Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

Hodge Trophy Contenders (link)

Recommended Posts

Accomplished against the best wrestlers on the planet while being recognized as the #1 p4p wrestler in the world. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the Hodge criteria that excludes international results from being used in the decision making process. There is a reason that Snyder was a finalist for the Sullivan Award and no other collegiate wrestler was in the running. I believe Snyder received the most votes of any male this past award season. I say they should at least share the award if Snyder completes an undefeated championship season. Snyder is probably the guy who would win most consistently if the NCAA were a true national championship tournament.

 

The Sullivan Award isn't a college wrestling award, or even a college sports award at all.  The Hodge is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a special circumstance due to Ackerman having no legs. Remember, Cael won that year too. He was the real winner. The obvious winner. They decided to give out an additional Hodge to Ackerman after Cael was already chosen as the winner.

 

Just for clarification, according to you Ackerman did not deserve the Hodge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus we're getting ridiculous arguing semantics here.

 

1. Hodge Trophy is awarded based on dominance(I.e pinning)- correct?

2. One would weigh a full season of dominance in a 35 match schedule (Rutherford) higher than an abbreviated 10-15 match schedule (Snyder)-correct?

3. The committee has shown in the past that they will view the criteria however they want and award whomever they want(I.e metcalf, Ackerman, etc)-correct?

4. So while based on criteria and just focusing on NCAA results, Snyder most likely would be out of the running by wrestling an abbreviated schedule, history says he is still in the running and has just as good a shot as anyone-correct?

 

Since the award typically is awarded to seniors or upperclassmen unless it's strange circumstances, Snyder and Retherford are your clear front runners for the award with Nolf and Nickal, etc on the next tier.

 

For crying out loud you guys have been arguing over a statement that said Metcalf lost in the beginning of the season and arguing that "no he skipped the first weekend, wrestled the second, and lost to Caldwell the third weekend Iowa competed." It was the first month of the season when he lost. Move on from it already!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus we're getting ridiculous arguing semantics here.

 

1. Hodge Trophy is awarded based on dominance(I.e pinning)- correct?

2. One would weigh a full season of dominance in a 35 match schedule (Rutherford) higher than an abbreviated 10-15 match schedule (Snyder)-correct?

3. The committee has shown in the past that they will view the criteria however they want and award whomever they want(I.e metcalf, Ackerman, etc)-correct?

4. So while based on criteria and just focusing on NCAA results, Snyder most likely would be out of the running by wrestling an abbreviated schedule, history says he is still in the running and has just as good a shot as anyone-correct?

 

Since the award typically is awarded to seniors or upperclassmen unless it's strange circumstances, Snyder and Retherford are your clear front runners for the award with Nolf and Nickal, etc on the next tier.

 

For crying out loud you guys have been arguing over a statement that said Metcalf lost in the beginning of the season and arguing that "no he skipped the first weekend, wrestled the second, and lost to Caldwell the third weekend Iowa competed." It was the first month of the season when he lost. Move on from it already!!!!!

 

No - we get to keep arguing semantics until the wrestling actually begins. It's one of the traditions on this board!

 

That said, I can't wait for the season to start.  However, it may be delayed for a few weeks - if we use MSU158's definition of "the very beginning of the season."  smile.gif

Edited by HurricaneWrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus we're getting ridiculous arguing semantics here.

 

1. Hodge Trophy is awarded based on dominance(I.e pinning)- correct?

2. One would weigh a full season of dominance in a 35 match schedule (Rutherford) higher than an abbreviated 10-15 match schedule (Snyder)-correct?

3. The committee has shown in the past that they will view the criteria however they want and award whomever they want(I.e metcalf, Ackerman, etc)-correct?

4. So while based on criteria and just focusing on NCAA results, Snyder most likely would be out of the running by wrestling an abbreviated schedule, history says he is still in the running and has just as good a shot as anyone-correct?

 

Since the award typically is awarded to seniors or upperclassmen unless it's strange circumstances, Snyder and Retherford are your clear front runners for the award with Nolf and Nickal, etc on the next tier.

 

For crying out loud you guys have been arguing over a statement that said Metcalf lost in the beginning of the season and arguing that "no he skipped the first weekend, wrestled the second, and lost to Caldwell the third weekend Iowa competed." It was the first month of the season when he lost. Move on from it already!!!!!

 

Amen.  

 

Reading the banter earlier was excruciating, considering the "nth" level of finite detail being argued.  If you (the arguer) are on the Austism Spectrum, this would make complete sense.  My daughter is, and she's 10, and argues like how Hurricane and MSU were going at it.   Just admit it, and we'll all be able to better comprehend why this thread took the direction it did.  If you're not on the spectrum, please do talk to someone... someone with the ability to write some prescriptions.  Help could be on the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus we're getting ridiculous arguing semantics here.

 

1. Hodge Trophy is awarded based on dominance(I.e pinning)- correct?

2. One would weigh a full season of dominance in a 35 match schedule (Rutherford) higher than an abbreviated 10-15 match schedule (Snyder)-correct?

3. The committee has shown in the past that they will view the criteria however they want and award whomever they want(I.e metcalf, Ackerman, etc)-correct?

4. So while based on criteria and just focusing on NCAA results, Snyder most likely would be out of the running by wrestling an abbreviated schedule, history says he is still in the running and has just as good a shot as anyone-correct?

 

Since the award typically is awarded to seniors or upperclassmen unless it's strange circumstances, Snyder and Retherford are your clear front runners for the award with Nolf and Nickal, etc on the next tier.

 

For crying out loud you guys have been arguing over a statement that said Metcalf lost in the beginning of the season and arguing that "no he skipped the first weekend, wrestled the second, and lost to Caldwell the third weekend Iowa competed." It was the first month of the season when he lost. Move on from it already!!!!!

1) No.  The criteria is here

2) No, not necessarily.  Is a Yarygin championship indicative of dominance more than a dual over Purdue or an Eastern Michigan Open title? Either way, lets not exaggerate its importance based on faulty assumptions(see 1)

3) Yes.

4) Yes.  The definition off the Hodge, as supplied by its sponsor,  clearly says best wrestler.  Not NCAA wrestler.  At any rate, Emmett Willson won and he wasn't an NCAA wrestler. 

 

Agreed

This is a legit wrestling topic.  Why move on?  I mean, sure the horse is dead.  But if you hit it hard enough, it will still move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen.  

 

Reading the banter earlier was excruciating, considering the "nth" level of finite detail being argued.  If you (the arguer) are on the Austism Spectrum, this would make complete sense.  My daughter is, and she's 10, and argues like how Hurricane and MSU were going at it.   Just admit it, and we'll all be able to better comprehend why this thread took the direction it did.  If you're not on the spectrum, please do talk to someone... someone with the ability to write some prescriptions.  Help could be on the way. 

Honestly, you are giving Autism a bad name by trying to relate it to that argument...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) No.  The criteria is here

2) No, not necessarily.  Is a Yarygin championship indicative of dominance more than a dual over Purdue or an Eastern Michigan Open title? Either way, lets not exaggerate its importance based on faulty assumptions(see 1)

3) Yes.

4) Yes.  The definition off the Hodge, as supplied by its sponsor,  clearly says best wrestler.  Not NCAA wrestler.  At any rate, Emmett Willson won and he wasn't an NCAA wrestler. 

 

Agreed

This is a legit wrestling topic.  Why move on?  I mean, sure the horse is dead.  But if you hit it hard enough, it will still move.

 

 

That made me laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for clarification, according to you Ackerman did not deserve the Hodge?

Cael beat him in every category. Cael was 40-0 with 19 pins 8 techs in D1. Ackerman was 38-4 with 13 pins 0 techs in D3. Cael was the "obvious winner". They made a decision afterwards and decided to give two Hodge awards due to the unique circumstances. If he hadn't been a double amputee, there's no reason to believe he would have won the award. I think everyone understands this.

 

If "deserving of the Hodge" is defined as being the nation's best collegiate wrestler, or putting up the best season according to the seven criteria as originally interpreted, then he didn't deserve the award.

 

https://www.win-magazine.com/win-awards/hodge-trophy/nick-ackerman-2001-hodge-trophy-winner/

 

Article on the 2001 season and how they decided to give an additional Hodge trophy award.

Edited by bigmik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sullivan Award isn't a college wrestling award, or even a college sports award at all.  The Hodge is.

The Sullivan Award has been given out to the nation's best amateur athlete since 1930. More athletes are in the running for the award than the Hodge award. Kyle Snyder was a finalist for the award last year. No other wrestler was considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only three wrestlers have ever won the Sullivan Award.  The first was John Smith in 1990, followed by Bruce Baumgartner in 1995, and Rulon Gardner in 2000.  I'd assume most sports historians and sportswriters consider it a far more prestigious award than the Hodge Trophy.  Of course, some die-hard college wrestling fans may have another opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed

This is a legit wrestling topic.  Why move on?  I mean, sure the horse is dead.  But if you hit it hard enough, it will still move.

 

That made me laugh. 

 

+ 2....That's good stuff!.....I was hoping I could apply the same logic to my discussion with MSU158.  My corner said I was pulling ahead on points with my last flurry of statistics and snide comments.  Besides, we all know that a good pissing contest is just like mother's milk to the 'ole Spartan middleweight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only three wrestlers have ever won the Sullivan Award.  The first was John Smith in 1990, followed by Bruce Baumgartner in 1995, and Rulon Gardner in 2000.  I'd assume most sports historians and sportswriters consider it a far more prestigious award than the Hodge Trophy.  Of course, some die-hard college wrestling fans may have another opinion.

Good information as usual Hurricane. Kyle should win Tue Sullivan award this year if he finishes as an undefeated national champion. Beating Sadulaev and becoming world #1 p4p has to count for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cael beat him in every category. Cael was 40-0 with 19 pins 8 techs in D1. Ackerman was 38-4 with 13 pins 0 techs in D3. Cael was the "obvious winner". They made a decision afterwards and decided to give two Hodge awards due to the unique circumstances. If he hadn't been a double amputee, there's no reason to believe he would have won the award. I think everyone understands this.

 

If "deserving of the Hodge" is defined as being the nation's best collegiate wrestler, or putting up the best season according to the seven criteria as originally interpreted, then he didn't deserve the award.

 

https://www.win-magazine.com/win-awards/hodge-trophy/nick-ackerman-2001-hodge-trophy-winner/

 

Article on the 2001 season and how they decided to give an additional Hodge trophy award.

The article implies that Ackerman beat Cael in Heart and Courage, other factors and criteria beyond season record and dominance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cael beat him in every category. Cael was 40-0 with 19 pins 8 techs in D1. Ackerman was 38-4 with 13 pins 0 techs in D3. Cael was the "obvious winner". They made a decision afterwards and decided to give two Hodge awards due to the unique circumstances. If he hadn't been a double amputee, there's no reason to believe he would have won the award. I think everyone understands this.

 

If "deserving of the Hodge" is defined as being the nation's best collegiate wrestler, or putting up the best season according to the seven criteria as originally interpreted, then he didn't deserve the award.

 

https://www.win-magazine.com/win-awards/hodge-trophy/nick-ackerman-2001-hodge-trophy-winner/

 

Article on the 2001 season and how they decided to give an additional Hodge trophy award.

 

Ok. So in other words according to you no, Nick Ackerman did not deserve to win the Hodge in 2001. Thank you for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article implies that Ackerman beat Cael in Heart and Courage, other factors and criteria beyond season record and dominance.

I don't see the article implying that he beat Sanderson in heart and courage. Also there are seven criteria: 1. Record 2. Number of pins 3. Dominance 4. Past credentials 5. Quality of competition 6. Sportsmanship/citizenship 7. Heart

 

Cael wins clearly in at least the first five. He also wins in the-now unofficial- category of being the nation's best college wrestler. The reason why a "panel of experts" was called to see how they felt about giving an additional Hodge was because they wanted to find a way to honor another wrestler that wouldn't win based on what they originally had in mind for a Hodge worthy season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So in other words according to you no, Nick Ackerman did not deserve to win the Hodge in 2001. Thank you for the clarification.

 

For that matter, it also sounds like Nick Ackerman himself may not have thought he was deserving of the Hodge in 2001.  Note that in the article announcing the award Nick said; "I never even dreamed about winning the Hodge Trophy. I don’t put myself in that class."

Edited by HurricaneWrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For that matter, it also sounds like Nick Ackerman himself may not have thought he was deserving of the Hodge in 2001. Note that in the article announcing the award Nick said; "I never even dreamed about winning the Hodge Trophy. I don’t put myself in that class."

Sounds like a classy and humble individual who knows the right way to accept an award. If a Hodge winner after being presented with the award came out and said, "Yea I'm the greatest and I deserve this" I suspect many would be turned off by that individual.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a classy and humble individual who knows the right way to accept an award. If a Hodge winner after being presented with the award came out and said, "Yea I'm the greatest and I deserve this" I suspect many would be turned off by that individual.

 

I agree that Ackerman is classy and humble, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't being candid when he said "I don't put myself in that class."  Do you think he made that comment solely because he saw it as the politically-correct "right thing" to say?  Or do you think he was just being straightforward and honest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Ackerman is classy and humble, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't being candid when he said "I don't put myself in that class."  Do you think he made that comment solely because he saw it as the politically-correct "right thing" to say?  Or do you think he was just being straightforward and honest?

 

I believe he was straightforward and honest.

 

Still I believe he deserved the award for the tremendous accomplishments he made and the impact he had on the sport. I think his feeling he's not "in that class" is irrelevant, and for someone ELSE to say he doesnt deserve the award is utter crap. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hodge is to go to the most outstanding college wrestler of the year. This is a collegiate award and should be based on collegiate performance in my book.

 

It will be unfortunate that Snyder, a generational talent, will not win the award but there are always consequences to decisions. Today everybody wants to have their cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work like that.

 

Now get off of my lawn!!

True. 

So the Hodge trophy gets a consolation prize of a now meaningless award. Not one athlete or coach in the NCAA could beat Snyder, but he didn't wrestle enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he was straightforward and honest.

 

Still I believe he deserved the award for the tremendous accomplishments he made and the impact he had on the sport. I think his feeling he's not "in that class" is irrelevant, and for someone ELSE to say he doesnt deserve the award is utter crap. Just my opinion.

 

I agree that his championship season was tremendous and definitely worthy of recognition.   However, I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not naming Ackerman as a co-winner was the best way to achieve that purpose.  From the WIN article previously mentioned, its clear the Hodge Committee considered Sanderson the best college wrestler that season.  However, they also wanted to recognize Ackerman for his inspirational journey to a D-III title.  (At least that's my take on Chapman's comments.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that his championship season was tremendous and definitely worthy of recognition.   However, I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not naming Ackerman as a co-winner was the best way to achieve that purpose.  From the WIN article previously mentioned, its clear the Hodge Committee considered Sanderson the best college wrestler that season.  However, they also wanted to recognize Ackerman for his inspirational journey to a D-III title.  (At least that's my take on Chapman's comments.)

Agreed, and they decided that by naming Ackerman as a Co-Winner of the Hodge was the best way to go about it. They wanted to display how truly tremendous Ackerman's accomplishment was by awarding him with the prestige of the Hodge and not just create a generic "couragous athlete" award that will be forgotten the very next year. It's 2017 and we're having a discussion on Nick Ackerman, a D3 national Champ! That to me is awesome! I have no problem with acknowleding that Ackerman was not the best college wrestler of 2001. To make that claim would be foolish. What I do have a problem with is someone coming on these boards saying that Ackerman did not deserve the award. Imo Nick Ackerman has boosted the value of the Hodge Trophy and it's a much better and prestigious award because of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, and they decided that by naming Ackerman as a Co-Winner of the Hodge was the best way to go about it. They wanted to display how truly tremendous Ackerman's accomplishment was by awarding him with the prestige of the Hodge and not just create a generic "couragous athlete" award that will be forgotten the very next year. It's 2017 and we're having a discussion on Nick Ackerman, a D3 national Champ! That to me is awesome! I have no problem with acknowleding that Ackerman was not the best college wrestler of 2001. To make that claim would be foolish. What I do have a problem with is someone coming on these boards saying that Ackerman did not deserve the award. Imo Nick Ackerman has boosted the value of the Hodge Trophy and it's a much better and prestigious award because of him.

I agree but would also like to point out that Robles should also have won the Hodge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but would also like to point out that Robles should also have won the Hodge.

Agreed. Robles dominated the 2011 field which included a returning National champ. Just out of curiosity how do you feel Robles would have done in freestyle? Seeing how in neutral his opponents try to avoid making direct contact with him I see him completely controlling the center of the mat, being incredibly difficult to takedown, almost impossible to push out,and being able to turn virtually anyone. Would have loved to see him in the international circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×