Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peso

Comparing dynasties

Recommended Posts

I'd say the talent to be split between 180 teams would be spread a lot thinner than today with 70 ish teams. Also I'd think with 180 teams to choose from that it would be more difficult to recruit a guy to any particular school. That's pretty much the only reason I think it was harder back then than now. But to be completely honest, there was usually only a team or two even in Iowa's ballpark back then: usually they rolled everybody.

 

 

Then we agree. The talent was spread out more back then, thus making it harder for any one team to compete with Iowa and easier for Iowa to win since they were stockpiling talent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it harder to win NCAA's at 165 or 285? I would say it was harder to WIN 285, but easier to AA.

 

 

I would also say back then it was harder to place amongst the top 10 teams, but harder to WIN now.

 

They didn't have 285 back then. Unlimited Heavyweight was the name of the game. I loved the HWT freak show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't have 285 back then. Unlimited Heavyweight was the name of the game. I loved the HWT freak show.

 

They didnt have 165 either. It was 158 or 167.

 

Never the less I was talking about in 2018.

 

I think its harder to beat Kyle Snyder than it was to beat Vincenzo Joseph.

I also think was harder to beat Rogers than it was to beat Hemida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Tbar let's try this analogy:

 

There are four- 4x state champions at 135...they all go to State U....Only one of them can be the starter, the others have to sit, watch, wonder, dream...and maybe the starter is better by one point or so, or he won 2 of 3 close matches to get to that spot.

Take those same four 4x champs and each one goes to a different school...and they are the starters...instead of only one of those wrestlers in the bracket at 135, there are now 4 tough kids who may have developed more since they had different coaching, workout partners, and are battle tested.  Is any bracket tougher with only 4 wrestlers in it or 32?  More variables, more unknowns, different styles to negotiate etc., because you don't get to wrestle these same kids everyday an learn their strengths/weaknesses...anyway in my opinion it's tougher to win with more talent spread out than it is concentrated on one team.

As an example, my dad's teams at Maple Hts were so deep, he had kids wrestling JV for two years (hs was grades 10-12) because they had state champions ahead of them...when they made varsity as seniors, many of those "JV's" ended up state champs...put those kids on other teams and they would have had the opportunity to not only place high, but possibly win a championship for that other school as well or become spoilers.  Anyway, that's my take on it, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a lot of talent back then that had the opportunity to go to many different colleges.  Okie State, OU, ISU, Clarion St., Bakersfield, for examples...The difference wasn't so much that Iowa was stockpiling talent as it was Gable DEVELOPING talent.  He got a lot of mileage out of some rather average kids.  It was his system and the culture that he created and the kids bought into.  Just like Okie States system/culture under Gallagher and Roderick and OU's system/culture under Evans and Abel.  There are tons of HS ALL-WORLDS who never make so much as a dent in college.  Now, you still have lots of talent, some of it concentrated at a few schools, but there is also a ton of talent that is sitting on the sidelines without a school to wrestle at who could probably beat guys who are at the top now.  We don't know who they are because they don't have anywhere to further develop their skills.  Not everyone wants to go to PSU, OSU, UM, or theOSU.  It's another reason why the NCAA's back then were so interesting...DII/DIII kids bumped off a lot of very good DI's.  Trust me, if the SEC brought wrestling back, the NCAA's just got even tougher, because of more opportunity for wrestlers to flourish.  It spreads the talent around.

Edited by patmilkovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pat, I don't necessarily disagree with the single weight class analogy you just made, but I don't think that evenly equates to the team dynasty question posed by the OP. 

 

Back in the Gable era Iowa was well known for stockpiling talent. They all wanted to wrestle for Gable, right? So while any single given weight class  could in theory be harder to win, the team title was actually easier to win because no other teams were stockpiling talent like Iowa was. 

 

Now, just in case this gets overlooked, but with 9.9 we don't see 4 studs at any weight for any team today. So today's top guy at any given weight still has to go thru all the top talent at that weight, or at least almost all of it.  There may be fewer teams today, and there may even be fewer wrestlers too. But each top guy still has to win a 33 man bracket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a lot of talent back then that had the opportunity to go to many different colleges.  Okie State, OU, ISU, Clarion St., Bakersfield, for examples...The difference wasn't so much that Iowa was stockpiling talent as it was Gable DEVELOPING talent.  He got a lot of mileage out of some rather average kids.  It was his system and the culture that he created and the kids bought into.  Just like Okie States system/culture under Gallagher and Roderick and OU's system/culture under Evans and Abel.  There are tons of HS ALL-WORLDS who never make so much as a dent in college.  Now, you still have lots of talent, some of it concentrated at a few schools, but there is also a ton of talent that is sitting on the sidelines without a school to wrestle at who could probably beat guys who are at the top now.  We don't know who they are because they don't have anywhere to further develop their skills.  Not everyone wants to go to PSU, OSU, UM, or theOSU.  It's another reason why the NCAA's back then were so interesting...DII/DIII kids bumped off a lot of very good DI's.  Trust me, if the SEC brought wrestling back, the NCAA's just got even tougher, because of more opportunity for wrestlers to develop.  It spreads the talent around.

 

 

Even if you say Gable didn't stock pile talent, which I think is debateable, the total talent base was still spread thinner which you seem to agree upon. My thesis then is that because of that spreading out of the talent then each team gets less of that talent. Because each team gets less, there are fewer true challengers to the team title. 

 

People today claim there are truly only 3 or 4 teams that can win NCAA's. We saw that argument made a lot in the natty duals threads. Well, how many teams could truly have won in the Gable era? On average two per year maybe? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok T...First of all, scholarships, as far as I am concerned, don't guarantee greatness or success (I was a walk-on)...secondly, there a lot of kids on scholarship at schools who don't  progress for several reasons...coaching is a big one...thirdly, Dan had kids going to Iowa who didn't care about money...they just wanted to have the opportunity to compete for a winner and they went for free...Gable created an environment that allowed anyone to thrive...fourthly (if that's a word), you can be the best coach in the world, but your kids don't want to do what it takes to be where they dream of being, it doesn't matter how good a coach you are.  Gable had the system and he had the right kinds of kids...not necessarily the the best of the best..but he developed them into the best....that's the difference.

 

I also believe that the NCAA's is a truer test of the best team because you are competing with the best kids in the country at each weight class.  In a dual format, you can bump kids around and insert wrestlers to get better match-ups, you aren't necessarily putting your best kid against their best at each weight, you throw a grouper out there and his job is to just not get 15 pointed or pinned.... On the other hand, if a team can win a national duals and the NCAA's...that in my book would qualify as the best team for sure.  

Edited by patmilkovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pat, was curious. You coached at Auburn as I recall. Do you remember how many of your wrestlers were actually southern boys? What states did you recruit most of your guys from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Tbar let's try this analogy:

 

There are four- 4x state champions at 135...they all go to State U....Only one of them can be the starter, the others have to sit, watch, wonder, dream...and maybe the starter is better by one point or so, or he won 2 of 3 close matches to get to that spot.

Take those same four 4x champs and each one goes to a different school...and they are the starters...instead of only one of those wrestlers in the bracket at 135, there are now 4 tough kids who may have developed more since they had different coaching, workout partners, and are battle tested.  Is any bracket tougher with only 4 wrestlers in it or 32?  More variables, more unknowns, different styles to negotiate etc., because you don't get to wrestle these same kids everyday an learn their strengths/weaknesses...anyway in my opinion it's tougher to win with more talent spread out than it is concentrated on one team.

As an example, my dad's teams at Maple Hts were so deep, he had kids wrestling JV for two years (hs was grades 10-12) because they had state champions ahead of them...when they made varsity as seniors, many of those "JV's" ended up state champs...put those kids on other teams and they would have had the opportunity to not only place high, but possibly win a championship for that other school as well or become spoilers.  Anyway, that's my take on it, FWIW.

 

 

This is a great analogy and I certain do not disagree with anything you said here. At the same time I look at it like this.

IMO I equate it to something like this..

 

I think that the PIAA Class AAA tournament is a tougher overall tournament than the National Prep Tournament.

However if you had the PIAA Champs wrestle the National Prep Champs, the Preps would win.

 

For that reason I see it as being more difficult to WIN the National Prep tournament than it is to WIN a PIAA title.

At the same time I see earning a PIAA medal as a more difficult task and more prestigious accomplishment than earning a medal at Preps.

 

I equate the Gable era as the the PIAA tournament. More depth, more parity but with a lower overall ceiling.

The Cael era as the Prep tournament. Less depth, less parity, but with a higher overall ceiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some athletes would be great in any era, because they are just wired to be the best.  

 

Sometimes breaking a barrier opens the floodgates.  No one broke 4 minutes in the mile before Bannister, but many did in the next few years.  At least 1300 have done it since 1954.

 

Sometimes time just stands still:  You mentioned long jump.  Bob Beamon jumped 29' 2 1/2" in 1968.  Mike Powell broke it in 1991 with his 29' 4 1/4".   Powell still holds that record after 27 years, and only he has exceeded Beamon's jump in 50 years.  

 

Take those Gable athletes, put them in present day and give them time to train with modern methods, and they'd be as formidable as any of the current stars.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, Carl Lewis exceeded the Beamon jump that day as well- with an illegal tail wind, as has Pedroso of Italy since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tobus,

 

My brother Tom was the head coach at Auburn.  I can't tell you the exact breakdown of his teams origins but I can tell you that they were a mixture of OH, NY, PA, NJ, ALA, FL and so on.  Great coach and had some great kids...Auburn placed 9th at the NCAA's then dropped.  I believe they beat Oklahoma when OU was ranked either 1 or 2...but don't hold me to that exactly.  SRO in their venue at Auburn.  LSU was another great program that had lots of potential...Sciacchetano had a bunch of hard-nosed NJ, NY, PA kids...

 

BTF...I don't follow your analogy..not that it may not be right, I just don't get the comparison Gable era PIAA v Cael Prep....In Gable's era there were approx 180 DI's+DII+DIII at the NCAA...there are only 77 DI's now - DII/DIII...I don't believe that it's tougher to win NCAA's with a smaller number of schools competing. And the intangibles are Gables style, intensity, ability to motivate, and how he developed his wrestlers to be dominant. His recipe just made a far superior cupcake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tobus,

 

My brother Tom was the head coach at Auburn. I can't tell you the exact breakdown of his teams origins but I can tell you that they were a mixture of OH, NY, PA, NJ, ALA, FL and so on. Great coach and had some great kids...Auburn placed 9th at the NCAA's then dropped. I believe they beat Oklahoma when OU was ranked either 1 or 2...but don't hold me to that exactly. SRO in their venue at Auburn. LSU was another great program that had lots of potential...Sciacchetano had a bunch of hard-nosed NJ, NY, PA kids...

 

BTF...I don't follow your analogy..not that it may not be right, I just don't get the comparison Gable era PIAA v Cael Prep....In Gable's era there were approx 180 DI's+DII+DIII at the NCAA...there are only 77 DI's now - DII/DIII...I don't believe that it's tougher to win NCAA's with a smaller number of schools competing. And the intangibles are Gables style, intensity, ability to motivate, and how he developed his wrestlers to be dominant. His recipe just made a far superior cupcake.

I think it would be easier to win a 32 man bracketed tournament with all excellent 285lbs wrestlers than it would be to win an 8 man bracketed tournament with Kyle Snyder and Adam Coon in it. I judge how difficult it is to win a tournament based on who the top 2 wrestlers are. I judge how difficult it is to place in a tournament based on how strong the field is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTF,

 

By the number of posts you must be a better at arguing than me and probably way more knowledgeable... I still don't see your logic, but since you're handpicking your bracket, if you added Chris Taylor, Kurt Angle, Gwiz, Tab Thacker,  Banach, and Steve Mocco...perhaps you might see my point.     Anyway, you win, I give up.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTF,

 

By the number of posts you must be a better at arguing than me and probably way more knowledgeable... I still don't see your logic, but since you're handpicking your bracket, if you added Chris Taylor, Kurt Angle, Gwiz, Tab Thacker, Banach, and Steve Mocco...perhaps you might see my point. Anyway, you win, I give up.

Don’t waste your time and effort on these two PSU sycophants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTF,

 

By the number of posts you must be a better at arguing than me and probably way more knowledgeable... I still don't see your logic, but since you're handpicking your bracket, if you added Chris Taylor, Kurt Angle, Gwiz, Tab Thacker,  Banach, and Steve Mocco...perhaps you might see my point.     Anyway, you win, I give up.    

 

Mr Milkovich,

 

I enjoy discussing wrestling. Engage in a lot of discussion on these boards so yes I have a relatively high post count. Yes I get into arguments at times here, however I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was simply offering a different perspective and trying to have a discussion with you. Isn't that what these boards are for? Sharing ideas? Offering different perspectives?

 

I know you to be one of the most accomplished wrestlers in NCAA history and have the ut most respect for you and the things you accomplished. My father is a Michigan State alum and was there during your freshman year (1972). My older brother was actually born in Lansing, Mi.

 

You told me you didn't follow my logic so I tried to explain it further to offer more clarity. I also certain hope you are not bothered by the fact that I simply disagreed with your perspective or offered a counter point. If you found that explanation as offensive or disrespectful, I apologize. I certainly wasn't trying to "win" anything against you or get you to "give up."

 

As for your example, sure a heavyweight bracket with all of those all time greats including Snyder and Coon would be both more difficult to win as well as place in than most brackets ever.

 

If you believe that the Iowa dynasty had the best teams as well as the most competitive era in NCAA wrestling I absolutely respect your point of view, however I am certainly allowed to respectfully disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely correct. Is it harder beating one opponent or fifty?

Only a fool (I’m looking at you, Tidiot) would suggest otherwise.

Statistically speaking, it’s not close.

 

If the one opponent is Kyle Snyder, its easier to beat 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in Gable's era recruiting and development was more important.

 

There were virtually no clubs and a fraction of the national events compared to today. It was much harder to spot the talent but Gable benefited same as Cael does today where he attracted the talent.

 

Development was almost a necessity. Sure a good coaching staff helps wrestlers like Lee and Yianni win NCAA'S as true freshman same as it helps Nolf, Retherford and Nickal become dominating champions.

 

But these guys are coming out of HS near AA ability automatically. There are far more 4x AA's today then in the past.

 

In short...30+ years ago many wrestlers were coming out of HS on a more level playing field. Good coaching and desire could get you on the podium regardless of where you wrestled. The proof is out there in past brackets. That makes the tournament that much deeper.

 

There are still exceptions today. Ronnie Perry is proof of that but it is becoming rarer and top NCAA wrestlers are bred today pre 18 years old than developed afterwards.

 

The top 4 programs are stockpiling great HS talent only in the sense of 1 per weight. We have seen this with PSU's weak lightweights, weak backups as spot starters in other weights and the fact they had to drag a kid off the football field to fill 285 a couple of years ago.

 

One could argue that Gable's teams were deeper which is evidence of development but one could argue it was easier to develop in Gable's era because kids out of HS were on a more level playing field.

 

A friend of mine who wrestled D1 in the mid 90's once said to me, "back then we lifted in the offseason and got on the mats from time to time and partied and we were always ranked in the 25-40 range, today my program trains hard all offseason, hardly parties, has more coaching and is ranked the same".

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Edited by paboom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tobus,

 

My brother Tom was the head coach at Auburn.  I can't tell you the exact breakdown of his teams origins but I can tell you that they were a mixture of OH, NY, PA, NJ, ALA, FL and so on.  Great coach and had some great kids...Auburn placed 9th at the NCAA's then dropped.  I believe they beat Oklahoma when OU was ranked either 1 or 2...but don't hold me to that exactly.  SRO in their venue at Auburn.  LSU was another great program that had lots of potential...Sciacchetano had a bunch of hard-nosed NJ, NY, PA kids...

 

BTF...I don't follow your analogy..not that it may not be right, I just don't get the comparison Gable era PIAA v Cael Prep....In Gable's era there were approx 180 DI's+DII+DIII at the NCAA...there are only 77 DI's now - DII/DIII...I don't believe that it's tougher to win NCAA's with a smaller number of schools competing. And the intangibles are Gables style, intensity, ability to motivate, and how he developed his wrestlers to be dominant. His recipe just made a far superior cupcake. 

 

 

Ah, very cool. I remember OSU got a kid from Auburn that I think ended up as a National Champ (Clar Anderson).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok T...First of all, scholarships, as far as I am concerned, don't guarantee greatness or success (I was a walk-on)...secondly, there a lot of kids on scholarship at schools who don't progress for several reasons...coaching is a big one...thirdly, Dan had kids going to Iowa who didn't care about money...they just wanted to have the opportunity to compete for a winner and they went for free...Gable created an environment that allowed anyone to thrive...fourthly (if that's a word), you can be the best coach in the world, but your kids don't want to do what it takes to be where they dream of being, it doesn't matter how good a coach you are. Gable had the system and he had the right kinds of kids...not necessarily the the best of the best..but he developed them into the best....that's the difference.

 

I also believe that the NCAA's is a truer test of the best team because you are competing with the best kids in the country at each weight class. In a dual format, you can bump kids around and insert wrestlers to get better match-ups, you aren't necessarily putting your best kid against their best at each weight, you throw a grouper out there and his job is to just not get 15 pointed or pinned.... On the other hand, if a team can win a national duals and the NCAA's...that in my book would qualify as the best team for sure.

 

Pat, this post seems like a subjective argument. My argument is just based on mathematics. If you spread the talent out more, then each team has less, unless your team is a statistical outlier like Iowa was due to Gable.

 

Not saying Gable wasn't a great coach because obviously he was. Besides that point, his accomplishments stand on their own merit and need no embellishment (the thread topic leads to this) by saying their dynasty is better than Cael's current PSU dynasty. Likewise, Cael and PSU is incredibly joyful to watch and also need no embellishment.

 

This board gets over fixated on arguing who is best all time in every category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in Gable's era recruiting and development was more important.

There were virtually no clubs and a fraction of the national events compared to today. It was much harder to spot the talent but Gable benefited same as Cael does today where he attracted the talent.

Development was almost a necessity. Sure a good coaching staff helps wrestlers like Lee and Yianni win NCAA'S as true freshman same as it helps Nolf, Retherford and Nickal become dominating champions.

But these guys are coming out of HS near AA ability automatically. There are far more 4x AA's today then in the past.

In short...30+ years ago many wrestlers were coming out of HS on a more level playing field. Good coaching and desire could get you on the podium regardless of where you wrestled. The proof is out there in past brackets. That makes the tournament that much deeper.

There are still exceptions today. Ronnie Perry is proof of that but it is becoming rarer and top NCAA wrestlers are bred today pre 18 years old than developed afterwards.

The top 4 programs are stockpiling great HS talent only in the sense of 1 per weight. We have seen this with PSU's weak lightweights, weak backups as spot starters in other weights and the fact they had to drag a kid off the football field to fill 285 a couple of years ago.

One could argue that Gable's teams were deeper which is evidence of development but one could argue it was easier to develop in Gable's era because kids out of HS were on a more level playing field.

A friend of mine who wrestled D1 in the mid 90's once said to me, "back then we lifted in the offseason and got on the mats from time to time and partied and we were always ranked in the 25-40 range, today my program trains hard all offseason, hardly parties, has more coaching and is ranked the same".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This fits with pretty much all collegiate athletics, not just wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredibly joyful. That’s how I felt when this dynasty refused to wrestle in national duals and changed the sport forever to suit their needs.

 

You should be happy. If everybody participated in National Duals the Gophers wouldn't have won near as many of them :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be happy. If everybody participated in National Duals the Gophers wouldn't have won near as many of them :D

 

 

PSU might have participated more if J Rob didn't always try to get PSU fans to subsidize the Gopher program. 

 

(can of worms opened)

Edited by TBar1977

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  

×