Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To say Hunter collapsed in either NCAA appearance is absurd. 

 

 

I disagree. Look at his freshman year performance. The one you didn't really attempt to defend. As a freshman, Hunter lost 3 consecutive matches at the ncaas. Highlighting the fact that he was a TRUE freshman does nothing to lighten the significance of that fact. He earned a 5th seed based on his body of work throughout the entire season, but did he finish 5th? No, he placed lower than his seed. I must mention again that Hunter lost 3 consecutive matches at the ncaas. That's right, 3 matches in a row. Of those 3 matches, he lost to 2 guys that he had already beaten before. In what world is losing 3 consecutive matches, with 2 of those losses coming to two guys you previously beat, not a collapse? And don't forget the fact that he lost by pin to Michael Mangrum in the 5th/6th place match. Also don't forget that Stieber beat Marion that year as well. Even if you want to disagree that it's a collapse, how can you go so far as to say that calling that a collapse is absurd? To call his freshman year ncaa tournament a "success" is ridiculous to me.

 

His 1 seed was not really deserving IMO that year and i believe it put too much pressure on him. He stopped having fun and did have a couple poor performances but they were NOT collapses. A collapse would have been going from 1 seed to a 7th place finish. Not losing a 7-6 battle and then destroying your way to 3rd place.

 

 

 

It seems to me that you're saying that Hunter underperformed due to pressure. That the pressure he felt caused him to wrestle below his normal level. Competing below your normal level due to pressure is pretty much the textbook definition of the term "collapse" when it's used in the context of sports performance. You seem to be saying that had Hunter not received the #1 seed, he would have had fun out on the mat and wrestled to his capabilities. Am I reading you correctly or not? If so, a whole lot of people would call that a collapse. By the way, could you explain why going from 1st to 7th is a collapse, but 1st to 6th is not? I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

 

Oh, don't forget that outside of the loss to Port, Hunter also needed late match heroics to beat a non AA in Durso. Hunter didn't look too good in that match imo.

 

 

You have absolutely zero sources, reputable or otherwise. So please just stop with the "im not the only one" routine. You dont even know any reputable wrestling minds personally, they wouldnt be associated with you. Those types have a knack for weeding out the posers...sorry but you are never going to be one of those minds. The more you post the worse you look.

 

 
Yes I do have sources. And I'm not the only one who believes Hunter collapsed at the ncaas. You can choose to believe that, but it's not true. And yes, I know a lot of reputable wrestling minds personally. I myself am one of those wrestling minds. You don't have to believe me. That's okay.
 
I hope that you can be more polite in your future posts here. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic Bucksfan.
Edited by superold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

149 lbs may be the most competitive weight in college this season.  There are a number of wrestlers who are legit contenders for the title but no favorite at this time.  Stieber, Kindig, Carter, Tsirtsis and Houdashelt are all tremendous competitors and there are several others only a step behind them.  Incidentally, Superold's argument is mostly dumb but he is correct about one thing:  Hunter, by his own admission, wrestled tight at NCAA's as a soph.  Once he got the loss to Port out of the way, however, he whipped two quality wrestlers to finish a strong third.   Most of the time, that's who he is.  And he won Pan Ams this summer.  He'll be ready.

 

How is my argument mostly dumb? It's easy to say that, but a lot harder to demonstrate it. I'd like to see you address the points I made in my response to Bucksfan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2011 NCAA: 6th place finish from 5 seed is not a collapse. 1st to 6th? What do you mean? He was the 5th seed, lol, hence his projected finish was 5th. You lose

 

2012 NCAA: See my post above. You lose

 

Oh ok, now you are saying "collapse" instead of "heart"? Because you know your initial comment pertaining to Hunters lack of heart was pulled out of thin air and was indeed your own opinion, not others...well, not others who are actually reputable. Thanks for outing yourself. Burn.

 

You a great wrestling mind....blasphemy

 

You keep asking people to demonstrate how wrong you are or how dumb the thread is. WE ARE, you are just choosing not to listen and internalize the info due to ur biased opinion. Do some soul searching partner.

Edited by Bucksfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a great wrestling mind but I would put Alexander Richardson in the mix @ 149 also.  Wow what a weight class!

 

BTW  is it possible to fall apart at the NCAA and still have a great tourney?  (I would never question an NCAA D1 wrestlers heart though, he might beat the crap out of me even at 149!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2011 NCAA: 6th place finish from 5 seed is not a collapse. 1st to 6th? What do you mean? He was the 5th seed, lol, hence his projected finish was 5th. You lose

 

 

 

 

Maybe you're forgetting, but you said that "A collapse would have been going from 1 seed to a 7th place finish". I'm asking why is going from 1st seed to a 7th place finish a collapse, but going from 1st seed to a 6th place finish is not? Is there a good reason for calling a performance a collapse only if a wrestler places 6 places lower than his seed? Please read my posts, I realize that Hunter was the 5th seed Bucksfan, I'm just asking why your standard of 1st seed to 7th place is seemingly the only scenario that's worthy of being called a collapse?

 

Oh, to only bring up he was seeded 5th and finished 6th is ignoring key pieces of information. Like the fact that Hunter lost 3 consecutive matches, with two of those losses coming to wrestlers that he beat before. His losses also got progressively worse throughout the tournament, culminating in a loss by fall to Mangrum. Long story short, Hunter faded, and this fading caused people to question his heart. To recap, 3 consecutive losses with two losses coming to wrestler that he's beaten before, and each loss getting progressively worse until his final match where he losses by fall. I'm stunned that anyone would take issue with that being called a collapse.

 

2012 NCAA: See my post above. You lose

 

 

 

Anyone can claim victory, it's not that difficult. Could you explain how I "lose", and you "win"? I make a few points that you didn't address directly, so I'm not sure how that's a "win" for you.

 

 

Oh ok, now you are saying "collapse" instead of "heart"? Because you know your initial comment pertaining to Hunters lack of heart was pulled out of thin air and was indeed your own opinion, not others...well, not others who are actually reputable. Thanks for outing yourself. Burn.

 

 

 

No, I'm saying both. I'm saying that Hunter collapse, and that his heart was questioned by others at the ncaas. I'm not changing my position on that at all. And yes, the people who questioned Hunter's heart are reputable. 

 

So no, I didn't "out" myself here or anywhere.

 

You a great wrestling mind....blasphemy

 

 

 

No it isn't. You may choose to believe that however, it's your right to do so.

 

 

You keep asking people to demonstrate how wrong you are or how dumb the thread is. WE ARE, you are just choosing not to listen and internalize the info due to ur biased opinion. Do some soul searching partner.

 

 

Bucksfan, you've done nothing to demonstrate how wrong, or how dumb that I am. As it stands, I have made better points than you on this thread. I've addressed your points while you have ignored mine. Since that's the case, I'm not sure how you can claim that I'm not the one who's listening. It appears that you are the one who's not listening. If you doubt that, just read over my posts and see how you've failed to address a few of my arguments. Take a look. I also encourage you to do some soul searching.

 

After reviewing all of the information that I brought forth, can you still honestly hold to the belief that it's absurd to call Hunter's performance a collapse? Even his freshman year? I'd really like to hear you answer that question honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superold...First off, your information is wrong.  He NEVER went from #1 seed to 6th place.  You're getting your years mixed up.  Your explanation of your definition of "collapse" did nothing to convince me of your argument.  I'm not an Ohio State fan, but finishing one spot below your seed simply doesn't constitute a collapse in my mind, and it would seem people on this site lean more my direction then yours. If you've made better points than others, how come no one agrees with you? 

 

If you apply your standard, every one-seed that doesn't win a title "collapsed" at NCAAs.  There are too many examples to name of guys who just lost a bout or two to guys that were either better than them, or close enough to them and wrestled a great match or maybe just had a hot weekend or were a bad match-up for them.  If your stance is so well thought out and reasonable, why does no one agree with you?  Didn't you say something earlier that "many people" questioned his heart?  Where are they?  Why don't they come to your defense?  Why can't you even say who they are?

 

FWIW, the year Stieber finished third (a dominating third, btw), nobody outside of Ohio (and the seeding committee) thought he should have been the top seed.  That was Maple's year.  

Edited by Bitterrunner-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superold...you explanation of your definition of "collapse" did nothing to convince me of your argument.  I'm not an Ohio State fan, but finishing one spot below your seed simply doesn't constitute a collapse in my mind, and it would seem people on this site lean more my direction then yours.  If your stance is so well thought out and reasonable, why does no one agree with you.  Didn't you say something earlier that "many people" questioned his heart?  Where are they?  Why don't they come to your defense?  Why can't you even say who they are?

 

Look at how Hunter performed in his last 3 matches. If you look at exactly how he finished below his seed, I believe it will be clear that he collapsed. And I'm not sure that people lean more your direction than my own, And you don't know if no one agrees with me. I know for sure that people agree with me. 

 

For starters, if I were to name the name of some of the people who questioned Hunter's heart, most here would probably not know them. With that said, I don't know if these people would want me to reveal what they said about Hunter (and other wrestlers) here given how sensitive this subject can be. A lot of overly emotional people would probably accuse them of "bashing" or "hating" on the kid, when they really are giving their honest opinion.

 

 

Superold...First off, your information is wrong.  He NEVER went from #1 seed to 6th place.  You're getting your years mixed up.

 

 

Edit: I never said that Hunter went from #1 seed to 6th place. I'm not confusing anything because I didn't say it.

Edited by superold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record I believe Tshirts is the man to beat at this weight. Will Hunter beat him? Thats TBD. I think people dont give that kid enough credit. He was an absolute monster in HS, more accolades than Hunter had at that level. He also took Logan down to the wire in FS, I believe it was a 1 point margin and that was when he was still in HS (I was at this US Open). He didnt miss a step at the next level, he just continues to win. I agree with the Russell comparison in that he just doesnt destroy the competition, but he wins the big ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Look at how he performed in his last three matches"...OK, Steiber's last three matches were a 7-6 loss to 4th seeded Mitchell Port (who was on a run, majoring his last two opponents and giving Maple all he could handle in the final). Then, he dropped down and dominated All American Michael Nevinger (Cornell), 9-0.  Finally, he beat Ugi Khishignnyam (Citadel), 12-4 for third place.  That's supposed to be clear proof of collapse? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"His 1 seed was not really deserving IMO that year and i believe it put too much pressure on him. He stopped having fun and did have a couple poor performances but they were NOT collapses. A collapse would have been going from 1 seed to a 7th place finish. Not losing a 7-6 battle and then destroying your way to 3rd place."

 

 

 

Here's a quote from Dr. Sian Beilock, author of the book Choke:

 

“Choking isn’t just poor performance. It is worse performance than you are capable of precisely because there is a lot on the line.”

 

Bucksfan, if you're going to stick by what you said about the pressure getting to Hunter, then that goes right in line with the definition of "choke" given by this doctor from the University of Chicago, which is one of the best schools in the country. Indeed, it's one of the best schools in the world. Even if you disagree with Dr. Beilock, I think you'd have to admit that it's well established that other educated people would classify Hunter's performance as a collapse. Of course, the word "choke" was used here, but choke and collapse are synonyms, they can be used interchangeably. I'm guessing that many would feel that "choke" is a much stronger term used to describe a poor performance than collapse. From my experience, many even shy away from using the word. So if a performance can be classified as a "choke", it also can be classified as a "collapse".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Look at how he performed in his last three matches"...OK, Steiber's last three matches were a 7-6 loss to 4th seeded Mitchell Port (who was on a run, majoring his last two opponents and giving Maple all he could handle in the final). Then, he dropped down and dominated All American Michael Nevinger (Cornell), 9-0.  Finally, he beat Ugi Khishignnyam (Citadel), 12-4 for third place.  That's supposed to be clear proof of collapse? 

 

In context, I was talking about his freshman year ncaas. Yes, I think it's accurate to call that performance a collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, by that definition Oliver choked against Logan Stieber, Jason Welch choked against St. John, Dustin Kilgore choked against Wright, Kellen Russell choked his first two years and suddenly grew a heart and won two titles, Metcalf choked against against Caldwell, Varner choked against Pucillo...the list is enormous.  If you think they all choked and should have their hearts question, then you really don't know the sport you're talking about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, by that definition Oliver choked against Logan Stieber, Jason Welch choked against St. John, Dustin Kilgore choked against Wright, Kellen Russell choked his first two years and suddenly grew a heart and won two titles, Metcalf choked against against Caldwell, Varner choked against Pucillo...the list is enormous.  If you think they all choked and should have their hearts question, then you really don't know the sport you're talking about.  

 

I disagree with all of those being called chokes. In many of those cases, I think the better wrestler won that match. Maybe in all of those matches that you listed. With that said, you seem to be under the impression that there can't be more than one "choke" or "collapse". Imo, there have been hundreds of collapses over the years. Just because there are that many doesn't make me hesitate on calling an individual performance a collapse. And I don't see why it should. 

 

(Edit: Bitterrunner-up I'd like to point out that you have not demonstrated that each wrestler that lost those matches did so precisely because there was a lot on the line.)

 

That reminds me of the point someone tried to make when I called out a wrestler for demonstrating poor technique. He told me that every wrestler has shown poor technique at times; I agreed. Presumably, this was supposed to get me to stop calling out poor technique, but that didn't really make sense to me. That was because, I could call out individual situations where certain wrestlers showed poor technique, which is clearly distinct from saying that a wrestler has poor technique overall. Likewise, I can call out specific instances when an athlete collapses while recognizing that said athlete doesn't always collapse. I'm not sure why that it so hard to understand.

Edited by superold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When superold asks why is going from 1 seed to 7th place a collapse and going from 1 seed to 6th place finisher not, he is not using Hunter as an example but he is asking how you came up with that particular criteria for a collapse.

As far as his 6th place finish I always felt that the semi-final loser, , especially in a tight bout was always at a dis-advantage in that next wrestle-back bout. I see no excuses though for the loss by fall, in the place bout other than phoning it in. This gives a little credence to superolds assertions. On the other hand he brings up the almost loss to a non AA. I am always impressed when a wrestler is not on his game and can still find a way to pull out a victory. To me this shows a lot of heart. Which happens to contradict one of superolds beliefs.

As far as his 3rd place finish again dis-advantage in the wrestleback even greater since he lost as a favorite. This time he responds with two dominant wins, the complete opposite of previous NCAA results. To me this again showed a lot of heart. I believe superold is putting a little too much stock in the seeding of the tournament. That is just peoples opinion. In many cases if the tournament were re-wrestled a month later there would be a drastic change in results. I prefer to compare 2 equal events instead. Twice Hunter lost in the semi-finals of the NCAA tourney. As a young frosh he did not respond positively. Second time around he was lights out.

Now I do understand that you are a "if you are not first you are last type of guy". Also you have let us know what a knowlegable wrestling mind you have. That kind of makes you a #1 seed in posting, and yes you got through the early rounds unscathed. I do feel now that you yourself have taken a loss here in the semis. I am awaiting to see just how you do in the wrestlebacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make the assumption that Stieber lost to Russell and Port because he choked and his heart should be questioned.  The reason it can be called a choke in your mind is because it's on the big stage with a lot on the line in the NCAA semi-finals.  All the matches I mentioned were NCAA finals bouts (except Kellen Russell's freshman and sophomore).  Those are presumably high stakes bouts.  And I agree that in many of them the better wrestler won the match, but that could be said about Hunter Stieber's losses as well.  You just refuse to see it that way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.  

You make the assumption that Stieber lost to Russell and Port because he choked and his heart should be questioned.  The reason it can be called a choke in your mind is because it's on the big stage with a lot on the line in the NCAA semi-finals.  All the matches I mentioned were NCAA finals bouts (except Kellen Russell's freshman and sophomore).  Those are presumably high stakes bouts.  And I agree that in many of them the better wrestler won the match, but that could be said about Hunter Stieber's losses as well.  You just refuse to see it that way.  

 

Keep up with the argument Bitterrunner-up. And please read my posts more clearly. You've misinterpreted my statements a few times already.

 

I quoted Bucksfan, another poster, who made the following statement: 

 

His 1 seed was not really deserving IMO that year and i believe it put too much pressure on him. He stopped having fun and did have a couple poor performances but they were NOT collapses. A collapse would have been going from 1 seed to a 7th place finish. Not losing a 7-6 battle and then destroying your way to 3rd place."

 

Given Bucksfan's assumption/beliefs, I'm saying that it wouldn't be unreasonable to call Stieber's performance a collapse. And that one definitely shouldn't be called a "troll" or "dumb" for thinking that Hunter collapsed in 2013 as the #1 seed. I quoted a definition from a doctor from a top university to illustrate that it's possible for educated, well-meaning people to hold to such a definition of the words "choke" or "collapse". I'd even go as far as to say that given Bucksfan's  stated beliefs, he should at the very least acknowledge that Hunter collapsed. Like I said earlier, the reason he gives for Hunter not living up to the #1 seed at the ncaas is pretty much the textbook definition of the term "collapse" when it's used in the context of sports performance. 

 

 

Those are presumably high stakes bouts.  And I agree that in many of them the better wrestler won the match, but that could be said about Hunter Stieber's losses as well.

 

 

 

So for the record, you are saying that you believe that everyone that Hunter has lost to at his two ncaa tournaments was really better than he was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Per Merriam Webster there are noun definitions:

2collapse noun  

: a situation or occurrence in which something (such as a bridge, building, etc.) suddenly breaks apart and falls down

: a situation or occurrence in which someone suddenly falls down or becomes unconscious because of being sick or exhausted

: a situation or occurrence in which something (such as a system or organization) suddenly fails : a complete failure or breakdown

Per Merriam Webster there are 2 transitive verb definitions:

transitive verb


1

:  to cause to collapse <buildings collapsed by an earthquake> 


2

:  condense <collapse several stories into one> 
Per Merrian Webster there are 6 intransitive verb definitions  
1

:  to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely :  fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure <a blood vessel that collapsed> 


2

:  to break down completely :  disintegrate <his case had collapsed in a mass of legal wreckage — Erle Stanley Gardner> 


3

:  to cave or fall in or give way <the bridge collapsed> 


4

:  to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth <fears that the currency may collapse> 


5

:  to break down in vital energy, stamina, or self-control through exhaustion or disease; especially :  to fall helpless or unconscious 


6

:  to fold down into a more compact shape <a chair that collapses> : a situation or occurrence in which something (such as a system or organization) suddenly fails : a complete failure or breakdown

superold,

 

Which of these do you think applies?  Collapse is a pretty strong word and I really don't see ANY definition fitting.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSU158,

 

When the word collapsed is used in the context of sports, it takes on a different definition than may be found in the dictionary. "Collapse" and "choke" are synonyms. Even so, I think you could probably use definition 4 or 5. Maybe 4 fits best (If you had to use one of those definitions): "to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness.....". You could say that Hunter lost effectiveness down the stretch at the 2012 ncaas. I mean, in his 3 match losing streak, he lost to a wrestler that he had previously beaten earlier in the tournament. Also, each loss that he had got progressively worse(from Russell to Novachkov to Mangrum) and culminated in a loss by fall in the 5th/6th place match.

Edited by superold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now Superold dictates how words in the English language are used and in what context, lol. You really live in your own little fantasy world dont you? I mean, dont you think if your thought process and views were correct that you would be able to convince someone, ANYONE of it? There is a reason you lose every single argument on this forum. Cant you see that? Is everyone ELSE wrong? No one in the free thinking world is going to let u get away with calling Hunters finishes collapses. No matter how much you try to explain, it just doesnt make sense. Move on to yet another thread where you start some kind of passive aggressive pot shot and continue your losing tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason Tsirtsis might not be the prohibitive favorite would be because last years NCAA scores were 4-1, 4-3, TB-1 2-1, TB-1 2-1, and SV-1 3-1.  When you live by those scores at some point one usually gets bit.

yeah, regression to the mean is a concept all sports fans really need to understand. would save a lot of these boring arguments explaining what should be obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

So now Superold dictates how words in the English language are used and in what context, lol. You really live in your own little fantasy world dont you? I mean, dont you think if your thought process and views were correct that you would be able to convince someone, ANYONE of it? You really live in your own little fantasy world dont you? I mean, dont you think if your thought process and views were correct that you would be able to convince someone, ANYONE of it?  You really live in your own little fantasy world dont you? I mean, dont you think if your thought process and views were correct that you would be able to convince someone, ANYONE of it?  Move on to yet another thread where you start some kind of passive aggressive pot shot and continue your losing tradition.

 

Collapse made sense in the context that I used it. I'm not the only person in history who's used collapse that way.

 

You really live in your own little fantasy world dont you? I mean, dont you think if your thought process and views were correct that you would be able to convince someone, ANYONE of it? 

 

 

Bucksfan, you can't even prove that my position is in the minority. For all you know, 99% of themat's posters side with me. Is this really a serious comment? : )

 

 

You really live in your own little fantasy world dont you? I mean, dont you think if your thought process and views were correct that you would be able to convince someone, ANYONE of it? 

 

 

How do you know that I haven't convinced anyone? For all you know, my position may align with the opinions of the vast majority. Only a few posters have commented on this thread, and not everyone of those posters have taken a position on the issue of Hunters' collapses at the ncaa tournament. Overstating your position does nothing to make up for that inconvenient (for you) fact.

 

No one in the free thinking world is going to let u get away with calling Hunters finishes collapses. No matter how much you try to explain, it just doesnt make sense

 

 

Yet I quoted a doctor from one of the world's most prestigious universities who would classify Hunter's performance as a "choke"("choke and "collapse" are synonyms) that is, if you we take your OWN REASONS for Hunter underperforming as being true. To say that no one would agree with my position in light of that fact is denying reality. You can pretend that you're not denying reality, but you are. A doctor from a leading world university does not equal "no one".

 

Move on to yet another thread where you start some kind of passive aggressive pot shot and continue your losing tradition

 

 

 

I haven't the slightest clue of what you're talking about. There is no passive-agressive shot in any of my posts. And I don't have a "losing tradition". I'm a winner. : )

 

 

It's very telling that you have to resort to name-calling rather than addressing my points directly. For the record, I haven't called you a single name. I'm not sure why you can't at least return that favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the year Stieber was the #1 seed at NCAAs, Maple was the best wrestler.  I thought Port and Stieber were pretty evenly matched and that bout couldv't gone either way.  When Stieber was a rookie, I thought Russell was clearly better, and both Novachkov and Mangrum were right there with Stieber...evidenced by them being the seeds above and below him and the fact that he split with Mangrum in the tourney.  So, I guess what I'm saying is yes, on that day, I think the better wrestler won.

 

I still don't think the words collapse or choke apply to Hunter Stieber during his first two years of college wrestling.  Seeded 5th, placed 6th...Seeded 1st, finished 3rd.  It's just not a collapse, it's NCAA wrestling.  unless you're Cael, you're gonna lose matches.  Sometimes it's a bad match-up, sometimes it's just a bad day (or a good day for the other guy), sometimes is a choke...I don't think Stieber fits the latter, and none of your explanations have have swayed me at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the year Stieber was the #1 seed at NCAAs, Maple was the best wrestler.  I thought Port and Stieber were pretty evenly matched and that bout couldv't gone either way.  When Stieber was a rookie, I thought Russell was clearly better, and both Novachkov and Mangrum were right there with Stieber...evidenced by them being the seeds above and below him and the fact that he split with Mangrum in the tourney.  So, I guess what I'm saying is yes, on that day, I think the better wrestler won.

 

I still don't think the words collapse or choke apply to Hunter Stieber during his first two years of college wrestling.  Seeded 5th, placed 6th...Seeded 1st, finished 3rd.  It's just not a collapse, it's NCAA wrestling.  unless you're Cael, you're gonna lose matches.  Sometimes it's a bad match-up, sometimes it's just a bad day (or a good day for the other guy), sometimes is a choke...I don't think Stieber fits the latter, and none of your explanations have have swayed me at all. 

 

I disagree with you, but you are free to believe whatever you like (I don't think you adequately addressed my points either). I just don't see how someone can honestly make a trolling accusation towards someone for holding to the belief that Hunter collapsed. That belief is not without basis.

 

Bitterrunner-up, when you mention that "on that day...the better wrestler won" well, isn't that always the case when one wrestler beats the other?

 

 

Seeded 5th, placed 6th...Seeded 1st, finished 3rd.  It's just not a collapse, it's NCAA wrestling.

 

 

It's just not a collapse, to you. I just wanted to clear that up because some seem to think that is a fact. Oh, I also need to point out the common saying "Unless you're Cael, you're gonna lose matches" is not really meaningful. That statement seems to imply that only Cael is capable of going undefeated, and nobody is able to do it no matter how well that they wrestle. Clearly that's false.

 

.I don't think Stieber fits the latter, and none of your explanations have have swayed me at all. 

 

 

 

I think Stieber did collapse. I haven't been given a good reason to conclude that this position is unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to cut up your posts and respond to each thing you've said...by the way, that's what trolls do.  It wouldn't matter if I did, because all you want is the debate, the argument...because that's what trolls do.  It shouldn't be this important to anyone to make the point that a true sophomore choked on the wrestling mat, but it matters that much to you...because you're a troll.  As every battle with every troll ends up, the troll wins because the battle was even fought.  Shame on me for engaging you in the first place.  Enjoy your opinion that 2X All American Hunter Stieber has a questionable heart and has choked in his two trips to the NCAA tourney.  I don't know the kid, but I like the way he wrestles and think that, while he may have fallen short of his goals so far, I think he's an exceptional talent.  I wish him luck this season.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...