|
Post by mactelle on Feb 23, 2012 2:22:26 GMT -5
Fact is if john lost... It wasn't his prime... To the AW public... Not to me I said John was that good.... And he is .... Problem is others have attained that status and are close. Because he dominated an ignorant sport so long now people want to make excuses now that we all are educated .... John never lost to the true fans eye, but to the realist evolution is painful... And AW DID evolve He is the an amazing puller.... VERY few can budge him, but he does not stand alone on the mountaintop any longer. This is not a knock on him... Just the truth that has always existed.... I believe him at his BEST against today's best would be the same result.... He can beat anyone, but the guy that used to cream a hundred pullers era is over.... NOT because he digressed, bur because the bar was raised long ago.... We all are just finally catching up. IMO.... Purely power and mechanically speaking...... M Todd cannot beat John.... No way This will seem a$$holeish... But I think we see him struggle with guys way off the rankings when a guy of his supposed stature should smoke everyone other than a select few. I'd like a crack just to back my sh;t talk Great post, I honestly believe that their is No American that can consistantly beat John even today. Its amazing going through Johns history and watching all the most unbelieveable matches I have ever seen. do pullers train the way John trained years ago?? Its incredible and frustrating at the same time. I want that drive to push myself to the limits in the gym. watching Travis train is the same way...just pure hungar.
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Garcia on Feb 23, 2012 7:58:55 GMT -5
I'm sorry that once again I have to chime in folks, and I almost don't want to type this, seeing you're all pullers and I'm just a fan. But from what I've gathered, speaking with Bob Brown and reading John's interviews as well.... that assumption that Most of you are making, of John in 2006 being at his best, is wrong. Yes, he was probably "bigger" than before. But I was told by Bob that his hand was strongest in the 90's, he then injured a finger and was never the same again. Also that shoulder problem that nobody wants to bring up when the skinny 209 version of John lost to the monster Voevoda in 2004. I know John never mentions that, the man doesn't make excuses, but it was a real injury and it was there. Just like his Back pain at some of his matches in recent years, and his Wrist injury at the time ofpulling Devon and in recent years. My point is: from what Bob has told me (and I tend to trust Bob, seeing they've been training together for a LONG time), with John, his overall health is more important than his weight. People tend to go on talking "oh John at 198 was virtually unbeatable if he bulks to 220 he's superhuman and the 230+ Vegas 2006 version would own everyone, blah blah", but apparently the lack of Joint Pains is more important with John's old arm, there's always pain somewhere holding him back.... wrist, elbow, shoulder, back... that Arm has some SERIOUS mileage on him. Too many years pulling MONSTERS always giving up weight advantage and what not. Anyways I don't think think John himself has stated he was at his best in 2006, maybe in terms of Gym-strength... but AW? I think it was the 90's. Again this is a the opinion of a fan.... please noone get angry Perhaps Bob could chime in as well.
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Feb 23, 2012 9:16:43 GMT -5
Arturo, I don't understand your reluctance to post your opinion. It is as valid as anyone else. You do not need to apologize for it.
|
|
|
Post by Kenny Flynn on Feb 23, 2012 9:42:50 GMT -5
Not trying to get into a pi$$ing match, but I'm having a difficult time seeing an elevation of the bar. Who would be considered a overwhelming favorite over John @220 in North America today? Do we honestly think Denis would beat Lupkes best after watching them compete at arnolds ???Obviously this is ALL speculation, but watching guy's approaching or in their 50's still competing with this generations elite is an obvious indicator of the level of competition of years past. I think too many people are quick to compare someones recent success in the sport and mention them in the same category as John. Time will tell the true story!
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Feb 23, 2012 10:17:52 GMT -5
Neither am I Kenny. I really don't care to argue, we can both state our opinions freely and still be good about it I hope.
John at 220. Ok, this is the first time in this thread it's came up. It was always about unlimited weight as far as I understood. I don't think there would be an overwhelming favorite against John at that weight in NA. In heavies there would be at least 4 (in NA).
You honestly don't see an elevation of the bar? Arsen, Rustam, Zoloev, Devon... etc. I have a hard time believing how anyone could not see this major jump in talent from years past.
Cyplenkov is more of a throwback than a good example of a modern technical armwrestler. I think his skills are lacking in that department and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone argue that point.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this: "I think too many people are quick to compare someones recent success in the sport and mention them in the same category as John."
I rarely see anyone trying to make the comparison to John. As I've stated earlier it's usually the other way around. Someone has success and almost immediately you hear... "He's no John Brzenk"
|
|
|
Post by mactelle on Feb 23, 2012 10:24:44 GMT -5
Neither am I Kenny. I really don't care to argue, we can both state our opinions freely and still be good about it I hope. John at 220. Ok, this is the first time in this thread it's came up. It was always about unlimited weight as far as I understood. I don't think there would be an overwhelming favorite against John at that weight in NA. In heavies there would be at least 4 (in NA). You honestly don't see an elevation of the bar? Arsen, Rustam, Zoloev, Devon... etc. I have a hard time believing how anyone could not see this major jump in talent from years past. Cyplenkov is more of a throwback than a good example of a modern technical armwrestler. I think his skills are lacking in that department and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone argue that point. I'm curious as to what you mean by this: "I think too many people are quick to compare someones recent success in the sport and mention them in the same category as John."I rarely see anyone trying to make the comparison to John. As I've stated earlier it's usually the other way around. Someone has success and almost immediately you hear... "He's no John Brzenk" I think what he meant was, pullers today get a few good wins and they compare themselves to John. the truth is no one in any generation will accomplish what John has done.
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Feb 23, 2012 10:26:47 GMT -5
Once again Mac. I've never heard anyone compare themselves to John. Have you? I'd be interested in hearing any names.
|
|
|
Post by mactelle on Feb 23, 2012 10:36:17 GMT -5
Once again Mac. I've never heard anyone compare themselves to John. Have you? I'd be interested in hearing any names. I have never heard anyone compare themselves to John.. but I just know that there are pullers out there who have beaten John or who have beaten a puller that has beaten John and feel they are #1. and I think that is frustrating to alot of pullers knowing what a shadow John has created.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Brown on Feb 23, 2012 10:44:31 GMT -5
Well Arturo, I will chime in.
Trying to compare any two great from different eras is a nice conversation but ultimately just an opinion. And trying to gauge someones "Prime" in armwrestling is again an opinion. Too many variables. Weight, who they were pulling, injuries and so on. What I do know is that with any injury on anyone, their capabilities will drop dramatically. Even a small injury can have a great effect on any ones armwrestling ability. Also, I have always believed and still do, that the size of a puller is not as important as the health of their arm.
Any puller with many miles on their arm will have their share of injuries and aches and pains. If the question is, "When was John the best?" Well my answer would be when he has NO injury nagging him and 2006 was not it. This would be the same answer if it was asked about anyone. John has been nursing injuries for the last 10 years and to be honest his shoulder has been more like 20 years as he hurt it originally throwing a softball back in the late 80's. But for years his gap on the bulk of the world was larger than today. Today, strength levels have come way up and now there are a lot more guys in the same ballpark as John. And some ahead of John. My point is the prior to about 2000 his injuries rarely bothered him as the competition was not at the level it is today.
Now for my opinion of were John might get. Well IF, "and thats a huge" IF he can stay injury free, I do believe he can be the best in the world today. Of course this would spark the debate of what is the best and how to determine that. Over 6 rounds, I think Devon would beat even a healthy John but I dont think this is the best way to determine the best in our sport. IMO best of 3 is the proper way and I do think a healthy John can win best of 3 over anyone.
Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Green on Feb 23, 2012 10:44:57 GMT -5
The bar has been raised because John at plus 50 years of age can be beat? That’s like dunking on the Michael Jordan that played for the wizards and saying you are better than him.
The torch had to be passed. 10 years ago no one could beat him, today 4-5, in a few years 10-15, etc. It happens.
I wish John would have stopped on top and we would not be having this discussion. All sports evolve as humans evolve. Stronger, bigger, faster. Are the ball players of today better than the ones of yester year. In whole I say yes, but compared to Babe Ruth?
I agree that the pullers of today are evolving but using the decline of an aging John to say that is RIDICULOUS. He beats Michael Todd every time for years. At some point don’t you think the 15-20 year younger Michael could beat him?
It’s like beating up Mike Tyson of today. How is that ANY indication of what would have happened 15 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Kenny Flynn on Feb 23, 2012 11:00:36 GMT -5
As competitors I think we all enjoy a good debate.LOL I honestly don't see an elevation , a paralell at best, one excellant example in addition to John,is "Crazy George", mighty high bar IMO,that will be tough to duplicate, way too early to tell if any of the worlds best have this type of dominance for that many years. I'm not sure how many times it's been posted , or where, but their have been many posts comparing some of todays pullers to John, not attacking anyone, I think it could've been read that way,definately not my intentions. Looking back at John's legacy, what separates him from most athletes was his ability to move into different eras without decline, this single reason ,IMO, separetes him from virtually everyone.
|
|
|
Post by mactelle on Feb 23, 2012 11:02:32 GMT -5
The bar has been raised because John at plus 50 years of age can be beat? That’s like dunking on the Michael Jordan that played for the wizards and saying you are better than him. The torch had to be passed. 10 years ago no one could beat him, today 4-5, in a few years 10-15, etc. It happens. I wish John would have stopped on top and we would not be having this discussion. All sports evolve as humans evolve. Stronger, bigger, faster. Are the ball players of today better than the ones of yester year. In whole I say yes, but compared to Babe Ruth? I agree that the pullers of today are evolving but using the decline of an aging John to say that is RIDICULOUS. He beats Michael Todd every time for years. At some point don’t you think the 15-20 year younger Michael could beat him? It’s like beating up Mike Tyson of today. How is that ANY indication of what would have happened 15 years ago. the torch is far from passed Steven, If anything the torch of John will never be passsed....John can still beat the top pullers of today....whats to compare?
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Feb 23, 2012 11:13:23 GMT -5
Steven who is using the "decline of John" to determine the evolution of the athletes? I certainly was not.
Let's take John out of the equation (for arguments sake). Do you NOT see evolution happening in this sport? Honestly?
This topic is so emotional for some people and I don't understand it. I'm not attacking John or his legacy. I think his career is incredible. I enjoy watching him compete and most often he's the guy I'm cheering for too.
The fact also remains (using your Jordan reference) YES, people were better than Jordan his time with the Wizards. What's wrong with saying that? See it how it is and don't romanticize it. It doesn't take away from Jordan's greatness and his career but Jesus, give others credit as well. Jordan can't remain the best forever, neither can John or Babe Ruth, whomever.
I didn't say the current bests have a better legacy than John. I didn't even try to compare anyone to him. I did say and I will contend that others are better tan him NOW. This is what the thread starter asked isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by tomnelson on Feb 23, 2012 11:14:01 GMT -5
Jon brzenk is the best ever.....but his time is gone.....I WILL SHOW YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Green on Feb 23, 2012 11:14:57 GMT -5
I hope thats true Mac. I hope he comes back and dominates but even if we disagree that the torch has passed...we both agree with time it has to.
|
|