Jump to content


Photo

Hodge Trophy Contenders (link)


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#41 MSU158

MSU158

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts

Posted 05 October 2017 - 01:54 PM

Your initial claim was that it happened "at the very beginning of the season." But you're now rephrasing it to "the 1st day of the season that Metcalf wrestled attached." Nice try, but we both know those two phrases are not synonymous, so let's deal with your original position.

Iowa's season began with the Cyclone Open, followed by the Kaufman-Brand Open, and then the St. Edwards Duals. IIRC, Metcalf didn't wrestle in the Cyclone Open, but went 5-0 (including a first round bye) at the Kaufman-Brand - where he beat Jordan Burroughs 6-0 in the finals. Whether he wrestled in the Cyclone Open or not - as well as whether he was listed as unattached at the Kaufman Brands - are both immaterial. The former event marked the beginning of Iowa's season and the latter was the Hawkeye's second event of the season.

So actually, the Caldwell bout was Metcalf's 8th match of the 2007-08 season. He skipped the Cyclone Open, wrestled 4 times at the Kaufman-Brands tourney, and then he wrestled in 3 other duals (against Findlay, Iowa Central and Old Dominion) before facing Caldwell in the NC State dual. Not exactly "at the very beginning of the season," as you initially claimed. One could reasonably say it was early in the season, but alleging it occurred at the "very beginning" is simply disingenuous.


Lol. It was Iowa's first official competition. Period. If anyone chose to compete prior it was there choice as they were ALL unattached. Just because it was on their schedule does not mean it was an Iowa competition date. It was literally their first day of official Iowa wrestling. Being 3-1 before the 32 match winning streak is straight from his Iowa bio. You want to stretch semantics as far as you can feel free. But, it is a ridiculous argument to nitpick my calling his first official attachment to Iowa wrestling as the very beginning of the season. It still happened in November. And I am supposed to be the one that just looks for arguments......sheesh

#42 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 05 October 2017 - 01:59 PM

The Hodge is an honor, but I don't put much stock in it. It's like the Heisman, all hype and they bend the rules to give the award to whomever they want anyway.


  • jchapman and cjc007 like this

#43 HurricaneWrestling

HurricaneWrestling

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,669 posts

Posted 05 October 2017 - 03:04 PM

Lol. It was Iowa's first official competition. Period. If anyone chose to compete prior it was there choice as they were ALL unattached. Just because it was on their schedule does not mean it was an Iowa competition date. It was literally their first day of official Iowa wrestling. Being 3-1 before the 32 match winning streak is straight from his Iowa bio. You want to stretch semantics as far as you can feel free. But, it is a ridiculous argument to nitpick my calling his first official attachment to Iowa wrestling as the very beginning of the season. It still happened in November. And I am supposed to be the one that just looks for arguments......sheesh

 

You're still prevaricating.  Again, I was responding to your claim about when the season began, not any of your other later-added red herrings (e.g., attached, unattached, etc.)   Here's your exact quote:

 

Again, the pin happened at the very beginning of the season...

 

The plain fact of the matter is that Iowa's season began with the Harold Nichols Open on Nov.10, not with the St. Edward's Duals on Nov. 24.  Don't take my word for it - following is a direct quote from Iowa's Oct. 3, 2007, official press release (full link below):

 

The Hawkeyes begin the season at two tournaments - the Harold Nichols Open, in Ames, on Nov. 10 and the Kaufman-Brand Open, in Omaha, on Nov. 17. The team's first dual competition will be at the St. Edward's Duals in Lakewood, OH, where the Hawkeyes will face Findlay, North Carolina State, Iowa Central and Old Dominion on Nov. 24.

 

Obviously, the only one stretching semantics is you.   Metcalf's loss simply didn't occur at the "very beginning" of the season as you purported.  It was preceded by the Harold Nichols Open, the Kaufman-Brand Open, and three duals (against Findlay, Iowa Central, and ODU, respectively).  Here's the info, with Metcalf's performance, followed by his overall and official season records to that point:

 

Nov. 10 -  Harold Nichols Open - Metcalf did not compete, Record: 0-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf advanced to round two via bye, Record: 0-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf pinned Kevin Cunningham (UCD), 2:43, Record: 1-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf maj. dec. Trevor Chin (LEHIGH), 15-3. Record: 2-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf tech. fall Naig (IND), 23-6, Record: 3-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf dec. Jordan Burroughs (NEB), 6-0, Record 4-0, 0-0

Nov. 24 @ 9:00 am - Iowa 40 Findlay 3, Metcalf pinned Vasquez,1:36, Record 5-0, 1-0

Nov. 24 @ 10:30 am - Iowa 50 Iowa Central 0, Metcalf pinned Burns, 2:35, Record 6-0, 2-0

Nov. 24 @ 1:30 pm - Iowa 28 ODU 13, Metcalf tech. fall Baxter, 26-11, Record 7-0, 3-0

Nov. 24 @ 3:00 pm - Iowa 37 NC State 9, Caldwell pinned Metcalf,1:40, Record 7-1, 3-1

 

Feel free to pretend that Metcalf's loss to Caldwell occurred the first time he stepped on the mat at the "very beginning" of the season.  However, we all know that it happened in the third week of the season - in Brent's 8th match.

 

http://www.hawkeyesp...?path=wrestling


Edited by HurricaneWrestling, 05 October 2017 - 11:12 PM.


#44 jchapman

jchapman

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 05 October 2017 - 03:24 PM

The Hodge is an honor, but I don't put much stock in it. It's like the Heisman, all hype and they bend the rules to give the award to whomever they want anyway.

At least they give the Heisman to D1 athletes exclusively.

#45 MSU158

MSU158

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 12:18 AM

You're still prevaricating.  Again, I was responding to your claim about when the season began, not any of your other later-added red herrings (e.g., attached, unattached, etc.)   Here's your exact quote:

 

 

The plain fact of the matter is that Iowa's season began with the Harold Nichols Open on Nov.10, not with the St. Edward's Duals on Nov. 24.  Don't take my word for it - following is a direct quote from Iowa's Oct. 3, 2007, official press release (full link below):

 

 

Obviously, the only one stretching semantics is you.   Metcalf's loss simply didn't occur at the "very beginning" of the season as you purported.  It was preceded by the Harold Nichols Open, the Kaufman-Brand Open, and three duals (against Findlay, Iowa Central, and ODU, respectively).  Here's the info, with Metcalf's performance, followed by his overall and official season records to that point:

 

Nov. 10 -  Harold Nichols Open - Metcalf did not compete, Record: 0-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf advanced to round two via bye, Record: 0-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf pinned Kevin Cunningham (UCD), 2:43, Record: 1-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf maj. dec. Trevor Chin (LEHIGH), 15-3. Record: 2-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf tech. fall Naig (IND), 23-6, Record: 3-0, 0-0

Nov. 17 - Kaufman-Brand Open - Metcalf dec. Jordan Burroughs (NEB), 6-0, Record 4-0, 0-0

Nov. 24 @ 9:00 am - Iowa 40 Findlay 3, Metcalf pinned Vasquez,1:36, Record 5-0, 1-0

Nov. 24 @ 10:30 am - Iowa 50 Iowa Central 0, Metcalf pinned Burns, 2:35, Record 6-0, 2-0

Nov. 24 @ 1:30 pm - Iowa 28 ODU 13, Metcalf tech. fall Baxter, 26-11, Record 7-0, 3-0

Nov. 24 @ 3:00 pm - Iowa 37 NC State 9, Caldwell pinned Metcalf,1:40, Record 7-1, 3-1

 

Feel free to pretend that Metcalf's loss to Caldwell occurred the first time he stepped on the mat at the "very beginning" of the season.  However, we all know that it happened in the third week of the season - in Brent's 8th match.

 

http://www.hawkeyesp...?path=wrestling

I am sorry, but to me, the 1st day of official competition is the very beginning of the season.  November Opens were definitely optional when I wrestled.  Now, certain wrestlers were pushed harder to compete on those dates for a myriad of reasons, but many, if not all, would still be competing unattached.

 

The simple truth is, you looked for a ridiculous argument to cloud the point of my post.  OBVIOUSLY, I never even tried to say it was his first match since I quoted his Iowa bio that stated he was 3-1 before his 32 match winning streak.  That alone made it glaringly obvious.  Regardless, a November 24th match IS at the beginning of the season.

 

There have been plenty of ridiculous arguments created on this site.  I am sure I have been a culprit in them.  But, this is one of the most ridiculous I have seen so far.  So, in closing, you can take the exact way I mean to use "very" and, by that exact same definition, shove it "very" far into one of your "very" uncomfortable areas.  But, I am sure you can twist that use of "very" to make it less(if not completely alleviate) uncomfortable.  Good luck and good day!



#46 bigmik

bigmik

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,705 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 01:12 AM

That is a stretch considering all the data I gave.  Using just the one sentence you used ignores everything else I presented.  Say Retherford actually lost the 1 match to Sorenson and Heil was the only unbeaten last season.  Would it have been a ridiculous act in your mind for them to have given it to Retherford?  Remember, the operative issue, AT THE TIME, was the pin was "almost" the very beginning of the season and was viewed by many as a fluke pin.  Metcalf later dominating Jenkins at NCAA's, with Jenkins beating Caldwell at that same tournament, seemed to confirm this.
 
The point is, making it seem like they did whatever they wanted to do because of 1 single match result is a stretch.  To be honest, based on your logic then, Retherford's worst match was considerably worse than Nolf's, an argument I used by the way.  Shouldn't Nolf therefor have won it because he never even had a close match?


Close matches aren't losses. If Retherford got pinned in the first period last year, he should not have even been considered for the Hodge trophy. Heil would have been a better choice if that happened last season.

Something that no one ever addresses is how many losses a Hodge trophy winner is allowed to have. If Metcalf lost once to Lang and Caldwell, and all else remained the same, would he still be the right choice for the Hodge? His argument against Gavin remains the same under this scenario (I.e Tougher weight, bonus percentage, pins, etc). At one point in time, it was taken for granted that the Hodge winner could not have any official losses on his record. That changed when Metcalf won.

#47 jchapman

jchapman

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 01:45 AM

Close matches aren't losses. If Retherford got pinned in the first period last year, he should not have even been considered for the Hodge trophy. Heil would have been a better choice if that happened last season.

Something that no one ever addresses is how many losses a Hodge trophy winner is allowed to have. If Metcalf lost once to Lang and Caldwell, and all else remained the same, would he still be the right choice for the Hodge? His argument against Gavin remains the same under this scenario (I.e Tougher weight, bonus percentage, pins, etc). At one point in time, it was taken for granted that the Hodge winner could not have any official losses on his record. That changed when Metcalf won.

That actually changed in in 2001 when Ackerman won with 4 losses on his record.



#48 bigmik

bigmik

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,705 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 01:54 AM

That actually changed in in 2001 when Ackerman won with 4 losses on his record.


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.

#49 MSU158

MSU158

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 02:49 AM

Close matches aren't losses. If Retherford got pinned in the first period last year, he should not have even been considered for the Hodge trophy. Heil would have been a better choice if that happened last season.

Something that no one ever addresses is how many losses a Hodge trophy winner is allowed to have. If Metcalf lost once to Lang and Caldwell, and all else remained the same, would he still be the right choice for the Hodge? His argument against Gavin remains the same under this scenario (I.e Tougher weight, bonus percentage, pins, etc). At one point in time, it was taken for granted that the Hodge winner could not have any official losses on his record. That changed when Metcalf won.

I have said multiple times that I would have had no issue with Gavin winning.  I was just pointing out that it wasn't some out of the box cheating system to find Metcalf a way to win it.  Gavin was the only undefeated wrestler and he had a very vanilla style.  Metcalf was larger than life at the time and his style of wrestling was extremely popular.  Throw in how tough 149 was considered at the time and 174 was considered very thin and you end up with an argument that was used to place a 1 loss guy over an undefeated.  I have no issue with those that argue an undefeated over 1 loss regardless, but I simply wanted people to see that IF you look past the 1 vs. 0, there were many things that strongly favored Metcalf.



#50 jchapman

jchapman

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 02:57 AM

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.

Ackerman is a real winner of the Hodge Trophy. 


  • BigTenFanboy likes this

#51 ThatLogSchuteWasCarrying

ThatLogSchuteWasCarrying

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 03:06 AM

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.



#52 BigTenFanboy

BigTenFanboy

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,668 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 03:10 AM

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?



#53 tec87

tec87

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 6,908 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 04:32 AM

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!!!!!
  • treep2000 and AllISeeIsBronze like this
FIRE UP CHIPS!!!!

#54 HurricaneWrestling

HurricaneWrestling

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,669 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 05:22 AM

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, 06 October 2017 - 05:59 AM.


#55 treep2000

treep2000

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 772 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 05:24 AM

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. 



#56 Plasmodium

Plasmodium

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,144 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 05:49 AM

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.


  • HurricaneWrestling likes this

#57 MSU158

MSU158

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 06:00 AM

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...........


  • HurricaneWrestling likes this

#58 TBar1977

TBar1977

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 10,679 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 06:12 AM

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. 


I have set aside funds to have six Green Bay Packers be my pall bearers, that way they can let me down one final time. 


#59 bigmik

bigmik

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,705 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:35 AM

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-maga...-trophy-winner/

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

Edited by bigmik, 06 October 2017 - 09:42 AM.


#60 bigmik

bigmik

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 7,705 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:42 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users