Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. redwhiteblue

    Current College Wrestlers

    Gwiz- is there room for a mobile, shooting heavyweight?
  2. redwhiteblue

    Moneyballin' wrestling.

    What is described in the coaching section is what I am talking about, but where is the research/outcomes? Is it something they are keeping proprietary, or is it open?
  3. redwhiteblue


    If you havent picked it up, Gable wrote a book called "Coaching Wrestling Successfully." He goes over yearly planning in a chapter, and generally tries to do strength gain in the summer, and then back off and maintain during season. The book is worth a look if you have never seen it. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... ccessfully
  4. redwhiteblue


    He wasn't better, he's just the same. I remember posting after the King match he lost in the finals- great hands but no angles. Snap Perry to his knees, and still stay fore head to fore head? A+ for hands/head, B and C for all the other skills.
  5. redwhiteblue

    Brands and Flynn

    I haven't rewatched but at the time I assumed it was frustration/anger over a kid who essentially went par terre defense for an entire second period and never drew a stall, and then torqued a knee to secure a win in neutral. I can't remember a single attempt to seal and engage for hand control or to get hips under neath him in that second period. Then in the waning seconds a scramble is determined when Schopp's knee gets torqued around for a takedown. I am not a big fan of the gumbyknee potentially dangerous position defense to single leg attacks, but 99% of the time that will be stopped, and under the rules I don't know how else you could possibly call it. Unless you are on the opposite side only watching the out of bounds line, then you do not have to make that call. I think Flynn felt a little ripped off by that sequence.
  6. redwhiteblue

    One more time: new weight class proposal

    Then let it. If we make an experience that is so miserable that athletes turn away, the sport deserves to die off in schools and become a club or private pursuit. Weight classes are not there as a tool to manipulate participation, or a tool to create a more entertaining "product," or a tool to protect small school egos. Safety is the overwhelmingly most important reason for weight classes. Of course, there are secondary reasons such as "fairness" but these must take a back seat. All attempts to change the weight class formula must measure its goals against safety. With out safety, everything else falls apart. Weight classes are about safety in two key ways: 1) Safety of wrestlers when competing during matches against physically outsized/dangerous opponents is one obvious concern. 2) Nearly as important is the changes that would occur if you start increasing the weight gaps between classes. It increases the penalty for being in the "wrong class" and would definitely lead to more drastic weight cutting as wrestlers scramble to find the right class, or sit on the bench hoping to grow into the next class. Decreasing the number of weight classes does nothing for the competitors at small schools, it only makes the duals closer in score. Lets say we drop to 13 or 11 classes, what is the end result? Each class has a greater gap, but also this is magnified because more kids will cut more weight to find the "right class" instead of having to go up a class. For example: Currently a 7% 157# has two reasonable options: go 160# and face kids maybe walking at 170#, or cut 5# of water to wrestle 152. Assuming we drop to a hypothetical 11 classes: 105, 110, 115, 125, 135, 148, 163, 178, 198, 225, 285. A 7% 157# has two options: go 163# and wrestle kids cutting from walking at 180#, (cutting down to avoid 198# kids weighing 210) or cut 11# of water to wrestle 148. Why is closer scores / less forfeits something you want to achieve through manipulation of weight classes? Those are the wrong priorities in my opinion- a false economy that achieves full lineups but subjecting wrestlers to less safety. Full lineups are not a goal in itself, it should be a symptom of greater participation. What will likely lead to greater total participation, more or less classes? I think it is more classes, and I also think that it comes with a benefit of safer participation. I am at a small NY school also, and if anything I would like to see more classes added at the light and middles. Like others, I have witnessed my share of seasons with 25 active roster kids, 12 of them in 135-150 and lots of forfeits in the uppers. Without selection classification, ours and most teams in the league would be looking more like 20 on the roster and forfeits at both the uppers and the lowers. It has been my experience that the only schools consistently filling low classes are ones with aggressive S.C. policies, and the only ones filling large classes- are ones whose football team makes it more or less mandatory to wrestle, and that's getting fewer and farther between. I think we too often worry about what can be done to help "wrestling" and not what can be done to help "wrestlers." If we help "wrestlers" then "wrestling" will be just fine. Who cares if duals get lopsided or team scores suffer- you make a safe, fair and competitive atmosphere for wrestlers to learn, grow and compete and the participation numbers will take care of themselves. It needs to be about the competitors' experiences, not the spectators, coaches, parents, alum, and a.d.s. I am all about getting participation up, and I know how competitive exciting duals help with recruiting, especially in small schools- but think of the impact on the competitors with less weight classes. Yes you have a few better box scores in the short run, but where will our long term participation go with an even more challenging weight cut regime to follow? As ugly as it might look on paper- I am for more weight classes, especially at the middles, not fewer, and certainly never fewer in the middle again. If its true that America is getting bigger in a healthy way, great! Lets add a few weight classes at the top to both increase safety, and provide opportunity, and maybe drive greater participation. However, who ever came to the conclusion that if we add classes at the top, we must always take some away at the bottom or middle? That is ridiculous. Lets keep the additions at the top and restore the last cuts!!!
  7. redwhiteblue

    can iowa win it all

  8. redwhiteblue

    NCAA Pickem' Contest

    I would like to get in.
  9. redwhiteblue


    The only problem I have is that it would require you to adjust what I think is one of the better rules in the sport-both wrestlers are responsible for improving their positions. If you identify certain positions, and then count to an automatic call on one, what is the other's responsibility? Does bottom get a free free pass for leg lacing or stalling out a mat return without any real attempt to improve? We complain about a pushout rule discouraging finishes, but what about an auto count in mat return? Wouldn't that lead to guys getting to their feet and then guarding the return instead of working to finish the escape? If I could draw stall calls by getting to my feet and "handfighting" for 5 seconds- I might start doing it on purpose. I might even hold his hands around me and circle just to make sure I got the count. Or the other intended consequence- If I am on top and can Iowa ride to a four count, knowing that I cant get dinged unless the count is complete, then switch to another stall ride for a four count, switch back to a stall ride for another four count- I could do some riding. I making no attempt to improve any of it, but now the ref is hand cuffed by this counting rule? I think the subjectivity is one of the the only things that make it effective. If you make it more objective, you make it a rule that's easier to exploit. If you are in a mat return, or Iowa ride and you don't know what the hell the ref is going to call and when its coming, I think it keeps both a little more honest. The problem with making stalling less of a judgement call, is that it is a judgement call. You cant work around that without changing the rules. There is no objective way to measure a wrestler's effort to improve- it has to be a judgement call, or it has to be a different rule. Frankly, I have not seen a different rule yet that I think would be workable without opening up a new can of worms. That all being said, I do not think the old refs were using the count exactly how you or I described. I think they were using it the way freestyle refs used to say "action red" "action blue" it was encouragement, not an attempt to measure a precise objective definition of stalling.
  10. redwhiteblue

    Moneyballin' wrestling.

    Assuming you wanted to do something like sabrmetrics for wrestling, and assuming you could get the scorebooks to reflect the detail needed to do it, what statistics would you look at or invent to judge talent objectively? There is a lot of "old school " knowledge out there that just hasn't been tested... where would you start? First TD wins? Stand up is the best escape? etc...
  11. redwhiteblue

    anyone know why we don't use ceding instead

    I do not know what issues have been digitized, but the Internet Archive (archive.org) or Gutenberg.org probably has a few. The Chambers that wrote the journal- brothers WIlliam and Robert were pretty insightful guys. I actually read chunks of William's American Race and Colour before, he made a very convincing case that if slavery persisted, colour was not going to be the basis. Instead, Southerners were articulating slavery of people as an abstract good, not merely slavery of Africans. Slavery was not being defended by southerners as much as free labor was being attacked by southerners, and if southerners had their way whites and blacks and everything in between would be enslaved to their betters, just as God had intended.... uhoh, back to the full nelson.
  12. redwhiteblue

    Data: top pins, top take downs? any data?

    I have looked for this data also. In fact, I got on to Amazon to find a book this summer that I read in the 80s by Ray Carson Jr. I think it was the last time that I saw someone attempt to look at this in a statistically sophisticated way. He wrote a book called "Systematic Championship Wrestling" published in 1973. While some of the techniques discussed in the book are irrelevant now, his approach to the question would be a useful starting point for anyone attempting to do this today. Here are some questions to consider: Do you include all matches, potentially skewing things by including presumably a high amount of success against weaker opponents? For example, what if there are only 10 pins in the last three rounds, 7 are near cradles. However, bars and halfs are pinning people like crazy in a dual between East Mungello and the Tripsy-Dipsy Seminary? Are they all weighted the same? The number of pins in a bar happy dual meet could be more than all the cradles in the last two rounds of the tournament- but it would statistically wash. Does points scored on an AA somehow count more in the analysis? To be useful, it probably should. To that end, it makes sense to look at relatively small samples, like the tournament. If you want to know what works on the best, you will have to only study that. of course, few of us are coaching at that level, so should we be studying our levels instead? Should it include a risk/reward analysis as well? For example should stand ups rank higher than Granbys because their failed attempt statistically results in fewer points against than a failed Granby? What would the analysis look like on the head inside single if it included a differential for go behinds given up on defended attempts? Watch a youth tournament and how often does an initiator of a head and arm actually get pinned in a head and arm them self? That would certainly drive the "success rate" of the move way up if initiation and risk are not figured in it. Carson indicated on page 171 of his book- that in 16 years of NCAA Championship matches 592 stand ups were attempted, resulting in 179 points being gained by the initiator and 1 point being lost, making it the most effective escape. Sitouts for comparison were attempted 174 times, scored 66 points and gave up 7 points in counters. Lastly, the mechanism for collecting would require some work, but could be done. Scorekeepers would have to be trained to act like medical billers with their own ICD-9 codes. Instead of "2td" it would need to be something like "2td, 809765832- High Crotch of non-specific origin, 098546232 Crackdown finish utilizing shelving technique,233678560 riding time maintained for 30 seconds or more through spiral variation" Carson claimed over 10,000 distinct techniques existed in 1973, what would the number be now? That all being said- with computers I thought this would have taken off by now. It was on Carson's, and I dare say many other minds for forty years now. Alas, it is only a matter of time before big data has an effect on our sport. Of course like other big data- do we really have an algorithm that can utilize what we find out? Is the data big enough to improve upon observation and knowledge of existing coaches? What to teach, and when to initiate what level of risk, and how to string series together to match talents and body types to techniques, and the wildcard of innovation is still well beyond our statistical tools. At least for now.
  13. redwhiteblue

    New or interesting technique at NCAAs?

    Big Apple- Also as far as getting forward- remember Ness? I couldn't believe he got called for stalling against Escobedo. If you are that far forward and bottom is still afraid to move, you know you are in good shape. I think the problem is the space between being on the hip and spiraled forward- on the hip you can roll through ala Jantzen, far out you can work the spiral- in between is where you run into trouble. I think wrestlers are just afraid of being caught in no mans land with it.
  14. redwhiteblue

    New or interesting technique at NCAAs?

    Big Apple: As long as you brought it up- You made an excellent post years ago going in great depth about the origins and fine points of spiral/rotary rides (I still have a hard copy in my files, and use it when coaching.) I was wondering if you had any more detailed thoughts about the evolution of the spiral. (For those interested, a similar- terrifically detailed approach to the rotary/spiral was written by BA and is archived at: http://www.wrestlingassistant.com/BasicsTop.doc Observations I seem to see: 1) Mills seems to have been a key figure in the development of one school of modern riding. His spiral/half seems to be the basis of many good riders today, and as you say as long as you are under the arms, it seems impossible to give up control. Watch Jantzen and Dake and even Taylor and you see some Mills. Some still shots of Dake/Taylor IV have really highlighted a couple returns and rolls that would have scored or pinned on lesser opponents, and when Taylor almost got Dake over his arms, Dakes' wrist lock brought it back to the mat. The ride has evolved into something different- make the person break position by defending the half, then roll to a tilt or roll through pinning situation. You just don't see bars and halfs score on the best anymore in their traditional form, but the threat is setting up the tilts and cradles that do score. 2) Schalles seems to be the other school- blanket riding and controlling wrists/crossfaces from over the arms- like Ruth. Do you agree? What is the main change in riding- was it innovation by Mills/Schalles or rule changes allowing tilts to score? Is there anything in today's rides that would surprise Port Robertson is it still just spirals with tilt options thrown in?
  15. I always like seeing little slick or different moves/variations that I am not familiar with at NCAAs. A couple of years ago I thought Kjars' hand on his hand defense of Robles' tilt was intriguing. This year I noticed two things from Dake against Taylor- nothing amazing, but just little technical things I have not noticed before. 1) At about :30 before end of second, in a mat return position Taylor had isolated Dakes hand and was getting ready to cut, but Dake did not fight hands, he merely grabbed his own wrist like a cross face cradle lock. 99.9% of the time the top guy loses the mat return when the hand is that isolated. Dake didn't and it was obviously a huge non-escape point. 2) The other one was with :30 to go in the match, Taylor attempts to limp arm Dakes whizzer on the edge, Dake limped with it and caught the wrist. Sort of reminded me of rolling with a granby instead of fighting it. I know that wasn't exactly Rob Rohn stuff- but I am still amazed that I see something different on moves that I have seen my whole life. I am interested- what techniques caught your eye in the tournament?