Jump to content

Jaroslav Hasek

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jaroslav Hasek

  1. would it be at all feasible to hold some sort off international open tournament with madison style weight classes? i know it has no shot of happening now, but assuming the logistics are worked out and the purse is large enough, wouldnt that be a great way to get some of those dream match ups? the one wrestler per nation rule blocks way to many good wrestlers in countries with deep programs. and weight classes, especially with 8 or fewer, creates terrible arbitrary divisions of talent and forces tons of wrestlers to either cut or be at a size disadvantage. for once a year lets get rid off those stupid problems! anyway, like i said, not happening anytime soon, i know. but after i win the powerball i will make it so.
  2. DF brings up another good point. its like, after i ace a physics exam, i dont go around bragging about how i did with the a hangover. everyone brings their own issues to a competition, all that matters is the results, not how you got there. if you got a bad SAT score but have ADHD or dyslexia, guess what? I dont care. more keen insight from A+ poster, DF.
  3. assuming we satisfy the IOC with the issue of gender equality i whole support your search for ways to introduce more weight classes into the sport. the IOC mandating that non olympic WC be run the same way as the olympic tourney has been brought up but never with a satisfying supporting reasoning. i would like to here more about how this rule came about and why it is such a sticking point.
  4. from the IOC's perspective that would be FILA showing contempt for their standards of gender equality. FILA needs to get more women wrestling. thats the answer, thats what will make the IOC happy, that is how FILA will get more men's weight classes back. everything else is a stalling tactic.
  5. i agree on the lack of evidence of an anti-american conspiracy. crappy officiating is one thing. a coordinated effort to stop the US from winning medals just doesn't make sense. what would FILA or really anyone have to gain by ridding the US from the sport? do you think everyone just hates americans? thats a little egotistical. we're clearly not the number 1 or 2 country. its Russia and Iran that have the bullseyes are their backs.
  6. it was a pretty popular movie a while back featuring a talking frog alien with a jamaican accent. very popular with the kids. probably trying to capture that youth demographic.
  7. Mango just lost 5-4 to the Armenian. very tough match. both were exhausted at the end.
  8. you're right, my bad. the brackets on themat.com display the Mauritius flag. probably a mapping error somewhere in the software? but yeah, i assumed from that flag and blew it. thanks for the correction! You know the flag of Mauritius offhand? its pretty distinctive. and i knew it wasn't the Moroccan flag, which i think is red with a centered black star. Plus i (incorrectly) assumed the Moroccan IOC code was MOR instead of MAR. so i had to use a couple context clues to figure it was Mauritius. fwiw i probably picked up most of my vexillogical knowledge but looking up international sports results.
  9. you're right, my bad. the brackets on themat.com display the Mauritius flag. probably a mapping error somewhere in the software? but yeah, i assumed from that flag and blew it. thanks for the correction!
  10. Mauritius actually. Tiny tropical island on the other side of Africa from Morocco. Its in the Indian Ocean off of Madagascar. I think they're best sport is sailing.
  11. Gatsalov had a great tournament but teching someone in the current rules doesn't necessarily imply the same dominance as it did before. i could believe that if Gatsalov committed to dominating 120 for the next couple years, he could do it, but i could also believe he could still end up losing a fair share of matches and 'merely' be a top tier guy. he had a great tournament and beat 5 guys solidly. im not so sure that means he would undoubtedly rip through every other heavyweight the same way every time he takes the mat. but no matter what, he's a legend and i would love to see him take on Taymazov or anyone else for that matter. im hoping he continues his career for as long as he is able to.
  12. just curious, how do you poison a super massive ball of liquid rock?
  13. statistically, the best athlete is probably going to be the number 1 guy in the largest talent pool. the largest talent pool is usually attracted to the largest amounts of money. plenty of other stuff factor in and its not impossible that the "best athlete" could come from a smaller talent pool, but its a good thing to keep in mind when doing the mental calculations. some skills dont translate to other sports but the theory is if you were the best athlete in the world and you weren't using those god given talents to make over $10m/year then you picked the wrong profession. that said, its an ultimately unanswerable question and i'm fine picking burroughs.
  14. can't find the blog anymore but 3 Lehigh wrestlers just trained for a couple weeks in Japan. Posted some interesting stuff, good insight into how they do things there. if anyone can find it it had some solid write ups and pics but the Lehigh kids. Japan is a lot different than Dagestan, but i'm sure you could figure out a way to train just about anywhere if you've got the cash to make it happen. even Cuba would probably let you in, it's the US that would try and keep you out.
  15. what im thinking is, what weight would every serious wrestler in the world be if there were no such thing as weight classes? getting the data is of course the impossible part. hypothetically, i'd like to cancel the next year of FILA competitions actually (well not really but for demonstration purposes), then announce that the world championship will be a 100% open tournament, anyone with a pulse can enter. there will be all new weight classes for this tournament, they'll be done madison style. also the number of weight classes has yet to be determined but it will be no less than 6. there will also be a $1,000,000 prize for first place. then i'd weight and graph everyone when they showed up and then we'd know the natural distribution of wrestlers weights. with available data tho? i dunno, much tougher nut to crack. maybe find how height correlates to weight and then just measure the height of every wrestler in every federation? maybe measure BMI/fat% and also take a urine sample to make sure it's 99% water or something? or maybe you could have a weight loss contest, and pay every wrestler to see how much they could cut. they can rig is all they want by ballooning up with water before the first way in, all we'd care about is what they weighed at the end. anyway, i dunno. i dont know to find it, i just know the theoretical weight curve is out there somewhere. doesn't have to be perfect, just needs to give us a tough estimate so we can see how we're chopping up the weights. it'll always be arbitrary and unfair on some level.
  16. maybe not precisely as they can change muscle mass but you can get an imprecise natural distribution that will work fine. you can even use height, which is easy to measure, as a crude proxy. so remove the word "natural" so we don't have to argue semantics and plug in a hypothetical ratio of BMI, fat % and hydration level and then plotted all the hypothetical data and you would get some sort of curve. i'm thinking bell curve slightly skewed to the left. the participation numbers at the worlds is a good data but it is also not perfect, as it probably underepresents the greater number of participants in the middle weights. if you just plotted the weight participation of the top 10 wrestling nations you would get a straight line, hiding the greater number of participants in the middle weights of those countries. strip away those top 10 countries and you'd probably have a more accurate graph, though it would still be a proxy for the data we (or at least I) and attempting to ascertain.
  17. jesus had a more impressive peak years but he retired too soon. you have credit moses for his longevity.
  18. thinking more on the weight class spread and the difficulty level, i can see how we're reaching the point where eliminating or moving weights isnt going to make anything any harder. however, it also won't make anything any easier. it also means that the middle weights were also much tougher than the upper or lower weights, now they still much tougher, just a little less tougher comparatively. we'd have to get a weight distribution chart of world wide competitors to figure out just how much tougher the middle weights are.
  19. agreed on no weak weights, especially not the middle weights. in another thread a discussion has been going on about how the loss of weight classes affects the difficulty level. i used to assume it made every weight harder by about the same amount. but then it was pointed out that most of the changes happened at the upper and lower classes. the middle weights increased their separation from the next lower weight only by a kilo or two. so the weights are only marginally tougher due to the fewer number. however, that means the middle weights were also much tougher than the upper and lower weights. the natural distribution of human weights will have bulge in the middle. i'd love to see some numbers but its safe to assume that there will be quite a few more wrestlers competing at 74kg than 120 or 55 and it could increase the difficulty level by an order of magnitude or more. so while the 2 biggest names that Burroughs already knocked off, Tsargush and Goudarzi, weren't in the weight class, i think that 74 would also be stacked, no matter what the pedigree of the entrants of a particular tournament. if anyone has any numbers on the natural weight distribution curve we could do some fun maths and get a more precise estimate of increased difficulties.
  20. so you don't think raising the above weight class has any affect on the one below it? i would think it encourages a few more tweeners to spend an extra hour or two dropping water, no? i couldn't tell you exactly how much more difficult expanding the spread makes each weight class, and your larger point that the middle weights were less affected by the weight class reductions than the bottom and top ends, but i can't believe the effect is negligible.
  21. sorry but i'm not following your math. below is weight class progression since 1969: 1969-1996: 68, 74, 82 1997-2001: 69. 76, 84 2002-2013: 66, 74, 84 the spread in 1972 was 82-68=14kgs the spread in 2013 is 84-66=18kgs unless i'm missing something, Burroughs' weight class expanded by 4 kgs (~8.8 lbs) from 1972 to 2013.
  22. sorry to nitpic but the 74kg weight class grew by 4kg total, 2kgs on either side. and while it's true that JB benefits from modern medicine, so do his opponents, who perhaps in the past would have sat out tournaments due to injuries. likewise, in gable's era, his opponents were also at a greater injury risk. so the competitive benefits when comparing eras is net zero. agreed on the soviet break up being a bigger factor than the weight classes tho.
  23. I think CC makes a decent point. the trimming of the weight classes affected the lower and upper weights more than the middle weights. i think it did make all the weights marginally tougher tho, it just affected some more than others. the weights went from 68 - 74 - 82 to 66 - 74 - 84 So two kilo's of weight on either side was added, which would draw a few more competitors in from either end. more competitors = tougher weight class. the surgery point is interesting but i dont think it affects the calculus. theoretically the advantages would all be a wash, since each competitor would have access to the same medical treatment. what makes Burroughs accomplishment more impressive to me is that he's at one of the most popular weight classes. i'm not sure exactly where 74 is on the natural distribution curve for athletes worldwide, but i would guess pretty close to the peak. and of course its all good to remember we're debating the degree of Burroughs greatness. i highly doubt anyone is trying to seriously diminish Burroughs.
  24. i hear what you're saying and agree. it would be enormously fun to see Burroughs mix it up with other big names. but he's only been on the international level for 3 years, and in fairness to him, has beaten all the big names in his weight class. here's the credentials of the guys Burroughs beat on his way to his 3-peat. Tsargush: Worlds 1,1,3; Euro 1,1,1 Goudarzi: Worlds 2,2,2,3; Asia 1,1,1 Hasonov: Worlds 3,3; Euro 1,1,2 (at 66kg) Akbari: Worlds 2; Asia 3 Shabanau: Worlds 3 Aliev: Worlds 3 He's had to go through the best each time. without Burroughs in the way Tsargusha and probably Goudarzi would be considered legends on their own. and we'll see what happens in the next few years. Akbari is young and tall, he could be making noise at 84kg before his career is over. i know you probably know all this and aren't trying to take anything away from Burroughs. just added some perspective.
  • Create New...