Starocci 2nd best ever?

[GreatDane67]

When you actually watch Starocci wrestle, it does not conjure up thoughts of him being the greatest college wrestler ever.

 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, GreatDane67 said:

When you actually watch Starocci wrestle, it does not conjure up thoughts of him being the greatest college wrestler ever.

 

How many offensive points did he score on the redshirting true freshman?  

[The Kid]

10 hours ago, scourge165 said:

He beat him 3-2 and 5-4...

Yeah, just 

Taylor never had a chance. If Taylor opened up, he was going to get Dake bombed.  

[Gus]

5 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Who are you arguing with? 

I never said it wasn't(though...I think you could argue beating back to back 4X AA and two NC on a bad knee is comparable)...but look at what I said. Dake wins by a point and he DOMIANTED Taylor. He won 3-2 and 5-4. 

Starocci goes out there, obviously injured and it's used against him because he didn't have the same bonus rate. It's...absurd. 

And again, both Griffith and Lewis don't get the respect they deserve. Griffith was the #1 seed and undefeated in 2020, won a NC, lost a 6-5 match to Keegan O'toole in the finals.

He beat Lewis. If he wins this year, he'll have beaten Keck. 

And the #1 complaint is the bonus rate or how he does it...and he does it VERY similar to how Dake did it. He doesn't ride as hard  as Dake but I think that's because he's better on his feet and he doesn't need to...and when he does, he rides out the best in the Country. 

 

I think people are just searching for reasons why Dake Wrestling relatively boring matches with incredible defense, he was tough on top(better on top, but both were elite) and Taylor was better on his fee offensively(though again...both were great). 

 

 

Carter Starocci has one stud standing in his way(either Keck or McEnelly) away from being a 5x Individual Champ and a 5X team champ and the MAJORITY of the posts on this board are trashing him. A thread longer than this one about why he didn't beat Ferrari worse than he did. 

And i do think time is going to look back on him more favorably. I think if he's not wrestling Welsch would be at 184, you'd have Barr at '84, McEnelly would be looking to start his quest for 4 or Keck his 5th time in the top 3 and 2nd title and the most nit picky stuff is used against him. Even his W/L %. He's behind Cael and maybe Yianni and that's it if you're going off the official scoring from before last year. But we don't do that. 

 

Anyway, I'm about rung out on my Carter Starocci crusade. I'm not a PSU fan and I don't know the kid. I just don't agree with the genera lsentiment. 

Carter and Dake wrestle a similar style. People used to talk about how Dake was not the most fun to watch also. While I can see similarities between Dake and Carter - I just think Dake was better than Carter. We are talking about the best wrestlers of all time here so nits are going to be picked when discerning the differences. Carter is similar to AJF, who probably doesn't get the proper respect he deserves for his skills, as a wrestler because he is not the most exciting to watch and is also not very likable. If Carter was more likable he would probably be higher on some peoples lists. I have him behind Cael, Dake, Stieber, Brooks and Smith but ahead of Yianni. 

[JeanGuy]

16 minutes ago, Gus said:

Carter and Dake wrestle a similar style. People used to talk about how Dake was not the most fun to watch also. While I can see similarities between Dake and Carter - I just think Dake was better than Carter. We are talking about the best wrestlers of all time here so nits are going to be picked when discerning the differences. Carter is similar to AJF, who probably doesn't get the proper respect he deserves for his skills, as a wrestler because he is not the most exciting to watch and is also not very likable. If Carter was more likable he would probably be higher on some peoples lists. I have him behind Cael, Dake, Stieber, Brooks and Smith but ahead of Yianni. 

It is hard to really laud AJ because he hasn't really wrestled. He only is at 46 career matches as this point. He has completed in one NCAA Championship.

[Gus]

Just now, JeanGuy said:

It is hard to really laud AJ because he hasn't really wrestled. He only is at 46 career matches as this point. He has completed in one NCAA Championship.

Yeah, I am not in any way saying that AJF is on the level of Starocci but rather that there is a parallel in the style which they wrestle and them not being the most likable guys. 

[BAC]

I think Carter is being undervalued on this thread, largely because the biggest assets he brings to the table are either not particularly fun to watch (his defense) or not visible to the naked eye (his will to win), and these stats won't show up on a comparison chart.

I think the Dake comparison is apt on his defense.  He's just incredibly hard to score on.  If I were ranking all the four-timers on that score, I'd have him second only to Dake.

But the will to win is the big one.  Of all the 4-timers, if they are in a zero-takedown match, what are the odds they will prevail?  For Carter, I'd put it at about 95%.  He's by far and away the best 4x'er on this, which makes him undervalued when you use more measurable stats.  Yes, a big part of that is he's an excellent rider while also being nearly impossible to ride.  Part is an ability to make mid-match adjustments. But its more than that.  

In matches decided by 2 points or less, he's 20-1 (actually 20-0 if you exclude his very first match, the 10-9 loss to DJ Washington, which you get the sense he's been avenging ever since).  He's 7-0 in matches that went to OT.  And if you watch enough of the matches, you start to realize how inevitable it is. 

It's not that he's unbeatable -- it's that to do so, you need to bring a whole lot more to the table than just being close in skill. Maybe an offense like Brooks/Taylor, or a total package like Dake.

But there's no "almost beating" Carter. There's no "whew, that SV match could've gone either way" with Carter.  I think that in his mind, his likelihood of winning is just as high in a SV match as it is when he's up 14-0, and the stats bear that out. The only variable is the amount of bonus points, not the chances of prevailing.

People talk about how Ferrari was "right there" with Carter, but the truth is, Carter wins that match 20 of 20 times. Keckeisen and McEnelly have a non-zero chance of an upset but are WAY bigger underdogs than the closeness of score of their most recent matches would suggest.

I'd put Carter behind Cael, Dake, and *probably* Brooks, but ahead of Smith, Yianni and Stieber.

[BAC]

On 3/17/2025 at 10:20 AM, Wrestleknownothing said:

I added a couple of categories: career bonus % and longest win streak. And I renamed the top quartile to top 2 rank. I originally used this for all the 100%ers (not just the four-timers, so top quartile made sense for the larger group).

A thing you can use to move Dake higher up on the list is that he is the only one of the seven who won his titles in the first four years after high school graduation.

• Sanderson took a red-shirt before freshmen year,
• Stieber was injured his first year,
• Smith took a red-shirt between junior and senior years,
• Diakomihalis took two years between Sophomore and Junior years,
• Brooks to a red-shirt before freshman year, and
• Starocci took a red-shirt before freshman year.

Another thing in the Dake column is he had probably the most impressive win when he beat Taylor.

WKN, how would these numbers change if you threw out Carter's two injury default "losses" last year at Big 10s? 

My guess is he'd go up to #2 in your first 2 categories (win % and longest win streak), behind only Cael, and might move up one or two places on bonus % too. 

 

[ionel]

11 minutes ago, BAC said:

  Of all the 4-timers, if they are in a zero-takedown match, what are the odds they will prevail?  

Yeah but what are the odds that Cael was every going to be in a zero take down match? Prob 0%.   I'd also say pretty low odds for Pat Smith, think he did have one (maybe two) finals that was a single takedown match.  

[JeanGuy]

Can you quantify greatest by what style a guy wrestlers? I guess you can. Some guys just won't break position no matter what. So guys will go for it no matter what. People like the second guy because it is entertaining, and you never know what will happen. The first can be just as excellent if not more so.

To-ma-to vs To-mahh-to

[BAC]

24 minutes ago, ionel said:

Yeah but what are the odds that Cael was every going to be in a zero take down match? Prob 0%.   I'd also say pretty low odds for Pat Smith, think he did have one (maybe two) finals that was a single takedown match.  

You're kind of missing my point. Carter's offensive output, while excellent, isn't even top 25 in NCAA history.  But his ability to win close matches is arguably #1 all-time.  Who's better?  

I'm not sure the stats people are throwing around are really capturing that. 

Especially when treating his two injury default losses at Big 10s as actual losses.  The man hasn't had a real loss in over 4 years.  If you thrown them out, he's on pace to have four consecutive undefeated seasons -- a feat matched only by Cael.

My guess is if you had a "fewest points allowed" (less conceded escapes) category, or "fewest takedowns allowed" category, he'd be at or near the top in those, too.

If you're measuring "best all-time" SOLELY by offensive output, and throwing out defense and ability to win close matches and win %, I agree Carter will be in the lower rung of 4x'ers.  But I think that's awfully narrow-minded.

Edited Tuesday at 06:40 PM by BAC

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, BAC said:

Especially when treating his two injury default losses at Big 10s as actual losses.  The man hasn't had a real loss in over 4 years.  If you thrown them out, he's on pace to have four consecutive undefeated seasons -- a feat matched only by Cael.

All of Pat Smith's losses were his freshman year.  He then went unbeaten his sophomore, junior, RS junior, and senior seasons.  A 98 match unbeaten (1 tie) streak. 

I think people are maybe not so high on Starocci's streak because if this were the 1990s, the 2000s or part of the 2010s it would be impossible for him to opt out of wrestling the conference tournament like that.  Also his 4 years were the last 4 of 6.  Some 3xers could be able to join him if they had been allowed to wrestle another season.  Zain Retherford might have done it.  Nolf too if injury defaults don't really count.  Virtually any 4xer and 3xer would have been a heavy favorite to repeat if given an extra year.

[Wrestleknownothing]

30 minutes ago, BAC said:

WKN, how would these numbers change if you threw out Carter's two injury default "losses" last year at Big 10s? 

My guess is he'd go up to #2 in your first 2 categories (win % and longest win streak), behind only Cael, and might move up one or two places on bonus % too. 

 

It really does not change much due to his very low total match count.

Because I am only looking at 4 years his win streak would only be 5 matches longer. With 68 in a row, that still leaves him six behind Yianni in fifth place. If you start including a fifth year (which I would not advise - who is to say Dake would not keep extending his 79 match streak?) then his win streak goes up to 89. There is no way he catches Pat Smith at 98 or that guy who did it 159 straight.

Changing his record from 77-4 (95.06%) to 77-2 (97.47%) moves him from sixth to fourth in win %. He passes Dake by 0.31% in that case.

[ionel]

24 minutes ago, BAC said:

You're kind of missing my point. Carter's offensive output, while excellent, isn't even top 25 in NCAA history.  But his ability to win close matches is arguably #1 all-time.  Who's better?  

I'm not sure the stats people are throwing around are really capturing that. 

Especially when treating his two injury default losses at Big 10s as actual losses.  The man hasn't had a real loss in over 4 years.  If you thrown them out, he's on pace to have four consecutive undefeated seasons -- a feat matched only by Cael.

My guess is if you had a "fewest points allowed" (less conceded escapes) category, or "fewest takedowns allowed" category, he'd be at or near the top in those, too.

If you're measuring "best all-time" SOLELY by offensive output, and throwing out defense and ability to win close matches and win %, I agree Carter will be in the lower rung of 4x'ers.  But I think that's awfully narrow-minded.

Good point.  

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, BAC said:

WKN, how would these numbers change if you threw out Carter's two injury default "losses" last year at Big 10s? 

My guess is he'd go up to #2 in your first 2 categories (win % and longest win streak), behind only Cael, and might move up one or two places on bonus % too. 

 

Hey sir.  If you change the stats do they look better.    Of course Yes.  
 

This is a silly request.   He skipped BIGs.   Those losses are real.  He couldn’t come to the mat when it counted.   He couldn’t bring it….. • = • a loss.
 

didnt the ncaa change the rules on these types of losses because of people abusing them?    
 

also.  If working on an all time great set of stats.  No one is talking  about him being a 2x big ten champ (not counting year 5).   I would be willing to bet that is •• LAST •• place in that category among all four timers.  

[BAC]

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

All of Pat Smith's losses were his freshman year.  He then went unbeaten his sophomore, junior, RS junior, and senior seasons.  A 98 match unbeaten (1 tie) streak. 

So same as Starocci, except Smith had more matches.  I don't think any other 4x'ers besides Cael were unbeaten in their Soph, Jr and Sr years (excluding injury defaults).

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I think people are maybe not so high on Starocci's streak because if this were the 1990s, the 2000s or part of the 2010s it would be impossible for him to opt out of wrestling the conference tournament like that.  

If that's the case, I think that's pretty short-sighted.  Considering he won NCAAs 2 weeks later with a bum knee, I'd say it's a good bet he would've won Big 10s with a bum knee, or at minimum would've qualified for NCAAs.  It's also pretty clear he didn't want to opt out at all, if you recall -- but that's the coach's call. 

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Also his 4 years were the last 4 of 6.

No.  His 4 titles were over his (first) 4 years of eligibility, excluding his redshirt year, just like all 4x'ers except Dake. (If he gets a 5th, it's the last 5 of 6.)

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

 Some 3xers could be able to join him if they had been allowed to wrestle another season.  Zain Retherford might have done it.  Nolf too if injury defaults don't really count.  

Again, no. You're comparing him to guys who got 3 titles over their first 4 years of eligibility -- that is, you're comparing him to guys who went to NCAAs and lost.  Starocci got 4 titles over his first 4 years of eligibility. He's never lost at NCAAs.  

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Virtually any 4xer and 3xer would have been a heavy favorite to repeat if given an extra year.

Yeah, a 3x'er would be a favorite to repeat if given an extra year, but again, Starocci is a 4x'er going for a 5th.

I do agree that other 4x'ers would be a favorite to win a 5th if they had an extra year, and that's why I wouldn't argue that Starocci is the "best" merely by virtue of winning a 5th title (if he does). 

That said, I think it's interesting that when people talk about the best college wrestler of all time, they go straight to the 4x'ers, without even considering the wrestlers who won 3 titles back in the days that freshmen weren't eligible (Hodge, Koll, Yojo, etc).  If Starocci's 5th title doesn't "count" since the other 4x'ers never had a chance to win a 5th, then shouldn't the guys who won 3 titles be equally in the conversation since they never had a chance to win a 4th?

[BAC]

14 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Hey sir.  If you change the stats do they look better.    Of course Yes.  
 

This is a silly request.   He skipped BIGs.   Those losses are real.  He couldn’t come to the mat when it counted.   He couldn’t bring it….. • = • a loss.
 

didnt the ncaa change the rules on these types of losses because of people abusing them?    
 

also.  If working on an all time great set of stats.  No one is talking  about him being a 2x big ten champ (not counting year 5).   I would be willing to bet that is •• LAST •• place in that category among all four timers.  

Based on his interviews, Starocci would probably agree with you.  He blames himself for being injured, as though it is a sign of weakness on his part. 

To me, they technically count on the record, but aren't meaningful when you're making qualitative comparisons between two wrestlers.  It strikes me as weird to say Wrestler X is better than Wrestler Y solely because Y tore a knee ligament and X didn't.  It's sort of like winning all your matches by forfeit and declaring yourself the "best ever" because, hey, those forfeit wins "count" and you got 6 points each time.

But to each their own.  If you see Starocci's injury default loss to the dreaded Brody Baumann and think to yourself, "Wow that's the same as Carter getting tech-pinned so Yianni is better", you go right ahead.

 

[Caveira]

18 minutes ago, BAC said:

Based on his interviews, Starocci would probably agree with you.  He blames himself for being injured, as though it is a sign of weakness on his part. 

To me, they technically count on the record, but aren't meaningful when you're making qualitative comparisons between two wrestlers.  It strikes me as weird to say Wrestler X is better than Wrestler Y solely because Y tore a knee ligament and X didn't.  It's sort of like winning all your matches by forfeit and declaring yourself the "best ever" because, hey, those forfeit wins "count" and you got 6 points each time.

But to each their own.  If you see Starocci's injury default loss to the dreaded Brody Baumann and think to yourself, "Wow that's the same as Carter getting tech-pinned so Yianni is better", you go right ahead.

 

Hairs must be split to determine the best ever.  This isn’t a contest to determine the good-est ever.   He won 2 of 4 conf titles.   Not good when looking at goat-ness.   And we have 0 idea what he did to his knee (I think) as it was never revealed.   
 

psu faithful sure as shyte don’t give Spencer a bump in awesome ness doing what he did on 1 or 0 ACLs.   Carter don’t / shouldn’t get any either.  You know.  Excuses are for wusses.  

Edited Tuesday at 08:02 PM by Caveira

[BAC]

54 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It really does not change much due to his very low total match count.

Because I am only looking at 4 years his win streak would only be 5 matches longer. With 68 in a row, that still leaves him six behind Yianni in fifth place. If you start including a fifth year (which I would not advise - who is to say Dake would not keep extending his 79 match streak?) then his win streak goes up to 89. There is no way he catches Pat Smith at 98 or that guy who did it 159 straight.

Changing his record from 77-4 (95.06%) to 77-2 (97.47%) moves him from sixth to fourth in win %. He passes Dake by 0.31% in that case.

Thanks my friend.  I hadn't thought about the match count.  But respectfully, I think that factoring a low match count in these rankings, but not Starocci's unbeaten (so far) 5th year, is sort of a double-standard.

I do appreciate the logic in not counting his matches this year:  who's to say other 4x'ers wouldn't have had an undefeated 5th year if they had the chance, considering they won the year before?  But you could apply the same logic to penalizing a wrestler with a low match count:  who's to say a 25-0 NCAA champ wouldn't be 40-0 if he had the extra matches, considering he beat all the best wrestlers that year? 

Point being, since neither stat is within the wrestler's control, it doesn't seem fair to penalize for either.  So take match count of the equation.

Win percentage aside, Starocci's number of career (non-injury) losses is just two -- tied for second best. 

His number of consecutive NCAA-title seasons without a (real) loss is also second-best:  three.  (Again, not counting this season.)  

Or to look at it in reverse, if you're going to say "I'm not willing to consider Starocci's 77-2 record as good as Yianni's 115-2 career record since he never earned those extra wins, even though it isn't Starocci's fault he didn't have a chance to have as many competitions as Yianni," then you should also be willing to say, "I'm not willing to say the other 4x'ers 4 titles are as good as Starocci's 5 titles since they never earned that 5th title, even though it isn't their fault they didn't get to compete in a 5th year."

[BAC]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Hairs must be split to determine the best ever.  This isn’t a contest to determine the good-est ever.   He won 2 of 4 conf titles.   Not good when looking at goat-ness.   And we have 0 idea what he did to his knee (I think) as it was never revealed.   
 

psu faithful sure as shyte don’t give Spencer a bump in awesome ness doing what he did on 1 or 0 ACLs.   Carter don’t / shouldn’t get any either.  You know.  Excuses are for wusses.  

Hmm.  I agree there's hair-splitting, and if I had to rank two wrestlers -- one 100-0 career, the other 98-2 with injury default losses where he wasn't losing at the time of the injury -- I'd grudgingly put the 100-0 kid #1, by the slightest of margins, if all else is equal.  But I'd also put the 98-2 guy over every other kid with 1 or 2 regular losses, if all else is equal. 

An injury default loss, where there's no objective reason to think the guy was otherwise at risk of losing the match, is at most a tiebreaker when comparing two otherwise equal wrestlers.  IMO.

I'd say the same thing about a Spencer Lee injury default loss.

[Caveira]

37 minutes ago, BAC said:

I'd say the same thing about a Spencer Lee injury default loss.

I think you specifically said (paraphrasing) he was not injured when he defaulted out of NCAAs.  You specifically said he wasn’t mentally in the right state of mind could not handle his loss … and that was the reason he defaulted.   And you specifically said the PR team at Iowa said just to publically say your injured for financial / future reasons.  So pardon me if I’m not believing you.   
 

Your team injury.  Change the stats.   Else …. What you said above.  

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, BAC said:

So same as Starocci, except Smith had more matches.  I don't think any other 4x'ers besides Cael were unbeaten in their Soph, Jr and Sr years (excluding injury defaults).

That's right. Dake lost his freshman and sophomore years, Brooks lost his 3rd and 4th years, Stieber lost his true freshman, RS freshman and RS junior years, and Diakomihalis lost his freshman and senior year.  I was more pointing out that Smith didn't lose his 4th year either whilst he was on redshirt.  Though much like Diakomihalis he didn't wrestle much if any folk style during his redshirt.  Of the 4xers that used a red and or grey shirt Smith, Diakomihalis and Starocci were undefeated in folk style during their redshirt year. 

1 hour ago, BAC said:

If that's the case, I think that's pretty short-sighted.  Considering he won NCAAs 2 weeks later with a bum knee, I'd say it's a good bet he would've won Big 10s with a bum knee, or at minimum would've qualified for NCAAs.  It's also pretty clear he didn't want to opt out at all, if you recall -- but that's the coach's call. 

Short sighted isn't how I would put it.  For large portions of the history of NCAA wrestling one couldn't just opt out of the conference tournament and still wrestle for at NCAAs.  It isn't really possible to be an undefeated national champion that didn't win your conference tournament.  There is a good chance he could have won it and and even better chance that he would have been able to qualify, but keep in mind that whilst he was good enough to win NCAAs two weeks later he didn't look that great on the first day.  He gave up TDs in both of those matches.  This would have been two weeks before that so maybe he isn't able to complete the comeback in those matches.  An undfeated champion from the Big Ten would have to win at least 3 matches. I am sure the risk of a set back that could impact his chance to win NCAAs played a roll in the coach's decision.

1 hour ago, BAC said:

No.  His 4 titles were over his (first) 4 years of eligibility, excluding his redshirt year, just like all 4x'ers except Dake. (If he gets a 5th, it's the last 5 of 6.)

I was referring to undefeated season not NCAA titles and including last year as  "undefeated" and assuming he wins this week.  Not all 4xers won in their first 4 years of eligibility.  Aaron Brooks did not win an NCAA title the first year he used a year of NCAA eligibility.

1 hour ago, BAC said:

Again, no. You're comparing him to guys who got 3 titles over their first 4 years of eligibility -- that is, you're comparing him to guys who went to NCAAs and lost.  Starocci got 4 titles over his first 4 years of eligibility. He's never lost at NCAAs. 

Again I was referring to undefeated seasons.  He only has 4 undefeated seasons because he benefited from an extra opportunity.  Sanderson is the only one to go 4/4 on that.  Had Retherford been afford a similar opportunity there is a good chance he could have added a 4th.  Still it's not the same as actually doing the thing, much like Starocci at Big Tens last year.  One can't give Starocci that Big Ten title nor can we hand Retherford an undefeated season.

1 hour ago, BAC said:

That said, I think it's interesting that when people talk about the best college wrestler of all time, they go straight to the 4x'ers, without even considering the wrestlers who won 3 titles back in the days that freshmen weren't eligible (Hodge, Koll, Yojo, etc).  If Starocci's 5th title doesn't "count" since the other 4x'ers never had a chance to win a 5th, then shouldn't the guys who won 3 titles be equally in the conversation since they never had a chance to win a 4th?

Starocci might have the second best NCAA career, but best ever leaves room for interpretation.  Others like Stevenson, Snyder, and Smith won world titles in college.  They just a had a few bad days or didn't have it all put together their first year like Sanderson and the other 4xers, but they were just as good if not better at their peak.  3xers from back in the real old days probably don't get much consideration here because very few were around back then.  If that rule change had happened less than 40 years ago we'd see that argument more.

[BAC]

8 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I think you specifically said (paraphrasing) he was not injured when he defaulted out of NCAAs.  You specifically said he wasn’t mentally in the right state of mind could not handle his loss … and that was the reason he defaulted.   And you specifically said the PR team at Iowa said just to publically say your injured for financial / future reasons.  So pardon me if I’m not believing you.   
 

Your team injury.  Change the stats.   Else …. What you said above.  

I don't see the inconsistency.  If we were comparing Spencer Lee's career to some other wrestler, I wouldn't count his two injury default/MFF losses (or whatever they were) in the consolation bracket *nearly* in the same way as I'd count, say, his loss to Ramos in the semis.  That is my point.

Sounds like this isn't about Starocci, but rather is some sort of longstanding Iowa/PSU beef for you. And that you've been harboring a grudge over something I said 2 years ago.  That's funny, but also sort of sad.

Tell you what.  If you're butthurt about something I wrote two years ago, how about you dig through the archives and post it here, and you can explain why I think I'm wrong. I don't recall what I wrote (apparently you do), but it is, in fact, my opinion that what Spencer suffered back then was more akin to a mental "injury" than a physical injury, in that he was simply too distraught to continue in the wrestlebacks. I'll bet he'd agree with me if you asked. Heck, he even told Barstool the following month: “I saw people say I lost because I was hurt. That's not true. I got beat."  Not exactly the same as the "long road of recovery" excuse the Iowa PR people gave at the time.  But whatever. 

[Caveira]

15 minutes ago, BAC said:

I don't see the inconsistency.  If we were comparing Spencer Lee's career to some other wrestler, I wouldn't count his two injury default/MFF losses (or whatever they were) in the consolation bracket *nearly* in the same way as I'd count, say, his loss to Ramos in the semis.  That is my point.

Sounds like this isn't about Starocci, but rather is some sort of longstanding Iowa/PSU beef for you. And that you've been harboring a grudge over something I said 2 years ago.  That's funny, but also sort of sad.

Tell you what.  If you're butthurt about something I wrote two years ago, how about you dig through the archives and post it here, and you can explain why I think I'm wrong. I don't recall what I wrote (apparently you do), but it is, in fact, my opinion that what Spencer suffered back then was more akin to a mental "injury" than a physical injury, in that he was simply too distraught to continue in the wrestlebacks. I'll bet he'd agree with me if you asked. Heck, he even told Barstool the following month: “I saw people say I lost because I was hurt. That's not true. I got beat."  Not exactly the same as the "long road of recovery" excuse the Iowa PR people gave at the time.  But whatever. 

Your ignorance towards Spencer and the fact that Carter is not the goat are different topics.  One has nothing to do with the other.  Nice try.  

[BAC]

34 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I was referring to undefeated season not NCAA titles .... 

I don't really disagree with anything you wrote. I'm not saying we should just hand him a Big 10 title last year, rather I'm saying we shouldn't act like his two 0:01 injury default losses are genuine losses.  I don't count them as wens but nor are they the same as regular losses when comparing wrestlers.

I also think there's some inconsistency here, as no one wants to give him credit for winning 5 titles (if he does) since "no one else had that opportunity," but some of these same folks are downgrading him for things HE didn't have the opportunity to do (e.g. go for Big 10 title last year, or have a higher # of matches overall).

Seems to me we should judge someone by the opportunities that are put in front of them and what they make of them.