What do you mean? It's a stretch for me to say that he might improve after a regular season loss considering he went undefeated the last two seasons coming into NCAAs? That's exactly what Damion Hahn said about the situation. I don't necessarily favor Lewnes, nor did I imply that, but if he wins the title he will "deserve" it the same as the two years he was the #1 seed.
I was talking about the Jaggers part.
To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.
Wade A. Hughes was a four-year wrestling letterwinner at GW from 1981 through '85 for coach Jim Rota, himself a member of the Athletic Hall of Fame. Not only does Hughes have the most victories (182) vs. only 17 losses in George Washington's 20-year wrestling history, but he also has more career victories than any collegiate wrestler in NCAA history! (His mark as a senior in 1985 alone was a spectacular 57-4.)
BRUTUS BUCKEYE WILL TAKE YOU DOWN...
Do you mean it's not sufficiently related to what iamthesituation said about Lewnes? Hopefully we can both agree that the best wrestler at NCAAs deserves to win the title whether they went undefeated or dropped 8 matches during the regular season. Perhaps a better analogy would be does Jaggers "deserve" to win the title less than the NCAA champs those years who went undefeated? The obvious answer to me is no. I feel silly even explaining this since what iamthesituation said makes no sense to me. What does deserve mean anyway?
Allow me to explain. The wrestler who comes into NCAAs and wins five (or six) matches and the title is the most deserving wrestler. Period.
The original post talks about "the level he has wrestled at". I think it's fair to say that, looking ONLY at regular season performance, losses and takedowns given up, "the level he has wrestled at" is lower this year than either of the past two.
Saying "He was #1 seed, undefeated in the regular season, his final three years and never won a title" and "He was the #1 seed and undefeated in the regular season for two years, and then #3 seed with two losses, and never won a title" are different.
OK so now that he fell short and he AA again finished 151-12 somone said there has been a lot of wrestlers with that record that has not one at least 1 National Title. I find that hard to believe that there is that many 150 plus wins and no titles. Remember now at his level. I want to see names and records please.......
Ed Giese of Minnesota was 159-34-3 from 1982-6.
His only AA year was his senior year(54-4-1) when he took 3rd at NCAAs
The Art of living is more like wrestling than dancing.
This thread is proof of Heisenberg's uncertainty principal . A is written-and 10 different people read A in a different context -IMO, Lewnes had a great career , is a great wrestler who happened to NOT win a title .