Who is the most technical?

[Johnny Edwards]

Here is another good question. Who is the most technical US armwrestler that we have. I don't mean who has the most knowledge. I mean who is the most technical at the table and can apply the knowledge he/she does have to be effective against the other person.

*this exlcudes John Brzenk*-because we all know he wins hands down but who is the winner if he isn't present?? I guess who is 2nd best when John finally does retire??

[Johnny Edwards]

Some people off the top of my head that are very very technical in no set order are Chad Silvers, Cobra, Travis B. Most people seem to have one main move but have technical aspects to it. Who is the best at applying technique all around?? I think Chad does a great job with a killer press, phenomenal toproll, and can hook to boot. This is also current people who are active not past people. The current times.

I really cannot think of too many who can apply each technique unique to a situation against the highest level in the country.

[Johnny Edwards]

Engin started up a cool idea on facebook about how we could rate armwrestlers on a scale of 1-10. If I had to rate Chad in the scheme of NA armwrestling i would rate him like this.

armwrestling quality : 10
explosiveness : 9
well roundness : 9
p4p strength: 10
experience: 9
table intelligence: 10
endurance: 7
best single move : 7

71/80 rating.

[Johnny Edwards]

Of course I think rating someone base on the rest of the world would change ratings which is how Engin is rating the people. I was just curious about our guys. US armwrestling.

[kyledarby]

Corey Miller and Tom Nelson both have the ability to commit to multiple moves. They are both very strong and can change the direction of a match mid pull. Both pullers are smart and versitile. I have seen both pullers pull and win multiple classes. They both also have a track record of beating heavier guys. Al Bown and Bob Brown are both very crafty on and off the table. Jordan Sill has multiple dimensions as well.

[John Wilson]

It's a great question, but very hard to answer for a couple of reasons that come to mind.

To most people, they see "technical" as someone who will out-think you in the middle of a match or someone who will shift gears and take you out of the game. That is one form of technical, because it's the most obvious. I have always looked up to people with this kind of ability on the table. Getting overpowered or beaten on the GO is something we all get used to. But when somebody pulls a rabbit out of their hat in the middle of the match and leaves you standing there saying, "Damn. I didn't see that coming" it's a real learning experience.

BUT, there are some extremely technical people who don't get credit for it. They simply control the match from the first touch of the setup. It's easy to think you've been overpowered (especially when you were) but in reality this person never allowed you into the match. That is REAL technicality.

Armwrestling power is its own version of technicality. It's the application of the right pressures and angles in any situation. Total Control is the highest form of technicality, in my opinion.

[Las Botha]

^ John makes an excellent point here.

But still, if you want to see the full extent of a player's technical ability, I believe you will have to see him or her on the ropes and applying their knowledge in desperation at a high level.

What Johnny said there reminds me of when Devon said that a lot of "unknown" pullers are going to beat Crazy George not because they have overwhelming strength, but because they know how to armwrestle and go around the wall.
You need strength to execute technique of course, which will unfortunately mask a lot of what we can judge of certain pullers.

So we may never know, but as they say in geology that the best geologists are those who have seen the most rocks, in armwrestling you're going to have to look at a candidate that has amrwrestled a lot and at a higher level against all styles.

With regards to people that dominate from the go: that is also hard to say; I believe real technicality is the ability to learn fast and discover your opponent's weaknesses and being able to apply the solution accurately and quickly. No puller is always going to be in control.

[Las Botha]

Part of technicality on the table, I believe, is not just knowledge, but how well you rule your own competitive response when the fog sets in.
It may not be that hard to discover that paper beats rock, but mastering your own reflexes, anticipation and accurately measured responses so that it becomes second nature is a lifetime of hard work.

Applying armwrestling technique is both active and reactive or passive.
You may be active and dictate the match (you can be mostly reactive and dominate too), but if at any point you're going to be chasing an opponent, then by definition there is always an element of unpredictablity and you're not always going to know where your opponent is going and how much pressure to apply in what areas of their hand or on the pad at each instant.

Technique is also premeditated; it's also a case of how well you study your opponent beforehand and prepare yourself.
An example:
Pushkar vs Larratt. match 1.
After studying Pushkar prior to their match, trying to learn how Pushkar loses, Larratt decided on a long back-swinging toproll move to attempt to get Pushkar's hand- a move that he saw Gvikvinia employ to a slight degree of success against Pushkar.

What ended up happening is that Pushkar hit as expected, but Devon claimed that he bent his wrist back a slight bit too much, and perhaps swung back too far before starting to rise hard also. Result- quick loss.
Match 2: different strategy, 5-0 followed.

I saw that nice gimmick on Engin's page too, Johnny.
A puler that can prey on his or her opponent's weaknesses and bleed them out is indicative of real technique.
Larratt has this in spades and wasn't "rated" too favourably by Engin.
Yet, this is what makes Larratt the best, in my opinion, and has created somewhat of an illusion, or contributed to the perception of his legendary endurance because he often gets his opponents into a mechanically worse-off position and then tires them out.

==============================================

Sorry for the long posts Johnny, but bottom line is that I don't think we'll ever know (although it's fun to guess), and there certainly won't be any concensus, but it will have to be a man or woman competing regularly at a high level.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I too habour illusions of grandeur ;D

[Josh Handeland]

Corey Miller, Bill Logsdon, Storm Chellino, Sam Harris, just to name a few that weren't named yet.

[Jacob Hale]

John Wilson

[Las Botha]

Well played, Engin Terzi.



I believe this is Engin's response after he read John Wilson's reply above and then posted it on his Facebook PAL discussion page:

Perhaps he is comparing what was said about Larratt's ability to find weaknesses, to John Brzenk, The Perfect Storm's "true technique", that "automatically finds or creates those weaknesses" that he exploited in his opponents, according to Engin.
An enigma to many you say? ;D

Yes, we understand that a puller shouldn't prepare and depend on these weaknesses, as Engin says, but true technique will of course entail the fullest possible exploitation of any found, as well as trying to force some where there are yet none.

Eitherway, I believe John Milne has a point in that it should be called "sustained strength", rather than abusing the term "endurance"; part of Devon's mastery of technique which is was I was getting at in the first instance.

[Las Botha]

Of course I respect Engin's opinion, but do I think his new player-trading-card-style rating system would perhaps be of more use if there was a more absolute method of measuring the categories.
www.xsportnews.com/armwrestling/ratings-for-armwrestlers-„ by-engin-terzi/

[Ruben Terrazas]

Craig Tullier has got to be up there for sure. jmo

[Alan Berget]

Vazgen and brad spine

[Frank "The PREZ" Hirst]

Seleris