The GOATest GOAT of All GOATs.

[Wrestleknownothing]

50 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

I get it. I'm not complaining or unappreciative. There isn't really a  right answer. The chart is still very interesting. 100% was just a curious metric to me. It removes from the conversation a guy who got 100% minus one match and replaces him with guys who have multiple career losses or guys who most people wouldn't even mention as in contention to be the best of all time.

 

I should've only mentioned it if I could give you a better metric.

Not necessarily. I like the conversation.

[ionel]

44 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

I can't help but wonder where all these goats are tied.

They are in the trees, just look up.

[mspart]

Those ARE the goatiest goats of all goats. 

msaprt

[scourge165]

10 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I'd agree that it would be pretty difficult to be the greatest of all time with a loss but eliminating those athletes from the conversation all together doesn't seem right. Dan Gable had one and only one loss, so he doesn't even make the list of the greatest of all time? Doesn't seem right.

Right. There's WAAAY too much context needed. Lets say...hypothetically, Taylor turns it around and catches Dake in a cradle and wins a 1 point match. Does Dake no longer belong in the convo? 

In fact, I think Lincoln McCllarvy belongs in the conversation.

I enjoy these debates(in any sport) as long as it doesn't turn into bullshit about knocking another Wrestler down rather than advocating for one Wrestler.

For example, Stieber. I hear a lot of people try Oliver had the TD. He didn't. It was a point of emphasis that year, that EXACT position. Had to get your head out and/or be above the ankles. 

It'd be a TD now, argue it was a bad rule, but it was something the refs covered that year repeatedly(which is why you see a pretty subdued John Smith given the situation). 

[scourge165]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Not necessarily. I like the conversation.

Same here. We had a smaller one about the best Freestyle Wrestler of all-time. I've got Sadulaev #1, mspart(and a lot of others) still have Saitiev...or Medved. 

Hell, I even enjoy the Jordan-LeBron debate. I know we're supposed to hate Basketball, but...what can I say, I'm still a fan.

[MPhillips]

We are, The Men Who Stare At Goats...

[Ponzi]

It's not the fault of three-timers, but winning four is much better than winning three (even if some were only eligible for three). We'll never know, but I would guess that most of the guys who won as sophs, juniors and seniors (but were ineligible as freshmen) would not have won as freshmen. As evidence, how many three time champs in the freshman-eligible era did not win as freshmen? I don't have a list, but I know it's a bunch.

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Ponzi said:

It's not the fault of three-timers, but winning four is much better than winning three (even if some were only eligible for three). We'll never know, but I would guess that most of the guys who won as sophs, juniors and seniors (but were ineligible as freshmen) would not have won as freshmen. As evidence, how many three time champs in the freshman-eligible era did not win as freshmen? I don't have a list, but I know it's a bunch.

Uetake - how many 4 timers won Olympic gold while still in college, he would've had no trouble winning as a Fr.

Gable could've won as a Fr and who knows might've then been a 4 timer instead of 2.

[82bordeaux]

So if being a 4 timer is the end all be all, if Starocci wins 5, is he the undisputed GOAT?

[ionel]

Maybe we need a new thread on the Greatest Goat Predators.  Who killed the GOAT? 

Larry Owings the mountain lion

Nick Piccininni the sly coyote ...

[Jason Bryant]

1 hour ago, MPhillips said:

We are, The Men Who Stare At Goats...

That movie was so freaking awful. 

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Ponzi said:

It's not the fault of three-timers, but winning four is much better than winning three (even if some were only eligible for three). We'll never know, but I would guess that most of the guys who won as sophs, juniors and seniors (but were ineligible as freshmen) would not have won as freshmen. As evidence, how many three time champs in the freshman-eligible era did not win as freshmen? I don't have a list, but I know it's a bunch.

Of the thirty 75%ers, twenty-two went X, 1, 1, 1.

[1032004]

8 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Right. There's WAAAY too much context needed. Lets say...hypothetically, Taylor turns it around and catches Dake in a cradle and wins a 1 point match. Does Dake no longer belong in the convo? 

 

Correct.  Dake’s big achievement was winning at 4 different weights.  If he lost to Taylor then that goes away, plus he had other losses so yes, he wouldn’t be in the convo.  Although some would argue he’s not in the convo to begin with, the only guys that should be in the convo are ones that were undefeated…

 

6 hours ago, ionel said:

Uetake - how many 4 timers won Olympic gold while still in college, he would've had no trouble winning as a Fr.

He said most…

 

6 hours ago, 82bordeaux said:

So if being a 4 timer is the end all be all, if Starocci wins 5, is he the undisputed GOAT?

If he doesn’t lose the rest of the way, yes IMO.  If he does then I think you could stil argue undefeated guys over him.

[ionel]

4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

He said most…

 

Well sure, except that this is a GOAT thread so we are really only talking about one or trying to find the one.  Well ... except for the fact that Wkn says every tribe should have their own goat.   

[Wrestleknownothing]

35 minutes ago, ionel said:

Well sure, except that this is a GOAT thread so we are really only talking about one or trying to find the one.  Well ... except for the fact that Wkn says every tribe should have their own goat.   

I'm with Frankie on this point.

 

I assume PSU and Iowa listened to this song and took it a little too literally in their dual meet this year.

[Ponzi]

2 hours ago, ionel said:

Well sure, except that this is a GOAT thread so we are really only talking about one or trying to find the one.  Well ... except for the fact that Wkn says every tribe should have their own goat.   

But the OP suggests that 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era are basically the same at 4-time champs who wrestled as freshmen and won. I think that's wrong because my guess is that most 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era would NOT have won as freshmen had they been eligible. The hardest title to win is as a freshman.

[BerniePragle]

12 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Of the thirty 75%ers, twenty-two went X, 1, 1, 1.

 

6 minutes ago, Ponzi said:

But the OP suggests that 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era are basically the same at 4-time champs who wrestled as freshmen and won. I think that's wrong because my guess is that most 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era would NOT have won as freshmen had they been eligible. The hardest title to win is as a freshman.

I think WKN already addressed that. See above. 

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Ponzi said:

But the OP suggests that 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era are basically the same at 4-time champs who wrestled as freshmen and won. I think that's wrong because my guess is that most 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era would NOT have won as freshmen had they been eligible. The hardest title to win is as a freshman.

Sure maybe "most" but we aren't talking about "most" we are talking about The GOAT or the "goatest."   Perhaps we should only include those in the table that won it true Fr year?  I'm sure Wkn has the data.   

[Ponzi]

5 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

 

I think WKN already addressed that. See above. 

Not sure where above you have in mind, but where WKN says, "Of the thirty 75%ers, twenty-two went X, 1, 1, 1," that confirms my point: The hardest year to win is as a frosh. Thus most of the 100% guys who who 3 titles would NOT have won 4 since they would not have won as freshmen.

[BerniePragle]

[Wrestleknownothing]

Here is the data on the 75%ers.

My point in focusing on the 100%ers is that I am a glass half full kinda guy. That is my choice. Reasonable people can make different choices.

Think of it as they are innocent of loses until they are proven guilty. They never lost at the NCAA tournament. Some can look at that as they might have lost with one more chance at the front end, some may not.

The reality is that in a different era 22 of 30 75%ers did take the lose in their freshman year. But it was a different era. When did injury years become a thing? I see three guys on there who lost a year to injury (Lange, Young, and Johnson). 

Draw any conclusions you like, but for me I like to view the category as undefeated at the NCAA tournament, just as some view overall undefeated as a category. Sanderson was undefeated for 159, Uetake for 58, McCready for 25. Where do you draw the line? 158? 100? I don't know.

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Ponzi said:

But the OP suggests that 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era are basically the same at 4-time champs who wrestled as freshmen and won. I think that's wrong because my guess is that most 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era would NOT have won as freshmen had they been eligible. The hardest title to win is as a freshman.

I don’t think the OP was suggesting that, although as I called out the data does likely help those guys that couldn’t wrestle as freshmen because they didn’t have the opportunity to lose.

I think it’s more just saying that it’s possible that one of those guys could be the GOAT (Uetake being the main one that seems to be in the conversation), not to claim that going 3 for 3 is just as good as going 4 for 4.

[Ponzi]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

I don’t think the OP was suggesting that, although as I called out the data does likely help those guys that couldn’t wrestle as freshmen because they didn’t have the opportunity to lose.

I think it’s more just saying that it’s possible that one of those guys could be the GOAT (Uetake being the main one that seems to be in the conversation), not to claim that going 3 for 3 is just as good as going 4 for 4.

Seems to me he is equating 3Xers and 4Xers ans they are both 100%ers.  But his won chart belies that idea as it shows that ALL on the 75%ers won as seniors, all but 2 won as juniors,  and TWO-THIRDS did not win as freshman. That shows the winning as a freshman is the hardest thing to do by far. That's why being a 4Xer is way more impressive than winning three (even if the some of the 3Xers had no opportunity to win 4). 

[CHROMEBIRD]

IMO Spencer is up there on the GOAT list but I will admit that simple biology demographics tells us that it's probably harder to be a GOAT in the 149-174 range. Law of averages suggests that there are more average sized people than tiny or giant people. With more participation in the middle of the bell curve you are more likely to have more elite wrestlers in the middle weights. And biologically most people don't stop growing until their early 20s. A lot of 125ers grow out of the weight by the time they are seniors and arguably, stronger and more skilled wrestlers. So that's something to consider when talking GOATS.

[Fadzaev2]