Author Topic: Sanderson  (Read 7924 times)

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 36925
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2011, 02:09:23 PM »
It sounds like Vise is arguing that in the American collegiate style of wrestling, Cael is the greatest.  4 OW's, 4 NCAA championships, 4 Years of undefeated wrestling.  That's hard to argue. 

I would wager though that had Mark Schultz wrestled competitively as a youngster instead of picking up the sport after doing gymnastics, there would be a real contest.  Schultz was a 3 time NCAA Champ, had a match called the 2nd best of all time, moved up a weight class to bring down Banach because it needed to be done, all these things show a different greatness than 4 NCAA championships, it shows risk.  I don't think I would dismiss Mark Schultz on any level.  Plus he has 3 Olympic and World Gold medals.  From a strictly collegiate standpoint, I think there is an argument.  From a total standpoint, Schultz hands down.

mspart
Keep in mind what I said below..
Quote
There is a distinct difference between BEST and GREATEST.  For instance, its my personal opinion that Mark Schults was a better wrestler in that at his prime and would have beaten Sanderson in his prime. But the totality of his accomplishments (ie Greatness) didnt equal that of Sanderson.

Also keep in mind that those Olympics in 1984 were boycotted by the USSR and virtually all of the Soviet Bloc countries. His only serious competition was the Turk who's elbow he broke in the 1st period.  Cael likewise went up a weight in college and dominated more than Mark did.

As I watched Sanderson last weekend, I was wondering how he would have done last weekend. Both had strengths over the other. Mark was superior in balance and core strength, Cael was superior in length and probably technique.  Quickness and scrambling ability was too close for me to call, but probably edge Schultz. Conditioning and mental toughness more of an edge to Cael.

I think that Harbert is of similar quality to say Mike Sheets. Mark looked just a bit more dominate over Sheets than did Sanderson over Harbert, but keep in mind, this was Cael's first real competition in 7 years and Schultz faced Sheets in his prime.

As I said....  I give Schultz a slight edge.... but its certainly NOT a "hands down" decision!
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 26225
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2011, 03:10:55 PM »
Vise,

To comment on a few of your points:

1.  Sanderson also went up in weight.  He went up because it was easier on him from a weight standpoint.  He did not go up with the express intent to knock out the reigning NCAA champ with the express intent to not allow him to win 4 NCAA championships (or 3 I can't remember).  That is the difference between Sanderson and Schultz.  I believe people were avoiding Sanderson so the move up provided him with different competition, but it wasn't near the effort and reasoning that Schultz had.  Schultz went to stop somebody, Sanderson did it because it was an easier cut.  That's my opinion.

2.  So you are implying that Schultz's gold medal was tainted in 1984.  I would agree with you if he hadn't followed up with a World championship in 1985.  His Olympic Gold was no fluke.  He would have won no matter.  So I don't buy the 1984 olympics argument in this particular case.

3.  Perhaps to get this off of a Sanderson vs the world thread, I'd like to discuss Herbert.  Herbert looked pretty good, finally got some competition.  My input to him would be to go Penn St, go to OTC, go wherever Sanderson is and become one of his workout partners.  It would do a world of wonder for him.  Sanderson is the only competition in the US that can stop him.  If Herbert is serious, he will prepare for the future.  I don't know what chance Herbert has next year, but the weight will be his for the next cycle.

mspart

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 36925
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2011, 04:27:54 PM »
Vise,

To comment on a few of your points:

1.  Sanderson also went up in weight.  He went up because it was easier on him from a weight standpoint.  He did not go up with the express intent to knock out the reigning NCAA champ with the express intent to not allow him to win 4 NCAA championships (or 3 I can't remember).  That is the difference between Sanderson and Schultz.  I believe people were avoiding Sanderson so the move up provided him with different competition, but it wasn't near the effort and reasoning that Schultz had.  Schultz went to stop somebody, Sanderson did it because it was an easier cut.  That's my opinion.

2.  So you are implying that Schultz's gold medal was tainted in 1984.  I would agree with you if he hadn't followed up with a World championship in 1985.  His Olympic Gold was no fluke.  He would have won no matter.  So I don't buy the 1984 olympics argument in this particular case.

3.  Perhaps to get this off of a Sanderson vs the world thread, I'd like to discuss Herbert.  Herbert looked pretty good, finally got some competition.  My input to him would be to go Penn St, go to OTC, go wherever Sanderson is and become one of his workout partners.  It would do a world of wonder for him.  Sanderson is the only competition in the US that can stop him.  If Herbert is serious, he will prepare for the future.  I don't know what chance Herbert has next year, but the weight will be his for the next cycle.

mspart

1. Your theory is nice... but its not born out of facts. You say that Schultz went up to 177 merely for the opportunity to wrestle Banach. This just isnt true.  That was the year that Isreal Shepard came out of redshirt. Shepard was a title contender at 158. Dave and Mark were both in more natural weights at 167 and 177 respectively and OU was a MUCH stronger team with Shepard in the line up at 158.

2. To say that Mark would have won in 1984 with a full complement of Soviet bloc wrestlers is speculation. And if you want to include speculation then I would offer that had Sanderson not "retired" at the very young age of 24, he would have easily won 5 or 6 MORE world titles.

3. Thats an interesting proposition. But from Penn St. point of view, its not all that appealing. Assuming the have a full complement of coaches already, they would be adding another "big body" to the coaching staff where they are already well represented with the likes of Cael and Varner. It would also mean losing a lower weights coach.

I am kinda diggin on making hypothetical arguments on two of my favorite wrestlers of all time!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 04:29:45 PM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline oblio-arrow

  • Redshirt
  • **
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2011, 06:06:57 PM »
I think people are underestimating the importance this comeback and potential gold medal will have on the continued dominance of Penn State wrestling.

The popularity of the program will be in the stratosphere during Cael's comeback!  This has to irritate Tom Brands.

"Continued dominance of Penn State wrestling"?  Give me a break.  Last years championship was not dominant.  Relax a little and enjoy your first title in fifty some years.  Penn State is a very good wrestling team, but they did not dominate.

I love when people speculate on the irritability of Brands.  It's just my opinion, but I would bet that the things Cael are doing matters to him none.



Ron,

By "dominance" I meant that psu is currently the most dominant team in college wrestling, as they are the defending champions.  And with the continued publicity of their coach's comeback, the train will keep coming - only harder.

You are arguing against a strawman. I never said penn state dominated the national tournament.
"I don't think he is D1 material.  Definitely not Iowa material.  He will be a practice dummy."  --crablegs

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 26225
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2011, 06:14:03 PM »
Vise,

To comment on a few of your points:

1.  Sanderson also went up in weight.  He went up because it was easier on him from a weight standpoint.  He did not go up with the express intent to knock out the reigning NCAA champ with the express intent to not allow him to win 4 NCAA championships (or 3 I can't remember).  That is the difference between Sanderson and Schultz.  I believe people were avoiding Sanderson so the move up provided him with different competition, but it wasn't near the effort and reasoning that Schultz had.  Schultz went to stop somebody, Sanderson did it because it was an easier cut.  That's my opinion.

2.  So you are implying that Schultz's gold medal was tainted in 1984.  I would agree with you if he hadn't followed up with a World championship in 1985.  His Olympic Gold was no fluke.  He would have won no matter.  So I don't buy the 1984 olympics argument in this particular case.

3.  Perhaps to get this off of a Sanderson vs the world thread, I'd like to discuss Herbert.  Herbert looked pretty good, finally got some competition.  My input to him would be to go Penn St, go to OTC, go wherever Sanderson is and become one of his workout partners.  It would do a world of wonder for him.  Sanderson is the only competition in the US that can stop him.  If Herbert is serious, he will prepare for the future.  I don't know what chance Herbert has next year, but the weight will be his for the next cycle.

mspart

1. Your theory is nice... but its not born out of facts. You say that Schultz went up to 177 merely for the opportunity to wrestle Banach. This just isnt true.  That was the year that Isreal Shepard came out of redshirt. Shepard was a title contender at 158. Dave and Mark were both in more natural weights at 167 and 177 respectively and OU was a MUCH stronger team with Shepard in the line up at 158.

2. To say that Mark would have won in 1984 with a full complement of Soviet bloc wrestlers is speculation. And if you want to include speculation then I would offer that had Sanderson not "retired" at the very young age of 24, he would have easily won 5 or 6 MORE world titles.

3. Thats an interesting proposition. But from Penn St. point of view, its not all that appealing. Assuming the have a full complement of coaches already, they would be adding another "big body" to the coaching staff where they are already well represented with the likes of Cael and Varner. It would also mean losing a lower weights coach.

I am kinda diggin on making hypothetical arguments on two of my favorite wrestlers of all time!

Vise,

1.  You say my story isn't true.  Please refer to http://www.flowrestling.org/speaker/2417-Mark-Schultz/video/131451-Mark-Schultz-Speech-At-The-Clash at 12:35 thru 13:00.  He tells it in his own words. 

2.  I guess my theory holds more weight than yours because Schultz proved it by winning in 1985.  If he had only won in 1984 and again in 1987, I would agree with you.  But he proved it the next year.  That is not speculation.  My speculation is that this creates an argument for mark over cael.  Mark has more accomplishements in the international arena than Cael.  Which is why these things are so hard to do.  If Cael comes and wins 2011 gold, I will be very impressed.  He beat Herbert who hasn't done much since winning silver. So we'll see.

3.  I'm not talking coaching.  I'm talking wrestling partner, student.  I'm talking about preparing for the future.  If he wants to improve in FS, he needs to attach himself to Cael as much as possible.  Be his training partner, OTC, etc.   I said nothing of him being on the Penn St coaching staff.

For my part, John Smith and Dan Gable were the best we have ever produced.  Followed by Mark Schultz and Bruce Baumgartner.  If we are only talking college, it would have to be Cael. 

mspart

Offline nywrestler4life

  • LXP
  • World Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2011, 06:59:46 PM »
I think that Herbert is close to the guys at Overtime, so I don't really see him leaving there.

Offline ocianain

  • I Need More Hobbies
  • *****
  • Posts: 3672
    • View Profile
Re: Sanderson
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2011, 07:03:02 PM »
Based on international accomplishment alone Schultz over Cael. Now, a seven year layoff is a long time; I know he's an incredible athlete but it's much easier to stay in shape then get back into shape.....especially at that level. I hope he does well of course but If Cael wanted titles he should of kept competing when he was in top shape. Glad to see him back though as it adds interest.

Schultz also won his first world title (and second and maybe third) at a younger age then Cael won his first. If I read things right it looks like this:

84 Schultz - World title aged 21
85 Schultz - World title aged 22
87 Schultz - World title aged 24

04 Cael - World title aged 25

If correct, Schultz came out of the ammys and won a world title while Cael wrestled freestyle a few years before getting gold (silver in 03). Pretty damm impressive and he's not even from Pennsylvania!




« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 07:23:28 PM by ocianain »
The Seeking For One Thing Will Find Another - Irish Proverb