Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tech_fall15

How will Marstellar do in College?

Recommended Posts

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

 

This just shows your dishonesty Vhsalum. So everyone of your insults was constructive criticism? If you can't be honest on this minor issue, why should I believe you/take you serious on other issues? :)

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 to btw.

 

And I too must admit the boisterous laugh I just let out. I realized that you have no idea what a good debate truly means. And beyond your lack of reading comprehension, you also have an inability to understand total aggregate scores in the field of competition. Superold, you are just too much. I mean, you really had me fooled there for a second. I mean, I actually believed you understood what it means to out-point someone. Round and round we go. This is like a merry go round. You make an unfounded statement, I call you out, you ask questions, I answer them, you make another unfounded statement, this time about how I agreed with you, I supply evidence to the contrary, you make another unfounded statement about how I agreed with you earlier.

 

You my friend are obtuse. (please read the definition before you say I insulted you. You big baby) (oh, that was an insult)

 

So again I say, defend your statement. What was it about his TD FINISHES were "poor technique."

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 to btw.

 

And I too must admit the boisterous laugh I just let out. I realized that you have no idea what a good debate truly means. And beyond your lack of reading comprehension, you also have an inability to understand total aggregate scores in the field of competition. Superold, you are just too much. I mean, you really had me fooled there for a second. I mean, I actually believed you understood what it means to out-point someone. Round and round we go. This is like a merry go round. You make an unfounded statement, I call you out, you ask questions, I answer them, you make another unfounded statement, this time about how I agreed with you, I supply evidence to the contrary, you make another unfounded statement about how I agreed with you earlier.

 

You my friend are obtuse. (please read the definition before you say I insulted you. You big baby) (oh, that was an insult)

 

So again I say, defend your statement. What was it about his TD FINISHES were "poor technique."

 

 

Vhsalum, you agreed with my major point. You really care for my opinion. If you think that Marsteller's attempted finishes were perfect (actually you said you didn't) then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to teach you wrestling technique for free. And you didn't respond to all of my questions. You've never proven that Marsteller was significantly weaker than that kid he wrestled either.

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 to btw.

 

And I too must admit the boisterous laugh I just let out. I realized that you have no idea what a good debate truly means. And beyond your lack of reading comprehension, you also have an inability to understand total aggregate scores in the field of competition. Superold, you are just too much. I mean, you really had me fooled there for a second. I mean, I actually believed you understood what it means to out-point someone. Round and round we go. This is like a merry go round. You make an unfounded statement, I call you out, you ask questions, I answer them, you make another unfounded statement, this time about how I agreed with you, I supply evidence to the contrary, you make another unfounded statement about how I agreed with you earlier.

 

You my friend are obtuse. (please read the definition before you say I insulted you. You big baby) (oh, that was an insult)

 

So again I say, defend your statement. What was it about his TD FINISHES were "poor technique."

 

 

Vhsalum, you agreed with my major point. You really care for my opinion. If you think that Marsteller's attempted finishes were perfect (actually you said you didn't) then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to teach you wrestling technique for free. And you didn't respond to all of my questions. You've never proven that Marsteller was significantly weaker than that kid he wrestled either.

 

I'll bite. First, and foremost. Please, for the sake of your own head. Stop saying I agreed with your "major point." Your MAJOR POINTS were TWO things:

 

1. Marsteller showed poor technique on his TD FINISHES

2. Marsteller will need to improve his fundamentals in order to do well on the college level.

 

to your point 1. Stop saying the word "PERFECT" no one is perfect. EVER. YOUR WORD was poor. In painstaking detail, I analyzed each scoring opportunity, and MY ARGUMENTS (because you have not presented any facts of your own to assert your claim of POOR technique) stand as the victor until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

 

to your point 2. I have supplied you with a list of no less than 10 Division I coaches, who disagree with YOU that Chance needs to improve his fundamentals in order to do well on the college level.

 

Now. I will answer your question. (Even though you have yet to answer any of mine, nor supply evidence OF YOUR OWN) Having watched that match a number of times. Watching Chance hit multiple and repeated attempts to secure a TD on Rhoades, the evidence shows that YES, in that match, Rhoades was just too strong.

 

Now, I will ask you just TWO questions.

1. Do you believe that in ANY CASE, and with ANY TWO WRESTLERS, the ONLY reason one does not win a scoring attempt is because of Poor technique?

 

Please answer this question. It is a yes or no.

 

2. Do you believe that Strength, or the lack-of, is a plausible reason for one wrestler to not be able to score on another (in the same weight class)?

 

Again, this is a yes or no question. Please understand that, your failure to answer both of these questions will render you argument moot and invalid. All hypotheses and theories must be able to withstand any question or assertions in the opposite that are even moderately reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've misrepresented me, failed to answer my questions, and called me names. You also choose to highlight a few of my statement, although I said more, and attack them. You keep mentioning/implying that Chance was significantly weaker, but I have not seen evidence for that. You keep on mentioning irrelevant things to me an asking me for a response to them. Your long post detailing the scoring sequences in the match was largely irrelevant. Actually it did exactly what you didn't want it to do, it proved my point. Right now, I see all of your posts as trying to save face. I'm not going to continue to answer your questions when you continue to engage in all this nonsense. I'll address a few points.

 

to your point 1. Stop saying the word "PERFECT" no one is perfect. EVER. YOUR WORD was poor.

 

I disagree. It's possible to execute a move perfectly. Here's what you're saying, if you teach a kid a move, it's impossible for him to hit that move perfectly in competition, even once. Your instruction can be perfect, but the wrestler's execution can never be perfect? That makes no sense to me. None.

 

In painstaking detail, I analyzed each scoring opportunity, and MY ARGUMENTS (because you have not presented any facts of your own to assert your claim of POOR technique) stand as the victor until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

 

But you did give me points and conceded that Marsteller's technique could have been better. Stop trying to ignore that. If it could have been better, then that means he executed the move poorly. You admitted his technique could have been better. Sorry that bothers you so much.

 

And no, your analysis didn't prove much if anything at all. You are giving yourself far too much credit. Just because you have a long explanation for something doesn't make that explanation correct. That should be obvious to you Vhsalum. I think your analysis was poor to be honest. For example look at this excerpt from the long post you made that addressed a mere caricature of my position:

 

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.

 

You seem to think that just because you explained what happened in the sequence, that proves that there was no poor technique involved. Why do you believe that this clearly shows that there was no poor technique displayed by Chance? The reason that Rhoades was able to make that slick maneuver was precisely because Chance left holes for him to do so. Holes in his technique. Are you willing to say that Chance's technique was perfect in that situation and still Rhoades was able to kick away and turn into a shot attempt of his own? I can't believe that anyone could honestly say that.

 

Now. I will answer your question. (Even though you have yet to answer any of mine, nor supply evidence OF YOUR OWN) Having watched that match a number of times. Watching Chance hit multiple and repeated attempts to secure a TD on Rhoades, the evidence shows that YES, in that match, Rhoades was just too strong.

 

This is an answer to what question again?

 

MY ARGUMENTS (because you have not presented any facts of your own to assert your claim of POOR technique)

 

What arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've misrepresented me, failed to answer my questions, and called me names. You also choose to highlight a few of my statement, although I said more, and attack them. You keep mentioning/implying that Chance was significantly weaker, but I have not seen evidence for that. You keep on mentioning irrelevant things to me an asking me for a response to them. Your long post detailing the scoring sequences in the match was largely irrelevant. Actually it did exactly what you didn't want it to do, it proved my point. Right now, I see all of your posts as trying to save face. I'm not going to continue to answer your questions when you continue to engage in all this nonsense. I'll address a few points.

 

:cry: I "called you names." Now I've heard everything on this board. And guess what? You don't get to discredit my claim as "irrevelant," when I supply my OWN evidence to support them.

 

to your point 1. Stop saying the word "PERFECT" no one is perfect. EVER. YOUR WORD was poor.

 

I disagree. It's possible to execute a move perfectly. Here's what you're saying, if you teach a kid a move, it's impossible for him to hit that move perfectly in competition, even once. Your instruction can be perfect, but the wrestler's execution can never be perfect? That makes no sense to me. None.

 

I'll grant you that. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely, with two wrestlers of equal skill? Hardly.

 

In painstaking detail, I analyzed each scoring opportunity, and MY ARGUMENTS (because you have not presented any facts of your own to assert your claim of POOR technique) stand as the victor until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

 

But you did give me points and conceded that Marsteller's technique could have been better. Stop trying to ignore that. If it could have been better, then that means he executed the move poorly. You admitted his technique could have been better. Sorry that bothers you so much.

 

And no, your analysis didn't prove much if anything at all. You are giving yourself far too much credit. Just because you have a long explanation for something doesn't make that explanation correct. That should be obvious to you Vhsalum. I think your analysis was poor to be honest. For example look at this excerpt from the long post you made that addressed a mere caricature of my position:

 

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.

 

You seem to think that just because you explained what happened in the sequence, that proves that there was no poor technique involved. Why do you believe that this clearly shows that there was no poor technique displayed by Chance? The reason that Rhoades was able to make that slick maneuver was precisely because Chance left holes for him to do so. Holes in his technique. Are you willing to say that Chance's technique was perfect in that situation and still Rhoades was able to kick away and turn into a shot attempt of his own? I can't believe that anyone could honestly say that.

 

I give myself a lot of things. Credit is not one of them. My achievements in this sport are all I need. Well, that, and destroying the very small bit of credibility and showing the boards your total lack of an ability to objective.

 

I have given my reasons as to why your major points are FALSE, and the only argument, which you have repeated, is your original premise. Even you can understand that one cannot stand on an argument based solely on the argument itself. There must be some evidence that supports it. And using my words, my analysis, my experts, my anecdotal and saying i AGREE with you is being disingenuous at best, and obtuse, rude and nonsensical at worst.

 

Also. You lose. "Your failure to answer both of these questions will render you argument moot and invalid"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I give myself a lot of things. Credit is not one of them. My achievements in this sport are all I need. Well, that, and destroying the very small bit of credibility and showing the boards your total lack of an ability to objective.

 

And you failed at that Vhsalum. I think your credibility is under question, you refuse to answer my direct questions and then go off on tangents as if you are proving something. In the middle of all of this, you actually agreed with my major points. And you fail to answer the questions that will end this discussion once and for all.

 

 

I have given my reasons as to why your major points are FALSE, and the only argument, which you have repeated, is your original premise. Even you can understand that one cannot stand on an argument based solely on the argument itself. There must be some evidence that supports it. And using my words, my analysis, my experts, my anecdotal and saying i AGREE with you is being disingenuous at best, and obtuse, rude and nonsensical at worst.

 

And your reasons were found to be lacking. That one post that you keep referring to as if it was such a great post, was poor. It wasn't even attacking my position, it was attacking a position that you created and then imputed to me. And I'm not even sure when you made these great arguments that you speak of. I honestly think you're confused.

 

Also. You lose. "Your failure to answer both of these questions will render you argument moot and invalid

 

Seriously? No, Vhsalum you lose. Your failure to answer my questions renders your arguments moot and invalid. See I can do that too! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

superold, you are so full of baloney it isn't funny.

 

When a kid is 166-0 in the PIAA, and another 100-0 unattached, and the ONLY match you can see is one where he wrestled with pneumonia to lose by 1 pt. to a college kid three years older ..., by modern youth definition that makes you a hater on that kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol @ being an undefeated 4 X PA state champ described as a "nice" accomplishment.

Such a can post.

 

Once you get to college, HS results don't mean much. Jimmy Gulibon was also a 4x PA champ, what good is that doing for him now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superold, you are so full of baloney it isn't funny.

 

When a kid is 166-0 in the PIAA, and another 100-0 unattached, and the ONLY match you can see is one where he wrestled with pneumonia to lose by 1 pt. to a college kid three years older ..., by modern youth definition that makes you a hater on that kid.

 

I see you're continuing to make excuses Tbar.

 

Anyway, why wouldn't I talk about the tournament where Chance went 0-2 at Jr. Trials? I think this matchup is more relevant than the matches he has against other HS kids. Remember I was discussing Marsteller's future in college. HS doesn't mean much to me, I'm sorry that bothers you so much. Also remember that the reason I first brought up the trials is because you mentioned how he had better offense and positioning already than Matt Brown, and that you thought he would beat him. Don't forget that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbar, you never gave your college prediction for Chance. Did you forget? :)

 

Actually, I had given my prediction for Chance on page 1 of the thread, but you were so busy admiring your own posts that you never noticed.

 

You need to stop hating on Marstellar, dude. It's kind of pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbar, you never gave your college prediction for Chance. Did you forget? :)

 

Actually, I had given my prediction for Chance on page 1 of the thread, but you were so busy admiring your own posts that you never noticed.

 

You need to stop hating on Marstellar, dude. It's kind of pathetic.

 

Tbar, all you said was, "if healthy, the sky is the limit". What kind of prediction is that? Could you be more specific? You make specific predictions with Taylor, Ruth, and even J'den Cox. Why won't you do the same for Chance? :)

 

And I've never hated on Marsteller. I've actually given him a lot of credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference toward jimmy gulibon is a bit unfounded he is entereing his first NCAA tournament as a RS Freshman has wins over top 10 opponents. Lets give the kid a year or two before we start claiming him a bust.

 

How many RS fresh come out and dominate Graff, Thorn, Mango, Beckman, Dijulious, Colon, Shopp, and the list goes on how did they do in their fresman season? It is much more rare for someone to dominate then it is to have a few growning pains.

 

Gulibon is probably by his own admission not having the year he wishes but to think he is a bust is a bit premature. The kid works as hard as anyone and has as much talent as anyone. He is going toe to toe with some of the nations best as a freshmen ask thorn and mango as well as a host of opponents he has lost by a point or two. I can easily see this "4x Pa champ" which we call a bust being a multiple time AA and or even an NCAA champ in the years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol @ being an undefeated 4 X PA state champ described as a "nice" accomplishment.

Such a can post.

 

Once you get to college, HS results don't mean much. Jimmy Gulibon was also a 4x PA champ, what good is that doing for him now?

What does college have to do with dismissing his high school accomplishments? Obviously, they are different that doesn't mean his high school accomplishments aren't great.

If an undefeated high school career in PA is only "nice" what exactly is a good, great, excellent high school accomplishment for a high school folkstyle career?

 

Gulibon has nothing to do with Marstellar's high school career or college potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol @ being an undefeated 4 X PA state champ described as a "nice" accomplishment.

Such a can post.

 

Once you get to college, HS results don't mean much. Jimmy Gulibon was also a 4x PA champ, what good is that doing for him now?

What does college have to do with dismissing his high school accomplishments? Obviously, they are different that doesn't mean his high school accomplishments aren't great.

If an undefeated high school career in PA is only "nice" what exactly is a good, great, excellent high school accomplishment for a high school folkstyle career?

 

Gulibon has nothing to do with Marstellar's high school career or college potential.

 

I'm not sure why you are taking issue with me saying that Marsteller's accomplishments are nice. I would say that Kolat's HS career was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reference toward jimmy gulibon is a bit unfounded he is entereing his first NCAA tournament as a RS Freshman has wins over top 10 opponents. Lets give the kid a year or two before we start claiming him a bust.

 

How many RS fresh come out and dominate Graff, Thorn, Mango, Beckman, Dijulious, Colon, Shopp, and the list goes on how did they do in their fresman season? It is much more rare for someone to dominate then it is to have a few growning pains.

 

Gulibon is probably by his own admission not having the year he wishes but to think he is a bust is a bit premature. The kid works as hard as anyone and has as much talent as anyone. He is going toe to toe with some of the nations best as a freshmen ask thorn and mango as well as a host of opponents he has lost by a point or two. I can easily see this "4x Pa champ" which we call a bust being a multiple time AA and or even an NCAA champ in the years to come.

 

If you are responding to me, my comment about Gulibon was not unfounded. I'm not sure why you say that. I never said Gulibon was a bust, maybe you're thinking of someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is Marstellar will be a superstar in college and that will be a stepping stone to great international glory.

 

What's that? He changed his mind and is leaving PSU for Okla St?

 

Oh... in that case, he sucks, he was never that good. Won't do anything in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was ignoring this thread, but got curious when it grew quickly. After skimming thru 9 pages I can see how it grew. Time to ignore again.

 

But my 2 cents.... I won't pretend to know how great he'll be in college. Gotta believe he'll do well if healthy. But as far as predicting 4x champ ... that's crazy talk. Dustin Schlatter had about as good a true fr year as anyone, and he ends up a 1x champ.

 

I recall Scott Winston who "never lost in HS" (except once, when he did) was hyped up considerably. I don't think he ever made AA (injuries may have been a factor). There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbar, all you said was, "if healthy, the sky is the limit". What kind of prediction is that?

 

That is the sort of prediction that reasonable folks who knew Chance's background would read and accept. And then there is you.

 

 

And I've never hated on Marsteller. I've actually given him a lot of credit.

 

Just because you say that you have given him credit and not hated on him doesn't make is true. You do hate on the kid, you are just weasely about it. You can't hide, just read all the posts where people have caught on to your act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the sort of prediction that reasonable folks who knew Chance's background would read and accept. And then there is you.

 

Why so vague? You are very specific when it comes to Taylor, Ruth, and even true freshman J'den Cox? Why can't you be more specific about Marsteller? You don't hesistate to mention that he's better than Matt Brown on his feet, and better when it comes to keeping solid position. You even mention that you believe he'd beat Brown. Why won't you give us a specific college prediction? Your predicition on Marsteller is a lot different than the other predictions that I usually see you make.

 

 

Just because you say that you have given him credit and not hated on him doesn't make is true. You do hate on the kid, you are just weasely about it. You can't hide, just read all the posts where people have caught on to your act.

 

And just because you say that I've hated on him doesn't make it true. See I can do the same thing as you Tbar, it's not very hard.

 

And no one has caught on to me because there's nothing to catch on to. I've given you several chances in the past to produce one quote where I "hate" or "bash" Marsteller, and you couldn't do it. The challenge still stands btw. It's sad that my honest opinion upsets you so much. It's not like I created all of the facts/evidence that support my position out of thin air. Actually, if your honest, you would have to admit that some of your stated positions on this board have little foundation. In several cases, you have nothing to support your position other than your imagination.

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...