Robin Reed: A Portrait of an Undefeatable Wrestler

[AnthonyMarston]

That is accurate.  It almost seems dismissive to leave it at just that, though.  A reasonable case with pointed examples could be still made that he was easily the greatest of all time. 

Take the legendary Cliff Keen who said cira 1974 that "after watching nearly every wrestler from the past 50 yrs" that Reed was the best of all of them.  This includes him witnessing the Gable era, too.  That is a huge statement from a titanic icon in the sport of wrestling to unabiasely state Reed was better than all others.

What he did NOT say was "If Gable and Reed wrestled today, Red would win".

If Keen claims that Reed is better than everyone, including Gable....doesn't that mean that he thinks Reed would have beaten Gable??  Pretty sure that's what that means. 

[ViseGrip]

That is accurate.  It almost seems dismissive to leave it at just that, though.  A reasonable case with pointed examples could be still made that he was easily the greatest of all time. 

Take the legendary Cliff Keen who said cira 1974 that "after watching nearly every wrestler from the past 50 yrs" that Reed was the best of all of them.  This includes him witnessing the Gable era, too.  That is a huge statement from a titanic icon in the sport of wrestling to unabiasely state Reed was better than all others.

What he did NOT say was "If Gable and Reed wrestled today, Red would win".

If Keen claims that Reed is better than everyone, including Gable....doesn't that mean that he thinks Reed would have beaten Gable??  Pretty sure that's what that means. 

If that is what is to be what he meant then he would also be saying that Reed would have beaten Chris Taylor and Bruce Baumgardner as well. Surely you dont believe that to be the case. To me it means that Reed was the most dominate of all time.

[LoSt]

I've often wondered about these stories myself.  Did everyone just suck at wrestling back then?  It seems physically impossible to me that a 130 pounder could not only win but PIN quality upperweights. 

[AnthonyMarston]

That is accurate.  It almost seems dismissive to leave it at just that, though.  A reasonable case with pointed examples could be still made that he was easily the greatest of all time. 

Take the legendary Cliff Keen who said cira 1974 that "after watching nearly every wrestler from the past 50 yrs" that Reed was the best of all of them.  This includes him witnessing the Gable era, too.  That is a huge statement from a titanic icon in the sport of wrestling to unabiasely state Reed was better than all others.

What he did NOT say was "If Gable and Reed wrestled today, Red would win".

If Keen claims that Reed is better than everyone, including Gable....doesn't that mean that he thinks Reed would have beaten Gable??  Pretty sure that's what that means. 

If that is what is to be what he meant then he would also be saying that Reed would have beaten Chris Taylor and Bruce Baumgardner as well. Surely you dont believe that to be the case. To me it means that Reed was the most dominate of all time.

Since Gable and Reed were roughly the same weight, I absolutely without a doubt believe that's what Keen meant when he said Reed was a better wrestler than all of them.  Where is Keen now?  Let's ask him....Someone dig him up!! 

[AnthonyMarston]

I've often wondered about these stories myself.  Did everyone just suck at wrestling back then?  It seems physically impossible to me that a 130 pounder could not only win but PIN quality upperweights.

Like John Smith always said, its not about simply power versus power. 

Bench pressing - sure, the heavier wrestlers might have bested Reed.  Talent-wise, he was so superior that these feats were put into practice as routine.

[LoSt]

I've often wondered about these stories myself.  Did everyone just suck at wrestling back then?  It seems physically impossible to me that a 130 pounder could not only win but PIN quality upperweights.

Like John Smith always said, its not about simply power versus power. 

Bench pressing - sure, the heavier wrestlers might have bested Reed.  Talent-wise, he was so superior that these feats were put into practice as routine.

Ok sure, some 200 pound slob off the streets probably couldn't hang with an elite 125 pound wrestler.  But at some point things like physics start to come into play.  Jayson Ness was one hell of a pinner, but I dont think he'd do very well against Jake Varner.

The only conclusion I can draw is that wrestlers simply were not very skilled back then.  Either that or Robin Reed is the most unique athlete ever to walk the planet in the history of mankind.

[AnthonyMarston]

I've often wondered about these stories myself.  Did everyone just suck at wrestling back then?  It seems physically impossible to me that a 130 pounder could not only win but PIN quality upperweights.

Like John Smith always said, its not about simply power versus power. 

Bench pressing - sure, the heavier wrestlers might have bested Reed.  Talent-wise, he was so superior that these feats were put into practice as routine.

Ok sure, some 200 pound slob off the streets probably couldn't hang with an elite 125 pound wrestler.  But at some point things like physics start to come into play.  Jayson Ness was one hell of a pinner, but I dont think he'd do very well against Jake Varner.

The only conclusion I can draw is that wrestlers simply were not very skilled back then.  Either that or Robin Reed is the most unique athlete ever to walk the planet in the history of mankind.

Ness is a very good wrestler but is nowhere close to Reed.  To say that Ness cannot pin Varner, means Reed was not as great as he was?  Those two comparisons ( Ness and Reed ) are probably not revelevant.  Many top wrestling historians consider Reed the greatest to walk the planet - so that leads me to believe that most simply great wrestlers could not do what he did.

[Cicero]

I think it is fair to put John Smith in the same discussion as Robin Reed.  I don't see him pinning his contemporary heavyweight, Carleton Haselrig. 

[AnthonyMarston]

I think it is fair to put John Smith in the same discussion as Robin Reed.  I don't see him pinning his contemporary heavyweight, Carleton Haselrig.

In all fairness, Smith had trouble pinning opponents his own size - he wasn't much of a pinner. 

[Cicero]

He had 19 in '88 good for about half of his matches. 

Not necessarily on topic, but these statistics were right next to that one, Coach John won 90.7% of his matches in '87 by bonus.  He wasn't quite as dominant in '88 winning 83% by bonus.  Pretty ridiculous especially since he wouldn't even have won one of his matches in '87. 

Metcalf didn't top the 90% bonus rate in his statistically best season, 2008-2009.  I would guess Askren might have, but I doubt too many others have.

[AnthonyMarston]

19 is pretty good his senior year.  I think he had a 25 percent pinning ratio or something like that.  Compared to Reed, he seems like not much of a pinner.  Still, 19 is very good.   Askren had close to 100 pins, I think.  And Schalles? Maybe over that?? Probably more than that, even.

[ViseGrip]

Mark Schultz is about as close of a perfect physical specimen wrestling wise that I have ever seen. He was a 177-180lber. He was somewhat volatile. As a Sooner on a plane trip back from an Iowa road trip (his soph year I believe) he became a bit belligerent and refused the advice of coaches, his brother and fight attendents to calm down. That is until Steve Dr. Death Williams intervened and told him in no uncertain terms that he better sit down and shut up. (This was how the story was related to me anyway)

At a certain point, the advantages of skill are overwhelmed by strength and weight. 

Futhermore, if Reed tried to wrestle just about any good modern day college wrestler with that stance, he would be taken down with some regularity.

[AnthonyMarston]

I agree with the Skill vs Strength/weight.  That is why most great wrestlers, at some pt, fall to the strength and weight.