Jump to content

sbdude

Members
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sbdude


  1. If he participated in less that 35% of the matches, has a verified injury and has not redshirted before, he should be allowed to take a medical redshirt. 

     

    If he *had* redshirted before, he could request a 6th year (which is the only way you can use 2 redshirts) but those are more rare.  

     

    And I think you have to have had a significant injury in 2 of those years to get a 6th year.


  2. I agree 100%, especially as they are learning.  I coach in a youth club and we always tell our kids, "Score the next points".  Too many people are WAY too concerned about winning and losing when they are young.  Don't get me wrong, we are there to win but we put a LOT of focus on technique and mental training.  Nobody remembers or even cares how many state championships you won as a kid.  People do remember and care about what you did in high school.  Train to be technically proficient, mentally tough and a "goer" when young and everything else will take care of itself when you get older, especially if you are a late bloomer physically.  When the physical attributes start leveling out, things change.  And we have some great examples of kids from our club in just the past few years:

     

    KM - 1x youth champ, 4x state champ in high school, D1 wrestler

    KB - 2x youth champ, 3x state champ in high school (4x Finalist), D1 wrestler

    CB - HIghest finish was 4th in youth, 3x state champ in high school, D1 wrestler

    DG - Highest finish was 4th in youth, State Champ in high school, D1 wrestler 

    CR - Never placed at youth state (not sure he ever won a match at youth state), 1x State Champ (2x finalist) in high school, Track in college

     

    Every one of those kids was a goer and so much fun to watch.

     

    Now, to be fair, we have also had a couple of kids that were studs when young and that carried right on through high school and on to college but they have been fewer than the others.


  3. My take on what I would like to see:

     

    Baseball has the obstruction rule where a baserunner makes contact with a fielder.  It is a delayed call, umpire sees it, holds a fist straight out to his side and the play continues.  After the play has concluded, If in the umpires view, the runner would have made it to the next base, he awards the base.  

     

    I would like to see something similar for a step out.   If a wrestler steps out of bounds (OOB), official will indicate which color stepped out with some signal to be determined and action continues with normal OOB rules.  If action continues to a score, by either wrestler, no step out point is awarded, the action created a score.  If action continues to a normal OOB call or stalemate, without returning in bounds, a point will be awarded.  If the wrestler that stepped out returns completely in bounds, the signal is dropped and no points awarded - no harm, no foul.    

     

    Normal wrestling at the edge can continue.  If a wrestler happens to just step out but then returns in bounds, he is wrestling and no points awarded for a slight misstep.  If you step out, stay out and no one scores, a point is awarded.  A wrestler that steps out has an incentive to get back in bounds.  If he does, no points.  If he doesn't he gives up a point.  Might make for some interesting counter wrestling on the edge.  

     

    Should be relatively simple for the official to call.  One new mechanic.  A real flurry of wrestling at the edge will be the hardest thing; who stepped out, did they return in bounds, etc. but I don't think it would be that bad and relatively infrequent and the official could always review video.  

     

    Might add a little excitement to a match also. Fans see the Step Out signal and know that unless he fights back in bounds or creates his own score, he will give up a point, but the action still continues.


  4. You only have 4 seasons of eligibility but you have 5 years in which to complete them (notwithstanding Medical Hardship Waiver/Oly RS).

     

    You have eligibility in each sport separately.  That is why guys like Mocco who completed their wrestling eligibility in 4 years could play football in their 5th year.  He hadn't used his 4 years of football eligibility, but he only had one year left because of the 4 in 5 years rule.

     

    Which is probably why the B1G rule states that you lose a year of eligibility in ALL sports.  That's probably more relevent for something like Track/Cross Country that are treated as different sports to avoid someone trying to transfer and competing in one while saying they were a transfer in the other.


  5. I think as wrestling has evolved, especially folkstyle, the optimal body type of highly successful wrestlers has changed.  When I was younger, most of the better wrestlers were the short, stocky, powerful guys.  Now, with the changes in technique (funk, tilts, etc.) I think it is more advantageous to have length.  It seems like most of the better guys now are longer compared to the past.  But that's just an impression, haven't studied it at any depth.

     

    But, that's just on average.  You can be successful with any body type, just have to play to your strengths.


  6. I may be wrong here, but I thought they had changed an interpretation in order to reward offense. If someone takes a shot that they complete, even if the opponent tries a chest wrap, etc. counter it will not score as long as the action is continuous.  Pretty much no more 2-2 scores, only the one initiating the original action will score.

     

    Again I may be wrong but thought I read that somewhere.  Also I have not seen either of the above mentioned matches so can not speak directly to them.


  7. I have seen in here where Cletus states that CA wrestling is doing great because they have 27,000 high school wrestlers.  Now that may be but since the population of CA is so large, you are going to have more participants.  For example, Wyoming has approximtely 26,000 kids attending high school in the entire state.  If every kid in the state, boys and girls, all wrestled they couldn't equal CA's number.   

     

    If you calculate the ratio of wrestling participants to high school students, CA falls WAY down the list at 1.34% which puts them at #41 just slightly behind Tennessee.  The only states with a lower wrestling participation percentage, in descending order, are:

     

    Maine

    New Hampshire

    Alabama

    Florida

    Kentucky

    Louisiana

    Texas

    Arkansas

    Vermont

    Mississippi

     

    In that context, is CA really doing that good?  Would CA have a better participation rate if more wrestlers were able to experience success? 

     

    Since I didn't want to spend a ton of time, I used the first sources I found.  Participation numbers from NFHS participation survey for 2014-15 and high school populations from National Center for Education Stastics 2012 census.  Also note that the high school populations are for public school only.  States with a large number of private high school students would have a lower percentage.  Here's the full chart sorted by participation percentage.

     

    State Wrestlers HS Population Wrestler % Nebraska 4,564 88,073 5.18% Iowa 6,424 144,784 4.44% Wyoming 1,119 26,243 4.26% Alaska 1,375 38,420 3.58% Kansas 4,892 139,348 3.51% South Dakota 1,299 37,267 3.49% Montana 1,360 42,089 3.23% Minnesota 8,224 262,041 3.14% Delaware 1,166 38,022 3.07% Idaho 2,219 82,631 2.69% Wisconsin 7,074 265,682 2.66% Oregon 4,626 178,239 2.60% North Dakota 772 29,758 2.59% Missouri 6,838 270,370 2.53% Illinois 15,036 624,679 2.41% New Jersey 9,725 416,133 2.34% Indiana 7,385 316,329 2.33% Washington 7,482 327,134 2.29% South Carolina 4,604 208,648 2.21% Oklahoma 3,874 177,339 2.18% Hawaii 1,107 51,170 2.16% Ohio 11,114 518,617 2.14% Colorado 4,978 246,051 2.02% North Carolina 8,554 438,375 1.95% Utah 3,284 169,077 1.94% Michigan 9,387 493,440 1.90% Nevada 2,419 131,977 1.83% West Virginia 1,470 80,673 1.82% New Mexico 1,758 97,242 1.81% Rhode Island 792 44,672 1.77% Pennsylvania 9,860 558,945 1.76% Georgia 8,392 481,043 1.74% Maryland 4,428 256,836 1.72% Virginia 6,440 375,975 1.71% Arizona 5,449 321,650 1.69% New York 13,668 847,144 1.61% Massachusetts 4,399 287,506 1.53% Connecticut 2,534 170,245 1.49% Tennessee 4,072 281,971 1.44% California 26,374 1,967,644 1.34% Maine 731 57,815 1.26% New Hampshire 675 60,805 1.11% Alabama 2,307 217,203 1.06% Florida 8,097 799,602 1.01% Kentucky 1,746 194,102 0.90% Louisiana 1,657 186,111 0.89% Texas 11,139 1,387,513 0.80% Arkansas 870 138,526 0.63% Vermont 161 27,557 0.58% Mississippi 25 137,286 0.02%

  8. Lowering the bottom weight is not a good idea. 125 is already difficult enough for some teams to fill.

     

    Sliding every weight up a little bit wouldn't be terrible, though even bumping 197 up to 205 would be a good idea.

     

    Here's a set of possible weights that bumps everything up a bit and has the same percentage increase from weight class to weight class (prior to 285)

    127, 135, 143, 152, 161, 171, 182, 193, 205, 285

     

    Another option would be utilizing the certification data collected for every team and making adjustments so that the same number of wrestlers (roughly) are in each weight class. The current weights have been in effect since 1970 (save for the 7 pound addition to each weight in 1999) and may not accurately reflect the population anymore.

     

    I don't think you could use the certification data to show the population for adjusting weight classes in college the way you could in high school.  In college, the athletes are recruited to be there, not there just because of voluntarily joining a team.  And coaches will recruit according to there needs and will not recruit evenly throughout the true population.  If I have a stud returning sophomore, I'm probably not recruiting much else in that weight class for a year or two except a backup.  If I have an immediate need somewhere else, I might recruit multiple kids there to get one that works out.  I think that would throw off the "population".

     

    It's possible that it could even out in aggregate but I don't really think that would be a good way to do it.


  9. It is really interesting to see how leg riding has evolved through the generations. I really enjoyed David Taylor and Kyle Dake adapt the Gene Mills half from the knees, into basically half series from the crab ride since it is pretty hard to get the half and wrist from the hip spiral anymore.

    Most coaches simply do not have the time to show legs to whole teams and if they did, only a few would really be comfortable.

    Seems like most leg riders try to force crab situation when they are being leg ridden themselves as it is less stable riding then other leg riding situations.

    Generation ago you could tell what teams focus on leg riding but not so much anymore.

    Wrestlers with  great leg counters are less common now or so it seems.

     

    As regarding your last sentence about great counters, I think that is mostly due to the way it's called at the high school level.  Most places, if a guy puts legs in, all the bottom guy has to do is turtle up and then the ref will let him out by calling a stalemate or stalling on the top guy.  Bottom guy doesn't need to learn counters, just how to stall for a little bit and the ref will let him out.


  10. At 1:31 in the second the announcer noticed the hyperextended foot - this was before any back points were awarded. It you release the hyperextension, you may not get the turn. Unsurprised that you fail to acknowledge that possibility. But my point was not that Ruth was a sure thing, the point was that he was a 3x champ and competitive as a freshman. Which knee was injured is irrelevant to the hyperextension of the foot. I can understand why you would count Ruth out at this point, but I would not.

     

    Actually having the hand on the foot in that position after you already have the figure 4 locked up on the bent leg doesn't help much with the turn.  You keep the foot to make sure it stays on his butt and doesn't slip outside.  If the foot gets outside the hip then it will get PD'd and you lose the position so you keep the foot to make sure it stays inside.  It doesn't really help the turn, all the pressure comes from your hips and then have to scrape his head to get the turn.  Really can't put a lot of pressure on the foot from that position (reaching back to it).

     

    Given that, Ruth was always one of my favorite wrestlers to watch and was definitely a stud and I almost always rooted for him.  But, Amuchestegui was also a favorite of mine and it seems he doesn't get much credit for how tough he was on top, especially his ability to get to that turk and turn people with it.  I would never count Ruth out but the results of that match are what they are.

     

    Definitely took this thread off topic.............


  11. Key word was might - Ruth was dangerous enough to dig out of a hole. And with a different ref the hyperextended knee and back points may not have happened. I stand by what I wrote. And I'm not taking anything away from Amuch .... He was winning outright and most probably it would have been too much to overcome.... But given the shots that Ruth had early (but didn't finish) he had some options on his feet to catch up..

     

     

    And koll was a typo - thanks

     

    And I listed weaver because he won international gold - does the U.S. Have 25 winners of Olympic gold in freestyle total. Point being, is worth consideration regardless of his college credentials?

     

    A different ref and maybe no knee injury and no back points???  You do realize that the bent leg turk Amuch was using was on the RIGHT leg every time and Ruth's LEFT leg was the one he was limping on and was later taped up.  The only place I see where it appeared Ruth's left knee was in danger was on the single leg counter by Amuch in the first period and the official did stop that with no points.  It's possible Ruth hurt his knee at that point but giving up that bent leg turk 3 times is not conducive to winning a match.

×
×
  • Create New...