boconnell

I agree the best women in the country right now are really good. I agree the training at the top is as elite as it gets and that they function inside of the same elite system as the men. But I think you are massively underestimating the impact of numbers in a sport. The idea that if Helen Maroulis didn't wrestle we would have just created a different Helen Maroulis from the same opportunities is a strange take. Participation massively matters. The best wrestlers are outliers far more than they are products of the system. Far fewer competitors means far fewer outliers. And outside the USA the numbers are far smaller. If we insist on having GOAT conversations, the fact that JB was best of a far larger field matters. The fact that there are 10 men's weight classes across 150 lbs and 10 women's weight classes across 60 lbs matters. JB has to be the best from 65 KG to 86 KG. Helen has to be the best from 53 KG to 62 KG. If the women spread the weights out to 100 KG and kept 10 weight classes then her job would get much harder. instead of being best from 53-62 she'd have to be best across a far bigger weight range. More of the best women would be funneled into the same weight class. I coached a 190 lb state champion HS girl this year and the UWW says she doesn't exist. Instead they make 10 tiny weight classes for smaller women. Smaller weight ranges and far fewer participants make a big difference. Fewer countries committing resources to the sport make a big difference. If we are going to insist on a GOAT discussion across genders for some reason, these things matter. Just like nobody is bringing up Rex Peery in the NCAA GOAT debate for winning 3 titles in 3 tries for Oklahoma A&M in the 1930s when there were far fewer schools and competitors. Helen Maroulis is incredible but I don't put her accomplishments near the 10 most accomplished US wrestlers. I wouldn't put a men's gymnast with a big medal total near the top of US Gymnasts for the same reason. They get trained in the same infrastructure as the women, but there are far fewer participants.

There are no asterisks. He wrestled under the system of his day and won. Every time. Every one of those tournaments had a single elimination phase and he never lost in that phase. It's like saying Jordan's 6 NBA titles have an asterisk because he didn't sweep in the finals.

You aren't being honest with yourself if you think the world competition in women's FS is close to the men (and again I'm not talking at all about level of wrestling). John Smith had an easier path to medals and golds than Jordan Burroughs did. This isn't saying that there weren't a bunch of incredible wrestlers in the 1980s. Nobody is saying women's FS isn't good. Nobody is saying that little girls aren't training just as hard as little boys. But a sport with 1 generation isn't close to as competitive as a sport with many generations. This isn't a hot take. It's clear and obvious. The worldwide participation numbers aren't close. If people insist on having a GOAT conversation about JB and Maroulis, then this stuff can't be ignored. Just like it can't be ignored when you talk about John Smith and JB.

Are you talking about a mythical GOAT of men's and women's freestyle wrestling? If she gets to 8 golds I still don't put her close to Burroughs. It's apples and oranges. There is zero need for the comparison. But if one is made it isn't close. One of the biggest arguments for JB over John Smith is that in JB's era you had multiple Russians and fewer weight classes, meaning more competition. That is a legitimate argument. There is no argument for the idea that the competition in women's FS is anywhere close to the men's side. I'm not talking about levels, I'm talking about depth of competition. The sport is young and will need decades to catch up. Winning titles in a still developing sport that only has a few tough nations is simply not the same. It should be enough to just celebrate her accomplishments in the field of women's wrestling and his in the field of men's wrestling.

You're probably not wrong that he's in the mix. Especially with him already in final X next year. But while 65 was very tough, I'm not sure Woods beat anybody close to Forest's win over Suda. Woods wrestled one guy listed in FLO's pre tournament top 10, and it was a quick TF loss. I don't say this to dismiss his performance, but more to dispute you using weight class strength as an argument. 65 is tougher but Forest wrestled harder opponents.

Thank you for that. Zahid looked stronger and more physical. That's wild.

How did they look at u17 and u20. That group isn't affected much (at all?) by expats. Other countries aren't buying teenagers. Everything is cyclical. Even the greatest FS wrestling nation in the world has a bad year sometimes.

He is absolutely trying to reach that level. And he is reaching it as quick as anybody in our history. Your comment suggests that he needs to be willing to do what you think he should. You are equating your opinion on training situation with willingness to commit or sacrifice. That's weird and arrogant.

Have they ever sent 7 first timers? Has any serious wrestling ever done that? I don't know enough to say definitively, but I really don't think so. Nobody is as willing as we are to let a world teamer lose their spot. Russia clearly has the depth to have first timers do well, but I don't think they'd ever send that many. And this year their veterans didn't do as well as our first timers.

I would. I honestly think it's him or Blaze and it's near 50/50. I give Forest a slight edge over Blaze because I think his frame is bigger and will fill the weight better in 2 years. I think those two are a cut above everyone else.

But the restrictive government isn't new. It was always restrictive and always had wrestlers under their thumb and they still were very good. Something else changed. I also don't think it's just MMA. Aside from Romero going MMA after his wrestling career, I'm not seeing a bunch of Cubans pop up in MMA. Their slide as a FS power is deeper than MMA.

I think the new guys were far better than expected. 1st time reps 61 Jax was 5th and was close to both guys who beat him 65 Woods bronze 70 Duke 1-1. Loss to a multi-champ who didn't pull him in 74 Carr 5th with 2 super close losses to top 3 guys 79 Haines silver 92 Hidlay gold 125 Hendrickson was the only real disappointment of the 1st timers I don't think any nation could send 7 first time reps and perform like we did. The depth is seriously like 10Xs what it was 20 years ago. And the number of young guys who can compete on the world stage is staggering. Combine this with us being fantastic at u17 and u20, and I don't see how you could argue against a new golden age starting up.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Lihledahl catch Lee in the next 2 years. It's hard to keep pushing yourself and working against a failing body when you didn't win a medal. I think Forest has plenty of frame to mature into 65. I think he's at least 50% to be the rep. I think Carr and Messenbrink are pretty even and Duke is a wildcard. If Hidlay can effectively make 86 he seems like a nightmare matchup for Zahid. I don't see anyone that close to Snyder. Who knows at 125.

I agree. I think Snyder will be closer to what he is today in 2 years than Zahid will. Zahid is a guy who works off athleticism and he may not have peak athleticism much longer. Snyder seems like he'll be at least 95% of Snyder if he is healthy. Honestly I bet Varner could be like 80% of Varner today at 40 years old. That's just the nature of 97/125.

He scored a few points and the other guy scored a lot of points.

I am sure he eventually will. But right now his improvement curve is fantastic. Wrestling with guys like Bassett seems to be working really well. The video of those two play wrestling is awesome. I get the idea that he should move on. There is wisdom to that. I just think it's easy to ignore how well it's working right now when you say that.

How has his improvement been lately while wrestling with high schoolers? Has he been benefitting or has he been hurt by his lack of training partners?

I don't have a take. Takes are opinions. I don't have one here. Saying the score was the score is not a take. Saying the score wasn't the actual score isn't a take. You can value offense more than counter offense. That's a take. You can't say the actual score was 20-3. That's not a take. It's simply wrong and has been the whole time.

You can disagree all you want. It still doesn't change the actual scores. Hidlay was awesome. He was the obvious aggressor. I'd pick him by a wider margin in a rematch.

I don't think he has a shot at 86. Valencia is obviously too big for him. A year from now while sitting out until the finals that won't change.

You can go rescore the entire world championships for all the wrestlers based on who initiated action. That still won't change the score of any match. The actual score is not who initiated. The actual score is who scored.

You need to look at what fact means. He won on a score in the last 30 seconds. It was an incredible win. He's an incredible champion. You don't have to make stuff up to improve on what happened because what happened was incredible.

Do they score actual offensive points different than points?

u17 and u20 are developmental tournaments. The whole purpose of those tournaments is to prepare for Worlds. They won the tournament that those tournaments are preparing for. They are very happy and what happened at u17s doesn't take away from today even a tiny bit for them.

I'm sure they are okay with the way the 3 tournaments played out.