Jump to content
fadzaev2

Toughest weight bracket, all-time at the NCAA's

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mokoma said:

Definitely possible since the champ got 3rd when Schlatter won the next year, but Spencer was capable of winning 125 by his sophomore year in high school.

Sorry, but as good as Spencer was, he was WAAAY too small for 125 and would have got rough housed.  Hell, the reason he was ranked 2 instead of 1 in his recruit rankings was because of bumping up to wrestle Fix and the size disparity was EVIDENT.  Lee wasn't truly ready for 125 until he actually wrestled 125.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Definitely possible since the champ got 3rd when Schlatter won the next year, but Spencer was capable of winning 125 by his sophomore year in high school.

Spencer was a little undersized for Nato that year I think, but I see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MSU158 said:

Future results are NECESSARY when you have guys like Metcalf and Schlatter who were at THEIR BEST right when they started, but without the overall AA numbers the weight class doesn't get the ranking it deserves.  The 2008 149 bracket was as deep with TOP END talent as any weight has been and the ONLY way to show that was to see how they all did, not only before and during, but after.

Ok and I’m fine with using that metric, and as I’ve stated, 125 2018 will end up with more AA’s, so at that point it’s better right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Ok and I’m fine with using that metric, and as I’ve stated, 125 2018 will end up with more AA’s, so at that point it’s better right?

But, they aren't the ONLY metric.  You should still try to discern just how good they were AT THAT TIME.  Russels' example of Lang is VERY telling.  The fact that a Finalist at 141 the year before was getting manhandled at that weight is crazy.

Simply put, 125's top 4 or so was very comparable to that 149 class.  However, after the top 4, I don't think it is remotely close......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

But, they aren't the ONLY metric.  You should still try to discern just how good they were AT THAT TIME.  Russels' example of Lang is VERY telling.  The fact that a Finalist at 141 the year before was getting manhandled at that weight is crazy.

Simply put, 125's top 4 or so was very comparable to that 149 class.  However, after the top 4, I don't think it is remotely close......

Lang lost 4-3 to the finalist.  How is that getting manhandled?  Isn’t it possible he was just undersized and maybe should have stayed at 141?

Tomasello was 3rd at 133 the weight above the year before and he actually did get manhandled, having getting pinned when being down by major decision already.

Edited by Mokoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Lang lost 4-3 to the finalist.  How is that getting manhandled?  Isn’t it possible he was just undersized and maybe should have stayed at 141?

Tomasello was 3rd at 133 the weight above the year before and he actually did get manhandled, having getting pinned when being down by major decision already.

Doesn't Lang's close match with the finalist suggest that he was not undersized? It more speaks to the depth of this bracket. At the Big Tens he lost in sudden victory to Palmer too. Patacsil actually beat Palmer and Churella  but lost to him for 3rd at the Big 10's. This bracket had depth even beyond the top 8 that 125 just did not have.

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ever hear stories about Gene Mills cutting weight?  I seem to recall one about his mounting an exercise bike in the van during a trip to a Lehigh dual.  

**** The story I heard was the same thing.  Gene's normal walking around weight was around 135+ during wrestling season.  He pedaled all the way down on the mounted bike, in the back of a van from Syracuse and made 118 that night.  The match was the next day/night?, and by match time he was back in the mid to upper 130s.  As great as Weaver was, Gene threw him around like a rag doll.  There was nowhere near the controls on weight management as there are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, russelscout said:

Doesn't Lang's close match with the finalist suggest that he was not undersized? It more speaks to the depth of this bracket. At the Big Tens he lost in sudden victory to Palmer too. Patacsil actually beat Palmer and Churella  but lost to him for 3rd at the Big 10's. This bracket had depth even beyond the top 8 that 125 just did not have.

Well which way is it, was he manhandled or close to the guys?  I can’t even tell what point is being made.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Lang lost 4-3 to the finalist.  How is that getting manhandled?  Isn’t it possible he was just undersized and maybe should have stayed at 141?

Tomasello was 3rd at 133 the weight above the year before and he actually did get manhandled, having getting pinned when being down by major decision already.

He was 18-8 that season. He got manhandled by Metcalf, but almost everyone did.  However, losses to a guy like Patacsil(WHOM HE GOT MANHANDLED BY 18-6)shows just how deep that weight was.  Patacsil didn't finally get his 1st AA until 2009 even though he had wins over Churella and Palmer.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, russelscout said:

Doesn't Lang's close match with the finalist suggest that he was not undersized? It more speaks to the depth of this bracket. At the Big Tens he lost in sudden victory to Palmer too. Patacsil actually beat Palmer and Churella  but lost to him for 3rd at the Big 10's. This bracket had depth even beyond the top 8 that 125 just did not have.

125 had AA’s go 0-2 and multiple time all Americans lose in the round of 12 also, so it had some depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mokoma said:

Well which way is it, was he manhandled or close to the guys?  I can’t even tell what point is being made.

 

 

I think you got posters mixed up because I never said manhandled. However, I think the point being made is that Lang is a returning finalist, a real proven contender in 2007 and even 2008, but he went out early because there was so much depth of high level guys at 149. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mokoma said:

125 had AA’s go 0-2 and multiple time all Americans lose in the round of 12 also, so it had some depth.

Moisey and Millhof are horrible examples as they fell off OVERWHELMINGLY due to injuries.  Neither guy was near the same level as their AA year for the rest of their respective careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Moisey and Millhof are horrible examples as they fell off OVERWHELMINGLY due to injuries.  Neither guy was near the same level as their AA year for the rest of their respective careers.

Actually wasn’t referring to either of those guys, but Moisey was an AA that year also (he was a 2X AA, 1 time finalist) so he couldn’t have been that bad.

Foley is the AA that went 0-2, and Piccininni is the multiple time AA that lost in the round of 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mokoma said:

Actually wasn’t referring to either of those guys, but Moisey was an AA that year also (he was a 2X AA, 1 time finalist) so he couldn’t have been that bad.

Foley is the AA that went 0-2, and Piccininni is the multiple time AA that lost in the round of 12.

Foley wasn't at that point. I thought thats what you were arguing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, russelscout said:

Foley wasn't at that point. I thought thats what you were arguing. 

Oh, now future accomplishments don’t count?  Okay then once again 149 in 2008, wasn’t really all that.  Many weight classes returned much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mokoma said:

Actually wasn’t referring to either of those guys, but Moisey was an AA that year also (he was a 2X AA, 1 time finalist) so he couldn’t have been that bad.

Foley is the AA that went 0-2, and Piccininni is the multiple time AA that lost in the round of 12.

Foley last year, wasn't close to Foley this year.  Believe me, I saw a lot of his wrestling up close.  Nic Pic had an unexpected run as a freshman, but regardless of that, his draw exposed his bottom, major weakness losing to Lee by FALL in the quarters and then getting teched by Lizak.

125 was unheralded last year and deserves respect.  But, I still stand firm that it only rivals that 149 class for the 1st 4 or, a slight maybe, 5.  After that, the depth GREATLY favors 149.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Foley last year, wasn't close to Foley this year.  Believe me, I saw a lot of his wrestling up close.  Nic Pic had an unexpected run as a freshman, but regardless of that, his draw exposed his bottom, major weakness losing to Lee by FALL in the quarters and then getting teched by Lizak.

125 was unheralded last year and deserves respect.  But, I still stand firm that it only rivals that 149 class for the 1st 4 or, a slight maybe, 5.  After that, the depth GREATLY favors 149.

Getting pinned by Lee or teched by Lizak doesn’t mean that much as they’ve both destroyed top guys quite often.

I guess Piccininni was just lucky to place this year....oh and by the way he pinned 2X Champ Spencer Lee, but I guess that doesn’t count either for you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

Future results are NECESSARY when you have guys like Metcalf and Schlatter who were at THEIR BEST right when they started, but without the overall AA numbers the weight class doesn't get the ranking it deserves.  The 2008 149 bracket was as deep with TOP END talent as any weight has been and the ONLY way to show that was to see how they all did, not only before and during, but after.

At the same time future results also blurr the reality of how good a weight class is. Burroughs took 3rd and his future accomplishments are used to emphasize how strong the weight was, which is entirely inaccurate. Sophomore JB was not a world champion level wrestler yet. By including future accomplishments you unfairly factor in levels of improvement that have not yet been obtained.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Getting pinned by Lee or teched by Lizak doesn’t mean that much as they’ve both destroyed top guys quite often.

I guess Piccininni was just lucky to place this year....oh and by the way he pinned 2X Champ Spencer Lee, but I guess that doesn’t count either for you guys.

Nope, I was pointing out WHY Picc didn't AA.  His draw put him against 2 styles he was very deficient against.  Also, Picc was FAR better this season than the previous 2.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

Oh, now future accomplishments don’t count?  Okay then once again 149 in 2008, wasn’t really all that.  Many weight classes returned much more.

If we are talking future accomplishments then 149 is unquestionably tougher. I thought we were appeasing to your criteria in this debate. If we are doing that, then 149 had 6 champs and all AA's were finalists. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigTenFanboy said:

At the same time future results also blurr the reality of how good a weight class is. Burroughs took 3rd and his future accomplishments are used to emphasize how strong the weight was, which is entirely inaccurate. Sophomore JB was not a world champion level wrestler yet. By factoring in future accomplishments you unfairly factor in levels of improvement that have not yet been obtained.

I am NOT arguing with you on that.  If you look back at my posts on this topic you will see I CLEARLY said it shouldn't be the only metric, but it IS an important one.  Problem is, most people only see or respond to numbers.  Tallying up career AA's accomplishes that.  But, as a true fan of wrestling, look deeper than just those accomplishments.  Granted, if you weren't following closely in 2008, you really won't be able to.  But, if you were, you realize how good Metcalf, Jenkins, Burroughs, Churella, Caldwell, O'Connor, Schlatter and Palmer were.  On top of that Patacsil, Hall, Kinser and Lang were pretty damn tough.

INTERSTING STAT:  All 8 guys that made the quarterfinals in that bracket, AA'd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, russelscout said:

If we are talking future accomplishments then 149 is unquestionably tougher. I thought we were appeasing to your criteria in this debate. If we are doing that, then 149 had 6 champs and all AA's were finalists. Case closed.

How can you say that when not all the guys at 125 have even graduated? I don’t think the case is closed yet.

What criteria did I even suggest? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

I am NOT arguing with you on that.  If you look back at my posts on this topic you will see I CLEARLY said it shouldn't be the only metric, but it IS an important one.  Problem is, most people only see or respond to numbers.  Tallying up career AA's accomplishes that.  But, as a true fan of wrestling, look deeper than just those accomplishments.  Granted, if you weren't following closely in 2008, you really won't be able to.  But, if you were, you realize how good Metcalf, Jenkins, Burroughs, Churella, Caldwell, O'Connor, Schlatter and Palmer were.  On top of that Patacsil, Hall, Kinser and Lang were pretty damn tough.

INTERSTING STAT:  All 8 guys that made the quarterfinals in that bracket, AA'd.  

Lmao not that interesting as this happens very very often, multiple times a year probably.

Edit:  happened in 4 other weight classes that year alone, 133, 165, 197, 285.

 

Edited by Mokoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

How can you say that when not all the guys at 125 have even graduated? I don’t think the case is closed yet.

What criteria did I even suggest? 

 

Well I don't know, I guess we could ignore future results, but when we attempted to do that, you insisted they should be considered with Foley. So you only want to use it when its convenient? or is it one year after? Go ahead, Mokoma, you decide, but stick to something.

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

×