BAC

Maybe this was discussed elsewhere, but anyone know what the story is (if not too private)? Didn't weigh in today, and supposedly not using his last year of eligibility. Goodale predicted it would happen and claims its an "incredible story" but then sort of leaves us hanging. Tough way to end for a guy who took 4th as a true freshman, but it sounds like there's a lot going on here.

You owe me a beer Chromebird!

Thanks for update! Just curious, why does Gaitan have 3 points? (I thought he got a major, not a pin.)

I think it was 9-1. Maybe 10-1 if I missed riding time at the end.

Oh man you're right. Forgot about that. 10 of 10, with bonus in 9. Crazy.

That has to be the best first round of all time by PSU, at least in the era of 10 weight classes. 10 for 10. 2 decisions, 1 major, 4 techs, 3 pins.

OMG what are they doing to Rogers. He looks like a mummy

You're right, I was thinking it was right after is senior year!

Bold. I like bold.

If you're judging this based on who's the best overall wrestler, including freestyle, there's a credible case to be made for Kyle Snyder and, after this weekend, Gable Steveson. I don't think there have been any other NCAA wrestlers who were Olympic champions while still in college (and Snyder was a world champ too). There are guys with better records, and guys who achieved freestyle success after their last NCAA (e.g. Uetake and Kemp). But Snyder and, soon, Steveson are the 3x'ers we can say were, without any dispute, the best wrestlers in the world at both freestyle and folkstyle at their weights while they were still in the NCAAs, as they'd reached the highest pinnacle in both.

If you ever want to talk about whatever I said in 2023 that made you so sad, I'm always here.

Duplicate

He doesn't control how many matches PSU schedules. He doesn't control whether he gets injured, or whether PSU coaches overrule his request to compete despite injury. He doesn't control whether he gets a 5th year due to Covid. He does control whether he beats the guy put in front of him. And he's done that in every match since 2021. Not saying he's the GOAT, but nor does he deserve to be unfairly downgraded based on criteria that are outside his control.

You're the one that's repeatedly brought Spencer into this, not me.

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.

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.

Do you have the details on that? (Who he wrestled, score, etc?) I saw him wrestle at the NCAA all-star meet when I was a kid, and couldn't believe how athletic a man that big could be. Moved like a lightweight and just destroyed this guy from Northern Iowa.

LOL maybe. But doesn't Hendrickson sort of remind you of Coon? Just a big mammoth heavyweight that Snyder would have a hard time moving around. I think Hendrickson is probably more athletic too. I'm curious how the Kerk v Snyder live matches go in the PSU room. Have to think Snyder gets the better of him, but I don't doubt it's competitive. In freestyle, I'd say all three of Gable/Hendrickson/Kerk are probably top 10 in the world, right now. We've had a glut of world-level talent at HWT the last several years, which suddenly drops off next year.

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.

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."

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.

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). 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. 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.) 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. 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?

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.

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.

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.