Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MSU158

Why such little respect for Jayson Ness?

Recommended Posts

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???
"The Dan Hodge Trophy is awarded annually to the nation’s most outstanding collegiate wrestler." Ackerman? Ness?

 

I forgot about Ackerman in 2001. Even though it was inspiring (and even more awesome to see live), you can add that to my list as well.

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???
"The Dan Hodge Trophy is awarded annually to the nation’s most outstanding collegiate wrestler." Ackerman? Ness?.

Interesting quote, as it seems that WIN changed it's definition of "dominance."


    [*:2441uun0]
    2004: "The committee decided not to consider the numerous one-loss wrestlers since dominance has always been the No. 1 criteria for the award." (Dominance here obviously refers to a wrestler's record. This statement clearly implies that one-loss wrestlers aren't as dominate as wrestlers who have perfect seasons.)


    [*:2441uun0]
    2008: "Going undefeated is very important, but equally important is going all-out on the mat - winning through domination." (Note here that there is a subtle shift in the meaning of "dominance." It no longer refers to a wrestler's record, it refers to "going all-out on the mat.")

Clearly, in 2004, WIN indicated that having a perfect record demonstrated dominance and that it was the No. 1 criteria for the award. In 2008, dominance was no longer linked with having a perfect record. Rather, dominance was then defined as "going all out on the mat." Moreover, this rather subjective term (i.e., "going all-out") was now considered equally important with having a perfect record (which had formerly been considered the No. 1 criteria for the award).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

This is a very fair assessment. In the grand scheme of things, the Hodge means very LITTLE. Varner won the things that REALLY matter. 2 NCAA titles, US open titles, World and Olympic teams, multiple World level medals, including the Olympic Gold Medal. A Hogde hardly means a thing when you have a resume like Varner does. Those are the facts, although some will blindly follow and believe the Hodge actually has that type of prestige. This is no slight on Ness, a very good college wrestler and fine young man from all accounts. This is not about him, it's about dispelling any notion that the award goes to the best wrestler of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

Totally disagree. Any way a logical person looks at the results Ness was the winner over Varner for the 2010 college season. Freestyle results DO NOT COUNT in Hodge voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

This is a very fair assessment. In the grand scheme of things, the Hodge means very LITTLE. Varner won the things that REALLY matter. 2 NCAA titles, US open titles, World and Olympic teams, multiple World level medals, including the Olympic Gold Medal. A Hogde hardly means a thing when you have a resume like Varner does. Those are the facts, although some will blindly follow and believe the Hodge actually has that type of prestige. This is no slight on Ness, a very good college wrestler and fine young man from all accounts. This is not about him, it's about dispelling any notion that the award goes to the best wrestler of the year.

 

 

 

Your argument has changed from "Varner was the obvious Hodge winner in 2010" to "the Hodge means very little". Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

Totally disagree. Any way a logical person looks at the results Ness was the winner over Varner for the 2010 college season. Freestyle results DO NOT COUNT in Hodge voting.

 

No logical person can make sense out of the Hodge committee's reasoning, when observed over time.

 


    [*:2nk7qlpv]Some years, one loss means that you lacked the requisite dominance for the award. (2004: "The committee decided not to consider the numerous one-loss wrestlers since dominance has always been the No. 1 criteria for the award.")
    [*:2nk7qlpv]Other years, being manhandled and pinned is okay as long as you wrestled hard in your other matches. (2008: "Going undefeated is very important, but equally important is going all-out on the mat — winning through domination[.]")
    [*:2nk7qlpv]Some years, the best wrestler gets the award over the the guy who had more pins. (2011: “Burroughs has that ‘X factor’ which makes him stand out as the wrestler who’s in a league of his own[.]” “We place a very high priority on pins, since that is what Dan Hodge was all about and what he stood for, but it doesn’t trump all the other factors.")
    [*:2nk7qlpv]Other years, the guy with more pins gets the Hodge over the best wrestler of the year. (2010: "[T]he reason Ness was selected over Varner and Borschel was the number of pins he had[.]")

As you can see, the reasoning for awarding the Hodge changes from year to year. So that means that choosing the Hodge winner involves subjectivity. In 2010, that subjectivity was used to give the award to Ness instead of Varner even though Varner was the better wrestler. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

This is a very fair assessment. In the grand scheme of things, the Hodge means very LITTLE. Varner won the things that REALLY matter. 2 NCAA titles, US open titles, World and Olympic teams, multiple World level medals, including the Olympic Gold Medal. A Hogde hardly means a thing when you have a resume like Varner does. Those are the facts, although some will blindly follow and believe the Hodge actually has that type of prestige. This is no slight on Ness, a very good college wrestler and fine young man from all accounts. This is not about him, it's about dispelling any notion that the award goes to the best wrestler of the year.

 

 

 

Your argument has changed from "Varner was the obvious Hodge winner in 2010" to "the Hodge means very little". Which is it?

 

 

 

 

It's both. Varner was indeed the obvious choice to win an award which now means very little in the grand scheme of things due to the credibility lost because to selection of clearly undeserved recipients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

Totally disagree. Any way a logical person looks at the results Ness was the winner over Varner for the 2010 college season. Freestyle results DO NOT COUNT in Hodge voting.

 

 

This award is given to the season's best wrestler. You don't really believe Ness was the better wrestler, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These guys on the hodge committee pick who they want and then highlight the criteria that is supposedly most important. A vote of some sort should be implemented. Everyone knew that Varner was the best wrestler in college. We all knew that. Now i have no problem with Ness winning the MVP of college wrestling, I just thought Varner was a much better choice. And the strength of competition is in Varner's favor. Brester is better than Dennis in my opinion. Taylor, majored, Z pinned and Simaz, teched, all those are freakin studs who Varner demolished. And lets go back a year or two earlier when Varner beat Hodge winner Herbert three times, once in folkstyle and twice in freestyle, pinning him once. I think the separation was a pretty big edge for Varner over Ness. If you look just at the criteria yes you can make a point for Ness. But this Olympic Gold is just evidence that Varner was indeed better, way better! I think the hodge vote should be split 50/50 between this biased committee and media/fans. Maybe Ness would have still won, i don't know.

 

 

Totally disagree. Any way a logical person looks at the results Ness was the winner over Varner for the 2010 college season. Freestyle results DO NOT COUNT in Hodge voting.

 

 

This award is given to the season's best wrestler. You don't really believe Ness was the better wrestler, do you?

 

 

 

For the 2010 college season, Yes, Ness was better. That is what the award is primarily based on. Past accomplishments are further down the list of importance. Future accomplishments are meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the 2010 college season, Yes, Ness was better. That is what the award is primarily based on. Past accomplishments are further down the list of importance. Future accomplishments are meaningless.

 

The reality is that choosing the Hodge winner involves subjectivity. For example:

 


    [*:c2fmcrfd]Some years, one loss means that you lacked the requisite dominance for the award. (2004: "The committee decided not to consider the numerous one-loss wrestlers since dominance has always been the No. 1 criteria for the award.")
    [*:c2fmcrfd]Other years, being manhandled and pinned is okay as long as you wrestled hard in your other matches. (2008: "Going undefeated is very important, but equally important is going all-out on the mat — winning through domination[.]")
    [*:c2fmcrfd]Some years, the best wrestler gets the award over the the guy who had more pins. (2011: “Burroughs has that ‘X factor’ which makes him stand out as the wrestler who’s in a league of his own[.]” “We place a very high priority on pins, since that is what Dan Hodge was all about and what he stood for, but it doesn’t trump all the other factors.")
    [*:c2fmcrfd]Other years, the guy with more pins gets the Hodge over the best wrestler of the year. (2010: "[T]he reason Ness was selected over Varner and Borschel was the number of pins he had[.]")

If you think that Ness should have won the Hodge despite not being as good as Varner, just admit it. If you actually think Ness was the better wrestler, I think you'll find that most people disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at their toughest matches of the season Ness Barely won and should have lost his semis match against a freshman in Oliver and needed a miracle takedown to win his finals match. Varner majored his semis opponent and won a comfortable 5-2 against a superior finals opponent in Brester. Cmon guys Varner was then and is now the better wrestler. And someone says you can't use the next level to gauge, why not! I think Dake is better than Taylor because of that. Varner was better at both styles than Ness. It really is not close in my opinion. The reason we are talking about the 2010 is because it was a ridiculous decision, plain and simple.

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...