Vega... PFP #2?

[ionel]

21 minutes ago, boconnell said:

 But pretending he's not well rounded is simply making stuff up man. 

ftfy

[Simpleman424]

34 minutes ago, boconnell said:

Your comments on Vega remain weirdly biased.  The not well rounded thing is silly.  He was fantastic on top and bottom and won multiple matches there.  He repeatedly beat returning finalist Hardy by initiating his own offense.  Hardy is super tough to finish on and Vega finished shots on him multiple times.  He beat Mendez with counter offense.  He won matches multiple ways.  You either didn't watch or ignored it because your feelings are hurt.  

Ranking him 6th is fine.  That's an opinion and not a crazy one.  All of these guys are excellent and 6th is a great wrestler.  But pretending he's not well rounded is just making stuff up.  

Even the OK State guy agreed about Vegas well roundedness…I’m starting to think you didn’t bother reading any of the replies today OR watch the match because I’m pretty sure I’ve been through this with you before. I’m not sure what your deal is but I’m probably one of the least bias guys you’ll have discussions with here…

[ionel]

Simpleman424 

[boconnell]

52 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Even the OK State guy agreed about Vegas well roundedness…I’m starting to think you didn’t bother reading any of the replies today OR watch the match because I’m pretty sure I’ve been through this with you before. I’m not sure what your deal is but I’m probably one of the least bias guys you’ll have discussions with here…

He beat the returning champ and the returning runnerup in wildly different ways.  He beat one with his own offense (4 TDs off his own shots in a 13-2 win), and he beat the other with pure counter wrestling. 

He won matches in multiple ways.  You can not like him.  You can say he is going to be figured out.  You can say Mendez is still better.  Those are all opinions that are fine.  Saying he's not well rounded is telling tall tales.  

Try using some of your self declared lack of bias to consider what it means for a guy's well roundedness when he beats both returning finalists in wildly different ways.  

[BaldHeadedShannon]

I see a well rounded national champ

[ionel]

43 minutes ago, BaldHeadedShannon said:

I see a well rounded national champ

No way that guy would be any good at wrestling ... just look at him.  Now pickleball ...  

[Simpleman424]

1 hour ago, boconnell said:

He beat the returning champ and the returning runnerup in wildly different ways.  He beat one with his own offense (4 TDs off his own shots in a 13-2 win), and he beat the other with pure counter wrestling. 

He won matches in multiple ways.  You can not like him.  You can say he is going to be figured out.  You can say Mendez is still better.  Those are all opinions that are fine.  Saying he's not well rounded is telling tall tales.  

Try using some of your self declared lack of bias to consider what it means for a guy's well roundedness when he beats both returning finalists in wildly different ways.  

You’ve said that already…it doesn’t make it anymore true. I’ve given a ton of credit where it’s due, given reasonable points as to why I believe what I do and conceded he’s a top 10 dude. You’re taking your Penn State level bias here to an extreme and getting into your feelings. I’m more than fine agreeing to disagree. I get why you think what you do just not with the end result of the whole picture. 

[boconnell]

1 hour ago, Simpleman424 said:

You’ve said that already…it doesn’t make it anymore true. I’ve given a ton of credit where it’s due, given reasonable points as to why I believe what I do and conceded he’s a top 10 dude. You’re taking your Penn State level bias here to an extreme and getting into your feelings. I’m more than fine agreeing to disagree. I get why you think what you do just not with the end result of the whole picture. 

Facts don't get any more or less true when repeated.  He wins matches against the highest level opponents in a variety of ways.  That was the maximum amount of true before I said it once, and remains the same amount of true after I repeated it twice.  I didn't repeat the fact to make it more true.  I repeated it in the hope that facts would impact your opinions.  They didn't.    

Edited September 11 by boconnell

[ionel]

We have a new card.  

[Simpleman424]

10 minutes ago, ionel said:

We have a new card.  

I’m pretty sure this doesn’t rise to that level

[BruceyB]

On 9/11/2026 at 2:24 PM, boconnell said:

Facts don't get any more or less true when repeated.  He wins matches against the highest level opponents in a variety of ways.  That was the maximum amount of true before I said it once, and remains the same amount of true after I repeated it twice.  I didn't repeat the fact to make it more true.  I repeated it in the hope that facts would impact your opinions.  They didn't.    

Let's just call it what it is. When a wrestler's best skill is evading being taken down when his opponent appears to be in a good position to finish, it feels flukey and unsustainable. I know I'm guilty of thinking, "Well, someone is going to finish the takedown and he's going to lose." I instantly think of Jesse Delgado and Nahshon Garrett in the finals. After that match was over I felt bad because it seemed like Nahshon was the better wrestler. He got in deep, looked like to should be able to finish the shot, and then somehow Delgado would find an ankle and get out of danger or turn it into his own score. Delgado won the positions, but with how the match went it felt like Nahshon was the better wrestler and should win. However, if you re-wrestled that match 10 times on that day, I don't have any argument for why the match would go differently if they wrestled again. It wasn't a fluke. Delgado was better at diving under than Nahshon was at stopping it, and Delgado was better in the scramble from that position. 

I think the other thing is that the close matches and the times that he looked vulnerable leave a stronger impression than how well rounded he really is. I thought I could see him gaining confidence on his feet throughout the year and times where he was even forcing offense when maybe he shouldn't have because I felt like he was trying to embody "Always looking to score points" even when it would have been easier for him to hold serve. He had some matches where he was far from dynamic offensively, but I thought he actually wrestled really well from neutral, especially in the second half of the season.

[boconnell]

2 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

Let's just call it what it is. When a wrestler's best skill is evading being taken down when his opponent appears to be in a good position to finish, it feels flukey and unsustainable. I know I'm guilty of thinking, "Well, someone is going to finish the takedown and he's going to lose." I instantly think of Jesse Delgado and Nahshon Garrett in the finals. After that match was over I felt bad because it seemed like Nahshon was the better wrestler. He got in deep, looked like to should be able to finish the shot, and then somehow Delgado would find an ankle and get out of danger or turn it into his own score. Delgado won the positions, but with how the match went it felt like Nahshon was the better wrestler and should win. However, if you re-wrestled that match 10 times on that day, I don't have any argument for why the match would go differently if they wrestled again. It wasn't a fluke. Delgado was better at diving under than Nahshon was at stopping it, and Delgado was better in the scramble from that position. 

I think the other thing is that the close matches and the times that he looked vulnerable leave a stronger impression than how well rounded he really is. I thought I could see him gaining confidence on his feet throughout the year and times where he was even forcing offense when maybe he shouldn't have because I felt like he was trying to embody "Always looking to score points" even when it would have been easier for him to hold serve. He had some matches where he was far from dynamic offensively, but I thought he actually wrestled really well from neutral, especially in the second half of the season.

I agree those matches can feel that way. I think it's very fair to describe the first Echemendia match in these terms.  That one was similar to how you're describing Garrett/Delgado.  Ech got into good spots repeatedly.  He came super close to finishing before a great counter.  It was very reasonable after that match to think Ech could make adjustments and win a rematch.  He pulled a similar magic trick against Bailey the first time.  

He can definitely win that type of match and did a couple of times.