Wrestleknownothing

If you go based on their respective team Rivals sites it will be Spencer Lee and David Taylor, respectively.

The hedge funds and Blackrock as he uses those terms are two different things. But as long as you think a guy who works in human resources, knows nothing about investing (or he would not be in HR), and is trying to impress a girl, is a credible source then there is nothing I can do to help you. Speaking of which, if Jim Kramer knew what he was doing as a hedge fund manager then Jim Kramer would be a hedge fund manager. Being a hedge fund manager is VERY lucrative. But Jim Kramer is not a hedge fund manager because Jim Kramer does not know how to be any good as a hedge fund manager. Again, if you find Jim Kramer to be a credible source about hedge funds then there is nothing I can do to help you.

I have no idea what a fall is, but further down page 1 is an expanded table that includes MD, TF, and PF. The average number of majors per tournament was ~98. The average number of tech falls per tournament was ~17. The average number of pinfalls per tournament was ~69. A pinfall was 4 times more likely than a tech fall. If we scored it like poker, the tech fall would be worth more than the pinfall. Even with the change in scoring rules I am guessing tech falls increase by 100% to 150% which would still make them more rare than a pinfall.

Hopeful? Since Spencer Lee.

In a Flo interview Brooks said he and Taylor had not trained together in over a year.

One junior guy who works at Blackrock says it. Not Blackrock. This sounds like a guy trying to impress a girl in a bar. And "they pump and dump" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what Blackrock is. The vaat majority of their AUM are index funds. They do not make buy and sell decisions. The investors in their funds make buy and sell decisions.

I have never seen one if there is. However, I reviewed the history of scoring changes and I think this one is pretty unique. Most of the major scoring changes in the past have had to do with elements that are easily corrected for when comparing across eras. For example, if first place used to be worth 12 and is now worth 16, that is an easy adjustment to make. Likewise, if a tech fall replaces a superior decision and has a different definition and point value, it is not a stretch to make the adjustment if all you know is the match score. But changing the value of a fundamental element of how you arrive at the score is kind of a big deal and very hard to account for when looking at historical results. If the score was 14-5 whether the 14 came mostly from back points or mostly from takedowns is important. If from back points then it probably stays a major decision, but if from takedowns it probably becomes a tech fall. And given that most scoring comes from takedowns it matters more that a takedown is scored differently than if back points are scored differently. In the absence of bout scoring sheets from the past, I think you would have to put an asterisk on any score that surpasses Iowa's record and relies heavily on bonus points. You can sort of adjust the current score to the past way of scoring, except that a tech fall relying on takedowns would prematurely end the match and cut off other scoring opportunities. The only other times a takedown score was changed since their introduction in 1941 was for a four year period from 1962 to 1965 (first takedown worth 2, each subsequent worth 1). All takedowns being worth 2 was restored in 1966.

Well, I don't know about that, but I know Taylor has never beaten me.

Based on what you just said, I think I have to change my position. You DO get better at wrestling by not wrestling. Makes me the best that never was. Prove it wrong.

As a counterpoint to the size argument, David Taylor is 6' also. While Brooks did look shorter, he did not have big issues with the size difference. Taylor got in DEEP twice in their first match and failed to score both times (before ultimately scoring on the third deep shot). Then again in the second match Taylor gets in deep early and doesn't score. I feel like Brooks will have no problem with the size.

You are describing a guy who has not taken two years off of wrestling. Not AJ Ferrari.

I can envision a situation where he is the ultimate mercenary. Cash the Iowa check, "enroll" at Iowa, spend all your time training freestyle exclusively in Minnesota with Eggum and Brandsvold, show up at a few home duals, B1Gs and NCAAs and dominate anyway. Never bother with collecting that Iowa post-grad degree.

I don't feel like Steveson is reliant on coaches at this point to dominate at the college level.

Please step out of the room, Bernie, as we are about to discuss Santa. I can't be held responsible.

And WWE is considered entertainment rather than professional sport.

You are reading things that are no there. Your especiality.

When NIL was passed there was a privision that the athlete could not be paid above the going rate for the service (though I do not recall the exact wording). For example, the local car dealership couldn't pay $100k for doing a commercial if they normally paid (see what I did there @BlacknGold) $5k. I have no idea how the NCAA could even determine a norm for an athlete vs. a bit part, commercial actor, so it always seemed unenforceable to me. But it felt to me that this was their attempt to provide themselves some future enforcement muscle if the pendulum of power ever swung back their way, as unlikely as that is to happen.

Why would you want them coated in waterproofing material?

Maybe not even 141 given the off season Bartlett is having. Finals of US Open, and I saw him in Newark, so I assume Nick Lee's warm up partner and heading to Serbia.

What is your problem with the tweet?

Covid turned 4 in 5 to 5 in 6 temporarily.

I am surprised he doesn't do it more. He gave us a free playground. His place. His rules.

And there can never be too many.

There aren't enough Sexual Chocolate references on this board.