Leaderboard

First rule they need to fix is the challenge and video review process.

Bernie says he wants to go 184 (which we all kinda knew). He also has a visit line up to a school (not named Penn St.) in two weeks

Discussed on FRL today. Some of the key ones and my thoughts: 1. No longer requiring headgear. Dislike. It should be required in practices 2. Changing first MFF to a loss. I like it. 3. Reducing the scoring for consolation bracket (no specifics though). I like it. 4. Offensive wrestler must work for a fall/near fall. YES YES YES 5. One point pushout rule. I think I like it, but not sure.

I prefer this one:

Why are we not talking about the funniest part? The new contract is valid in perpetuity or, if that is considered unlawful, until "21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England." What lawyer came up with that jab? And how did it make it past all the other lawyers?

I agree...completely. It's just fun to make lists. And I put Snyder at '97...a weight he wrestled 1 year and the year he didn't win it. But it's about getting the 10 best guys into the lineup for me. It's really just fun bullshitting, it's not like any of these guys are diminished because Scourge or 11986 don't list him!

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/disneys-lawyers-are-better-than-ron-desantiss-lawyers/

This was a great one also. Mcllravy only had one finals match that wasn't a barnburner.

LOL...where'd I say this? No, I'm saying NATIONAL Title trumps losing a match in your conference. Never said anything about Freshmen Dake vs Sr Stieber. I think I've been pretty clear about my position. And why am I bringing Brooks into this? To try and articulate the absurdity of making the argument that if you lose a match within your conference, but then win the NATIONAL TITLE, saying you "weren't even the best in your conference," is pretty silly and nonsensical. There's no "hill to die on," here bud. This is a SUBJECTIVE discussion about what people believe is the best lineup ever. It's really not much deeper than that. Same thing as I said yesterday in this thread. So that be Dake for me. Again, this isn't Culps Hill, it ain't that important, and nobody is dying. Just making poorly thought out arguments.

1) Michigan throwing money around has been here for awhile. (Suriano) 2) i don't think it stops any time soon 2A) I don't blame them. (this isn't criticism) 3. Griffith is a candidate to move up to 174 as well.

they definitely have the money to travel now...

I love the fact that Hendrickson scored more (21.5) than two champs (O'Connor and Bonaccorsi, 21) and all of the runners up. It would be a shame to change a rule on what I assume is a rare occurrence. (It happened in 2021 also with Mason Parris outscoring 7 champs and Jaydin Eierman outscoring 3, but both were runners up and did all their damage on the front side). Which raises the question, what is the actual proposed change? Do you know? I do not.

I guess I'm a fan of the "never stop fighting no matter what" mantra as you might notice from some of my other picks. It was 14-3 going into the last minute of the 3rd period before the tides completely turned. But I cannot deny the action, scoring, and excitement of Schultz vs. Banach (1982 NCAAs) which I forgot to link above. Just epic wrestling.

Good point. A lot of those link shorteners have a preview feature so you can at least see what it is or where the link goes to before you click. Here's how to preview some popular shortened links: tinyurl: Between the "http://" and the "tinyurl," type preview. (or use their preview tool). Example: https://preview.tinyurl.com/eahz9f5v bit.ly: At the end of the URL, add a plus (+). Example: https://bit.ly/3KmQaFG+ goo.gl: At the end of the URL, add a plus (+) is.gd: At the end of the URL, add a hyphen (-) tiny.cc: At the end of the URL, add an equals (=) snipurl: Between the "http://" and the "snipurl," type peek. Example: https://peek.snipurl.com/63f0992 For anything else, you can try one of these URL checkers to see if they are legit: https://unshorten.it/ http://getlinkinfo.com/ http://urlxray.com/ Credit to my wife for sharing this and keeping me from getting hacked.

If it wasn't for Larry Owings, this would be my favorite for 141: (142) McIlravy vs. Abas (1993 NCAAs)

There’s already a push out rule - it’s called stalling.

The coaches of the teams call and ask the kids if they want to be on their respective teams. Not real complicated

My guess is that it is going to be difficult finding a lot of 5'3" guys to carry logs and boats with him in BUD/S. I think the boat teams are usually made of guys of similar heights for that reason?

1. No longer requiring headgear. My HOF college coach used to say "headgear should be optional in competition, but mandatory in practices." Instaed, we do the opposite! I would like that rule! 2. Changing first MFF to a loss. Good rule. 3. Reducing the scoring for consolation bracket (no specifics though). I like this. 4. Offensive wrestler must work for a fall/near fall. Great! 5. One point pushout rule. I like it, but there is one problem that I see: What happens when a guy escapes near the edge and then is attacked and forced out? Trading a 1E for a "1 pushout" doesn't sound right! 6. Not mentioned above was uniform weigh-in times. No more differing "one hour weigh-ins" for duals and "two hour weigh-ins" for tourneys. Make it uniform! Pyles was deadset against one hour weigh-ins for both. I think it is a great idea. The weight-cutting is not nearly as bad as it was 20 years ago, but it seems we are backsliding little by little. Let's keep making it tough for the weight cutters, especially in tournaments.

He beat Josh Kramer in 2020

I insert soundtracks into all of my posts now

Yeah I get that… I just think they both need to be on the list. He has Gable (142 which would be more like 149) at 141 so I think it’s fair to put 177 at 174 for this one.

burnout is a myth... good for the kid just doing what he wants and not what someone else wants... none of his time was wasted...

Guys should watch David Carr & KOT if they want to learn how to win & lose with class and humility.

That's a tough picture to look at. Thanks KCMO2! mspart

Some respect. It was a polo, and Charles Hallahan wore the **** out of it.

Seeing a social media post (obsessed wrestler) about a Ben Affleck and Matt Damon produced movie about Anthony Robles. Is this real? If so, pretty cool!! Will he play himself? Hard to find someone that can match him body and skill wise!!

A former top 5 recruit that never panned out. I remember him debuting at 133 and had a win over Arizona St. (I may have been Courtney?) After that, he just struggled to maintain a spot in the lineup. Wishing him the best of luck.

So that leaves Iowa, ASU and Michigan as the only possible destinations .... (insert sarcasm here for a few of you)

There's a big difference between primaries and general elections. Trump still holds great power in the republican party (still the leading candidate for the 2024 primary), even though his endorsements did not fair well overall in general elections, particularly in tight races. It's no secret that the republican establishment never wanted Trump, and even laughed at the idea of him as a candidate, until he won the 2016 primary. Then they thought they could control him and use him to their advantage (they did get the court they were after), but by then he had them all by the balls and hasn't let go. Some, like Jordan, enjoy having their balls in his tiny hands. Others have walked a right rope to ensure he doesn't squeeze too hard. The rest are out of politics now. It would take a coordinated effort for the republican establishment to oust Trump and take away that power, but the career politicians value their position over all else. Edit: should have said "Jordan enjoys having his empty scrotum in Trump's hands." We already established he has no balls.

I bought a train ticket for my 2nd born child. Apparently, they need her, in-person, for confirmation. Not sure why they asked about her blood type - ironically, it is B positive. So, I did.

Guy would have three years left, yeah? If this was a deferred year he could also still redshirt too.

I don't think credibility can be attributed based on quantity. In other words, even if you see 'basically the same' news on a bunch of sites - doesn't mean that all the sites are doing equal due diligence. It may just be that some sites are copy/pasting from others. It may also be that the details are being modified by some of the sites to match their specific agenda. But I do agree that some of the links you listed are credible. Just not the first one you linked to in the earlier post - which is the only one that had been listed at that point. We all have to be VERY aware that sources do matter. And, just like emails you receive, never trust them unless you have sufficient reason to think you should. This is absolutely critical - and relevant to the conversation. I also agree with you that this guy was an idiot for what he said about killing. Was he going for 'shock value' or was he as deranged as it sounded? I don't know. In any case - he is clearly a bona fide idiot, perhaps a very dangerous one at that. Wackos like this guy seem to be coming out of the woodwork these days. I formed this opinion based on what I read from a couple of your credible links. I didn't - and wouldn't - read a single thing from the Russian propaganda site. It would be both a waste of my time and potentially cyber-dangerous if I were to even click on the link.

You are 100% correct. Very often Valencia looked like he didn’t want to be out there. There is a lot there to work with if he ever decides to look 100% dedicated. Still think the best option for ASU at 133 is Yas.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Besides, he might not want it getting out that I am related to him.

I like these discussions in that I learn something or am reminded how good some guys were that I had forgotten about. Generally speaking I think it’s silly to argue about these things, it’s all hypothetical unless guys actually wrestled each other. Regarding Ed Banach, big fan from way back. I’ll say this though for consideration on him being the choice at 197. He only wrestled 1 year at the equivalent weight 190, and lost 3 x that year to Mike Mann from Iowa State. He did beat Mann 4-3 in the finals.

This is an asinine statement. If they both broke the law, prosecute both. If they didn't, don't. It really is as simple as that. Your statement just places in concrete that this is all a political thing, nothing to do with justice. I don't think you meant to do that but you did. mspart

Probably a very popular item in Africa, along with all the Philadelphia Eagles 2023 Super Bowl Champions gear

drew plays it pretty close to the vest... the lasts time i talked to him all he really said about it is luke has taken his visits... he didn't offer up much past that and i did not press him on it... but... the fact no one is hearing anything about it should tell you they are doing it right...

174 Ben Askren - 2x Hodge

Well, they just made a movie about Jordan without actually making about Jordan. I suspect this one will focus more on the actual on mat achievements of Robles. It's gonna be a very difficult movie to make for Wrestling fans. 1-You're going to have to pick someone who's missing a leg. If you tried making the movie and used CGI to try and duplicate Robles, people are going to get all angry just like they do when...Bryan Cranston plays a quadriplegic because he's...not actually paralyzed(it's almost as if it's acting). So that could hurt the "young Robles" scenes unless there happens to be a young Latino Wrestler with one leg who excels at tilts, the Wrestling scenes will likely be underwhelming. 2-Getting anyone to try and make the wrestling look real is always difficult, but they really fail to get the culture of Wrestling right. Lets just hope there's not an overweight Wrestling coach wearing a singlet with a tee-shirt underneath it just randomly yelling at guys. Damon and Affleck have made some great movies...or really one in particular, but I'm generally a fan of their movies(save for Gigli...that was a crime against humanity).

Let's not lose focus on the fact that this post is dumb on a whole other level, too. As much as I HATE the lazy, copycat, way over used "I enjoyed the ____era", the point of this hackneyed bit is to take a shot at something or someone you feel was over-hyped who then failed to live up to the perceived hype. Dragging out this fantastically unoriginal trope right after your target just achieved massive success is deliciously stupid.

3. The Republicans just eschewed the rules, lol. You're literally arguing for the sides to follow different sets of rules. 4. Again, you're dragging this to January 6, where Pelosi did something she is explicitly allowed to do. And, in this scenario, we're in a post-norms world as seen by the Garland situation, so again, no, I don't think the Democrats should be playing by norms if the Republicans aren't going to. Plus, again, she approved 3 of the 5 nominations, all three of whom voted not to certify the valid 2020 election; she rejected two people who clearly were not fit to serve on that particular committee. Example: a man is on trial for a crime. Two of his best friends are probably not fit to be jurors on that trial, especially if there's a strong possibility they were witnesses to that crime.

1. Because they didn't have the votes from all of their Senators? Is your argument that politicians always vote with what's in line with what their constituents want? 2. N/A 3. Again, so you're saying the Dems should just play by the rules established by their opponents, thus ceding advantages to them. "You can only go outside the norms in ways that are approved by your opponent." That's just stupid, bad politics, and a recipe for losing. You're literally saying that only one party should be allowed to violate the norms. You then follow up explicitly showing how I am saying that if one party is going to break norms, than the other party should feel free to, and then just saying the phrase "you want it both ways", despite me literally saying that the democrats should play the same way the Republicans do. You understand that just repeating the phrase "you want it both ways" doesn't make it true, right? 4. You're changing topics to places you feel you are on more stable ground, nobody was talking about the January 6 committee. Then you're making assumptions. I don't care who was on the committee, though I had no problem w/ Pelosi saying "hey, you can't put people on the committee that are obviously very likely to be subpoenaed by said committee." The Democrats didn't refuse to have any Republicans on the committee, they refused a few certain members that were likely to be requested to testify at said committee, and then McCarthy, rather then picking from any of his other 215ish members (or by allowing the other 3 members he had nominated that hadn't been objected to to serve), cried and refused to appoint anybody, and thus volunteers were taken. Then you're comparing it to McConnell just obstructing a perfectly valid nomination.

Brooks really moving up?

Not sure about Northwestern except Thomas is done. I think Aiden Vandenbosch takes his place. At 97, my guess is Evan Bates moves up with one of the frosh taking over at 84!

I'd love to speculate on Northwestern, but since they put out actual information about as frequently as North Korea, I'd have a good idea on about 5 weights.

In all seriousness, if any of you filthy animals find yourself at the USOpen or Final X, drop me a line and we can have a few beers together. Nothing written in this forum is ever as interesting or fulfilling as having a face to face conversation. We certainly have more in common than we have differences.