Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 10 to 16 of 16

Thread: Batirov vs John Smith

  1. #10

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith

    batirov may have a flat fotted style, but one thing about rus wrestlers is they adapt to there opponents, so its impossible really to say

  2. #11

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith




  3. #12

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith

    If Batirov's opponents are scared, it's because he makes then scared. The man's absolutely brutal to wrestle against. Watch some video, he just abuses his opponents. He's like the ultimate grinder, and when ever anyone gets any momentum he just snaps their head down and holds it for a while. Those who come after him agressively get tossed around (see Olympic final vs. Abas). He's in that kind of zone right now that Gatsalov was in for a few years, where he wins all the close matches.

    BTW I'm not saying Smith wouldn't win, he probably the best all-time at this weight. Just wanted to get some credit to Batriov, who makes his opponents wrestle his way because they have no choice.

  4. #13

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by Gripsnhips View Post
    Just to argue both sides, i'm a believer in the evolution of modern wrestling. I believe the wrestlers today are better wrestlers due to the progression of the sport itself (all the new techniques, training methods and generationalized coaching). Batirov could have something for Smith.

    On that same note, I heard Smith used to school Guerrero in the room when he was winning NCAA titles. Like Smith would spot 9 and they would wrestle to 11 points. So who knows.
    Just curious Grips, what new techniques are you referring to?

    For the record I'm torn on this evolution of wrestling thing. I'm not convinced the wrestlers today are clearly better than they were 20 years ago.

    For example I believe someone like Mike Sheets or Dave Schultz would have pummeled Ben Askren while in College.

    Also the rules make it even more difficult.

    For example a lot of people say that defense is better today than it was in the past. While I don't entirely disagree with this, one needs to look at the rules in place at the time period we are discussing and how these rules translate to a wrestler's style due to the amount of time they put into perfecting certain positions.

    30 years ago you were cautioned for taking even one step back or blocking with your head. People often joke about the stances of wrestlers from the 70s or early 80s but back then you had to present yourself on your feet or you were cautioned, so for this reason the stances were raised higher. In this time period someone like John Smith might have been cautioned out of a match for his style.

    Now there is no passivity and wrestlers can block. Also because each period is a separate match and each period is only 2 minutes if you make a mistake there is less time to make it up. Wrestlers appear more adverse to taking risk and going for a big throw right off the bat. So where do you think a wrestler is going to spend most of their time? The answer is working on defense and countering. The reality is that what they are calling good defense these days was stalling 20 years ago. Someone like Alan Dudaev, who is a master of the newer rules, might have been thrown out of a match 20 years ago.

    BTW there is no way Smith would have lost to a wrestler like Zadick.

  5. #14

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith

    I tend to agree with q_s on the defence thing. I wrestled in South Africa a couple of years back where they still penalties for defensive wrestling. At the national trials I was 1 clinch and many, many pins. I know that the wrestlers there were of lower caliber but still, the difference was noticable.

    This year's olympics proved that people can still get thrown around and caught in big moves. Watch Cejudo's, Shahin's and Terziev's matches. Those who wrestle offensively (against offensively minded openents) can still rack up the points.

  6. #15

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith

    well thats the sick and twisted part of wrestling, the defensive wrestler can win! an people are usually too scared to attack in fear of being down points with little time left (60kg iranian, Murad Gaidarov), but in all honesty i would pick smith over batirov, an i do believe that the wrestlers back in smiths or even in the 96 era were the best an its only gone down hill since par terre was taken out

  7. #16

    Default Re: Batirov vs John Smith

    i feel that the new 'no passivity' rules allow the wrestlers to wrestle more naturally as opposed to a referee screaming at you to display action/initiative when u are collecting yourself/taking measure - backpedalling is now punished via the pushout rule and the short rounds now place the frightened one at a disadvantage (no initiation to attack/win round but the clinch which isn't reliable)- 4 me that addresses passivity enough. The 'blocking' is a technique in itself and only natural for defence in wrestling - but weak in that it isn't as dangerous as engaging the opponent like beloglazov/others from 80's did. In the future the technician will punish the opponent who would overdo it (be too defensive) anyway. my opinion.batirov vs smith? - with new rules batirov, old rules smith. i feel batirov can 'shutout' smith with new rules. the constant action requirement of old rules may have taken batirov out of which he relies on alot and smith is good at captalising.what do u guys think of cross's match with mavlet's brother? - i think it shows past wrestlers are adaptable to new rules - same tech. just different strategy. smith would have done excellent again perhaps...rain.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts