Jump to content

drag it

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by drag it

  1. drag it

    Official Striking Wrestler at Fargo

    It was essentially a slap, which to me is a strike, although in this case a pretty low level one. From the video (in which you can't hear what the kid was saying), the wrestler struck me as a challenge (complaining (from the very start when he wanted a stalemate on the front headlock), continuing to wrestle after the whistle, etc.). But two wrongs don't make a right, and the ref's wrong was far worse than whatever the wrestler might have done or said. You simply can't be a ref if you're going to act like that. There are plenty of other ways you can control the situation without slapping a person who is just standing there with his arms by his side.
  2. drag it

    Zain's left knee?

    I thought (including at the time it was happening) that his knee was in an awkward torqued position from early on in the sequence from when Yianni began to pick the single leg off the mat, all the way through the four point move. (With respect to some of the other posts I agree that there is no way this was intentional by Y.) I'm hopeful but a little skeptical about the timeline of less than two weeks that they gave Bader for his tweet.
  3. drag it

    Zain - Yanni outcome?

    Just noting that tomorrow will be exactly a month since the day that Coach Koll said (on the June 11 Rudis podcast) that he'd be submitting his written letter/appeal/petition to USA Wrestling and USOC. There are a lot of issues and it's a quasi-legal process, so you'd expect that it would take a little while, but we could be approaching the time when the authorities' delay in issuing a decision could start becoming harmful to the wrestlers. If further wrestling is ordered, you'd want them to have enough time to prepare for the wrestle-off and then for the winner to be able to prepare for the Worlds. You'd also want Zain to have peace of mind and clarity that his World-centric training won't be interrupted if there is no wrestle-off.
  4. Agree. Burroughs did take, and on this thread has taken, criticism for benefiting from the rules that disadvantaged Dake. But unless I'm mistaken today's is a very different situation. It's the same because the rules favor the reigning medalist. But with Burroughs, as I understand it, he got the same benefit that Snyder or any other returning champ got -- a bye to the finals on a date certain. Dake is getting more of a benefit than any other returning medalist is using this year -- a lengthy postponement. Also Dake has twice seemed to not just use the benefit that the rule allows a postponement for medical reasons, but to have manipulated or milked the situation to extra advantage for him or disadvantage to his opponent. First, to his opponent's disadvantage by a relatively late notice which he obviously knew about before. Second, by getting a very long date that arguably is past when he will be wrestling-ready (as evidenced by his Spain entry); and, which if Dieringer ends up being the world rep, may end up being an interference with his ideal training. I think most understand that he's following the rules, and that self interest is not a terrible thing. But I also think that many of us, including Dake fans like me, don't feel required to wear blinders that keep us from seeing these fairly basic facts, and don't feel unpatriotic for discussing them on ... a wrestling board.
  5. Correct, but I see more to it than that. The qualification system is definitely set up to favor those who have established themselves as the best is the same competition that is being qualified for. A reasonable policy choice. Dake was clearly disadvantaged by this for years. He was very close to Burroughs and would have had a better chance without Burroughs' bye (for at least two reasons -- Dake worn out before wrestled fresh Burroughs; Burroughs could have lost before the finals). Dake is now taking advantage of the system. OK. But this is a qualitatively different advantage. The challengers all know going in what the rules are. This means the medalist gets a bye while the challengers have to fight it out, they have to -- and can -- plan around that. But the challenger also sets up his training to wrestle on a certain date, which for this challenger has now been disrupted, shortly before that date. And the challenger, if he ends up being the guy, would be better off for training purposes not having become the guy in mid-August. Burroughs took advantage of none of that. Also, I think it's important to note that the Final X format (I assume) was designed to be LESS advantageous to the reigning medalist by letting a properly rested challenger face the top guy, as compared to what Dake had to do against Burroughs at the same tournament where he had(a earned the challenge spot. So Dake is taking far more extreme advantage of the system at a time when the intent of the framers of that system is to lessen the defending medalist's advantages. None of this is directly contradictory to your point that the system hurt Dake before and he's simply exploiting it to his advantage now. But I think there is important context (in addition to what people are saying about doctor notes and lawyers) that explains why many are pretty riled up. I say all this as a big fan of Dake.
  6. https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6517160-logan-stieber-on-retirement-decision-future-yianni-zain I found this to be a terrific interview and recommend it to everyone (though be aware, it's behind the paywall). I had always thought that Stieber was guarded and edgy when I'd seen interviews with him while he was competing. In retirement, his real personality seems to come out quite a bit more, and he is very intelligent, thoughtful, engaging, humble, and candid. I won't try to summarize it, but he provides a lot of interesting insight. In addition to the title of the interview (retirement/decision/future/Yianni-Zain), I was quite taken with his thoughts about what he sees as the role of parents and coaches in the club he is going to open, and his related comments about his own experience with his coaches and father. (I also got a kick out of a moment when he was describing watching the Yianni-Zain match on his phone, in which he says that the feed had some problems, but then, I thought, very politely said weren't an issue when he remembered that this was a Flo interview.) Really enjoyed this and thought that Christian Pyles did a good and subtle job with his questions.
  7. drag it

    Worthwhile Stieber interview

    That's an interesting point. It's easy to look at Ohio State today and think gargantuan elite program/no brainer decision for blue chip recruit, but at the time the first Stieber committed that wasn't really the case -- and, in fact, he was probably the biggest factor in that transformation.
  8. Something that I haven't seen mentioned (apologies if it was): For most of the scramble, Gilman has Fix's right foot. Then when Fix torques and comes behind, Gilman lets go of that right foot. Fix has freed his right foot and come fully behind, but his left foot remains under Gilman's belly, and Gilman very quickly grabs it instead. 2 is called after Gilman releases (loses?) his hold of the right foot but after he has the left foot. (Although it's not clear from the camera angle whether and when Gilman got his left hand as well as his right hand on Fix's left foot.) I wonder if this is why 2 was called and why it was upheld. Conversely, I wonder if they would have awarded 2 if Gilman had held the right foot continuously. I suspect the answers to those two questions are yes and no. I'm not sure what I think should have been called, and I'd like to hear what others who have seen the position and have more confidence about the rules than me think. But I suspect this may be what drove the call on the mat.
  9. Good points down the line. On the whole Flo is a big plus for wrestling. They do some things better than others (professional interviewing one of the weaker spots). And some of the people are better than others. I have liked Pyles' recent interviews. He is pretty good. I liked with Derek St. John when Pyles without hemming or hawing or mumbling directly asked whether he left Iowa on bad terms -- good question, was what the viewer wanted to know at that point of the conversation, so he just flat out asked it, without the apologetic approach that some or the others do if and whrn they do ask a question like that.
  10. drag it

    Koll on the Call

    Koll made his points extremely well and seemed very candid. I liked everything he said other than when his criticism of Tucci went overboard a couple of times (particularly his claim that the judge was sleeping in the gym and questioning his evening activities). I tend to think his arguments are generally correct but based on what I know I think the results should probably stand. I think that replay is at this point causing as many problems as it solves in most sports, and that reversing the results of a completed match would just exacerbate the problem. The officials make both on the mat and off the mat mistakes frequently. Better in my view to try to get better officials, make the rules as clear as possible, and keep improving replay as much as possible -- rather than changing the result after a hand gets raised, which should only happen in, if at all, in the direst of dire cases. This doesn't seem like that; instead it seems like a very difficult and complex freestyle reffing situation that was in the heat of the moment not handled well. Which happens a lot, including to Ian Miller vs Cornell.
  11. drag it

    Thomas Gilman History

    I am not a fan of Gilman, and I think that the word "Jap" shouldn't be used (clearly taken as offensive by many, probably most of the people it refers to), but I don't see this as any particular evidence of his being a bad guy. He did not seem to have any bad intent; my recollection of the tape was that he was using the term in a descriptive way, not as an intended slur -- and in fact to the extent that his statement was judgmental, he was admiring of the wrestler in question. It's not a term that is as well understood to be as offensive as some others we all have heard, as evidenced by some of the posts here, so it's believable he didn't know it was a problem. And I believe he apologized when informed that many find the term offensive. Unlike other things mentioned near the top of this thread which I could have done without seeing from him, this one doesn't seem like he knew or definitely should have known better. Seems like a complicated guy, not my cup of tea, but I won't pile on him for that one. He wrestled with a lot of heart and skill today, just got beat by a guy who was a little bit better.
  12. drag it

    Colon vs Graff

    Kudos to Graff. He's had a lot of very close seconds over the years, including a Big Ten title where he got tied almost at the buzzer on a fleeing the mat, and even more agonizing, just needing an escape to win NCAAs in overtime, only to get turned and lose. The latter I thought was made even tougher because Ramos, in the only thing he ever did in a controversial career that really bothered me, made a condescending comment in the post match interview -- something like, Kids, never roll on the bottom, which really rubbed salt into the wound on a decent guy. I had family over so could just covertly watch on my phone with the sound off, so couldn't hear the post match interview, but it looked like it was a cathartic win for him -- which I hope will get him loose for him to let it fly at Worlds.
  13. drag it

    Worthwhile Stieber interview

    Agree, and it was always neat to see the unconditional support they gave each other, as well as Hunter's amazing grit and class in dealing with his really difficult injuries.
  14. drag it

    Which version of PD3 do we have?

    For sure. And know that whichever version you get he's still going to have an edge, which can cut in PD3 type ways. Zain or Yianni, he ain't.
  15. Self serving by definition, but isn't it reasonable under the rules, Dake particularly, since we think/hope he will be healthy enough to compete? (If Taylor waited extra after he knew to try to keep out more likely world medalists who would get a bye next year, that is really pushing it). Ridiculous, maybe, particularly the Taylor scenario above -- but an extension of the rules, which I'm thinking we both think might need changing or at least tweaking.
  16. Didn't see them but am sure you're right. I had commented on the reference to it in an earlier post because I thought the whole context was weird. Hirsch does have a platinum resume! Wasn't clear exactly what to what detail Dake knew other than he was a wrestling alum who now fixes people's faces.
  17. I think everyone understood those facts. The narrative was strange enough to give the impression that the surgery may not have been successful despite the recommendation of the Cornell wrestler recommender and his having stressed to the surgeon that it was important not to screw this one up.
  18. drag it

    #NCAAforFreestyle?

    I think this is too harsh, for two reasons. First, it's not really sumo. In some instances, it can be, but usually the guy who gets a step out point has established a level of control over the mat and/or is getting close to a takedown. Second, the step out rule is designed, I assume, not only for the effect of the one point for the step out, but, more so, for the incentives it creates toward more action in the middle of the mat and the higher scoring moves, the lack of which I do think is a lingering problem in college wrestling, as it was in freestyle before the rule changes. I agree that college shouldn't switch to freestyle, there have been good arguments above on that. But adding a one point step out seems like an interesting approach and I think would likely help spur more action in matches. If the refs were more aggressive and consistent in calling stalling and/or enforcing the going off the mat rules, that might get the job done, but I don't feel they've done so. Even at NCAAs, when they were told to do so, it felt like they started out with one standard and then pulled back a little every session, for instance, such that the stalling call on McKenna seemed out of place. I'd rather have a step out, which is an objective rule. For those who don't favor going to freestyle (and really for everyone, since I think that's not realistic), I guess the question is whether any reform (step out in this case) would yield more action as a positive either without changing the basic character of the sport, or in outweighing that negative for a net benefit. I lean yes.
  19. drag it

    The call

    Agree and disagree. Agree -- that, if that's what Burroughs said, it's a bad look. Not only the heightened rhetoric, but I don't think that anyone on this world team, or that still has a chance to be on this world team, should be getting in the middle of this. Askren or Ramos, fine, there's nothing to criticize in them voicing their opinion, in fact I want to hear their opinions. But there's been a lot of talk, which I agree with, including by people on the team, about supporting people who are on the team, regardless of what we think of them or how they got on the team. So I don't think team members or potential team members should be saying, essentially, that the guy who was named as a team member yesterday doesn't deserve it. He's on the team; there's a process to challenge that, and it will play out. Disagree -- that it's overkill to say that an athlete can get screwed. If a world class athlete performs brilliantly in the sport which they've devoted their life to and gets denied a victory at or near the pinnacle of that sport by a terrible call, particularly when an established process is violated, I think it's ok to say that. Just like the term is used all the time in academics, business, etc., when the merits of a process are thwarted. If what they were doing wasn't a serious endeavor that has meaning, then ESPN and Flo and this message board wouldn't exist. I would agree with the basic point that people overreact to things that aren't nearly as serious as 4,000 people a year getting shot in Chicago, but I'm ok with "screwed" or other strong language being used if someone loses on an unfair call even though the sun will come up for them tomorrow while it won't for tonight's shooting victim. Otherwise none of us should be on the board and instead we should all be spending that time volunteering on the South Side.
  20. drag it

    Final X Rutgers live thread

    Talk about steel sharpening steel!
  21. drag it

    Final X Rutgers live thread

    It's not outlandish to say that he might be our best, which is saying something on a team with Burroughs and Snyder. He's an impressive wrestler and an impressive man. He's really gone all in on senior level wrestling -- remember when he was talking about playing football? Seemed then that he might be a little ambivalent about wrestling; if he was, it's certainly not the case now.
  22. drag it

    Final X Rutgers live thread

    Good find. But is this the controlling rule? This rule starts with the challenge having been made according to the rules and then says how the officials should handle it. But according to other posts, the challenge needs to be made in the first place within 5 seconds of the call that is objected to. In this case, Zain's corner didn't object within 5 seconds of Yianni being given 2 (and by implication Zain being given 0). I think??
  23. drag it

    Cornell

    If that's the way it ends up, that would be ironic vis a vis Cornell, wouldn't it? Although the situations are different, since one was whether the purely ministerial question of whether the scoreboard reflected the calls that were made. The other is about whether the rules were properly applied to a challenge.
  24. drag it

    Cornell

    Agree. I thought Koll's comments were pretty reasonable. He spoke clearly and concisely. He cited rules (bricks to be thrown within five seconds and not after the whistle), tied them to facts, argued that it is fundamentally unfair, and said he wants to do everything he can within the organization's protest process to back up his athlete. And he was respectful of Retherford, as was Yianni in the tweet I saw from him. He explained that he was trying to figure out what the protest rules are and that it was difficult to figure out what they were. He said that he wants to protest, and at the :40 second mark he categorically stated that they'd live with the decision that results from the protest process. Given his clear statement that they'd live with the result of the protest, I interpreted his reference to a lawyer at 1:25 to be that, if the Ombudsman process at USA wrestling requires lawyers, or if it allows lawyers and it makes sense to be represented, then they would use a lawyer. I didn't take that as a threat to go to the courts if the protest was denied. He got a little chippy in the last 30 seconds or so, which he probably would have been better off not doing for a few different reasons, but I thought under the circumstances that he handled the interview well on the whole.
  25. That is bad luck, I bet the atmosphere will be great in person. Probably too late now to start a thread asking for the best ideas for how to get out of the wedding.
×