Jump to content


Photo

Comparing dynasties


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#41 KTG119

KTG119

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,344 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 06:26 AM

KTG, you mention things like a)there are different ways of looking at things and b) there is no way of proving it ...etc. I agree with both sentiments. Things are just different in too many ways to know.

My sense is that with fewer schools combined with more film of all the top recruits the talent tends to just be more concentrated today. Which dynasty is better, or greater, or accomplished more? Does it matter?

and I agree....doesn't really matter. all you can definitively say is who won it and when, who was best in their specific year or era. comparing from different eras can make for a fun discussion topic but at the end of the day that's all it is, discussion. no way to know for sure.


Edited by KTG119, 31 May 2018 - 07:12 AM.


#42 TheOhioState

TheOhioState

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,423 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:25 AM

Due to improvements in diet and training athletes are better today than they were when Gable started at Iowa. Any cursory check of objective human athletic accomplishment shows this. Pretty much all measurable achievements have improved.

Think track and field, but other sports also. High jump, long jump, sprints, distance running, etc. Skaters are faster. Figure skaters do more turns in the air now. Gymnasts do the same. It is like night and day how much athletes have improved.

Wrestlers are no different.

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.




 



#43 TBar1977

TBar1977

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 12,862 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:10 AM

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.



I basically agree they would be very successful, but no telling one way or the other if they are better than other champions. Just no way to know.

People who consider themselves experts guess wrong about athletic outcomes with regularity.

Penn State - NCAA Champions 7 of the last 8 Years


#44 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:31 AM

I'm agreeing with Pat as well. 180 teams participating = fewer teams stockpiling the talent. Had to be harder to win back in those days in many respects.



#45 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:41 AM

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

 

They might even whup today's kids because they were better on the mat. In this heavily FS dominated era it seems like many of the top wrestlers struggle on the mat.



#46 NJWC

NJWC

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,674 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:56 AM

I'm agreeing with Pat as well. 180 teams participating = fewer teams stockpiling the talent. Had to be harder to win back in those days in many respects.


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.

#47 WillieBoy

WillieBoy

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 03:35 AM

Great point!  Forever we had the big 4 in college wrestling.  OSU, ISU, IU, OU.  I believe Minnesota was the only addition to that group for 50 years, but Cael + Pennsylvania = mo-betta.  I believe JRob was a bigger influence in Iowa City than most realize.  Then of course, his first thought, much less first vote, hall of fame career in Minnesota is a lifetime accomplishment that probably passes or equals the great Harold Nichols from Iowa State, or Tommy Evans from OU...

Before Gary Kurdelmeier with Dan Gable as assistant took Iowa to the NCAA title in 1974 - Iowa had never won it all. ISU was the top dog in Iowa to that point with 6 NCAA titles before Iowa won its first. The Titles for the Cyclones were it for Iowa schools til the Squawkeyes got the coaching right. After that Iowa became a dominating presence in the NCAA. Before that it was OSU and those who would occasionally beat them.

 

OSU still leads with Iowa in second place and Penn State taking up the challenge now. Penn State under Cael is looking a lot like Iowa under Dan Gable - forging a legend and legacy under a Coach who is an unstoppable force in his own right. No question who is #1 and the target of every other program out there.

 

Say what you will but a solid target to shoot at is good for the sport. When  you beat that top dog you have accomplished something more than when you are one of five in the hunt.



#48 TBar1977

TBar1977

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 12,862 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 06:17 AM

I'm agreeing with Pat as well. 180 teams participating = fewer teams stockpiling the talent. Had to be harder to win back in those days in many respects.

 

 

How is it harder because the talent is spread out? Wouldn't it be easier? If only Iowa could truly stockpile talent (thinking of their creative use of scholarships) back in those days, with the remainder spread out over many teams, then no single team is likely to be as close to Iowa merely due to the spreading out of talent. Thus, all else being equal, they should have won. 

 

Today PSU isn't the only school stockpiling talent. I think we could all agree that Ohio State, and to a slightly lesser degree of late Iowa and Oklahoma State also stockpile talent. PSU doesn't have to beat 150 weak teams, just 75 or so. But they have to beat 3 or 4 other strong teams as well, whereas Iowa's main competition could not stockpile as much and thus were relatively not as strong. 


Penn State - NCAA Champions 7 of the last 8 Years


#49 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:04 AM

How is it harder because the talent is spread out? Wouldn't it be easier? If only Iowa could truly stockpile talent (thinking of their creative use of scholarships) back in those days, with the remainder spread out over many teams, then no single team is likely to be as close to Iowa merely due to the spreading out of talent. Thus, all else being equal, they should have won. 

 

Today PSU isn't the only school stockpiling talent. I think we could all agree that Ohio State, and to a slightly lesser degree of late Iowa and Oklahoma State also stockpile talent. PSU doesn't have to beat 150 weak teams, just 75 or so. But they have to beat 3 or 4 other strong teams as well, whereas Iowa's main competition could not stockpile as much and thus were relatively not as strong. 

 

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.


Edited by TobusRex, 01 June 2018 - 07:07 AM.


#50 BigTenFanboy

BigTenFanboy

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 5,031 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:07 AM

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 say it was easier to WIN 165, but harder to AA.

 

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


Edited by BigTenFanboy, 01 June 2018 - 07:11 AM.

  • BadgerMon likes this

#51 TBar1977

TBar1977

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 12,862 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:10 AM

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. 


Penn State - NCAA Champions 7 of the last 8 Years


#52 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:11 AM

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.



#53 BigTenFanboy

BigTenFanboy

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 5,031 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:19 AM

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.



#54 patmilkovich

patmilkovich

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:23 AM

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.


  • BadgerMon and TobusRex like this

#55 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:34 AM

Pat explains it better than me!



#56 patmilkovich

patmilkovich

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:36 AM

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, 01 June 2018 - 07:42 AM.

  • Rhackler likes this

#57 TBar1977

TBar1977

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 12,862 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:38 AM

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. 


Penn State - NCAA Champions 7 of the last 8 Years


#58 TBar1977

TBar1977

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 12,862 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 07:42 AM

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? 


Penn State - NCAA Champions 7 of the last 8 Years


#59 patmilkovich

patmilkovich

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 08:03 AM

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, 01 June 2018 - 08:05 AM.

  • BadgerMon likes this

#60 TobusRex

TobusRex

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 08:24 AM

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?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users