Next year USA 74kg Olympic Trials

[Scorenomore 39]

18 minutes ago, spladle08 said:

40 minutes ago, AZ_wrestling said:

Lewis is there too. Such an insanely stacked weight class. I think we see Imar vs Dake in the semis. Contrary to what most think, that will be a very tough match for Dake. 
On a side note, is 74 more or less stacked than 86? If Cox and Nickal go down it will be historically brutal. Taylor, Cox*, Nickal*, Ringer, Valencia, Hall, Downey, Martin, plus a couple others I’m sure I’m forgetting. 

Yeah 86kg is by far the grossest then 74kg then probably HVY, then 57kg, 65kg, 97kg in that order

What senior level results suggest Nickal can cause trouble against Taylor or Cox?  

[nhs67 345]

Just now, CaliWrestler said:

The number 1 seed I understand but a bye to wrestle 1 match is stupid. He should of course have #1 seed and have to wrestle the entire mini tournament

 

he proved himself at different weight class that was weak this year 79 i think Imar Dieringer could win

Regardless. This has been laid out since before the world championships last year.

[NJDan 428]

There could in theory be two guys with byes-- but only if two guys had medaled in non-Oly weights and then moved to the same Oly weight. If Green had medaled, he could have gotten a bye at 74 or 65. Had he chosen 74 and Dake had done the same, there'd be 2 guys with byes to the 75K semis and Burroughs would have a bye to the finals. But Green did not medal.

[nhs67 345]

1 minute ago, CaliWrestler said:

The number 1 seed I understand but a bye to wrestle 1 match is stupid. He should of course have #1 seed and have to wrestle the entire mini tournament

 

he proved himself at different weight class that was weak this year 79 i think Imar Dieringer could win

Also, I believe he has to wrestle a minimum of two matches.

[spladle08 555]

What senior level results suggest Nickal can cause trouble against Taylor or Cox?  

Hahaha yeah trust me. Im not on the Nickal bandwagon. But depth of talent. Cox , DT, Ringer, Valencia, Nickal, Hall, PD3, so on and so forth, add to the gauntlet that is the weight.  

Scroll back to the Final X thread... I was 100% on the "Nickal just beat some cans, what makes yall think he can blowout the #1 guy in the world, who has never been blown out in his entire senior freestyle career"

 

That said though, Nickal is a talent. Im most intrested in Ringer/Zahid vs DT

 

 

 

[AZ_wrestling 63]

5 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I Believe you're interpreting it incorrectly.

By your logic Dake and Cox could meet for the right to go to the Olympics at 86kg with no actual tournament being held.

The mini-tournament feeds into the best of three. If someone is sitting they wrestle the finals of the mini-tournament. If nobody us sitting g in the best of three already then the two 'finalists' of the mini-tournament meet in a best of 3.

Yeah, you’re right. I tried deleting my op but mobile sucks. But you are correct. I think it’s a relatively fair system. 

[nhs67 345]

Just now, AZ_wrestling said:

Yeah, you’re right. I tried deleting my op but mobile sucks. But you are correct. I think it’s a relatively fair system. 

I believe this process is this way now because of the ruckus Dake made years ago about it.

So it's as fair as can be I think. He could have gone 74. He chose not to due to injuries.

[CaliWrestler 45]

6 hours ago, spladle08 said:

Hahaha yeah trust me. Im not on the Nickal bandwagon. But depth of talent. Cox , DT, Ringer, Valencia, Nickal, Hall, PD3, so on and so forth, add to the gauntlet that is the weight.  

Scroll back to the Final X thread... I was 100% on the "Nickal just beat some cans, what makes yall think he can blowout the #1 guy in the world, who has never been blown out in his entire senior freestyle career"

 

That said though, Nickal is a talent. Im most intrested in Ringer/Zahid vs DT

 

 

 

DT vs Valencia was tech fall for DT midlands

[spladle08 555]

DT vs Valencia was tech fall for DT midlands

Yeah Folk and Free are the exact same so i can see where youre coming from

[CaliWrestler 45]

1 hour ago, spladle08 said:

1 hour ago, CaliWrestler said:

DT vs Valencia was tech fall for DT midlands

Yeah Folk and Free are the exact same so i can see where youre coming from

You got me 

[whaletail 105]

16 hours ago, CaliWrestler said:

Kyle Dake 

IMaR

Nolf

Carr

Green

winner gets JB. That’s going to wear on KD you will have one tired guy vs JB who starts slow in his first match I want JB to win but can’t help but want to see KD vs Russian and Chamizo 

 

As much as I think our medalist protection policy works against its own mandate at 74 next year, at least Dake gets a bye to the semis.

Of course, with the finals the same day, the challenger faces a disadvantage unseen since Final X was introduced last year.

And given the mandate behind the policy (to choose the best possible rep, not reward returning medalists), providing one trials finalist with an objective advantage in the deciding matches is counter productive.

Protecting returning medalists as we have since last year helps ensure the best guy gets the spot; gifting one finalist with an advantage in the actual match does not.  Especially when you consider the Worlds/Olympic tournament format, which rewards the wrestler who can best run a gauntlet of opponents, unlike an event such as WNO, where a single match between known opponents determines the winner.

[whaletail 105]

16 hours ago, nhs67 said:

I believe this process is this way now because of the ruckus Dake made years ago about it.

So it's as fair as can be I think. He could have gone 74. He chose not to due to injuries.

Unless the Trials finals are wrestled separately from the earlier rounds, we're practically back to the Zeke Jones' system that Dake understandably complained about.

Our Final X system is much fairer than the winner of a challenge tournament having to face a rested returning medal later that same day.

Even had he won gold on Saturday, gifting JB with an advantage in the deciding match isn't fair to Dake at all.

The best definition of fair is an equal playing field.

Of course, fairness isn't part of the medalist protection policy mandate; advancing the best possible rep to the Olympics/Worlds is the goal.  Unfortunately, gifting one wrestler with an advantage in the match itself doesn't align with actual mandate either.

[jon 126]

7 minutes ago, whaletail said:

Of course, fairness isn't part of the medalist protection policy mandate; advancing the best possible rep to the Olympics/Worlds is the goal.  Unfortunately, gifting one wrestler with an advantage in the match itself doesn't align with actual mandate either.

In other discussion someone said medalist-protection policy serves also to incentivize that athletes keep competing, year on year. This point relevant to present discussion?

I for one find medalist-protection policy (combined with Final X format, weight-to-weight differences etc) confusing from a fan perspective. Give a break to U.S. Open winner (not to last year's medalist) thus elevating the nationals tourney!

Edited September 23 by jon

[boconnell 1,354]

21 minutes ago, whaletail said:

Unless the Trials finals are wrestled separately from the earlier rounds, we're practically back to the Zeke Jones' system that Dake understandably complained about.

Our Final X system is much fairer than the winner of a challenge tournament having to face a rested returning medal later that same day.

Even had he won gold on Saturday, gifting JB with an advantage in the deciding match isn't fair to Dake at all.

The best definition of fair is an equal playing field.

Of course, fairness isn't part of the medalist protection policy mandate; advancing the best possible rep to the Olympics/Worlds is the goal.  Unfortunately, gifting one wrestler with an advantage in the match itself doesn't align with actual mandate either.

Pre-complaining from Cornell fans?  I wouldn't have believed it.  The first fan base to become intolerable without ever winning anything.  

[Mokoma 46]

10 hours ago, CaliWrestler said:

You got me 

Also, how many years ago was this??  I still take Taylor or Nickal to win this weight though.

[IronChef 566]

Here is a bracket with one or two returning world medalists from non-olympic weights.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/olympic-trials-tickets.245568/page-4#post-4326500

Dake will have a bye into the semis of the challenge tournament. He will wrestle the semis and, if he wins, the challenge tournament finals on Day 1. On Day 2 the challenge tournament winner will wrestle best of 3 against Burroughs.

Dake's path:
Day 1 - 2 matches
Day 2 - Best of 3

If two non-olympic weight medalists are at the same weight, they will both have semifinal spots on opposite sides of the bracket. E.g. if Dake and Cox are at 86, they will be in opposite semis. The winners of those semis will have a best of three the following day.

[jon 126]

.

Edited September 23 by jon
My bad.

[whaletail 105]

1 hour ago, jon said:

In other discussion someone said medalist-protection policy serves also to incentivize that athletes keep competing, year on year. This point relevant to present discussion?

I for one find medalist-protection policy (combined with Final X format, weight-to-weight differences etc) confusing from a fan perspective. Give a break to U.S. Open winner (not to last year's medalist) thus elevating the nationals tourney!

As far as competing longer, I suspect RTC money offers a better incentive.  Anyone good enough to medal one year is, on average at least, unlikely to retire the next if they're well compensated and healthy.  I haven't thought it through completely, but I doubt there's yet been a returning medalist who continued competing largely, let alone solely, as a result of the policy.

Although I think the policy makes a lot of sense when the two finalists meet in a separate event like Final X, I'm ambivalent about protecting returning bronze medalists.

It's certainly not a huge issue, but given the current random draw, uneven brackets, and the repechage system itself, I wonder how often the third through sixth best wrestlers actually wrestle for bronze.  Small sample size notwithstanding, I think it's at least worth reviewing the data.  Or at least trying to, as determining the the third through sixth wrestlers at each weight class prior to that year's Worlds in anything resembling an objective matter may not be possible.

My concern is that restricting the pool of potential bronze medalists to include only those wrestlers losing to one of the two finalists, arbitrarily eliminates a number of worthy candidates.

Finally, I agree that the entire selection process itself is very confusing, and not just to the casual fan, but at least it's objective.

 

[whaletail 105]

2 hours ago, boconnell said:

Pre-complaining from Cornell fans?  I wouldn't have believed it.  The first fan base to become intolerable without ever winning anything.  

Who's a Cornell fan, and who's complaining?

I'm a Dake fan, and enjoy watching Vito and Yianni wrestle, but I really couldn't care less how Cornell performs.

Regardless, with the Trials now a 2 day event, most of my concerns are no longer relevant.

 

[Fishbane 102]

19 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

That answers part of my question and thanks for that info. But the other part was if 2 got byes to semis and one to finals- where does that leave everyone else?

http://content.themat.com/forms/2020-OLY-MFS.pdf

If someone has a bye to the finals then the first day is wrestled like a challenge tournament with a final that day.  The two wrestlers with byes to the semis would be in the semi finals of the challenge tournament and have to wrestle twice that day to make the best of three final the next day. The above PDF has a bracket for this exact situation.

I don't think this will happen anywhere.  Burroughs, Dake, Cox, and Snyder have byes.  Cox's bye would be more meaningful at 86kg than at 97.   He would have only one match at 86 before the best of three final and at 97 he would have two.  Also if Snyder chooses to move up to 125kg he would have a bye to the semifinal.  This is only a provision for 97 and 125 where there are two olympic weights right next to each other.  If Jordan Burroughs moves up to 86kg he doesn't get a bye. 

[nhs67 345]

Sweet. Finally right about something.

The day has come, ladies and gents.

[boconnell 1,354]

2 hours ago, whaletail said:

Who's a Cornell fan, and who's complaining?

I'm a Dake fan, and enjoy watching Vito and Yianni wrestle, but I really couldn't care less how Cornell performs.

Regardless, with the Trials now a 2 day event, most of my concerns are no longer relevant.

 

Excellent news.  I can take a breath and enjoy Cornell and not make dumb posts like my above.  

[whaletail 105]

On 9/22/2019 at 1:03 PM, nhs67 said:

It isn't dumb.

He proved to be best in the world at a non-Oly weight. The criteria was laid out before this cycle even started. It was known and has been known for a year now.

The real question is interpretation.

JB sits in the best of 3 finals. Okay understood.

Now does Dake sit in the semi-finals of the mini-tournament to the best of three or does he face the mini-tournament winner in a proverbial semi-final to the best of three?

My interpretation is that they will give him a seed, likely the 1, and seed however they do with the quadrant from the 2, 3, and 4 feeding I to a semi-final that has Dake and the other 3 quadrant winners.

Meaning Dake will have 2 matches still, minimun.

Two matches prior to JB, or inclusive?

Assuming you mean the latter, I'm pretty sure that's how it works as well.

[whaletail 105]

21 hours ago, IronChef said:

Here is a bracket with one or two returning world medalists from non-olympic weights.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/olympic-trials-tickets.245568/page-4#post-4326500

Dake will have a bye into the semis of the challenge tournament. He will wrestle the semis and, if he wins, the challenge tournament finals on Day 1. On Day 2 the challenge tournament winner will wrestle best of 3 against Burroughs.

Dake's path:
Day 1 - 2 matches
Day 2 - Best of 3

If two non-olympic weight medalists are at the same weight, they will both have semifinal spots on opposite sides of the bracket. E.g. if Dake and Cox are at 86, they will be in opposite semis. The winners of those semis will have a best of three the following day.

I'm pretty sure he'll only have to beat a single opponent to face Burroughs, as there is no challenge tournament.

JB simply receives a bye to the Olympic Trials finals, while Dake receives a bye to the semis.

And with a tournament being a 2 day event, Dake will be much more rested vs. JB than from 2013-2017 (when he faced him hours after wrestling through the challenge tournaments). 

[Lurker 687]

38 minutes ago, whaletail said:

I'm pretty sure he'll only have to beat a single opponent to face Burroughs, as there is no challenge tournament.

JB simply receives a bye to the Olympic Trials finals, while Dake receives a bye to the semis.

And with a tournament being a 2 day event, Dake will be much more rested vs. JB than from 2013-2017 (when he faced him hours after wrestling through the challenge tournaments). 

He will have to beat two opponents on day 1 (this is assuming as in iron chefs example he goes 74). The semi is not the semi of the whole team trial, but of the day 1 challenge tournament. At 74 and 97, the challenge tournament will be a one match final, with the winner advancing to day 2 best of three. In the other weights the challenge tournament final will move to day two and be a best of three. 

Edited September 24 by Lurker