Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nom

Our Men’s FS world team

Recommended Posts

They have seeding criteria now. Same as last year. It is objective

Hmmm, why were we all worrying they would put Snyder and Sadulaev on the same side last year, until the day of the bracketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, why were we all worrying they would put Snyder and Sadulaev on the same side last year, until the day of the bracketing.

I don’t remember exactly, but it could be that Sadulaev didn’t have any points. I don’t remember when he moved up to 97kg.

 

UWW still made sure they were on opposite sides. R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back, I do agree with your general point.  I just don't think that age and the level of commitment (time or energy) are key determinants of the lack of success on the world stage.  When our college guys enter the senior circuit, they are similar in age to the average world medalist.  And, from what I've gathered, it seems the post-grad work-life balance makes it difficult for many athletes to devote sufficient time to training.  This is supported by the fact that the majority of our (first time) medalists over the past few cycles, came soon after or during their college careers.  Aside from Henry Cejudo and maybe a few others, it is almost always the case that our world team consists of NCAA superstars.  But again, I don't think the two map together one-to-one which is why I think exceeding 5 medals will be extremely difficult.  

 

That's a reasonable perspective. I have not crunched the numbers, so I cannot comment on your understanding of them.

 

However, I quickly considered the profiles of our current world team, and I found that the average age is over 25, and only Snyder is coming straight out of a college season. To me that suggests that at the world team trials, older wrestlers are generally getting the upper hand on college-age wrestlers.

 

I also found that of the seven medalists on our world team, only five were NCAA champions, and only two were Hodge winners. Further, after looking at the 19 unique Hodge winners since 1995, only 7 have won world medals. To me that suggests that NCAA dominance is a good sign that a wrestler has a chance to win a world-level medal, but certainly no guarantee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 medals?   Yes I would be shocked if that were to happen.   I think Russia may be able to pull that off, not USA.    I'd be shocked at 8 medals truthfully.    I'm hoping for that shock at 8 medals and maybe an outside shot at taking Russia down.   Team title would surprise me, 10 medals I'd be unconscious.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dake is obviously a very good wrestler, but he's never before won a tournament over multiple world-elite wrestlers. He took 5th at the 2013 Golden Grand Prix and 2nd at the 2018 Yarygin. Until he actually wins a truly elite tournament, I have a hard time picking him to be a world gold medalist.

 

I think some fans put too much stock in NCAA accomplishments. The truth is that the world tournament is a completely different level.

 

Interesting take.   

 

Comparing # of world tournaments to same #  of NCAA seasons:

 

In his first 4 world events (includes Olympics) Burroughs has twice as many golds as he had NCAA titles (4-2). 

 

Snyder in first 3 years had 2 NCAA titles, 1 runner up, 3 world golds (includes Olympics)

 

Cox 1 NCAA title compared with  2 bronze medals

 

Gwiazdowski AA (8th)  vs bronze 

 

Stieber 2 NCAA titles, 1 world champ 

 

Gilman 0 at NCAA's compared with a world silver after 1 world tournament 

 

Green  3 AA versus 1 bronze and 1 silver.    I may be crediting him too much hardware at NCAA.   Going from memory

 

Looking at that there, these guys are doing even better at the world tournament than they did at NCAA's.       I don't doubt the world's is another level than NCAA's, but it certainly does not appear that way to those on our team who have competed in both.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take.

 

Comparing # of world tournaments to same # of NCAA seasons:

 

In his first 4 world events (includes Olympics) Burroughs has twice as many golds as he had NCAA titles (4-2).

 

Snyder in first 3 years had 2 NCAA titles, 1 runner up, 3 world golds (includes Olympics)

 

Cox 1 NCAA title compared with 2 bronze medals

 

Gwiazdowski AA (8th) vs bronze

 

Stieber 2 NCAA titles, 1 world champ

 

Gilman 0 at NCAA's compared with a world silver after 1 world tournament

 

Green 3 AA versus 1 bronze and 1 silver. I may be crediting him too much hardware at NCAA. Going from memory

 

Looking at that there, these guys are doing even better at the world tournament than they did at NCAA's. I don't doubt the world's is another level than NCAA's, but it certainly does not appear that way to those on our team who have competed in both.

They get better as they age Edited by Housebuye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take.   

 

Comparing # of world tournaments to same #  of NCAA seasons:

 

In his first 4 world events (includes Olympics) Burroughs has twice as many golds as he had NCAA titles (4-2). 

 

Snyder in first 3 years had 2 NCAA titles, 1 runner up, 3 world golds (includes Olympics)

 

Cox 1 NCAA title compared with  2 bronze medals

 

Gwiazdowski AA (8th)  vs bronze 

 

Stieber 2 NCAA titles, 1 world champ 

 

Gilman 0 at NCAA's compared with a world silver after 1 world tournament 

 

Green  3 AA versus 1 bronze and 1 silver.    I may be crediting him too much hardware at NCAA.   Going from memory

 

Looking at that there, these guys are doing even better at the world tournament than they did at NCAA's.       I don't doubt the world's is another level than NCAA's, but it certainly does not appear that way to those on our team who have competed in both.    

 

I agree with your opinion that the world tournament is a different level than NCAAs.  Your stats, however, may not capture the total picture. 

 

For example, college freshman are eligible to win a world medal. So if you're going to compare NCAA tournament success with world-level tournament success, the clock for world-level tournament success should begin with the freshman year. If you do that, you'll see that world medals are much more difficult to come by.

 

You can also consider the sheer number of NCAA champs versus American world-level champs. There are 10 NCAA champs per year, but -- over the past decade -- only 1.1 American world-level champs per year.  If the NCAA tournament was comparable to the world tournament, you would expect to see more American world-level champs.

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your opinion that the world tournament is a different level than NCAAs.  Your stats, however, may not capture the total picture. 

 

For example, college freshman are eligible to win a world medal. So if you're going to compare NCAA tournament success with world-level tournament success, the clock for world-level tournament success should begin with the freshman year. If you do that, you'll see that world medals are much more difficult to come by.

 

You can also consider the sheer number of NCAA champs versus American world-level champs. There are 10 NCAA champs per year, but -- over the past decade -- only 1.1 American world-level champs per year.  If the NCAA tournament was comparable to the world tournament, you would expect to see more American world-level champs.

 

 

I'm only talking about the current team.  The guys who have competed in the world championship have done pretty well for the most part.   In some cases even better than they did in college.   And while I agree it's a higher level than college, Team USA doesn't appear to have gotten the memo.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only talking about the current team.  The guys who have competed in the world championship have done pretty well for the most part.   In some cases even better than they did in college.   And while I agree it's a higher level than college, Team USA doesn't appear to have gotten the memo.   

 

I totally agree with all your main points:

  1. Worlds and NCAAs are different levels. 
  2. If you ignore all the All Americans and NCAA champs who never make a world team, and if you don't account for the improvement wrestlers make between their freshman years and their world debuts, then it certainly looks like some world team members beyond Snyder performed better at worlds than at NCAAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, I always forget the seeding. Do they separate returning world finalists or do bronze get criteria as well?

 

 

My redone picks:

 

57 Gilman: 5th (He will do well, but might fall just short if the bracket is different this year)

61 Garrett: no medal (Has potential but not enough experience)

65 Stieber: no medal (just too deep of a weight)

70 Green: Bronze (He could win it, but but Gadzhiev and Iakobishvilli make me nervous)

74 Burroughs: Silver (I don't feel great about Chamizo rematch)

79 Dake: Gold (yes this is my outlandish pick)

86 Taylor: Silver (Destroys everyone but Yazdani)

92 Cox: Bronze (If Sadulaev is at 97, I feel like if he can just beat whoever Azerbaijan sends he will win gold)

97 Snyder: Gold (come on snyder!!!!!)

125 Gwiz: Bronze  (I just don't think there are enough good heavyweights to beat him. He would have to have a BAD draw)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your opinion that the world tournament is a different level than NCAAs.  Your stats, however, may not capture the total picture. 

 

For example, college freshman are eligible to win a world medal. So if you're going to compare NCAA tournament success with world-level tournament success, the clock for world-level tournament success should begin with the freshman year. If you do that, you'll see that world medals are much more difficult to come by.

 

You can also consider the sheer number of NCAA champs versus American world-level champs. There are 10 NCAA champs per year, but -- over the past decade -- only 1.1 American world-level champs per year.  If the NCAA tournament was comparable to the world tournament, you would expect to see more American world-level champs.

You do realize that someone MUST win at all ten weights, every year, at NCAAs?  That only (nearly) American college kids wrestle in the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that someone MUST win at all ten weights, every year, at NCAAs?  That only (nearly) American college kids wrestle in the event?

 

Let me try a hypothetical. Let's say there was an argument over whether the NJ high school state tournament was equal to the CA high school state tournament.  (In this hypothetical, the NJ tournament = NCAAs, and CA tournament = Worlds.)

 

Let's also assume that NJ sends an all star team to the CA tournament every year.  All the guys on the NJ team were studs in high school. One member of the NJ team just graduated from high school, but the rest are college wrestlers who are the absolute best NJ has to offer. 

 

However, over the last decade, the NJ all-star team only averages 1.1 champions per year at the CA tournament.  Would you then conclude that the NJ tournament was equal to the CA tournament?  Or would you conclude that the CA tournament was better?

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try a hypothetical. Let's say there was an argument over whether the NJ high school state tournament was equal to the CA high school state tournament. (In this hypothetical, the NJ tournament = NCAAs, and CA tournament = Worlds.)

 

Let's also assume that NJ sends an all star team to the CA tournament every year. All the guys on the NJ team were studs in high school. One member of the NJ team just graduated from high school, but the rest are college wrestlers who are the absolute best NJ has to offer.

 

However, over the last decade, the NJ all-star team only averages 1.1 champions per year at the CA tournament. Would you then conclude that the NJ tournament was equal to the CA tournament? Or would you conclude that the CA tournament was better?

New Jersey reasoning says the 8.9 other matches were fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try a hypothetical. Let's say there was an argument over whether the NJ high school state tournament was equal to the CA high school state tournament. (In this hypothetical, the NJ tournament = NCAAs, and CA tournament = Worlds.)

 

Let's also assume that NJ sends an all star team to the CA tournament every year. All the guys on the NJ team were studs in high school. One member of the NJ team just graduated from high school, but the rest are college wrestlers who are the absolute best NJ has to offer.

 

However, over the last decade, the NJ all-star team only averages 1.1 champions per year at the CA tournament. Would you then conclude that the NJ tournament was equal to the CA tournament? Or would you conclude that the CA tournament was better?

You’re over thinking this. I’ll make it simple for you.

The only outcome for the NCAA championships is ten American college students winning titles (I know there is the rare foreign champ).

However, the WORLD championship is just that, a world tourney with competitors from all over.

Occasionally an athlete will out place his NCAA finish in international comp.

Just like occasionally a region runner up in NJ will win a state title. Does this mean a single region in NJ is tougher than the actual state tourney? Of course not.

Your hypothetical is pointless. Every year if you sent the NJ runners up to the CA tourney, you’d see some win titles and vice versa.

Edited by NJWC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re over thinking this. I’ll make it simple for you.

The only outcome for the NCAA championships is ten American college students winning titles (I know there is the rare foreign champ).

However, the WORLD championship is just that, a world tourney with competitors from all over.

Occasionally an athlete will out place his NCAA finish in international comp.

Just like occasionally a region runner up in NJ will win a state title. Does this mean a single region in NJ is tougher than the actual state tourney? Of course not.

Your hypothetical is pointless. Every year if you sent the NJ runners up to the CA tourney, you’d see some win titles and vice versa.

 

 

You're right, let's forget the hypos. Let's just talk common sense.

 

If you sent every reigning NCAA champ out to a high school holiday tournament, we would expect every NCAA champ to win the tournament. Why? The NCAA tournament is tougher than any high school holiday tournament. 

 

But if you sent every reigning NCAA champ out to attempt to win Worlds, you would find that only 5 or so reigning NCAA champs have ever been able to do that. Why? The World tournament is tougher than the NCAA tournament.

 

(Off the top of my head, the only wrestlers I can think of who have won NCAAs and Worlds in the same year are Kemp, Smith, Neal, Burroughs, and Snyder.)

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...