I don’t that is completely accurate as schedules and tournaments were different back then, go take a look at some of the old record books and you will see the D1 wrestlers wrestling a mix of D1 and D2 guys and D2 guys wrestling a good mix of D1 and D2. My top 10 has to Haselrig in it also for I have to put Ruth as the #1 penn state wrestler
Flo's GOAT list
- Thread starter nerfstate
- Start date
[/QUOTE]
No. It’s the most overblown stat ever. Every wrestler spends their entire (read 15-18 years) career growing into weight classes. Big effing deal. Smith stayed at the same weight class....for 5 years. That’s more impressive.
Swap Steiber with anyone....it should have been 2 championships.
And make it Snyder. Why does he get dinged for a small number of matches when there are two undefeateds on the list with less than 60 career matches. Yes, I know who they are but you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. Snyder was worth the price of admission.
The hard thing is determining how good they really were. That is why my tie breaker has to do with post collegiate careers and the careers of people they beat. Zain beat a future world champ. Snyder beat a future world placer(Gwiz) and a future world team member (Coon). Williams made multiple world teams. McIlravey won a world medal. When you are determining which 3 time champ to choose, that has to be figured in as a criteria. IMHO Also, I thought about Haselrig, but I am overly critical of HWTs. Snyder got in because of his size and the results of the people he has beaten.
As a side note - none of the guys on my list have ever scored a single point against me. Just sayin'!!
As a side note - none of the guys on my list have ever scored a single point against me. Just sayin'!!
I'm not saying he didn't have D1 opponents but he did have a dual.schedule that steered clear of the best D1 teams ala the Big10 and Big 8 .
Even the matches he had on his way to D1s were not near as tough. The D2 semis and finals were a bear but the d2 qualifying event was nothing like a D1 qualifier
Ah, yes. Snyder ducked the loaded competition over the last three years at the CKLV and B1G meets. The wimp chose to represent the US at the World Cups and go to weak Russian tournaments like the Yarygin and Medved instead. Snyder even went as far as wrestling over 70 senior-level freestyle matches the last few years just to avoid the gruesome NCAA schedule. Can't believe he was training for guys like Sadulaev when he could have been taking a beating from college guys. Unbelievable.
Think he was talking less about the skill and more about twice as many matches against big guys and fatties who could wreck a joint if they fell against him wrong
I've re-read Jefe's message ten times, just to make sure. Slowly, even. But, I must be missing where he said "ducked" or even came close to implying any such thing. He said, "wrestled a very limited schedule." Either that is true, or it is not. Jefe didn't ascribe any reasons as to why Snyder chose the path he did.
the silliness in the off season serves to ready our interneting skills for the real fight during the season.
that said all keyboard warriors need to practice up this season...... cuz #2020 is going to be a lit af in the rivals universe
#thisiskidsplay
#defcon4
#winteriscoming
Your reasoning is flawed. It's a list of wrestlers at the NCAA level. How they did internationally has nothing to do with how they did in the NCAA.
A Synder bonus point victory over Nick Nevills this past year, in the raucous, Buckeye-free Rec Hall crowd, would have carried his team (who were bringing hell with them) to a signature victory, and ended PSUs winning streak, and backed up his boastful claim.
Synder victories always seem to be as certain as the sun coming up. But coming up just a bit short of his goal against Nevills put a very small dent in Kyle's amazing collegiate legacy. Perhaps if that match ends with a Synder tech fall, his top 10 status is enhanced.
Last edited:
When you are comparing 3 time champs, I think you look at how the kids they beat did after college as a tie breaker. That is all I am getting at. It is just something else to back up an argument as to why I chose a certain guy. I think my reasoning was pretty good actually. Only 3-4 time champs on the list but some were definitely left off the list. How do you decide whom to leave off? (Notice the use of the word "whom") #feeling smart right now
I would use bonus rate first.
One potential hole in the post-college scenario is what to do with a guy like Richard Perry. Good wrestler at Bloomsburg but very beatable -- never placed at nationals -- and clearly a world class freestyle wrestler.
Or to pick on a 3x champ: does Ricky Bonomo lose some tie-breaker because Jim Martin went straight to med school instead of pursuing freestyle?
As one who followed Gable's career at the time, he was not a mythical legend. He stood above the pack (all weights) in a way that very few have ever done. It was absolutely inconceivable that he'd lose. The question was only if somehow his opponent could (unlikely) escape from getting pinned. There is no myth to his legend as a wrestler.
Is fours years long enough for wrestling fans to forget how dominant Ed Ruth was? Not saying he is absolutely deserving of a spot in the top ten, but he shouldn't be far off.
Even though this is college only, I think they are weighing other stuff too. 3,1,1,1 and that 3 was an injury away from 1,1,1,1
I'm definitely biased, because I met him and he's a great person to go with all that talent. I feel like Kemp and Steiber are too high, but not saying Ruth should replace them.
Even though this is college only, I think they are weighing other stuff too. 3,1,1,1 and that 3 was an injury away from 1,1,1,1
I'm definitely biased, because I met him and he's a great person to go with all that talent. I feel like Kemp and Steiber are too high, but not saying Ruth should replace them.
The article has been changed and my former charge has corrected his error of exclusion somewhat. Bill Koll is now one of the candidates for the 10th place, which is still egregious. Undefeated three time champ with two OW awards when freshmen weren't allowed to wrestle is not in the top 10 when someone with someone with 4 career losses is #3? Ok.
More important is what he did before he wrestled in college, seem to recall that he served in WWII and was awarded silver star (need to check that as I am doing this from memory)
To play devil's advocate a bit. I don't know who Bill Koll beat for his titles but Dake beat Marion, Frank (NC), St. John (NC), Taylor (2xNC)
That's pretty impressive. Does anyone else have any more impressive wins in the finals? Basically, has anyone ever beaten someone better than DT in the finals?
Koll beat the Germans.
Larry Owings?
Koll beat everyone he wrestled and was a two time OW in three years. Dake was a one-time OW by squeaking by DT. Dake lost 4 times in college and wasn't even a four time EIWA champ. Recency bias.
There are a lot of guys who will lose a tie breaker. If you have a better way of doing tie breakers, I am all ears. Bonus rate is a great tie breaker, but the you could say that DT had a much higher bonus rate the Dake, but Dake kept him off the list. Had Dake never been at DT's weight, he would have probably been on every ones list. So I think looking at what guys do after college has some merit to it. No way would be perfect and bonus rate is a very good criteria also.
Bonomo loses a tie breaker because he is from a small school and was from quite a few years ago and never did anything after college. There are a lot of reason to overlook him as a 3 time champ and top ten of the last 30-40 years.
Bloomsburg was D1 when Bonomo wrestled there. You saying only wrestlers from the big campuses qualify?
Apparently we can throw Kemp out of that 30-40 year discussion -- he wrestled a decade before Bonomo but still in the 40 yr range.
Sure, Bonomo didn't do much after college -- last I checked this was a discussion of college wrestling, not post college wrestlinng.
In any case, all of the above is moving the goalpost. The original question was why a wrestler should lose a tie breaker because one of his best college opponents did something else with the rest of his life.
Regarding your comment about Dake and DT: bonus points aren't a tie breaker because there's no tie to break. Dake won 2 more titles. So I really don't understand your point.
Last edited:
No matter the placement of Kemp it is never too high. Too low possible or probable.
Just another thought on Bill Koll. Undefeated 3 time champ, and when they change the rules because of "you", "you" are pretty damn good.
Both the fun and challenge on these discussions is agreeing on ground rules. Is this who is best at their peak P4P? Most big match wins? Most bonus points? I think Flo is pretty close, Koll is before my time, but it seems like there's a good case for him being above the also-rans. I too, feel like maybe Stieber is over rated, but Flo is clearly valuing total titles pretty heavily here, and it's not like that's super controversial. If you're going the P4P route, then I think Zain and Snyder derserve more love, but that's entirely speculative of a discussion to have.
Please tell me you didn't just nominate Delgado and Heil.
First, 4 national titles between the two of them so they weren't bad. However, your point has merit. I should have been more precise.
When they change the rules because of the way "you" wrestled aggressively and dominated "you" were damn good.
If they changed the rules because "you" continuously won while doing as little as possible and there was a legitimate fear "your" style may kill the sport - well that is just terrible.
I am not throwing anybody out. I am saying the reasons that I think people are choosing the people they are choosing. Kemp was a beast. He won 3 titles and a couple world titles if I remember correctly. He also won a lot of 1, 2 and 3 point matches. In his case, he probably does not get chosen because of the number of close wins. One of the reasons Dake is so high on the list is because he was able to beat DT. A lot of people do not like Steiber being on the list because he won some controversial matches and could have only been a 2 timer had there been different officials. One of the reasons Zain is on the list is because he was a bonus point machine. There are so many good guys to choose from that each one can have a different criteria that puts them in the top ten or holds them out of the top ten.
So if everything was even, then I guess we could go to a tie breaker. But everything else is never even. So we give reasons we think this guy over that guy.
I would love to see you list. so far you have mostly made what seem to be snide remarks about other people's choices. Maybe I am misreading your tone because it is easy to do. If so, the I am sorry. Otherwise put up a list of your own instead of criticizing everyone else's comments.
So.... you are advocating that he replace Cael on the top spot?
Go ahead... convince me.
Criteria for this list should go something like this:
All matches counted are during the NCAA season and only in Folkstyle. Freestyle does not count. What the wrestler did before or after NCAA does not count.
1. Record
The more you wrestle and win the better it is. Shortened schedule = less impressive, whether is was a full four years (Snyder) or a non compete clause for Freshmen (Gable and others).
2. Titles
4 titles is impressive but 4 titles and the most wins is even more impressive.
3. Strength of schedule/accomplishments of opponents
This only accounts for what your opponents did during the NCAA season (Folkstyle matches only) and only before you wrestled them. What any of your opponents did after you beat them (or if you have since graduated etc.) has no merit here. If you need an example - I dated Hedi Klum. WOW! When she was in 8th grade. Oh. (Less impressive) Beating someone great before they are well accomplished means nothing.
4. Dominance.
Self explanatory.
All matches counted are during the NCAA season and only in Folkstyle. Freestyle does not count. What the wrestler did before or after NCAA does not count.
1. Record
The more you wrestle and win the better it is. Shortened schedule = less impressive, whether is was a full four years (Snyder) or a non compete clause for Freshmen (Gable and others).
2. Titles
4 titles is impressive but 4 titles and the most wins is even more impressive.
3. Strength of schedule/accomplishments of opponents
This only accounts for what your opponents did during the NCAA season (Folkstyle matches only) and only before you wrestled them. What any of your opponents did after you beat them (or if you have since graduated etc.) has no merit here. If you need an example - I dated Hedi Klum. WOW! When she was in 8th grade. Oh. (Less impressive) Beating someone great before they are well accomplished means nothing.
4. Dominance.
Self explanatory.
IMar defeated Jason Nolf in the finals.... AND Cenzo defeated IMar in the finals x 2.
The fun is in the debate. Not only won't we agree on the order of all-time greats, we'll never agree on criteria. Some will invest time and energy compiling enough info to justify their list, others will wing it based on whatever pops into their heads, some of it emotional.
At 62, I'm not the oldest on this board, and far from the youngest. My days have included a lot of observation and reading of the past 40+ years, which creates its own sort of bias.
It's not easy, and to me, can't be boiled down to a couple metrics, though it's great to see some listed, as it causes us to think about our own "criteria". Here's a list that maybe everyone will find interesting (maybe not!!), that you can decide for yourself which is most important.
In no particular order...
1) Record
2) Dominance (Bonus Point wins)
3) Dominance (Falls)
4) Era
5) Caliber of competition
6) NCAA Tournament Results (Record)
7) NCAA Tournament Results (Points scored)
8) NCAA Tournament Results (Crowns)
9) Division
10) Number of season's wrestled
11) Add your own??
Should a past wrestler be penalized because he only wrestled 3 seasons, or wrestled D2, or wrestled in the 1930's, or [take your pick]. I don't think so.
I went with the Flo picks, as I figured they did their homework. Right Flo???? That said, I love the discussion. There's so many opinions, thoughts, etc. that the debate alone is worth the read for me. Reminds me of how many greats there are, even if we can't agree on the order.
Last edited:
I can agree with that... a few of my friends and I have been trying to determine a criteria on grouping wrestlers for years. QWe came up with four categories... Elite, exceptional, really good, nice career. The rest fall under “other”. It took us two years (and counting) to nail down what “elite” is. One thing of note is we do give some more discretion to a wrestler who wrestled their true freshman year. We also left out a few who only participated in 3 tournaments.
So... here’s our list of “Elite” wrestlers, in no particular order...
Cael
Dake
Smith
Stieber
They deserve single name only recognition... then the rest...
Jake Rosholt
Ed Ruth
Lincoln McIlravy
Carlton Haselrig
Ed Banach
Mark Churella
Lee Kemp
Dick Hutton
Dan Gable
David Taylor
Ben Askren
Jake Varner
Steve Mocco
Mark Branch
Pat Milkovich
Dan Hodge
Zain Retherford
So... here’s our list of “Elite” wrestlers, in no particular order...
Cael
Dake
Smith
Stieber
They deserve single name only recognition... then the rest...
Jake Rosholt
Ed Ruth
Lincoln McIlravy
Carlton Haselrig
Ed Banach
Mark Churella
Lee Kemp
Dick Hutton
Dan Gable
David Taylor
Ben Askren
Jake Varner
Steve Mocco
Mark Branch
Pat Milkovich
Dan Hodge
Zain Retherford
