TylerDurden

It depends on the angle of the lower level seating. US Bank's layout seems like it will work out just fine, based off images I've seen. It's a pretty intimate football stadium. Reminds me of a basketball arena on steroids.

This is one of those matchups that are tantalizing because you can envision a range of scenarios that could favor either guy. Beating any version of Sadulaev is a tall task, but then again, so is beating DT.

Mendoza is super tough. He could be really good for Mizzou. Multi-time AA level talent. Also, Jake Hockaday is really good. I feel like he's one of those guys who flies under the radar a bit (unless you're a bracket nerd and notice what @Truzzcat noticed, that he places high everywhere) and then really hits his stride in college. He committed to Oklahoma, IIRC.

Athleticism is part of it, but what you just described is cultural. Kids in Spain, France, etc. play in the square after school - I've seen it up close and it was amazing to see the creativity the young kids had to use to avoid all of the obstacles - people, cafe dining areas, dogs, etc. The US isn't behind other countries athletically in soccer, quite the opposite. The biggest deficit the US faces, IMO, is tactically and to a lesser extent, technically. Athleticism helps overcome some deficits, but at the highest levels - especially in the men's game - athleticism can't overcome tactical or technical shortcomings. To me this is all influenced by the early years of learning. Did your first few coaches tell you to pass from point A to point B? Or did they teach you how to be comfortable on the ball so that you can be calm, read the game and make the appropriate pass and/or movements for the situation? It's programming versus ideas. Ideas win in the long run. Structure makes parents feel good, freedom helps kids learn sports in their own way. I do want to distinguish between the men's and women's games because they play out differently. It is far more likely that you can physically overwhelm teams in the women's game than it is the men's game. There is a greater advantage for a women's team to be more athletic than their opponent than there is on the men's side. BUT...that's not enough at the top end, as the US found out last World Cup. The Olympics was a vastly different approach for the US women and showed what superior athleticism coupled with tactical acumen can do. I think @Jim L is correct that coaching (training methods) and competition are major factors, in addition to the local cultural influences.

It's about how SMU throws money at everything. They aren't adding wrestling.

It's probably a bit of both. The US is ahead of just about everyone else in women's athletics simply because there have been more opportunities for longer. We also do have a pretty robust youth system, as imperfect as it is. Donovan does have a point, though he is painting with a broad brush. I basically live in the (girls) club soccer world these days and there certainly are a number of soccer clubs who basically sell the idea of winning to parents. Those clubs typically teach their kids at a young age how to "win" the game. For those familiar with soccer, that basically means they teach their players how to sit in a low block, be physical, and send long balls to the other side. It's tough for anyone to score against a low block, much less 8-9-10 year-olds or any youth player. So the club "wins" the game or the tournament. The kids get a medal. The parents get to post on social media about how great their kid is....but those kids don't learn how to play. There are clubs who approach things differently, but they are definitely in the minority. They'll focus on developing technical ability at a young age and implement tactics, formation, etc., as the players get older and more physically mature. You might see these teams lose a bunch in the younger years, but the tide starts to switch at older age groups because they've learned how to play and can think about the game and not simply how to pass from A-to-B-to-C. They teach technique, concepts, and ideas to the young kids and it tends to pay off later. The other aspect of all of this is financial. It's expensive to play in these clubs, regardless of which version you find yourself in. But in my experience and to my knowledge, the cost aspect doesn't exclude as many kids as some want you to believe. There are plenty of scholarship/funding sources or flat-our fee waivers for players who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to play at a club. There are scouts for the clubs who recruit promising players. It's certainly not a perfect structure for men's or women's soccer, but changing the most prevalent approach is a pretty tall task because "winning" right now is very appealing and patience, as virtuous as it is, seems to be in short supply. Donovan's point about the rate of development for young US players as a whole is well made. I don't think there's much argument there. There's a lot to unpack, but that's a Reader's Digest version from my point of view.

Could charge big money to watch that.

Don't forget advanced nutrition regimens.

I have no idea, please detail the HS recruit rankings from every rating services so we all can see the consensus rankings. I'd love to see the names of the 25 guys you're trying to single out as "elite" and see what they've done and where they went. But are you trying to suggest the Ben Kueter, for instance, wasn't an elite recruit? Or that Gabe Arnold, who was the U20 US Open champ as a HS Sr., wasn't an elite recruit? Those are both from 2023, IIRC. Sure, Iowa has focused on getting guys in the portal, but they're still landing elite HS guys.

Yes, they do.

Iowa gets elite recruits.

Good for JB. I hope he makes the world team and wins it all and leaves his shoes on the mat to complete his storybook ending. When to hang it up in athletics and otherwise is a question all of us face. I'm one of those guys who think you might as well go until the wheels fall off. Make or miss the team, JB is a legend who has inspired many young people to wrestle. That's the biggest impact anyone can make on a sport.

Clearly, the OP meant to ask about Japanese coaches. Easy mistake. They are very close to each other on the map.

No one is arguing that. It's fine if you prefer the rule set in folkstyle, but a different scoring emphasis doesn't make freestyle look "less like wrestling," which was your original contention.

It looks less like the wrestling that you're most familiar with. Free and Folk simply emphasize different aspects of wrestling. Some people prefer one over the other.

There is no room for reasonable takes on this forum. Edit your comment.

Delete your account.

I turned this on. I wasted 5 minutes of my life that I can never get back. I encourage others to learn from my experience and simply pass over whatever channel it's on.

Predictions sure to go wrong: For all that's gone wrong for the US team and as challenging of a weight he's in, I'm thinking (hoping) Zain flips the script and runs roughshod over the field, showing no ill effects from the weight cut. Snyderman channels his inner 2016, gets a second Olympic gold and people immediately ask if he's the GOAT USA wrestler.

Careful, someone told me there were no Russians in this tournament.

Russian are at this Olympics as well. Ramazanov is Russian, for instance. This isn't quite right. If you want to say he was one controversial call away from forcing a third period, fine, but he lost the first period in that bout against Sharifov. I'm also not saying that Herbert wasn't good, he definitely was, and I'm also not going to die on a hill arguing who is better at similar points in their careers even though I think Brooks is better. But Brooks is definitely better than Hrovat in the international medal contender comparisons. So perhaps my issue is more with lumping Hrovat in with the "level" of Brooks and Herbert as opposed to Herbert/Brooks. In the end, I think it's harsh to write Brooks off after a loss in the Olympic semifinal in his first go. One position cost him a spot in the final.

Did Brooks date you sister? Jake Herbert? Andy Hrovat? GTFO

Brooks is the bad draw. Did I do that right?

I believe he's referencing the allegations that Lopez threw matches for financial gain.

Serena has more grand slams than Graf (23-22), made more finals (33-31). She does, in fact, have Olympic gold - she won singles gold at the Olympics in 2012 (she also has three doubles golds). She also is the only player to win the career Golden Slam in both singles and doubles. Graf is in the discussion, and is No. 2 in my book, but Serena is the better.