Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MSU158

Why such little respect for Jayson Ness?

Recommended Posts

Rodent-The only thing I would correct is people didn't wait until now to bring it up, it's been a topic of conversation and debate for the last 2.5 years. Sometimes I feel like you Minne guys don't know that the award can't be taken away from Ness. It's like you're fighting so hard. One thing that guy said earlier that is true, Ness keeps his Hodge, Varner keeps his Gold.

 

 

I know the issue has been brought up before, but it has certainly heated up again since the olympics, as if the gold medal proves who had the better folkstyle season back in 2010.

 

Ness had the better season in 2010. As far as collegiate career, I honestly don't know Varner's career record was. I suspect it may have been slightly better then Ness' 148-15 (73 pins) 5-2-3-1 NCAA finishes, but I doubt if he blew him away in this criteria either.

 

Varner finished 121-10 going 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st. His second 2nd was decided by a couple of seconds of riding time in Multiple OTs. I still remember the ref blowing the whistle with Varner on his feet and Pucillo behind him essentially ending his chance to win. However, he lost the chess match strategy he used alot that year to a guy who was even harder to ride.

 

As far as careers as a whole goes you have to give the edge to Varner. 4 time finalist. Not too many of those.

As I have stated previously, I would not argue that Ness had a better career. I simply believe his senior year was more impressive than Varner's.

 

Also, the use of respect in my title is directed more at the flippant way Ness is dismissed by those who have an agenda (Metcalf Haters) against WIN and the Hodge. Ness is the WRONG example to use since he fit the criteria to a tee. Complain about what doesn't fit your perceptions and don't use a case that does to point out those that don't.

 

 

 

Thanks for the info. I found Varner's freshmen record of approximately 30-7, but couldn't find his sophmore or junior record. So, Ness had more career wins and pins, but Varner had a better career winning % and better overall NCAA finishes. So I can concede criteria #4 of the 2010 Hodge selection process. But only #4. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think of the Hodge as a statistically-driven award. It's more about who brings excitement to the match. Based on that subjective criteria, Ness overwhelms Varner - because of both his pins and his nailbiter finals win.

 

 

Back in those days Varner still had the varnish reputation, not that of a freestyle gold medalist.

 

Also, let's not forget that, though it may appear that there is a critical mass of Ness disrespect on this board, it's mainly being generated by one person (COBRA/Suzie Shagwell) using several different handles that are all agreeing with each other - with a half-hearted attempt at a different vernacular for each voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to also add is the guys at WIN are big Bible thumpers and all about praise be to God. Ness is also open about the importance of religion in his life. I am not saying this is bad, nor that this is not important to Varner, but the faith aspect of things is important to the decision makers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just started reading all this and I really don't get what the argument is. It seems that some people are saying Varner should've won the Hodge in 2010 just because the think he was the "better" wrestler back then. And the evidence is his Olympic gold in 2012? They were both undefeated and Ness had almost twice as many pins. Based on the Hodge criteria, that seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

 

And that's where the problem arises. If the criteria was most pins wins, one would have expected Oliver to win over Burroughs a couple of years back but he didn't, the wrestler with better past credentials won. Or another example would be when Cael shared the award with the division 3 wrestler that was missing limbs. If most falls gets the award, there's no way in hell Cael should have had to share the award. Then there's the case of a wrestler pinned in the center of the mat winning over an undefeated national champion just a handful of years ago. I'm with you, one would think that the criteria should be pretty easy to follow and there should be little to any controversy once every thing is tallied up. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Just look up some results, (don't take my examples as accurate) check the stats and see for yourself how one year you expect one guy to win by virtue of precedent set, only to have the criteria switched around specifically for that situation and someone else gets it. And that's where the problem lies. The fact that Varner is/was the better wrestler has nothing to do with it.

 

 

Ok I can see your point there. I agree with you that the Hodge has been awarded somewhat inconsistently over the years. I think Fletcher is right that it is a very subjective award. I believe that the committee is basically trying to pick the most "dominant" wrestler and sometimes to get the right one they have to emphasize some criteria over others which makes it easier for them to get the right wrestler, but can lead to controversy. For example, there was no doubt that Jordan Burroughs was the most dominant wrestler in the NCAA his senior year, but he didn't have the most pins. So in that case it was good that they had that flexibility. However, they can bend the "rules" too much. For example, personally I don't think the Hodge should ever go to someone with a loss as it did 2008. Also, what Ackerman did was amazing, but he didn't fit the criteria at all for a Hodge winner. So I can see where the controversy arises, but in most cases I think they do a pretty good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little timid about jumping back in here, because I really don't care about Ness beating Varner out for anything. However, if Dan Dennis had it anywhere in his being to put the f'n track shoes on, like an intelligent human being with match awareness, is Jayson Ness still your Hodge winner? I suppose it's irrelevant, like Headshuck (who I generally don't have much in common with) said, finals match isn't in the criteria. I posted it back then that I thought Varner was the rightful winner, I still do, but I really don't care which one won. They could have split it for all I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ness demonstrated for the judges and the attendees a perfect example of criteria #7) Heart in shaking off the cobwebs from his concussion, not giving up and getting the win in spectacular fashion.

 

A Hawkeye putting their track shoes on and running? Hardly. I can't recall for sure but I think Dennis beat the defending champ Gomez in the semifinals by being the aggressor when Gomez had his track shoes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Varner vs Ness, I think most folks have their minds made up, and it's all history anyway.

 

I'll just add another comment anyway.

 

Regarding two arguments being made in favor of Varner over Ness for the Hodge - one is completely bogus, the other is okay, but not strong.

 

The silly one... pointing out accomplishments in FS two years after the Hodge was decided is not a criteria. No one has a crystal ball, and FS is not collegiate wrestling.

 

The other is that Varner's overall career accomplishments surpass Ness's. Well, that one is true, with 2,2,1,1 ncaa finishes and a higher W/L %. But those are not the most heavily weighted criteria. Dominance and falls in the most recent season will count for a lot, and there, Ness had a decided edge.

 

Not a slam dunk decision, and Varner was certainly worthy of consideration, but like the Hodge committee, I would've voted for Ness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as Varner vs Ness, I think most folks have their minds made up, and it's all history anyway.

 

I'll just add another comment anyway.

 

Regarding two arguments being made in favor of Varner over Ness for the Hodge - one is completely bogus, the other is okay, but not strong.

 

The silly one... pointing out accomplishments in FS two years after the Hodge was decided is not a criteria. No one has a crystal ball, and FS is not collegiate wrestling.

 

The other is that Varner's overall career accomplishments surpass Ness's. Well, that one is true, with 2,2,1,1 ncaa finishes and a higher W/L %. But those are not the most heavily weighted criteria. Dominance and falls in the most recent season will count for a lot, and there, Ness had a decided edge.

 

Not a slam dunk decision, and Varner was certainly worthy of consideration, but like the Hodge committee, I would've voted for Ness.

I believe next year we'll see a "career accomplishment" Hodge go to Kyle Dake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as Varner vs Ness, I think most folks have their minds made up, and it's all history anyway.

 

I'll just add another comment anyway.

 

Regarding two arguments being made in favor of Varner over Ness for the Hodge - one is completely bogus, the other is okay, but not strong.

 

The silly one... pointing out accomplishments in FS two years after the Hodge was decided is not a criteria. No one has a crystal ball, and FS is not collegiate wrestling.

 

The other is that Varner's overall career accomplishments surpass Ness's. Well, that one is true, with 2,2,1,1 ncaa finishes and a higher W/L %. But those are not the most heavily weighted criteria. Dominance and falls in the most recent season will count for a lot, and there, Ness had a decided edge.

 

Not a slam dunk decision, and Varner was certainly worthy of consideration, but like the Hodge committee, I would've voted for Ness.

 

 

Would you mind posting the criteria where it explains which is more heavily weighted? That will go a long way to telling us why guys like Burroughs over Oliver and the handicap wrestler who tied with Cael were selected over others who seemingly were stronger in what most of us believed were the "heavily weighted criteria". Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The criteria has been posted multiple times on the 1st page. I think we've got (3) threads of nonsense going right now on this same topic.

 

Yes - it is pretty specific, and yes - it is pretty clear Ness beats Varner on this criteria, and yes - it isn't always strictly applied to the letter due to the 'gray area' that important decisions often seem to fall into.

 

In those cases, when a case can be made that doesn't strictly follow the criteria, then the case is made, argued and a decision is made by voters. No - the voters aren't robots that strictly follow criteria, they are people who take the deicision very seriously and give it considerable thought before voting.

 

You can like it, or you can dislike it. But guys like Robles and Ackerman deserve special consideration due to their circumstances, and situations like Metcalf's and Burrough's also do. Ultimately, the decision takes these considerations into account as well as the primary criteria.

 

Nice win by Varner. Deserved Hodge to Ness.

 

Now let's stop feeding the troll(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The criteria has been posted multiple times on the 1st page.

 

 

Yeah I saw that, here's a quote:

 

"TheDan HodgeTrophy, considered the Heisman Trophy for amateur wrestling, has been presented to the nation's best wrestler since 1995. Created by W.I.N. founder Mike Chapman, the award is named after the former three-time University of Oklahoma national champion (1955-57) who never allowed a takedown in his college career. He also pinned 36 of his 46 victims. Criteria for the award includes a wrestler's record, number of pins, dominance on the mat, past credentials, quality of competition, sportsmanship/citizenship and heart."

First of all it says the award is presented to the nation's best wrestler and that is simply not the case. You can't possibly tell me Ness was a better wrestler than Varner at that time or since or that the handicap wrestler was tied with Cael at the best wrestler in college. You just cna't. Furthermore, I asked for where it states which criteria is weighted more heavily than the other. When Rossel provides us with that information we ought to be able to begin closing the discussion on this and reaching a conclusion. Thanks for your input though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The criteria has been posted multiple times on the 1st page.

 

 

Yeah I saw that, here's a quote:

 

"TheDan HodgeTrophy, considered the Heisman Trophy for amateur wrestling, has been presented to the nation's best wrestler since 1995. Created by W.I.N. founder Mike Chapman, the award is named after the former three-time University of Oklahoma national champion (1955-57) who never allowed a takedown in his college career. He also pinned 36 of his 46 victims. Criteria for the award includes a wrestler's record, number of pins, dominance on the mat, past credentials, quality of competition, sportsmanship/citizenship and heart."

First of all it says the award is presented to the nation's best wrestler and that is simply not the case. You can't possibly tell me Ness was a better wrestler than Varner at that time or since or that the handicap wrestler was tied with Cael at the best wrestler in college. You just cna't. Furthermore, I asked for where it states which criteria is weighted more heavily than the other. When Rossel provides us with that information we ought to be able to begin closing the discussion on this and reaching a conclusion. Thanks for your input though.

 

 

 

Criteria #1 is first, then #2, etc. That's why even a single loss would pretty much eliminate your chances, since that would blemish your record, which is criteria #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The criteria has been posted multiple times on the 1st page.

 

 

Yeah I saw that, here's a quote:

 

"TheDan HodgeTrophy, considered the Heisman Trophy for amateur wrestling, has been presented to the nation's best wrestler since 1995. Created by W.I.N. founder Mike Chapman, the award is named after the former three-time University of Oklahoma national champion (1955-57) who never allowed a takedown in his college career. He also pinned 36 of his 46 victims. Criteria for the award includes a wrestler's record, number of pins, dominance on the mat, past credentials, quality of competition, sportsmanship/citizenship and heart."

First of all it says the award is presented to the nation's best wrestler and that is simply not the case. You can't possibly tell me Ness was a better wrestler than Varner at that time or since or that the handicap wrestler was tied with Cael at the best wrestler in college. You just cna't. Furthermore, I asked for where it states which criteria is weighted more heavily than the other. When Rossel provides us with that information we ought to be able to begin closing the discussion on this and reaching a conclusion. Thanks for your input though.

 

 

 

Criteria #1 is first, then #2, etc. That's why even a single loss would pretty much eliminate your chances, since that would blemish your record, which is criteria #1.

 

 

And where do you see the criteria numbered? I see them listed and it clearly states that the "criteria includes..." but does not have them numbered or specify that any one is weighted heavier than any other. And we had a situation where a Hodge award winner not only lost, he was pinned and yet he still received the award over an undefeated national champion. We had another Hodge award co winner lose 4 times and yet still tie with the greatest collegiate wrestler of all time for the award. It just doesn't add up to me, I'm hoping someone can explain it to be but based off of what's published by the Hodge, not by their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if Dan Dennis had it anywhere in his being to put the f'n track shoes on, like an intelligent human being with match awareness,

 

Au Contraire. Dennis didn't stall. Nor did he run away as so many others do. What Dennis did is say "Here I am. Beat me if you can cause I don't run from nobody." If others wrestled with the heart and courage that Dennis showed we would have more fans in the seats. I may not be an Iowa fan, but Dennis is a class act worthy of our respect. He certainly has mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you.

 

Now if Rossel will post a link to where it explains how each criteria is weighted, we might be on to something.

 

Ackerman tying Cael, Burroughs over Oliver, Metcalf over an undefeated national champion and Ness over Varner really make one question what exactly is the criteria, (and if one even exists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you.

 

Now if Rossel will post a link to where it explains how each criteria is weighted, we might be on to something.

 

Ackerman tying Cael, Burroughs over Oliver, Metcalf over an undefeated national champion and Ness over Varner really make one question what exactly is the criteria, (and if one even exists).

 

----

 

From Mike Chapman on Hodge voting (WIN Apr 4 '08):

 

 

"The purpose of the award is to reward excellence in college wrestling and particularly, a dominating style of wrestling."

 

"Going undefeated is very important, but equally important is going all-out on the mat - winning through domination."

 

"We think a dominating style of wrestling is a key element to the sport's popularity, and we want to reward that style of wrestling.">

 

 

As most readers without an ax to grind can plainly see, the Hodge committee values domination very highly.

 

Metcalf had it in far greater numbers than Gavin, so despite his one early season loss, Metcalf was still given the award. Everything after that early season loss was impressive, including winning the ncaa at what most considered the most loaded weight class, and being named O.W.

 

Likewise, Ness had higher domination stats, by most measures, than Varner, hence the Hodge went his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As most readers without an ax to grind can plainly see, the Hodge committee values domination very highly.

 

Metcalf had it in far greater numbers than Gavin, so despite his one early season loss, Metcalf was still given the award. Everything after that early season loss was impressive, including winning the ncaa at what most considered the most loaded weight class, and being named O.W.

 

Likewise, Ness had higher domination stats, by most measures, than Varner, hence the Hodge went his way.

 

Except the logic breaks down when Burroughs wins over Oliver while Oliver had way more pins. So either pins are the most dominant way to win, or they're not. And the Ackerman thing was weird, but a feel good story, but then seemed even stranger when Robles didn't get at least a share of the Hodge when he was an undefeated D1 champ with loads of techs, light years ahead of Ackerman in terms of wrestling stats. The fact is, we'd all be better off if the Hodge stopped trying to pretend to go by a criteria at all, and just embraced the fact that it's a very subjective award given to any one of a number of highly qualified guys in any given year. The same can be said for the Heisman. Many Heisman voters don't even watch most of the games for anyone outside of the SEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you.

 

Now if Rossel will post a link to where it explains how each criteria is weighted, we might be on to something.

 

Ackerman tying Cael, Burroughs over Oliver, Metcalf over an undefeated national champion and Ness over Varner really make one question what exactly is the criteria, (and if one even exists).

 

----

 

From Mike Chapman on Hodge voting (WIN Apr 4 '08):

 

 

"The purpose of the award is to reward excellence in college wrestling and particularly, a dominating style of wrestling."

 

"Going undefeated is very important, but equally important is going all-out on the mat - winning through domination."

 

"We think a dominating style of wrestling is a key element to the sport's popularity, and we want to reward that style of wrestling.">

 

 

As most readers without an ax to grind can plainly see, the Hodge committee values domination very highly.

 

Metcalf had it in far greater numbers than Gavin, so despite his one early season loss, Metcalf was still given the award. Everything after that early season loss was impressive, including winning the ncaa at what most considered the most loaded weight class, and being named O.W.

 

Likewise, Ness had higher domination stats, by most measures, than Varner, hence the Hodge went his way.

 

 

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for. Having seen the other weird selections where they don't seem to fit "most dominant" made me wonder if there actually is any particular criteria that is weighted more than any other.

 

I agree with Rossel that based on this criteria, Ness would be the rightful winner. In an isolated situation where you don't look at past or future results where this criteria was ignored, there is no question about it. It's just that when you do look at other results, (Ackerman, Burroughs) then it completely contradicts this criteria and makes one wonder what they are basing the winner on that year. If it's best wrestler, clearly Varner is your winner. If it's most dominating with no regard to number of losses on the season, Metcalf is your winner. If it's most pins without regard for past accomplishments, Ness is your winner, as is Oliver. Somewhere in there if only heart is taken into consideration, there's a good case for Ackerman. And that's just recent award recipients, whole other can of worms if we start looking at earlier award winners. And with all of that I'm left feeling that this is no more than a popularity contest and in that case, they gotten it right every single time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank God no one recalls the Hodge winner from 2004! This debate would be petty compared to what that should have been!

 

 

Good point. A couple of interesting quotes form the article:

 

"

The committee decided not to consider the numerous one-loss wrestlers since dominance has always been the No. 1 criteria for the award. It’s also hard to justify choosing a one-loss wrestler when there were individuals who were undefeated." Metcalf???
[/justify]
"The Dan Hodge Trophy is awarded annually to the nation’s most outstanding collegiate wrestler." Ackerman? Ness?

[justify]

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...