scourge165

Interesting ideas and I get the impetus for them after that PSU-Iowa duel, but two things. 1-Matchup's like that are ALMOST never that dull. 2-It kinda gives the bottom guy or the inferior wrestler an out. I'd prefer some smaller tweaks. You hold the ankle for 5 seconds, it's a stall. So don't let a guy just hook the ankle all match. Call stalling on top more if guys aren't trying to score. Just smaller tweaks. But I see the point. Starroci should NOT be riding a guy like Brands escaping with a 2-1 win.

You're taking away a weight class in the middle and adding two weight classes that...aren't quite as exciting(202/212). I get the idea of building for Freestyle, but you have to adjust your weight every level you go(unless you're a 125 your whole life). I'd be in favor of adding 97KG, but that's not a big enough spread from 197 LB for me. But you're taking away a 149LB National Champ so guys are more well adjusted to their weight cut for the next level. That doesn't seem like it should be the priority for College Wrestling. Something to consider, but not the priority. A National Championship is the pinnacle of the sport for many. I also like getting to see matches like Lee vs Yianni in Freestyle, but that's probably not the strongest argument.

Just seems like when you're scoring THAT easily and you get to 10-2...you just suck it up and you put everything you've got into that next TD. That was such a one sided match it didn't look like DeSanto had a chance. I watched it a few days ago, but I actually thought he had the tech. DeSanto got two on a move I thought Garrett initiated when DeSanto was in on a shot(I may not be remembering correctly). That lack of conditioning has to be the result of some type of injury or something, right? He looked so much bigger, cleaner, finishes so easily. And was done in ~2:30. Credit to Austin JAMES DeSanto though. The one thing that kid is not is a quitter. Wrestled his ass off

Are you shitting me? I kinda go into this with the assumption that we've all got...at least a HS level background and wrestled some...I don't know, if not Fargo, some Freestyle and Greco. Hearing what "real wrestling" is now is...that much more incredible. Glad he thinks Freestyle is a 'worthy pursuit,' or however he put it! That's just...subjective. I'd Wrestle both styles. 12-14 matches in a weekend, beat to hell...it was great. But Greco was always easier...IMO, because it was mostly just hand-fighting and then when you did get on top, it WAS easier to turn. Now, I wasn't blessed with truly elite athletic ability. I couldn't hit blast doubles like JB or scrambled like Dake, but...at the HS level I could work inside and won a lot more in Greco than Freestyle. I just couldn't imagine Wrestling it daily as I thought it was boring. Was Jordan Holm tougher than...I guess it'd be Taylor or Cox? I'll be honest, I haven't checked since I saw HOLM made two straight Greco teams which...to my mind, debunk the ENTIRE "it's the toughest" argument, but whatever.

Ok, so you DON'T respect Freestyle nearly as much as the style of Wrestling where Karelin(and all the myth that went along with him) lost the biggest match in the sports history...because he adjusted his hands? I'll also help you out with why it's easier to turn people in Greco. You can't grab an ankle, a leg, step over and hook the leg...to stop the turn. They also Wrestled Greco naked and oiled up originally...so maybe just being the oldest doesn't ALWAYS make things the best or the newest thing the "women's style." But hey, I'm an outside the box thinking, probably a crazy though

No losses...no ties. I really kinda hate this type of debate since the sport has changed so much, but...how do you argue against this? I'm not gonna knock RBY for getting the extra year like O'Toole or Starocci since he actually missed a year, but this seems obvious. It's also just a totally different era. I'd argue Brands has just as much of a case as being #1 and...hell, Gable wrestled 130 and 137, right? Stieber wrestled a couple at 133. Kolat went 2-3-1-1 and he lost a GREAT match as a Freshmen vs 3X Champ and another Wrestler that has a claim, TJ Jaworsky. I thought he could have had NF in that match, but...Jaworsky just had more in the tank. You could argue FOR just about any of those wrestlers and I won't argue against them. I may argue FOR another, but these are all all time greats who have a viable claim...IMO. As for PSU Wrestlers, again, so much context that you can't list them by X of titles. McCoy...Joseph was a 2X Champ and a runner up in his 3 shots. He's one of the guys who really got screwed due to Covid. These are impossible to answer though. I'm not putting DT below every 3X Champ. In fact...he's #1 for me. A bit of a fluke pin vs Bubba and then he wrestled a top maybe 3-4 all time great in Dake in an epic match his Sr year. How about this...if RBY wins, and that's hardly a given(y

I literally don't reacall ANYONE using the term "dominating." Controlling the match. Amos was CONTROLLING the match until the injury. Apparently not much happened. He was dealing with a knee injury(who isn't dealing with one) and when he came to his feet when he was riding in the 2nd, he tweaked it and probably should have shut it down. But again, being as it's not my knee, I think it's a LITTLE funny to say the injury had no impact on a match that was controlled by one guy prior to the injury and then the other guy after the injury...because you were "there." Lots of people were there. I promise most of them don't know how big of an impact this had either. Also...doesn't REALLY matter. You lose, you lose. People don't care why. People don't care that a healthy Mekhi Lewis is the prohibitive favorite if he's healthy in '21 at 165. They know who did win. So...I don't even know why this is a point of emphasis.

Yes...after the injury. I literally just broke it down(not in terms of time, but in terms of posts). Came out 1st period, shot several times. 2:18 has a cradle locked up. Allred kicks out of bounds. Cradle...could easily have been 2. Also...probably should have been called for fleeing the mat as Amos went from the cradle, looked up at the ref, no points, then went to the single, tried to pull him back in, but Allred is diving out. 2:00 Amos in on a single, working around behind. Potentially dangerous called. 1:30-Amos takes a shot, comes up, hits Allred with a throw, 2 TD Amos. 30 second ride, Amos cuts Allred :30 seconds left, Amos takes another shot. End of period, Allred takes a nice shot...time runs out. 2nd period ~1:30 Amos riding, this is when he hurts his knee somewhere in here. Allred gets a reversal. Goes from Amos 2-1 and a few seconds short of riding time to Amos on the bottom. 3-2 Allred 3rd period-Neutral Amos goes to take a shot at about 1:50 and comes up again limp. Can't shoot. Still 3-2 Allred. That's...not "controlling the match. That's scoring a couple late TDs when Amos can't shot. 1st period, no problem getting in. Not finishing. 3rd period...can't even finish a basic shot and is later taken down on a shot.

I could give a shit if you're triggered. Don't whine to me about using naughty words when the opening post calls the Gov from Michigan a cunt. Your pearl clutching just...doesn't quite land when that goes by without a word said, but the word "shit," or whatever sends you into a little tizzy. And I'm quite sure several people listened to me. I know this because...I got reactions and messages regarding my comments. Best you speak for yourself with regard to who's "listening," eh?

When you stop posting links referring to his comments whilst ignoring the ACTUAL video of his comments. STEP OUT ONTO THE BALCONY...does not equate to blindly shoot through the door. Again, willful ignorance.

The first post. So again, I'm sorry, but your moral outrage over my posts or the length thereof comes off a bit disingenuous. I don't recall you chastising him for ugly vulgar attacks...or Nailbender or really anyone else. So...again, thanks for the advice. I'm a big boy though. I'll respond as I see fit.

The irony of this statement is just too rich. I quoted your own posts and you still don't understand, it's from the SAME video. He never said to blindly shoot through the door. He said step out on the balcony. You didn't read your own link and you're not big enough to concede that point now.

Oh...this is just sad. FROM-YOUR-OWN-LINK... You just can't fix stoopid. His actual words...verbatim. YOUR OWN link...and you're like a child with fingers in your ears yelling, "nanananananana....CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

I'll post as long as I choose to and address each point. It's generally not as simple as Nailbender's "nuh-uh," level arguments or posting links that he hasn't bothered reading. If it's too long for people to read, oh well. And I've got no time for complaints about personal attacks on THIS forum. I had less than ~10 posts when there was an abortion thread that was exclusively emotional and every posts involved personal attacks unless you exhibited complete and absolute capitulation. By the way, this is how this thread started; So...again, please spare me the righteous indignation about the posts being too mean.

LOL...you provided 3 links. They ALL quoted the video that I provided. "Step out on the balcony." Not "shoot through your door." You're clearly posting links that you don't read or understand.

You don't even read the shit you post, do you? IT' LITERALLY THE SAME QUOTE!!! From YOUR post; It's like you're not smart enough to understand they're taking the VIDEO of his ACTUAL words and then breaking them down. He didn't say shoot blindly through a door. Every one WALK OUT ONTO THE BALCONY!!! LOL...you really don't know what you're talking about AT ALL, do you? I posted his ACTUAL WORDS. You posted News articles picking apart his words because like I said, it's the intellectually lazy argument. Though, to be fair, I may be giving you too much credit. Maybe it's not intellectually dishonest. Maybe you're just...not capable of understanding what you're attempting to quote.

I'll never understand this logic. Because there are OTHER dangerous things that you CAN'T do anything about(drowning/accidental death) then...why bother trying to do anything about Guns? We put lifeguard at pools. We mandated that. We force kids to take boaters safety classes because there were accidents on the lakes. We just overturned Roe V Wade and made a 10 year old girl from Ohio travel to another state while Jordan called her a liar or a hoax(without ever apologizing). We generally do BASIC shit. This is so silly. My good friend blew his 6 year old brothers head off when he was 9 years old because his Father was a moron who left his guns out. So I DO have fear of irresponsible gun owners. People who have NEVER taken a class and can't be bothered to lock it. How about this...explain to me WHY the NRA fought SOOO hard against SMART GUNS!?! Now tell me it's not all about money and profits. Smith and Wesson, the company who first started and tried to create the smart gun KNEW it'd hurt their sales and still moved forward. But a gun that only the owner can use is SO objectionable, we needed to legislate against THAT? C'mon...

Ok...that's not NEARLY the same as; It seems like you made a VERY poorly worded argument as these two...they don't mesh AT ALL. You said you can't pick and choose and the ONE fundamental truth of the constitution...is that you CAN in fact pick and choose. We wouldn't have a free nation today if you couldn't. The United States was ONE ballot printing error(when they put Pat Buchannan's vote right next to Gore's in the HEAVILY leaning Miami Dade where BUCHANNAN was the one who said the votes were "obviously meant for Gore," or just all the nonsense that went on with the Bush-Gore election. THAT is how close we were to having the Heller care fundamentally change Gun ownership and literally require you to be a member of a militia to be able to own any type of gun you wanted. It would have been a great thing. Not because it would have taken all guns away, but because then, it would have forced a LOGICAL discussion on Gun ownership, extended mags, bump stocks, private sales or the gun show loophole, open carry, conceal carry. It should be a bit tougher to buy a handgun than it is to go on Facebook market place and buy a used Refrigerators(by the way, just got an incredible deal...old guy, moving, sold me a 3 year old monster top bottom and an LG Washer and Dryer set that was less than a year old...all he wanted was for me to take them out of his house! Gave him 100 bucks because...C'mon, 3,000 dollars worth of shit!...really is the greatest Country in the world!) My awesome little story aside, it should be harder to buy that Gun. I'm absolutely NOT against having guns. In fact, as I said, I own 36 myself. I also grew up with Cops(two different Uncles who were firearm instructors) one who was in the FBI...basically, a whole family that was law Enforcement teaching me how to be smart and careful with guns. The class I took for my Conceal Carry...was a JOKE. The very fact that Nailbender thought it SOOO outrageous that you be required to take classes before you're allowed to own a gun as you would to own a Car(he's the one who brought up driving for the record) it shows how...careless we are on this issue. Sure. I'd hope there wouldn't require much conversation. They're ridiculous. They incentivize incarceration, abuse and the lack of oversight is...appalling. If it was just child molesters, fine, but it's not. So any reasonable person who's pro-private prison, I probably wouldn't respect. So I need to assume you find them to be abhorrent as I do. I was waiting for a point and...I don't think I ever found one. Nailbender I believe(or maybe it was you, but I believe it was Nailbender)...made a statement of FACT that there is ZERO empirical evidence that ANY type of Gun Control has EVER had an impact on the number of shootings. I used an example. NOW in the NEVER-ENDING moving goalposts, it's "Australia is different." Well no shit. The United States is about the size of Europe and almost as diverse in it's politics and culture. San Fran is about as different as Rural Texas or NYC and Montana. The POINT remains he argued there's ZERO evidence that gun laws have ever impacted gun deaths. He was wrong. He was far more wrong than just using Australia as an example, but that was the most obvious. I'm also no longer entertaining people who complain about embryo's being aborted when they see a classroom of 20 kids massacred and then don't think there's a SINGLE reasonable gun law that should be enacted to try and MAYBE see if we can stop that. You said nothing here. "If I thought it would change, I'd support it." What 99.99 pct of the time? And please, if ANYONE doesn't get to take the "parroting talking points," line, it's you. The ONLY thing you missed was "a good guy with a gun." AGAIN, I'll cite this sentence that I just didn't understand! Not that it was vague! My point is you can't pick and choose what works and what doesn't work (constitution) when it ALL worked together in order to make us the best country and most free country in the world. Oh, and the gun laws "only stop the good guys with the guns," nonsense. Yes...but you WOULDN'T be. You're not even open to ANY gun laws...because, after all you can't "pick and choose," what works and what doesn't because...the Constitution! It's comical that one SIDE finds it so comical that you should require handguns and semi-auto' be registered, that you should be required to take classes so you know how to operate them. I mean, forget cars, YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITH BOATS! That you can't just sell a gun to anyone with cash. Again, can't do that with Cars either...UNLESS you register them. And yeah, I think you should also be required to have a ballistics tests on record for every gun ever sold...JUST like Law Enforcement does...so you can trade each murder back to a gun. To who originally purchased that gun, to who they sold it to.

Well...as distraught as I am, here are the facts. 1 year left in office for Reagan; Dems approve Kennedy ~1 year left in office for Obama -Republicans say Obama will NEVER nominate a moderate and LITERALLY cite Merrick Garland an example. -Republicans say the voters should pick the next Supreme Court nominee and that if the situation was reversed, the Republicans would NOT fill a seat and you can use those words and call him on it in the future. McConnel also makes the false claim that they haven't seated a SCOTUS nominee in an election year for 130 years. Again, bullshit, they did it for Reagan. -WHILE VOTES are being cast...McConnel shows his ass and does the thing he says you don't do. So to recap, Obama nominates a moderate, one the Republicans had LITERALLY campaigned for and suggested. --Republicans say "no, it's an election year," despite Obama having nearly a full year left in his term and they say; Then ~40 days before the election while people are voting Ginsberg dies and the Republicans nominate Barrett. Sorry, just using his words against him. He's the one who asked me to do it. If you're disappointed...well, again, I'll find a way to pick up the pieces and move on. Now, this wouldn't all have impacted the Heller case, but partisan nominations did. A 5-4 ruling(see Gore v Bush). Where Gore CLEARLY got more votes in Florida, but they made a one time ruling that someone wasn't precedent setting because it was too late to count all the votes in an election Gore SOOO clearly won.

Yeah...again, IT'S RIGHT IN THE VIDEO. Intellectual dishonesty. It's about 40 seconds in. If you don't have 40 seconds, I can't be bothered with you. Biden never said fired blindly through a door if you hear something...you're full of shit. Screw it, I took away the first 40 seconds because I don't know that your attention span can handle it. ----Now...if you believe THIS is him saying "shoot blindly through the door," you're not acting, you really are just not very bright.

Yup! I'm wrong. I only POSTED THE F'CKN VIDEO OF HIM!!! Literally...I posted the VIDEO of what he said, pointed out the intellectual dishonesty and you STILL come back with "you're wrong." I'm sorry, sometimes you come across a particular brand of stoopid that cannot be fixed.

How the hell did I forget that name? I could picture him...I knew exactly who he was, but I couldn't cough it up. I think they make room for him on that team. '65 was a weak spot. I think Becker was big enough to Wrestle it...especially if they're bringing back a kid who's running through College kids as a Redshirt. Becker could have beaten Heskett. Probably not going up, but it's well within the realm of possibility. I mean...Snyder was two coins flips away from being a 2X champ(very good move getting rid of that nonsense). Anyway, I don't think that's why he left. The way I heard it, he just didn't want to go through the grind of D1 AND...he really wanted to play QB...though I was certainly never "in the know" with him and that was 3rd person and you know how that goes. LeVesseur DID break some records playing QB. Being able to play both vs just burned out and getting back into the year 'round grind? I can't fault anyone for that. And he was still 159-0 and a 4X Champ.

No.

I mean, it's a lot just in general. You have just under 10 to give at a time. Using one full scholarship up on one Wrestler, it's just not super common. You'll do that for one of the top P4P Wrestlers in the Country, but generally, you're not going to do it for other kids. There are VERY few guys on full rides and you seldom give a bunch out in a single year. OSU did it last year...I believe they were at ~5.5 and then went all in on this class, but that's a pretty good bet. I don't remember where Askren ranked that year, but he'd just been majored in the State Quarterfinals(and yes, he was injured, but the kid that beat him also pounded the hell outta him on the mat and it was a bad look). He might have been top ~40-50? Crass has produced a lot of good kids from up in that Northern Part of the State, but who's Wisconsin missed out on that they should have gone after? Was Scholes a Crass kid? Not arguing, just...genuinely don't know. Pinnacle has a Minnesota pipeline and UW need to crack through there. At least Hopke. That kid is just different. #1 2024 Wrestler...IMO.

Well...that's a whole other things. Gable used to have his stars who were eating up big chunks of scholarships work camps...and they were paid very well(and VERY legally). So for instance, Mcllravy and Ironside weren't on Scholarship the last two years so they could recruit...whoever was next. Can't speak to other individuals as those were the two I heard about....and Gable was before my time, but that's basically the same thing. JR went to Minnesota and did the same thing. When you're that successful, your camps are in demand and you generate a LOT of revenue. That revenue should go to guys who are NCs and bring the kids in, right? I don't like Iowa, I just want to be clear, I'm not accusing them of cheating. It was explicitly legal(though...apparently a lot of coaches disagreed...including ONE of mine).