Chance's technique is/was superb in that match against Rhoades.

 

No it wasn't. If it were superb, he would have scored. He had several chances and he came up with no points. That's not superb in any possible world I can imagine.

 

Why do you constantly overestimate yourself VHS? When did you ask everyone else on this board if they agreed with you? Haha. You even put it in all caps lock as if you've polled everyone on this board. :) You can't be serious.

 

Again, the crossroads. Technique is only as good as the engine running. Here is where I will get a point. IF a 90 lb freshman were to hit PERFECT TECHNIQUE on a 160 lb freshman and he didn't score, would you then say it was because his technique was "poor?" You would, probably, because you clearly fail to realize that in wrestling there is such a dynamic as physiology. I am using an exaggeration here, but the point is simply, the 160lb wrestler weighs more, and in pure scientific terms is stronger (I won't get into a kinetic energy argument with you, that would just make you look less intelligent, and I wouldn't want that for you).

 

The same argument is the one I am making, DESPITE Chance's advanced technique (the opposite of your term poor) and clear control of the fundamentals of the sport, he was unable to score, because, in that match Rhoades was stronger. Now again. I hate to do this to you, where you have not, but I have illustrated in clear detail where Chance exhibited PROPER and ADVANCED technique. I even did the work for you. Please take each shot, and ANALYZE each of Chance's scoring opportunities and explain to us where Chance showed "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." Please notice the ALL CAPS. You did not say he exhibited poor technique on his shots, but his finishes. This is where your own words are shown to be plainly and clearly wrong.

 

Your premise (and hope to dear God you are not a coach, because this would suck for your wrestlers), and i will pull a "superold" by asking a question: IF Wrestler A and Wrestler B are in the same weight class, and Wrestler A executes perfect technique, Wrestler A will always win any exchange?

 

 

He simply wasn't strong enough to finish those shots DESPITE his great technique (which I have illustrated, YOU HAVE NOT).

 

You haven't once illustrated that Marsteller used great technique that match. You tried and failed. You even admit that you failed, but you want to pretend that you didn't. Also, I already asked you how do you know that Marsteller wasn't strong enough to finish those shots? How do you know if Rhoades was stronger than Marsteller. You merely assert this, and you haven't come close to backing that up in the slightest.

 

Oh yes I did. Please feel free to read my previous posts, where is minute detail I explain each of Chance's leg attacks and near TDs. I NEVER admitted to failing. The fact is that I cannot fail in this argument, because I've already won by the mere fact that you continue to deflect and provide no arguments DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS MATCH that prove your theory correct.

 

Lets not forget YOUR words "he had poor technique on his TD finishes"

 

Hey look. I'll even be nice, since it is clear that your mind is failing you and your short term memory is, at best, Woodstock Hazy:

 

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.

 

So tell me again where I DIDN'T illustrate Chance used great technique in that match?

 

And PLEASE tell me the college coaches who have in ANY WAY said chance has bad 'fundamentals."

 

No. I said he needed to work on his fundamentals. I never said they were bad.

 

My apologies, I did not quote you properly. Point for you. Now. As I did, you are more than welcome to name the college of the coach(es) that said Chance would need to work on his fundamentals in order for him to do well on the college level.

 

Here's a quote for you, from a Big Ten coach, told me after Chance's sophomore year. "You put him in our room this year, and he wins the Big Ten at 149."

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?

 

2013piaa_champions.jpg

 

look 2 kids over to the right in the back row, he looks to be about the same height, I assume he is a 195?.... We still don't know how tall he actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like a college 57lber IMO possibly 65 after a few years if he is not a weight cutter but 74 is a stretch.

 

I said it before, and I'll say it again. I have watched the kid since his Freshman year. If he stays healthy and stays out of trouble (goes for all kids), I still maintain he has a phenomenal career at 165. If he goes to 174, I think his success diminishes a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vhsalum,

 

I'm not sure why you continue to respond to me. I'm not going back and forth with you point for point. You already conceded my argument. You agreed with me whether you want to admit it or not. Nearly all of your post is irrelevant. And you seem to be emotionally involved too, why?

 

Again, the crossroads. Technique is only as good as the engine running. Here is where I will get a point. IF a 90 lb freshman were to hit PERFECT TECHNIQUE on a 160 lb freshman and he didn't score, would you then say it was because his technique was "poor?" You would, probably, because you clearly fail to realize that in wrestling there is such a dynamic as physiology. I am using an exaggeration here, but the point is simply, the 160lb wrestler weighs more, and in pure scientific terms is stronger (I won't get into a kinetic energy argument with you, that would just make you look less intelligent, and I wouldn't want that for you).

 

What does all of this have to do with anything? All of this is irrelevant.

 

 

The same argument is the one I am making, DESPITE Chance's advanced technique (the opposite of your term poor) and clear control of the fundamentals of the sport, he was unable to score, because, in that match Rhoades was stronger. Now again. I hate to do this to you, where you have not, but I have illustrated in clear detail where Chance exhibited PROPER and ADVANCED technique. I even did the work for you. Please take each shot, and ANALYZE each of Chance's scoring opportunities and explain to us where Chance showed "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." Please notice the ALL CAPS. You did not say he exhibited poor technique on his shots, but his finishes. This is where your own words are shown to be plainly and clearly wrong

 

No, I will do no such thing. You've conceded my argument already. I know this and you know this. At this point it seems you are just trying to save face. What you're saying is "Yeah Chance did show poor technique in that match, but it wasn't THAT bad and look at the tape he did a lot of things right too"! But once you concede he showed poor technique, that's it. There's nothing else for me to prove, you agree with me.

 

And you haven't shown that Rhoades was significantly stronger, or stronger at all. I don't agree with you btw. You keep on stating that over and over again as if it's a fact.

 

Your premise (and hope to dear God you are not a coach, because this would suck for your wrestlers), and i will pull a "superold" by asking a question: IF Wrestler A and Wrestler B are in the same weight class, and Wrestler A executes perfect technique, Wrestler A will always win any exchange?

 

Irrelevant. This doesn't relate to the Marstellar match. Chance did not execute perfect technique in the situations where Rhoades stopped his shot. Vhsalum please stop responding with irrelevant points. I'm not going to assist you in what appears to be a face saving campaign. You already conceded my main point. I'm sorry that that bothers you.

 

You keep expecting to get answers from me yet you didn't answer all of my questions. You have also misrepresented me on this thread and you have called me names and insulted me multiple times. :) Honestly, you didn't deserve this response from me. And you're not getting a response to your many off topic concerns. I think you're too emotionally invested in this topic vhsalum. :) You're not thinking clearly. :) At least I hope you aren't. Listen, It's not my fault that Marsteller showed poor technique. It's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vhsalum,

 

I'm not sure why you continue to respond to me. I'm not going back and forth with you point for point. You already conceded my argument. You agreed with me whether you want to admit it or not. Nearly all of your post is irrelevant. And you seem to be emotionally involved too, why?

 

Again, the crossroads. Technique is only as good as the engine running. Here is where I will get a point. IF a 90 lb freshman were to hit PERFECT TECHNIQUE on a 160 lb freshman and he didn't score, would you then say it was because his technique was "poor?" You would, probably, because you clearly fail to realize that in wrestling there is such a dynamic as physiology. I am using an exaggeration here, but the point is simply, the 160lb wrestler weighs more, and in pure scientific terms is stronger (I won't get into a kinetic energy argument with you, that would just make you look less intelligent, and I wouldn't want that for you).

 

What does all of this have to do with anything? All of this is irrelevant.

 

 

The same argument is the one I am making, DESPITE Chance's advanced technique (the opposite of your term poor) and clear control of the fundamentals of the sport, he was unable to score, because, in that match Rhoades was stronger. Now again. I hate to do this to you, where you have not, but I have illustrated in clear detail where Chance exhibited PROPER and ADVANCED technique. I even did the work for you. Please take each shot, and ANALYZE each of Chance's scoring opportunities and explain to us where Chance showed "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." Please notice the ALL CAPS. You did not say he exhibited poor technique on his shots, but his finishes. This is where your own words are shown to be plainly and clearly wrong

 

No, I will do no such thing. You've conceded my argument already. I know this and you know this. At this point it seems you are just trying to save face. What you're saying is "Yeah Chance did show poor technique in that match, but it wasn't THAT bad and look at the tape he did a lot of things right too"! But once you concede he showed poor technique, that's it. There's nothing else for me to prove, you agree with me.

 

And you haven't shown that Rhoades was significantly stronger, or stronger at all. I don't agree with you btw. You keep on stating that over and over again as if it's a fact.

 

Your premise (and hope to dear God you are not a coach, because this would suck for your wrestlers), and i will pull a "superold" by asking a question: IF Wrestler A and Wrestler B are in the same weight class, and Wrestler A executes perfect technique, Wrestler A will always win any exchange?

 

Irrelevant. This doesn't relate to the Marstellar match. Chance did not execute perfect technique in the situations where Rhoades stopped his shot. Vhsalum please stop responding with irrelevant points. I'm not going to assist you in what appears to be a face saving campaign. You already conceded my main point. I'm sorry that that bothers you.

 

You keep expecting to get answers from me yet you didn't answer all of my questions. You have also misrepresented me on this thread and you have called me names and insulted me multiple times. :) Honestly, you didn't deserve this response from me. And you're not getting a response to your many off topic concerns. I think you're too emotionally invested in this topic vhsalum. :) You're not thinking clearly. :) At least I hope you aren't. Listen, It's not my fault that Marsteller showed poor technique. It's not.

 

AAAWWWW! Did I hurt your feelings? Did I insult you in such a manner that your self-esteem has been shattered?

 

Too bad. Unlike yourself, I hold myself to the WORDS I ACTUALLY WRITE/SPEAK. Once again, your quote was that Chance exhibited "poor technique in his TD finishes late in the match." and that he would need to improve his fundamentals in order to do well at the college level.

 

Your words, not mine. I am simply asking that you back them up with arguments that support your claim. I have not conceded this to you, and will never. The mere fact that you refuse to answer ANY of my questions, all the while I have answered ALL of yours, in minute detail, with examples, analysis, anecdotal evidence and quotes from true experts, leads me to believe that you can't OBJECTIVELY argue your own point. So if you will refuse to answer my questions, provide ANY sort of expert analysis, anecdotal evidence, quotes from experts to support YOUR STATEMENT, please feel free to tuck tail and not post on this thread.

 

And please with the I'm "too emotionally involved." I love a good debate. Period. This is fun for me. The fact that you are bothered by it tells me how much you truly don't believe your own words. You just don't like being called out on it. This is the first anyone on this board has been able to defeat you in your trollish game.

 

Let me make this clear, and we will see if you can comprehend a sentence at the 6th grade reading level:

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT CHANCE MARSTELLER EXHIBITED POOR TECHNIQUE IN TD FINISHES IN HIS MATCH AGAINST RHOADES. I UNEQUIVOCALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT CHANCE WILL HAVE TO IMPROVE HIS FUNDAMENTALS IN ORDER TO DO "WELL" AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL.

 

To support my argument, I have provided the following: (just a synopsis)

Analysis: sequence detail of EACH of Chance's scoring attempts in the aforementioned match

Examples: Wrestler A has perfect technique, Wrestler B is stronger

Anecdotal Evidence (feel free to google the definition): My own beliefs of having watched and assessing Chance's strength level

Experts: I have listed no less than ten Division I college coaches, who disagree with your statement. Including one quote believing that Marsteller, as a high school sophomore, would have beaten Frank Molinaro in the Big Ten finals.

 

again. ball is in your court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superold reminds me of a person that has a JD but never took/passed the Bar.

 

Why do you say this?

 

OldMarineWrestler... you can't insult superold with jokes that go beyond the 6th grade. Let me help you.

 

superold, you remind OldMarineWrestler of a blowhard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vhsalum,

 

We agreed on my major point and you admitted it. You're too emotionally involved here. And no, you didn't answer all of my questions. Marsteller showed poor technique and you agree period. End of story

 

It's funny that you choose to insult me, you are clearly upset. :)

 

 

Edit: Even in your little game where you seemingly arbitrarily handed out points for our posts, you still gave me points. You could have simply chosen to not give me points! Wouldn't that have been smarter? Haha. Along with literally conceding my point in your post, you also gave me imaginary points in a little game that you made. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vhsalum,

 

We agreed on my major point and you admitted it. You're too emotionally involved here. And no, you didn't answer all of my questions. Marsteller showed poor technique and you agree period. End of story

 

It's funny that you choose to insult me, you are clearly upset. :)

Please explain why you enjoy putting down kids in HS and college.

 

Chance is an unbeaten, 4 X PA state champ.

 

He has done more than you ever have done or will do while he was still in Jr. High.

 

Please, just try, for once, to not show what a pathetic person you are and let it go.

 

The level of your insecurity is really nauseating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain why you enjoy putting down kids in HS and college.

 

Chance is an unbeaten, 4 X PA state champ.

 

He has done more than you ever have done or will do while he was still in Jr. High.

 

Please, just try, for once, to not show what a pathetic person you are and let it go.

 

The level of your insecurity is really nauseating.

 

Leshishmore, I've never put down a single college or HS wrestler so I can't explain that to you. And I'm not insecure in the least. Chance had some nice accomplishments in HS, but those mean nothing at the next level. Right now he's 0-0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vhsalum,

 

We agreed on my major point and you admitted it. You're too emotionally involved here. And no, you didn't answer all of my questions. Marsteller showed poor technique and you agree period. End of story

 

It's funny that you choose to insult me, you are clearly upset. :)

 

 

Edit: Even in your little game where you seemingly arbitrarily handed out points for our posts, you still gave me points. You could have simply chosen to not give me points! Wouldn't that have been smarter? Haha. Along with literally conceding my point in your post, you also gave me imaginary points in a little game that you made. :)

 

You really do have a reading comprehension problem. Again. I point to YOUR WORDS: He exhibited poor technique on his (and I will now put this in all caps) TD FINISHES.

 

That is your major point, and that is my major disagreement. I gave you a couple points because while your premise is completely wrong, you may have some valid points. Why would I give you 0 points? That's like not giving someone a 12 on their reading comprehension test. You've been there before so you know what that feels like. You earned your 12 out of 100.

 

Again, my apologies if you feel have insulted you. I did not realize that your insecurities stem from your inability to take constructive criticism.

 

Guess what, you don't get to make a blanket statement. Marsteller did NOT show poor technique. That is too broad, and frankly, insulting to Mr. Marsteller. What I will not allow, is for you to trump your misguided theories on this board without proper response. Again. You are welcome to defend your statement about his "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." I again capitalized that last portion for you, just in case you had forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess what, you don't get to make a blanket statement. Marsteller did NOT show poor technique. That is too broad, and frankly, insulting to Mr. Marsteller. What I will not allow, is for you to trump your misguided theories on this board without proper response. Again. You are welcome to defend your statement about his "poor technique on his TD FINISHES." I again capitalized that last portion for you, just in case you had forgotten.

 

Vhsalum, I made my point and you agreed with it. End of Story. You even gave me imaginary points. :) I must admit I'm now laughing as I type because you actually believe you made great points and outdebated me. I'm not helping you save face VHSalum. And yes, Marsteller showed poor technique on his TD finishes. His setups could have been better too btw.

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...