Jump to content

drag it

Members
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

drag it last won the day on April 15

drag it had the most liked content!

About drag it

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://gopsusports.com/news/2019/9/10/penn-state-wrestling-announces-2019-20-schedule.aspx Apologies if anyone else posted this and I missed it. I thought this was interesting -- Penn State doesn't have the Scuffle on its schedule. Having Penn State and and automatic 3-5 national champs/number one ranked guys' names on the marquee there every year was really what gave the Scuffle its juice, particularly in recent years as it lost a lot of its depth. I have mixed feelings about the dispersal of mid-season tournament competition in the last decade or so, from Midlands, to Midlands and Scuffle, to all kinds of other entrants with Cliff Keen having arguably taken over. I guess competition is good, but as a fan (particularly as a Midlands attendee) it's too bad to lose the luster off the mega holiday tournaments.
  2. I don't dispute your well argued point that Cornell has great potential in 2021 and 2022, where, if a number of things go well, they could win team trophies and possibly even contend for a title. But in my opinion to actually win is a steep uphill climb. Iowa and Penn State start out with a lot more returning points for next year. Not sure how the likely 2021 and 2022 returning points would shake out. But the big four of PSU, tOSU, Iowa, OSU will keep reloading. They have a huge advantage that Cornell doesn't have with scholarships and lower admissions standards. And a third and fourth advantage that these schools have that Cornell doesn't have, sometimes in combination, is transfers and sixth years. These top teams are now adding high AAs every year or two and turning low scoring weights into high scoring weights literally overnight. The average winning score the last eight years is 128.25. Given the conditions described above, I think that's what Cornell would need to be in the neighborhood of to win the team race. With the returning wrestlers listed in the original post and the recruits listed in your post, Cornell essentially has to run the table to actually win the team championship. That means that, for instance, of their four returning AAs, a guy who had a fractured vertebrae will have to stay healthy with 200 pound monsters pounding on him in a combat sport. And, with respect to that guy (Darmstadt), query whether he would be eligible in 2022 --his fifth year at Cornell; do Cornell and/or Ivy rules allow this? I'm not saying that Darmstadt can't be a 2021 (or even depending on the rules a 2022) 25 point winner for Cornell. Just opining that between his serious injury and the eligibility question, he is an example of the kind of thin margins that Cornell will have to navigate in having everything go right to be able to amass the points they'll probably need to come in first. It would be thrilling to watch an Ivy League school do it, but they'll be threading a needle.
  3. I didn't make a prediction. I made a short observation. Here's a longer version. The current team is top heavy. Four AAs in 2019. One leaving to play football at another school. One great former AA with a serious injury history. It will be very difficult for a top heavy team to be the national champion. Particularly these days with high winning team scores. I provided the most obvious example of a top heavy team (one that I doubt this team will match with three champs). That team didn't come close to being first. That team happens to be the same school that is the subject of the post. It also happens to be the one top ten school that has no scholarships and which has the toughest admissions standards, which are factors, probably the key factors, in their having a hard time matching the current big four in depth -- and thus in the kind of team point scoring ability necessary to reach the goal that is the topic of the post. Same conclusion: That goal will be a severe uphill climb due to depth.
  4. Remember that in 2012 they had three individual champs and still ended up 4th, 41.5 points behind the team champs. It's not impossible that they could win it all, but it's a severe uphill climb due to depth.
  5. Companion piece posted on Flo -- Tsirtsis teaching his sit out. I thought this was very interesting, not just because this move was up there with Retherford's turns and Snyder's low single as the most reliable moves in recent years (it was so automatic that knowing it was there might in my view have contributed to him becoming overly conservative after his freshman year, believing that between the instant escape and his great conditioning he could always win in overtime if necessary). Anyway what I was really struck by was the authoritativeness of Jason's bearing and presentation. Over the years when he's been interviewed about himself on TV or in the recent Flo walk and talk, he's extremely modest, reserved, shy (even before his personal tragedies he was like this). But here, when he's not talking about himself but rather talking about his craft, he's direct, concise, commanding, intense. His teammates at NU always said he was the hardest worker they'd ever seen, and this interview gives you a taste of what made him a champion, and also what I think is going to make him a very successful coach. Here is the link (behind the pay wall). https://www.flowrestling.org/training?playing=6561237
  6. I have been traveling all week so didn't hear the podcasts. I saw this interesting and active thread on the way to the airport, and downloaded 403 so I could listen to it on the plane. I have criticized Flo multiple times on other issues (for sometimes frequent IT glitches, poor live match announcing, cream puff interviews, etc.) but thought this podcast was just fine. I heard no bias. The 2-and-2 proponents had their rationale and explained it well (agree with it or not). Nothing they said or how they said it indicated anti-PSU or pro-Yianni shading. In fact Pyles did a very good job late in the broadcast of saying, of course they show a lot of Yianni content since he's extremely accessible to Flo and due to his personality that's a great fit. Pyles even volunteered that he didn't think PSU should give more access since their style is obviously working. I also thought that the arguing on this episode was a lot more palatable to listen to than the crap on a lot of ESPN and other yellfests. Each person obviously felt strongly about their position. I thought that the 2-and-2 guys were willing to listen to the other side and were open to dialog and possible convincing. There were some raised voices, but not out of control anger. And Pyles did a good job of guiding it along as moderator. Having a former high level wrestler could add to Flo's commentary and analysis, but only if they are knowledgeable, articulate, and committed to the job, and utilized in a productive way by the website. Most (not all) of the former athletes I seen on TV, however, detract more than add to the broadcasts they are on. I listen every day to a favorite baseball team's broadcast and simply shake my head at how little the former player they have in the booth contributes and how much he detracts from the broadcast; his knowledge occasionally produces a nugget, but his communication skills are so bad that the vast majority of his comments are worthless -- he just isn't any good at his job. I think when the Flo guys are utilized correctly (match announcing vs interviews vs podcasts vs documentaries vs analysis, there is a big spectrum in terms of who is good at what) they are generally pretty good at their jobs. Flo has added and adds greatly to the wrestling community, I feel lucky to be able to enjoy the site. Because it's contributed so much, though, it's taken on a very big role in the sport, which means that it's important that it should be criticized and held accountable where appropriate. I just wouldn't put FRL 403 in that column.
  7. I think the step out rule facilitates action. It is an objective rule that creates incentives to stay on the mat and wrestle through action. It does allow wrestlers to give up 1 to avoid 2, but think of it by comparison. That one point is a definite disincentive -- as compared to a no step out rule, where there isn't an unambiguous disincentive against working your way off the mat to avoid a takedown. The folkstyle rules on going off the mat are subjective, and I think that most people would agree that their enforcement is inconsistent, that the default for officials is to say there was action (no punishment for going off), and even if you get a stall, that's not a point the first time. So you get people going off the mat in folk than free. It's impossible to prove, but when I watch a freestyle match, my sense is that the entire flow of the match (usually characterized by a lot of action) derives backwards from the step out rule -- from the wrestlers' understanding that they have to stay in the middle and engage. I agree with you about the control emphasis in folk being more understandable. I also agree with you that watching a quick takedown and then four laces to a tech fall has disadvantages. I think my suggestion could be a potential compromise. Import only the objective step out rule from freestyle as a starting point to see if it would help bring more action to folk.
  8. There was a Fargo thread a little while back where I and others criticized Flo live broadcasts generally and Willie specifically. I tried to go back to it for this post, but it's closed to replies (not sure why). So I'll post my thought here -- that the Pyles/Willie announcing (as well as Willie's post match interview with Zain) was solid, understated, and direct, and up to the level of this important event.
  9. I agree that freestyle matches are generally more entertaining to watch than folkstyle these days. There is more action and more athleticism in freestyle. But I'm not sure freestyle is more satisfying to watch, for the reason illustrated by this thread. While folkstyle is not without subjectivity and disagreements, it's nothing like the fog of war that is freestyle. In just the two versions of the Y-Z second match, we had the opening sequence of the first one, the contested sequence of the first one, and the one discussed on this thread. People on this board are very knowledgeable fans and there is nothing resembling a consensus on any of these calls. No one can agree on the terms of the debate, let alone the outcome. That detracts from the experience to me, as compared to the folkstyle control scoring where there is more of a common understanding of what constitutes success and scoring. I always wonder if you could take the stepout rule from freestyle to force more action and add it to college matches with their control approach to scoring and have a great product. The step out rule is an objective freestyle rule that adds action, but which does not lead to the confusion and exasperation over who should have gotten points that results from the subjective freestyle scramble rules. Maybe taking just that one rule from freestyle could help folkstyle catch up in the entertainment column.
  10. This is a really important point. The Iowa stereotype is of pure grinding/drudgery -- just guys doing buddy carries up the Carver stairs over and over and over. But the Lewis quote is borne out by everyone that's ever covered Gable in any depth. The Season on the Mat book, following Gable in his last season with a lot of access given to the author, shows Gable as being relentless and intense, but also smart, practical, and nuanced. There are certainly brutal scenes, such as one extremely vivid weight cut, but his key coaching move is actually a dialing back at the end of the season -- having the team just put on warm wraps and relax on the mats instead of hard workouts. There's also a notable amount of give and take with people in the program who aren't agreeing with him. He also displays a surprising sensitivity and understanding of his athletes as people. There's one short scene where they are driving somewhere and Gable offers low key but insightful advice to one of the wrestlers on his on-and-off relationship with his girlfriend, telling him that he thinks that in a situation like that, you've either got to commit to it or break up, but not keep splitting and then getting back together.
  11. To be fair, since the question was "much better NCAA careers than Taylor," I'd say no to those three. He had the same 2 titles as them (Terry being the Brands at issue). He was a 4x finalist, had two undefeated Hodge seasons, 4x Big Ten champ, lost 3 regulation matches in his career, and he really was viewed as a phenom during his career. And if GOAT-quality Dake hadn't made the stunning decision to move up to take on the Hodge winner while not cutting any weight, Taylor was probably the owner of a one loss career. I think you could reasonably argue that those three had comparable college careers to Taylor (though I'd probably disagree), but I can't reasonably see their college careers as much better. Though you're correct in that when you bring Olympic medals (and freestyle careers) into it, those three had better careers than Taylor, so far anyway.
  12. drag it

    Coon

    And I would think that was a particularly long full season for a true frosh who was having his first taste of being a dean's list aerospace engineering major at Michigan, which probably contributed to him wearing down at the end.
  13. Is Micic for sure gone and/or not wrestling college next year? I hadn't recalled seeing that as official. I know it's possible he might try for another Olympic redshirt, probably to compete on the Serbian team. But my understanding is that he was able to execute his college transfer without losing a year of eligibility, of which he stil has one left. So unless and until the redshirt is official wouldn't he still be in the mix?
  14. That was unfortunate, for sure. Wilps handled it well, after, if I remember. Said something like he wouldn't have done it that way but he didn't make a big deal of it. Too bad, it had been a good match to that point. I think this is the second recent thread like this and I've been really surprised that no one has mentioned the other Matt Brown final -- with C. Perry. Didn't it come down to the OT rideout with zero action before? Not sure if it was TB 1 or 2 but as I remember it was a poster child for a match that was wrestled strategically and tactically for the purpose of winning it in an OT rideout -- essentially planned backwards from that with the purpose being to avoid scoring before then. (To be fair, props to Perry for being more aggressive in his dominating win against Howe the next time.)
  15. Not that great. Better. 1. 4x champ. One of four ever. 2. NO REDSHIRT 4x champ. Only one ever. Can't be emphasized enough. 3. Moved up on purpose to wrestle the defending and future Hodge winner and future world champ. Beat him three times in three different kinds of matches, twice from behind. 4. Beat two Iowa and two Penn State guys in the finals. Those four were: Guy who won Hodge year before and year after. Guy who was undefeated champ the year after and future Olympian. Dake put a literally humiliating beating on him with a shocking 6 minutes plus of riding time. Guy who was champ the next year. Guy who in future lost OT in finals and lost OT in semis to champ in one of most controversial matches ever. 5. Undefeated last two years. NCAAs those years: Jr. year: 1st pd fall, 1st pd fall, 2d pd fall, 4-0, 4-1 Sr. year: First four matches: 29-0. Final vs 2x Hodge winner (who had pinned way to finals with three in first period and won in 3:25), 5-4 with late stalling point, opponent took off ankle bands with time still on clock. 6. Did all this while dealing with going to class and getting good grades at Ivy League college, which I guarantee you was a factor in his (few) losses.
×
×
  • Create New...