Messenbrink #2

[Mr. PeanutButter]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

There is a true third correct?  Think you mean true second. 

I am an idiot

[ionel]

Just now, Mr. PeanutButter said:

I am an idiot

Oh ... sorry to here. 

[bnwtwg]

47 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

I told him just about the same thing...

I would ask which part but we both know it's the parents. I would rather have double hip replacement than deal with those rotten turd cutters ever again. May NHS be blessed by all the Parmesan cheese from that big Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky.

[Wrestleknownothing]

33 minutes ago, ionel said:

There is a true third correct?  Think you mean true second. 

Same thing. Whenever there is a true third there is also a true second, and whenever there is not a true third there is also not a true second. They are always paired.

[ionel]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Same thing. Whenever there is a true third there is also a true second, and whenever there is not a true third there is also not a true second. They are always paired.

When a guy beats the 4th he is truly at least 3rd its just he might be 2nd if we had a true 2nd.  Same with 4th, we don't have a true 4th.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

26 minutes ago, ionel said:

When a guy beats the 4th he is truly at least 3rd its just he might be 2nd if we had a true 2nd.  Same with 4th, we don't have a true 4th.  

If the guy who won the third place match lost in the semi to the guy who lost in the final, then we have true 2 and 3.

If the guy who won the third place match lost to the eventually champ in the semi, then we do not have true 2 or 3.

So, call it true second or true third. Its the same thing.

We always have true 4 and 1.

Edited February 28 by Wrestleknownothing

[ionel]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

If the guy who won the third place match lost in the semi to the guy who lost in the final, then we have true 2 and 3.

If the guy who won the third place match lost to the eventually champ in the semi, then we do not have true 2 or 3.

So, call it true second or true third. Its the same thing.

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Did I mention we don't have true 6th?  

[flyingcement]

21 minutes ago, ionel said:

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Did I mention we don't have true 6th?  

The term "true" implies he is no greater nor worse than the placing he earned.  If he is at least third, that's not the same as true third (IMHO)

[MidwestMan]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Me, my senior year in HS.  Lost 3-2 in finals and then had to wrestle one more match for true 2nd.  That was in Missouri over 50 years ago.  They quit wrestling for true 2nd a couple of years after I graduated.

[JimmyCinnabon]

11 hours ago, KCMO2 said:

Don't see that happening.  Ramirez won't get #2 with his loss to Olejnik and getting majored by KOT in the dual.  And no offense to MM, he's been very impressive, but he's only wrestled 1 top ten guy this season (so far).  I don't see that getting him over Carr, and leaving Carr and KOT at 2 and 3.   If Carr beats KOT at Big 12's, I see it  1.Carr,  2.MM,  3.KOT,  4.Ramirez.

I have mentioned this before but how would this be different from last year when Aaron Brooks lost to Coleman of Cornell but won the B1G and was ranked #3 because two other guys were conference champs and undefeated? Everyone knew Aaron Brooks was the best guy at 184lbs but his loss dropped him to three. If Carr wins the conference and so does MM then Carr would be in the same position as Aaron Brooks last year, with a conference title but has a loss. How could they justify putting Carr at #1 when they did not give that benefit to a 2x defending champion last year who was in an identical situation? Since we have precedent (last year) what is the argument here to put a 1-loss Carr who won the Big12 over an undefeated Mesinbrink who won the B1G?

Edited February 28 by JimmyCinnabon

[PortaJohn]

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

If the guy who won the third place match lost in the semi to the guy who lost in the final, then we have true 2 and 3.

If the guy who won the third place match lost to the eventually champ in the semi, then we do not have true 2 or 3.

So, call it true second or true third. Its the same thing.

We always have true 4 and 1.

 

9 hours ago, ionel said:

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Did I mention we don't have true 6th?  

You two are my true seconds.

8 hours ago, flyingcement said:

The term "true" implies he is no greater nor worse than the placing he earned.  If he is at least third, that's not the same as true third (IMHO)

But he's my true first

[nhs67]

13 hours ago, ionel said:

Ok sure ... but what about the ThugMassabrink?

I have been hoping to see him give it a go on the scene, but to no avail.  Now, I don't think he would necessarily make the team at 86 KG, but I would love to see him try (assuming he can't make 74 KG a few years out from making it).

He is basically following in his dad's footsteps, it seems.  Raising another solid generation of Massa Maniacs.  Pretty stoked to see what he does.

[ionel]

43 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

You two are my true seconds.

There can't be two true seconds, I demand an extra match.  

44 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

But he's my true first

fly is everyone's true first but who claimed him first?  

[PortaJohn]

33 minutes ago, ionel said:

There can't be two true seconds, I demand an extra match.  

fly is everyone's true first but who claimed him first?  

Id imagine it would be his very own momma, Mrs. Flutter Cement

[ionel]

1 hour ago, PortaJohn said:

Id imagine it would be his very own momma, Mrs. Flutter Cement

guaranteed 

[Dogbone]

3 hours ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

I have mentioned this before but how would this be different from last year when Aaron Brooks lost to Coleman of Cornell but won the B1G and was ranked #3 because two other guys were conference champs and undefeated? Everyone knew Aaron Brooks was the best guy at 184lbs but his loss dropped him to three. If Carr wins the conference and so does MM then Carr would be in the same position as Aaron Brooks last year, with a conference title but has a loss. How could they justify putting Carr at #1 when they did not give that benefit to a 2x defending champion last year who was in an identical situation? Since we have precedent (last year) what is the argument here to put a 1-loss Carr who won the Big12 over an undefeated Mesinbrink who won the B1G?

That isn't the same precedent and neither Hidlay nor Parker were undefeated.   Parker and Hidlay split with Parker winning the 2nd match.   All 3 had one loss.  

MM won't have a win over another top 4 guy. The Big 12 champ will.   I am not saying it is how it will play out but it was not same. 

[PortaJohn]

29 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

MM won't have a win over another top 4 guy. The Big 12 champ will

That's assuming he won't wrestle Hamiti in the Big 10 finals 

[ionel]

31 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

MM won't have a win over another top 4 guy. The Big 12 champ will.   I am not saying it is how it will play out but it was not same. 

 

1 minute ago, PortaJohn said:

That's assuming he won't wrestle Hamiti in the Big 10 finals 

He can wrestle Hamiti and still not have a win over a top wrestler. 

[PortaJohn]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

 

He can wrestle Hamiti and still not have a win over a top wrestler. 

Hmmm, now you got me thinking.  Has he even beaten a neutral wrestler this year?

[Dogbone]

35 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

That's assuming he won't wrestle Hamiti in the Big 10 finals 

No its not.

32 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

He can wrestle Hamiti and still not have a win over a top wrestler. 

If he beats Hamiti the top 4 seeds will likely be Carr, KOT, Ramirez and MM.   If Carr wins Big 12s he will have a win over a top 4 seed and the same Hamiti win MM will have as B1G champ.  

[PortaJohn]

11 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

No its not.

If he beats Hamiti the top 4 seeds will likely be Carr, KOT, Ramirez and MM.   If Carr wins Big 12s he will have a win over a top 4 seed and the same Hamiti win MM will have as B1G champ.  

Seeds and rankings aren't the same but I get your point.  

[ionel]

17 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

  If Carr wins Big 12s he will have a win over a top 4 seed  

Who is his top 4 win if Carr wins B12?

[Dogbone]

24 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Seeds and rankings aren't the same but I get your point.  

Agree, since we were discussing the potential NCAA seeds, I didn't make that distinction in my mind. 

EDIT: My response was in regard to a seed situation. I realize there is also a ranking discussion occurring that may have caused confusion

Edited February 28 by Dogbone

[Dogbone]

22 minutes ago, ionel said:

Who is his top 4 win if Carr wins B12?

KOT

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Dogbone said:

KOT

Thought you were talking about MM with a top win, my mistake.