Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Messenbrink #2


Zahnarzt

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

I told him just about the same thing...👍

I would ask which part but we both know it's the parents. I would rather have double hip replacement than deal with those rotten turd cutters ever again. May NHS be blessed by all the Parmesan cheese from that big Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky.

  • Fire 1

i am an idiot on the internet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ionel said:

There is a true third correct?  Think you mean true second. 

Same thing. Whenever there is a true third there is also a true second, and whenever there is not a true third there is also not a true second. They are always paired.

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Same thing. Whenever there is a true third there is also a true second, and whenever there is not a true third there is also not a true second. They are always paired.

When a guy beats the 4th he is truly at least 3rd its just he might be 2nd if we had a true 2nd.  Same with 4th, we don't have a true 4th.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ionel said:

When a guy beats the 4th he is truly at least 3rd its just he might be 2nd if we had a true 2nd.  Same with 4th, we don't have a true 4th.  

If the guy who won the third place match lost in the semi to the guy who lost in the final, then we have true 2 and 3.

If the guy who won the third place match lost to the eventually champ in the semi, then we do not have true 2 or 3.

So, call it true second or true third. Its the same thing.

We always have true 4 and 1.

Edited by Wrestleknownothing

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

If the guy who won the third place match lost in the semi to the guy who lost in the final, then we have true 2 and 3.

If the guy who won the third place match lost to the eventually champ in the semi, then we do not have true 2 or 3.

So, call it true second or true third. Its the same thing.

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Did I mention we don't have true 6th?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ionel said:

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Did I mention we don't have true 6th?  

The term "true" implies he is no greater nor worse than the placing he earned.  If he is at least third, that's not the same as true third (IMHO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ionel said:

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Me, my senior year in HS.  Lost 3-2 in finals and then had to wrestle one more match for true 2nd.  That was in Missouri over 50 years ago.  They quit wrestling for true 2nd a couple of years after I graduated.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KCMO2 said:

Don't see that happening.  Ramirez won't get #2 with his loss to Olejnik and getting majored by KOT in the dual.  And no offense to MM, he's been very impressive, but he's only wrestled 1 top ten guy this season (so far).  I don't see that getting him over Carr, and leaving Carr and KOT at 2 and 3.   If Carr beats KOT at Big 12's, I see it  1.Carr,  2.MM,  3.KOT,  4.Ramirez.

I have mentioned this before but how would this be different from last year when Aaron Brooks lost to Coleman of Cornell but won the B1G and was ranked #3 because two other guys were conference champs and undefeated? Everyone knew Aaron Brooks was the best guy at 184lbs but his loss dropped him to three. If Carr wins the conference and so does MM then Carr would be in the same position as Aaron Brooks last year, with a conference title but has a loss. How could they justify putting Carr at #1 when they did not give that benefit to a 2x defending champion last year who was in an identical situation? Since we have precedent (last year) what is the argument here to put a 1-loss Carr who won the Big12 over an undefeated Mesinbrink who won the B1G?

Edited by JimmyCinnabon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

If the guy who won the third place match lost in the semi to the guy who lost in the final, then we have true 2 and 3.

If the guy who won the third place match lost to the eventually champ in the semi, then we do not have true 2 or 3.

So, call it true second or true third. Its the same thing.

We always have true 4 and 1.

 

9 hours ago, ionel said:

Nope ... sometimes we do have true 2nd (first case) but sometimes need to wrestle 2nd vs 3rd to get true 2nd (second case).  

Did I mention we don't have true 6th?  

You two are my true seconds.

8 hours ago, flyingcement said:

The term "true" implies he is no greater nor worse than the placing he earned.  If he is at least third, that's not the same as true third (IMHO)

But he's my true first

  • Haha 1

I Don't Agree With What I Posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ionel said:

Ok sure ... but what about the ThugMassabrink?

I have been hoping to see him give it a go on the scene, but to no avail.  Now, I don't think he would necessarily make the team at 86 KG, but I would love to see him try (assuming he can't make 74 KG a few years out from making it).

He is basically following in his dad's footsteps, it seems.  Raising another solid generation of Massa Maniacs.  Pretty stoked to see what he does.

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

You two are my true seconds.

There can't be two true seconds, I demand an extra match.  🤨

44 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

But he's my true first

fly is everyone's true first but who claimed him first?  🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ionel said:

There can't be two true seconds, I demand an extra match.  🤨

fly is everyone's true first but who claimed him first?  🤔

Id imagine it would be his very own momma, Mrs. Flutter Cement

I Don't Agree With What I Posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

I have mentioned this before but how would this be different from last year when Aaron Brooks lost to Coleman of Cornell but won the B1G and was ranked #3 because two other guys were conference champs and undefeated? Everyone knew Aaron Brooks was the best guy at 184lbs but his loss dropped him to three. If Carr wins the conference and so does MM then Carr would be in the same position as Aaron Brooks last year, with a conference title but has a loss. How could they justify putting Carr at #1 when they did not give that benefit to a 2x defending champion last year who was in an identical situation? Since we have precedent (last year) what is the argument here to put a 1-loss Carr who won the Big12 over an undefeated Mesinbrink who won the B1G?

That isn't the same precedent and neither Hidlay nor Parker were undefeated.   Parker and Hidlay split with Parker winning the 2nd match.   All 3 had one loss.  

MM won't have a win over another top 4 guy. The Big 12 champ will.   I am not saying it is how it will play out but it was not same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

MM won't have a win over another top 4 guy. The Big 12 champ will.   I am not saying it is how it will play out but it was not same. 

 

1 minute ago, PortaJohn said:

That's assuming he won't wrestle Hamiti in the Big 10 finals 

He can wrestle Hamiti and still not have a win over a top wrestler.  😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

That's assuming he won't wrestle Hamiti in the Big 10 finals 

No its not.

32 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

He can wrestle Hamiti and still not have a win over a top wrestler.  😉

If he beats Hamiti the top 4 seeds will likely be Carr, KOT, Ramirez and MM.   If Carr wins Big 12s he will have a win over a top 4 seed and the same Hamiti win MM will have as B1G champ.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

No its not.

If he beats Hamiti the top 4 seeds will likely be Carr, KOT, Ramirez and MM.   If Carr wins Big 12s he will have a win over a top 4 seed and the same Hamiti win MM will have as B1G champ.  

Seeds and rankings aren't the same but I get your point.  

I Don't Agree With What I Posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Seeds and rankings aren't the same but I get your point.  

Agree, since we were discussing the potential NCAA seeds, I didn't make that distinction in my mind. 

EDIT: My response was in regard to a seed situation. I realize there is also a ranking discussion occurring that may have caused confusion

Edited by Dogbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...