Jump to content
hammerlockthree

Does anyone else think the Michigan thing is gross?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, maligned said:

Maybe so, but Micic is the one that makes the most sense to me in terms of wrestling for another nation. He's the son of Serbian immigrants, so he almost certainly identifies strongly with the culture. I have 2 daughters that have spent all but the infancy of their 8 years in France, but they themselves feel much more American than French still at this age. By high school, it will be a mix, but they would both die to represent U.S. women in gymnastics or soccer even though all they know is France and their French friends and sports clubs. For a guy like Micic that grows up straddling the two cultures, I'm sure it's an easy leap to represent his parents' nation, get to be the automatic rep at all big events, and never have to worry about any qualification process. 

Never having to burn mental energy on a rigorous qualification process (at least the process associated with making your national team) seems like it might be very beneficial for many wrestlers.

I imagine just making the Olympic team next year will be its own "Olympics" for a guy like Dake, and even JB must feel a ton of pressure in run-up to OTT.  Perhaps that keeps some guys sharp, but for many, having to mentally prepare for OTT, and shortly thereafter, the actual Olympics, has to draining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IronChef said:

The trials are April 4-5. Olympic wrestling is August 2-9. Four months ought to be enough time between events.

That is a nice break, but I still think its advantageous, for many at least, not to have to go through the trials process.

Guys like Dake etc. can't just focus on the Olympics, they have to worry about the trials as well.

Maybe they're so mentally conditioned it's not the issue it would be for me, but I'd certainly appreciate being able to prepare for the Olympics exclusively.

Edit: At least beating a guy like JB at the trials means one less hammer to think about in August.

Edited by whaletail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jeffrideal said:

What about all of the Japanese wrestlers that wrestled for Okie St. in the 60's? 

Yohiro Uetake, Yoshiro Fugita, Masaaki and Tadakki Hatta.  Portland State had Masaru Yatabe (Rick Sanders era), Hajime Shinjo wrestled for the University of Washington in the Larry Owings era.....a few universities had Japanese wrestlers on their teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whaletail said:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the trend started when David Habat began wrestling at CKWC after graduating from Edinboro.  Whether he thought of wrestling for Slovenia on his own, or was steered in that direction by someone (maybe Bormet?), I don't know, but I too am curious how it became the way it is.

Regardless, CKWC can probably squeeze a lot of promotion out of the fact that they qualified twice as many weights as USA Wrestling.

Actually they qualified the same number of weights as USAW, (2) but that is still an impressive accomplishment.  I doubt anyone was expecting that to happen prior to Worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lu1979 said:

Actually they qualified the same number of weights as USAW, (2) but that is still an impressive accomplishment.  I doubt anyone was expecting that to happen prior to Worlds.

Well technically all the guys representing other countries are only “ part-time” members right?

That’s probably the biggest problem.  Either they need to change the rule, or Michigan/CKWC should get in trouble if these guys are training there full-time.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well technically all the guys representing other countries are only “ part-time” members right?

That’s probably the biggest problem.  Either they need to change the rule, or Michigan/CKWC should get in trouble if these guys are training there full-time.

Why should CKWC get into trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to have 'living' list--one that's kept up to date--of all non-U.S. athletes associated with RTCs (and with nonaccredited clubs too) -- e.g., Zo, at OkSt club, who's a partner for Daton Fix.

Edited by jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lurker said:

They are not international athletes. They are American citizens and athletes with family ties that allow them to compete for another country. This rule does not apply. 

Are they all current members of USA Wrestling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Are they all current members of USA Wrestling?

I don’t know. I haven’t checked the membership lists for awhile. But USAW membership is irrelevant to their citizenship as well as being irrelevant to this rule. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


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

 But USAW membership is irrelevant to their citizenship as well as being irrelevant to this rule. 

Wrong.  Also from the link above:

Quote

Athlete Criteria: All wrestlers participating in the RTC practice must meet one of the stated criteria below and must be current athlete members of USA Wrestling. 

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay fair enough as it pertains to that rule, but the problem with you switching to a second rule to try to strengthen your argument is that it does not at all address the first rule you cited to state that they should get “in trouble”. This rule addresses members of an RTC, it does not at all address international athletes training at an RTC. 

To your second rule, again I don’t know if they have current memberships. What I do know is that Bormet is very closely tied in with the US national team, and is well aware of the rules. So I’m pretty confident everything is on the up and up. 

 

PS- my previous response was not wrong. Their membership status is not relevant to their citizenship or whether or not they are international athletes, which was the rule we were discussing until you brought in another rule after the fact. Just sayin. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Okay fair enough as it pertains to that rule, but the problem with you switching to a second rule to try to strengthen your argument is that it does not at all address the first rule you cited to state that they should get “in trouble”. This rule addresses members of an RTC, it does not at all address international athletes training at an RTC. 

To your second rule, again I don’t know if they have current memberships. What I do know is that Bormet is very closely tied in with the US national team, and is well aware of the rules. So I’m pretty confident everything is on the up and up. 

 

PS- my previous response was not wrong. Their membership status is not relevant to their citizenship or whether or not they are international athletes, which was the rule we were discussing until you brought in another rule after the fact. Just sayin. 

It's the same rule.  They're both under "B. Athlete Criteria." It actually doesn't even say anything about "members of the RTC," just "athletes participating in the RTC practice" (for the member of USA Wrestling criteria) and "attending on a limited basis" (for the international athlete criteria). 

Besides, they may need to define "international athlete" a little better.   One could certainly argue a wrestler representing a country other than USA is by definition an "international athlete."

If they are not following stated rules (and I never said I knew for sure they're not), why shouldn't they get in trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

It's the same rule.  They're both under "B. Athlete Criteria." It actually doesn't even say anything about "members of the RTC," just "athletes participating in the RTC practice" (for the member of USA Wrestling criteria) and "attending on a limited basis" (for the international athlete criteria). 

Besides, they may need to define "international athlete" a little better.   One could certainly argue a wrestler representing a country other than USA is by definition an "international athlete."

If they are not following stated rules (and I never said I knew for sure they're not), why shouldn't they get in trouble?

First paragraph: my bad. I interpreted it as a member, but I see what you mean and it’s valid. As far as seperate rule I was relating to two different things. But yes I see where you’re at. 

Second paragraph: I wouldn’t argue the term could be better clarified. Especially as Olympic free agency is growing more and more. 

Third: I guess that’s what motivate me to chime in. Original posted I replied to you stated either they need to change the rule or CKWC should get in trouble. I just don’t get the either/or and I certainly don’t get anywhere they could possibly get in trouble. They’re not violating any rules at all. We know they are American citizens who were born, live in and attend American universities. Now without looking it up we don’t know whether or not they have a current USAW membership, but given the above and the fact they have been continuous USAW members throughout their career dating back to age group, and Bormet ties with the USANT, pretty safe to assume they have current memberships. Even international athletes can have USAW memberships (or at least used to, havent looked in awhile).  

Talking about the rules could be looked at and adjusted if needed, certainly worth the discussion. Just didn’t get the suggestion Michigan or the club should have some kind of violations. 

Sorry for long post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lurker said:

First paragraph: my bad. I interpreted it as a member, but I see what you mean and it’s valid. As far as seperate rule I was relating to two different things. But yes I see where you’re at. 

Second paragraph: I wouldn’t argue the term could be better clarified. Especially as Olympic free agency is growing more and more. 

Third: I guess that’s what motivate me to chime in. Original posted I replied to you stated either they need to change the rule or CKWC should get in trouble. I just don’t get the either/or and I certainly don’t get anywhere they could possibly get in trouble. They’re not violating any rules at all. We know they are American citizens who were born, live in and attend American universities. Now without looking it up we don’t know whether or not they have a current USAW membership, but given the above and the fact they have been continuous USAW members throughout their career dating back to age group, and Bormet ties with the USANT, pretty safe to assume they have current memberships. Even international athletes can have USAW memberships (or at least used to, havent looked in awhile).  

Talking about the rules could be looked at and adjusted if needed, certainly worth the discussion. Just didn’t get the suggestion Michigan or the club should have some kind of violations. 

Sorry for long post...

How do you know they're not violating any rules though?  Just because you think Bormet is "on the up & up"?

Actually looking at the link, it almost seems like they're not going to do anything unless someone submits a complaint in writing.  Which almost ties back to the RTC "cheating" discussions.   People (read: other coaches) like to complain about certain RTC's, but has anyone actually filed an official complaint?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

How do you know they're not violating any rules though?  Just because you think Bormet is "on the up & up"?

Actually looking at the link, it almost seems like they're not going to do anything unless someone submits a complaint in writing.  Which almost ties back to the RTC "cheating" discussions.   People (read: other coaches) like to complain about certain RTC's, but has anyone actually filed an official complaint?

 

Well I mean I did say I don’t know if they have current USAW, I only assumed, but that given all the information we do know, it’s pretty safe to assume that. Wouldn’t you agree?  

What specific infraction do you suggest filing a complaint on?  The only part of the criteria that we don’t know as fact right now is whether or not their USAW membership is current. Again, wouldn’t you agree to say it’s safe to assume they  spent the $35 again this year?

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


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

Well I mean I did say I don’t know if they have current USAW, I only assumed, but that given all the information we do know, it’s pretty safe to assume that. Wouldn’t you agree?  

What specific infraction do you suggest filing a complaint on?  The only part of the criteria that we don’t know as fact right now is whether or not their USAW membership is current. Again, wouldn’t you agree to say it’s safe to assume they  spent the $35 again this year?

So can anyone become a USAW member?   There is no requirement to compete for USA in order to be a member?

Again, going back to the first excerpt I posted, I do think one can argue that if they are competing for another country, they can likely be considered an "international athlete."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So can anyone become a USAW member?   There is no requirement to compete for USA in order to be a member?

Again, going back to the first excerpt I posted, I do think one can argue that if they are competing for another country, they can likely be considered an "international athlete."

Pretty much yes. $35 gets you a USAW membership. There are certainly some outlier restrictions, but we know that the individuals we speak of qualify.  

One can certainly argue whatever meaning to the term “international athlete” means. One could also argue the earth is flat. Point is it doesn’t change reality. And the reality is the people we speak of fit current requirements, assuming they paid their $35 this year. Not liking a rule doesn’t make following that rule a violation. There’s nothing to report, as you suggest. 

We’ve reached the point of going round and round. Good day sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Pretty much yes. $35 gets you a USAW membership. There are certainly some outlier restrictions, but we know that the individuals we speak of qualify.  

One can certainly argue whatever meaning to the term “international athlete” means. One could also argue the earth is flat. Point is it doesn’t change reality. And the reality is the people we speak of fit current requirements, assuming they paid their $35 this year. Not liking a rule doesn’t make following that rule a violation. There’s nothing to report, as you suggest. 

We’ve reached the point of going round and round. Good day sir. 

C'mon, arguing the definition of "international athlete" is a lot different than arguing the earth is flat.

I believe either Pyles or Askren (maybe both) have questioned the "intermittent" definition as well, so it's not like this is just message board fodder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Pretty much yes. $35 gets you a USAW membership. There are certainly some outlier restrictions, but we know that the individuals we speak of qualify.  

One can certainly argue whatever meaning to the term “international athlete” means. One could also argue the earth is flat. Point is it doesn’t change reality. And the reality is the people we speak of fit current requirements, assuming they paid their $35 this year. Not liking a rule doesn’t make following that rule a violation. There’s nothing to report, as you suggest. 

We’ve reached the point of going round and round. Good day sir. 

Why do you keep insisting that an international athlete is not someone who competes internationally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, steamboat_charlie v2 said:

I'm not going to hold it against the guys on an individual level, but I'm not a fan of it. 

And this is nothing new, but it creates an obvious conflict of interest with some of our RTC coaches.  Are Cael and Bormet banned from the OTC?  Shouldn't they be?

 

I have no problem with guys repping other countries if they’re stuck far down the US ladder and have no realistic shot of being our rep. However, wrestling in the USA has very limited resources and we need to make sure we aren’t spending those resources to train Serbia’s or San Marino’s rep. Nor do I think the US taxpayer should subsidize the training of athletes who choose to compete against the USA rather than for the USA. In other words, to the extent any gifts or donations to RTC’s are tax deductible they should be 100% precluded from training other nation’s reps on a full time basis. If Michigan’s RTC wants to train guys who will be competing against USA’s rep next year that’s their choice, but they shouldn’t get subsidized by the US taxpayer to do so. 

The US tax code is designed to incentivize certain things, and donating money to help Micic train to beat Fix at next year’s Olympics shouldn’t be one of those things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

A USAW card is mainly needed by the athlete for insurance purposes.

Forgive my ignorance but what type and amount of insurance could a USAW card possibly provide if it only costs $35? 

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...

×
×
  • Create New...