Jump to content

Jaroslav Hasek

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jaroslav Hasek

  1. i think thats the biggest difference - how exposure points are awarded. changes how you scramble and defend from just about everywhere. i did like 2 minutes of freestyle in my life tho, so i can't really say from experience. would like to see the pushout in folkstyle tho. i'd be for that whether it was ever implemented by FILA internationally or not.
  2. another fun hypothetical is would Burroughs have beaten Tsargush for the World Championship in 09 and 10? not with the injury in 2010. but since we're making it all up, suppose no injury and only a freestyle career? fun match up to ponder anyway!
  3. very nice - appreciate the timeline on Satiev. Incredible career he had. same length as baumgartner but more championships and at a much tougher weight. its also worth remembering that he had this amazing career while his home nation (however you want to call it) of Chechnya was in the midst of a devastating war. Burroughs post high school would be: 07 - National Qualifier (13 losses) (18) 08 - NCAA 3rd (6 losses/Metcalf in semis) (19) 09 - NCAA champ (20) 10 - DNC (1 inj default loss) (21) 11 - NCAA Champ/World Champ (22/23) 12 - World Champ (24) 13 - World Champ (25) i may lean toward Satiev right now but itd be close. also, Burroughs last loss (non inj default) was to Metcalf? do i have that right?
  4. i really hope they put a little more thought into the new weights than going up by 10s. that is by far the stupidest way to set up the weight classes.
  5. thanks. non traditional powers expanding into freestyle would explain the increased numbers, but i dont know if if its because greco is more competitive. what gets you a better return on your wrestling program's investment, FS or GR? doesnt GR have more parity? isnt it tougher to break through the Russia + Ex Soviets + Iran stranglehold at the moment?
  6. even if it's just reinforcing what is generally assumed, seeing the numbers and graph are important for getting a better handle on the big picture. so i wouldnt call this data useless at all. and while i also agree, total participation numbers would tell us more, these numbers still tell us what the most popular weights are. i also also add that these numbers tell us that the new proposed FILA weight classes are stupid. besides round numbers looking nice, ive yet to see any kind of logic behind them.
  7. just for fun, here's a chart of the participants in FS and GR over time at the last world championships from Quanon's numbers. I added 7 for FS in 2002 because the US held their team out for security reasons. If that was already accounted for, let me know and i'll take them back out. and here's difference between GR and FS participants over time (again, with 7 extra for FS in 2002). interesting to see the spikes in the pre Olympic years. also both GR and FS are trending up, which is a good thing. FS is just trending up at a faster rate. Theories for why that is? popularity of FS increasing relative to GR? More Russians (or Caucasus region wrestlers) wrestling for countries that otherwise wouldn't have a FS entry?
  8. by lower weight do you mean 55kgs? cause unfortunately if nothing changes from the proposed weights then its either 55 or 65 for steiber. or 75, but that spot looks firmly occupied at the moment.
  9. agreed on everything but the shoes. check them out, theyre both wearing the same style ASICS, which were basically just high top slippers with a thin, flat piece of rubber stitched to the sole. after about a week of practice holes would develop around the toe and heel. i believe this was a deliberate and pernicious attempt by the shoe manufactures to bilk kids and their parents out of money by forcing hem to buy multiple pairs. only in the 90's did the situation rectify itself. pretty much ruined the entire decade of the 80s for me.
  10. This sums it up for me. I find DF, Del Fino, et al, quite entertaining most of the time, insightful pretty frequently and I like that he holds a mirror to the wrestling community, which is very afraid to look into it and see a lot of the realities in that reflection. His last thread about bballers and wrestlers was a great way of showing the Napolean complex that many associated with this sport have. Bravo, DF! agreed, except for when you mistake the facetious replies for genuine.
  11. there are many kinds of trolls; most generally it is a label for anyone doing something on the internet you don't like. the worst kinds of trolls (IMHO) are boring, unreasonable, and just gum up an otherwise interesting thread with offensive and inflammatory comments. ie tripster the best kinds of trolls are those whose actual goal is to prank the humorless and cranky, by knowingly posting something they know to be inflammatory just to get a rise out of people. theres a fine line between pretending to offend and actually being offensive but often thats part of the fun. DF isn't always in the latter category but his state champions only thread one was of the best things ive ever read.
  12. DF is a quality troll. he's hit or miss but some of his posts are excellent. considering he is a well known poster, i'm amazed he can still be an effective troll. a successful troll is one that gets people worked up over obvious nonsense. that people still take his posts seriously and play into his trolling is what is shocking, and what makes me want to read his threads. remember the Simpsons tree house of horrors episodes where all the commercial jingles and mascots come to life and terrorize Springfield? the only way to make them go away is to ignore them. that said, please don't ignore DF on my account.
  13. And rolling around on the ground with another man is "brain surgery"? please, i'll respect brain surgeons when they start wearing spandex unitards to work.
  14. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. At least DF brings the occasional lulz. Trip's negativity was almost unbearable. agreed. tripster is a total zilch.
  15. @manyak - its not just the battle for NFL offensive lineman that US wrestling looses. its for the DIII runningbacks and MLB shortstops and DI Laxers, etc etc. but i agree, its not just that USA Wrestling doesn't have their pick of the best athletes in the country (or state/high school). not committing to freestyle full time until after college has got to be a huge factor as well. its always going to be multiple factors. probably more than can even be identified at the moment.
  16. yeah i agree its all those things. maybe saying it all comes down to math and a numbers game is overly glib but to me, all those factors you mentioned takes away potential wrestlers from our talent pool. its not 'just' about the raw youth participation totals. how many sports offer Dagestani kids a shot at "hoop dreams"? Soccer and wrestling? anything else? in the US there are a dozen sports or more that pay better than wrestling. pro surfers in the US get better sponsors than wrestlers. other sports in the US are also probably wondering how many potential stars are out there playing cornerback or slot receiver and ending their athletic careers after high school.
  17. oh sorry, sometimes basketballers are also like, a doy, bounce bounce bounce THROW! a duh i play sport! my bad for leaving out a critical element of bouncethrowball. seriously tho, this is a DF thread. im just kidding. relax.
  18. i wouldnt call it an excuse. its just math. most kids in the US dont grow up wrestling. its not that that all the great US lower weights are in the NFL right now, its that they started wrestling in the first place. they played cornerback in high school and then called it a career. there are two issues: getting the talent into the pipeline, and then developing the talent once its there. you can be even with other countries development but if they have a deeper talent pool it will show up in better results.
  19. works for me. definitely better than FILA's proposed weights IMO. i was also thinking that if you could add weights in off years, maybe going 60, 66, 72, 78, 85, 120 - adding in 55 and 95 in off years.
  20. i like some basketball players, but basketball the sport is all like, a duh, bounce bounce bounce look at me bounce the ball! who likes that nonsense? no one with a brain i wouldn't think.
  21. good point. nothing says undisputed G.O.A.T. more than retiring early.
  22. so awesome seeing wrestlers dominant at the world level with a signature move. even after they're scouted out, they still hit it with authority. good stuff.
  23. they could, it just means the upper and lower weights would have such large gaps that you start to lose people from having realistic hopes of competing. FILA's philosophy, it seems, is to try in include as many potential competitors as possible, with the result of exceedingly difficult middle weight being an acceptable byproduct. keeping the middle weights difficult throughout the years. going back even to the 1920's FILA has always maintained exactly 3 weight classes between 65 & 85 kilos. not saying i agree, just that that is what theyve done. edit: just noticed that from 1962-1969 there were only 2 weight classes in that range (70 & 78kg). man, that would make for some some punishing brackets.
  24. i'm with you. the two priorities i see with forming the weight classes are inclusion (setting the bottom and lower bounds and eliminating tweener situations) and parity of competition (ie having as close to equal number of competitors per weight class). its easier to satisfy both when you have more weight classes. when you have less you have to sacrifice one for the other. i hybrid of the equal step up/bell curve clustering models might be lbs/kgs/kg delta/%delta 128/58 143/65/7/11% 159/72/7/10% 174/79/7/9% 194/88/9/10% 264/120/32/27% but even then i think it becomes obvious that 6 is just two few weight classes. the spreads are still huge and you cant cover enough of the curve's sweet spot. i know FILA had to make sacrifices to stay in the Olympics and keep mens FS and GR but 6 weight classes is a pretty steep price to pay.
  25. i like that better than the FILA proposed one. basically we all agree that the 55,65,75,85,95,125 set is goofy, right? not only does it devastate a huge swath of competitors who will either be cutting a dangerous amount of weight to get to 55 or be at a distinct disadvantage at 65, it also makes the spread at 85-95 smaller than it was when the weights were 84-96. and no reasoning except that it looks nice to go up 10 kilos each weight.
  • Create New...