Flo's GOAT list

[a_mshaffer]

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.

You are so right. I got to rethink #5 though. Really dominant wrestlers do have others run from the weight class. Does the depth of wrestling nullify that? Could use this two ways... a champion stayed at a weight refusing to go up and challenge.... or a champion didn't care and moved up (gotta hand it to Dake!). Who in their right mind thinks that they had a 50/50 shot with Zain last year or Nolf this year?

 

[liex26]

You are so right. I got to rethink #5 though. Really dominant wrestlers do have others run from the weight class. Does the depth of wrestling nullify that? Could use this two ways... a champion stayed at a weight refusing to go up and challenge.... or a champion didn't care and moved up (gotta hand it to Dake!). Who in their right mind thinks that they had a 50/50 shot with Zain last year or Nolf this year?

I'll take the easy way out and say each other. Zain vs Nolf is the only way I see a 50/50 shot in those weights.

 

[nitlion6]

So.... you are advocating that he replace Cael on the top spot?
Go ahead... convince me.

Yeah, I kinda lost track of Cael with that statement. However an arguement could be made.
Kemp lost his only NCAA championship match as an 18 year 3 month old true freshman. His opponent in that match was 2 time NCAA champion, Iowa wrestler Chuck Yagla and the score was a split referee's decision. Ne never lost another college match.
As an 18 year-old sophomore he was good enough to beat Dan Gable in an open tournament.
It isn't hard to imagine had he redshirted Kemp could have been the first to run the table as an undefeated 4 timer (1 tie in last 3 years).

Cael as the only undefeated 4 timer is the GOAT, but I will take Kemp as a worthy and close second greatest.

 

[y2jriden]

IMar defeated Jason Nolf in the finals.... AND Cenzo defeated IMar in the finals x 2.

I agree, both are good examples, I wouldn't put IMar above Taylor though. Nolf maybe.

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.

So first, don't give me recency bias, I laid out legit points, you can do the same which you also did but to say recency bias is cop out. I can just as easily tell you to get over your nostalgia. You're a great poster but that really just pisses me off when people do that.

I said I was just playing devil's advocate. Everyone craps on Dake and I really don't see why. 4 regular season losses, that's a point against him. One for him is that he was taken down once at nationals ever. You take away the DT match, and how many combined points did he give up at nationals? <10 for sure. maybe 5.

Any of these people you want to argue for or against is splitting hairs. You act like I said Bill Koll sucked. And how many others "squeaked" by David Taylor. I don't get the people who want to say Taylor is awesome but then won't correlate that into giving Dake credit.

 

[matter7172]

So first, don't give me recency bias, I laid out legit points, you can do the same which you also did but to say recency bias is cop out

My position is not based on nostalgia. I picked Dake because he's listed at #3 on their list. Koll's college career is better than Dake's.

If someone with superior credentials (except for things beyond their control on and off the mat, i.e. their opponents and no freshman eligibility) is not even in the conversation initially and still isn't listed above a lot of more recent wrestlers, how is it anything except recency bias? Gable had an inferior NCAA career and he's in the top ten.

Koll should be in the top 3 at a minimum. Koll's 72-0 is better than #2 Uetake's 57-0. Both have two OW awards. So how is Koll not #2?

 

[y2jriden]

My position is not based on nostalgia. I picked Dake because he's listed at #3 on their list. Koll's college career is better than Dake's.

If someone with superior credentials (except for things beyond their control on and off the mat, i.e. their opponents and no freshman eligibility) is not even in the conversation initially and still isn't listed above a lot of more recent wrestlers, how is it anything except recency bias? Gable had an inferior NCAA career and he's in the top ten.

Koll should be in the top 3 at a minimum. Koll's 72-0 is better than #2 Uetake's 57-0. Both have two OW awards. So how is Koll not #2?

You're just choosing the stats that you want that satisfy your argument and then acting like nothing else counts. I'm not even saying you're wrong but I don't think being undefeated just automatically means more than the stuff I listed. I wasn't even initially arguing against Koll as much as I was just trying to figure out why no one gives Dake credit. I don't want hear much from you then in a few years when Cenzo is a 4 timer. He has 5+ losses in his career so he cannot be ranked higher than Dake ever given your own criteria. I would also argue that it was easier to go undefeated back in the day because weight classes weren't quite as deep. There are many factors here, undefeated record isn't the only one because they didn't all wrestle the same schedules/eras. Cael himself doesn't even get worked up about regular season losses, he clearly is priming everyone for one tournament.

It's fine, you just pointing out he was missing from the list was a great call. I just felt like I put a rather benign devil's advocate position out there that Dake has plenty of pluses himself and you called me recency biased rather than even disputing my points. I'm not really even a big fan of Dake actually

 

[y2jriden]

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

Dieringer? Should he be in there with the rest? 3,1,1,1. 1 Hodge

 

[matter7172]

t's fine, you just pointing out he was missing from the list was a great call. I just felt like I put a rather benign devil's advocate position out there that Dake has plenty of pluses himself and you called me recency biased rather than even disputing my points. I'm not really even a big fan of Dake actually

I was saying the reason Koll was not #2 was recency bias on the part of FLO. Hard to square that with Uetake at #2, though. I think they just forgot about Koll somehow because he wasn't even in the "other" category the first time around.

 

[y2jriden]

I was saying the reason Koll was not #2 was recency bias on the part of FLO. Hard to square that with Uetake at #2, though. I think they just forgot about Koll somehow because he wasn't even in the "other" category the first time around.

So, I looked into his brackets. 46-48. He won a 7 man bracket in 46, 15 man in 47 and 16 man in 48. Although, the 48 bracket is weird. I think it's a standard bracket, they just didn't draw it up as such.

http://www.wrestlingstats.com/ncaa/pdf/brackets/NCAA 1948.pdf

I don't recognize anybody that he beat

I know nothing about Bill Koll really but looking at these brackets, things were so different that there is no way to compare these guys. I think you could argue people from a certain point on but Koll vs. Dake isn't even comparable.

I think they should just say best wrestlers since 1970 or something or even later and make that list.

 

[matter7172]

But they had Hodge at #4, and he had even less matches than did Koll. I really think they just somehow missed Koll.

 

[nitlion6]

Since there was something like 160 to 170 division 1 wrestling programs at one time through the 1970s versus 76 now it is probably a stretch to argue yesteryear's brackets were not as loaded with talent as today's.

 

[lookleft goright]

I wrestled Div 1 in the early 80s. I coached Div 1 and am currently coaching at a high school. We are teaching things to Junior high kids that I did not even know in college. The technique has gotten so intense and perfected that thinly thing that can be compared is the level of athletic ability. The technique and training is so advanced now that past wrestlers cannot be compared to current ones. IMHO

 

[matter7172]

I wrestled Div 1 in the early 80s. I coached Div 1 and am currently coaching at a high school. We are teaching things to Junior high kids that I did not even know in college. The technique has gotten so intense and perfected that thinly thing that can be compared is the level of athletic ability. The technique and training is so advanced now that past wrestlers cannot be compared to current ones. IMHO

And yet, when people have broken down how points are scored at NCAAs in recent years, the vast majority of takedowns are achieved via the single leg and most escapes with a standup.

 

[Ban Basketball]

No, I'm not coming back, but I couldn't help but think of one of the debates going on on here when I read this tweet and that it was just tweeted three days ago. A link within provides much more information on him as well.

 

[7brwnpsu]

Per that 1948 bracket, Koll wrestled 5 matches and had 5 falls. Impressive.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

No, I'm not coming back, but I couldn't help but think of one of the debates going on on here when I read this tweet and that it was just tweeted three days ago. A link within provides much more information on him as well.

View embedded media

I even put up a Northern Iowa thread. Get back over here.

 

[Ban Basketball]

I even put up a Northern Iowa thread. Get back over here.

I appreciate that, but, no sir.

I've been posting on these wrestling forums for far too long to know that it will all go downhill from here FAST; I just have too much history and a lot of people like to try to bring out my worst. I don't have it in me any more to endlessly fight with people, and nor do a whole lot of folks want me on here.

This is best, trust me.

 

[nerfstate]

I appreciate that, but, no sir.

I've been posting on these wrestling forums for far too long to know that it will all go downhill from here FAST; I just have too much history and a lot of people like to try to bring out my worst. I don't have it in me any more to endlessly fight with people, and nor do a whole lot of folks want me on here.

This is best, trust me.

You sure it isn't a case of self-fulfilling prophecy? I dunno if you went back to some of those other threads, but a good number of regular posters said they'd prefer you to not leave. I'm among them, for what it's worth. You seem to value nuanced discussion, and also defending your opinions. Both admirable traits in real life; one thing I've learned about this format--if you find yourself arguing with an undefined "them" it's best to just let go of whatever point or understanding you were trying to achieve, and focus on other interactions.

 

[86PSUPaul]

I agree with Nerf, I think most are willing to just let it go and move on. If you went back to the posting you did before the kerfuffle I think all would be good. You obviously care about wrestling and discussion, why read (not calling you out for that just stating an obvious fact) and not post your thoughts?

 

[kingslayer_85]

I appreciate that, but, no sir.

I've been posting on these wrestling forums for far too long to know that it will all go downhill from here FAST; I just have too much history and a lot of people like to try to bring out my worst. I don't have it in me any more to endlessly fight with people, and nor do a whole lot of folks want me on here.

This is best, trust me.

can't we all just get along