Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jerseywrestling

Top NCAA DI Wrestlers of the 1990s

Recommended Posts

Top NCAA DI Wrestlers of the 1990s

1947_004.jpg?preset=large.socialmediaima

http://www.jerseywrestling.com/news.php?story=Top NCAA DI Wrestlers of the 1990s

Four-time NCAA champion Pat Smith of Oklahoma leads the list of the best DI wrestlers of the 1990s.

McIlravy, Guerrero, Williams, Jaworsky, and Brands all won three titles during this decade.

Check out the best wrestlers from 1990 to 1999 ranked by NCAA medals!

Here are the top eleven!

Rank - Name - Score - Medals

#1 - Pat Smith - Oklahoma State - 64 - 1,1,1,1
#2 - Lincoln McIlravy - Iowa - 60 - 1,1,2,1
#3 - Mark Branch - Oklahoma State - 56 - 1,2,2,1
#4 - Eric Guerrero - Oklahoma State - 55 - 5,1,1,1
#5 - Cary Kolat - Lock Haven, Penn State - 54 - 2,3,1,1
#6 - Stephen Neal - Cal State-Bakersfield - 53 - 4,2,1,1
#7 - Joe Williams - Iowa - 52 - 7,1,1,1
#8 - Mark Ironside - Iowa - 48 - 6,3,1,1
#8 - Markus Mollica - Arizona State - 48 - 1,5,1,4
#8 - T.J. Jaworsky - North Carolina - 48 - 1,1,1
#8 - Tom Brands - Iowa - 48 - 1,1,1

http://www.jerseywrestling.com/top_wrestlers_by_ncaa_medals.php?end_year=1999&start_year=1990

Check out the full story from the photo!

https://okstate.com/news/2015/10/28/WREST_1028151623.aspx

===

Like and follow us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/jerseywrestling/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IronChef said:

That was in 1989 though, which is not part of the 1990s. Quibble with the method if you like, but that seems to be the way it's calculated.

If that's the case, Brands should be near the top.  Hard to do better than 1,1,1 in the 90's for Brands..which makes him the best ANYONE could be in those circumstances.  I think a better calculation would be someone with 2 years in the 90's....divide by 2.  Someone with 3 years in the 90's....divide by 3.  Putting someone at 8, which we know is absurd simply because of earning a zero due to overlap makes any ranking worthless lol.  I still like these posts, but meh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Iscored2onu said:

If that's the case, Brands should be near the top.  Hard to do better than 1,1,1 in the 90's for Brands..which makes him the best ANYONE could be in those circumstances.  I think a better calculation would be someone with 2 years in the 90's....divide by 2.  Someone with 3 years in the 90's....divide by 3.  Putting someone at 8, which we know is absurd simply because of earning a zero due to overlap makes any ranking worthless lol.  I still like these posts, but meh. 

its jerseywrestling,  do they even knows anythings abouts wrestling in the Jerseys?  ;)

Edited by ionel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's the case, Brands should be near the top.  Hard to do better than 1,1,1 in the 90's for Brands..which makes him the best ANYONE could be in those circumstances.  I think a better calculation would be someone with 2 years in the 90's....divide by 2.  Someone with 3 years in the 90's....divide by 3.  Putting someone at 8, which we know is absurd simply because of earning a zero due to overlap makes any ranking worthless lol.  I still like these posts, but meh. 

"hard to do better than 1,1,1 in the 90s for Brands"
So what, this isn't the "make Brands look good rankings." It's a mathematical computation of who performed best from 1990-1999.

Also, your proposed solution doesn't make sense. I think you were aiming for average points per year but didn't quite describe that. Every senior champ in 1990 would be tied for first which is less, not more, descriptive of what the list aims to measure.

You've also made the classic ranking complaint fallacy. "I disagree with the placement of one wrestler, so the whole thing is worthless."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2020 at 9:20 AM, IronChef said:


"hard to do better than 1,1,1 in the 90s for Brands"
So what, this isn't the "make Brands look good rankings." It's a mathematical computation of who performed best from 1990-1999.

Also, your proposed solution doesn't make sense. I think you were aiming for average points per year but didn't quite describe that. Every senior champ in 1990 would be tied for first which is less, not more, descriptive of what the list aims to measure.

You've also made the classic ranking complaint fallacy. "I disagree with the placement of one wrestler, so the whole thing is worthless."

2 points IronChef!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2020 at 7:20 AM, IronChef said:


"hard to do better than 1,1,1 in the 90s for Brands"
So what, this isn't the "make Brands look good rankings." It's a mathematical computation of who performed best from 1990-1999.

Also, your proposed solution doesn't make sense. I think you were aiming for average points per year but didn't quite describe that. Every senior champ in 1990 would be tied for first which is less, not more, descriptive of what the list aims to measure.

You've also made the classic ranking complaint fallacy. "I disagree with the placement of one wrestler, so the whole thing is worthless."

"so what"?  You just said - it's a mathematical computation of who performed best in the 90's.  That's not true though.  I would say Tom Brands performed much better than many people on that list...never losing in the finals in the 90's.  Also, your assumption of me disagreeing simply because of a placement of 1 wrestler is completely false.  Tom Brands is the only person on the list that fits the criteria.  If another person were also impacted that way, I would have mentioned them too..but feel free to try to spin it to your own narrative.  You don't have to agree with what I stated...but it doesn't make it wrong, either.  Two people can have differing opinions, but you come off as the guy that can never be wrong.  I still say the rankings aren't reflective of the best performers of the 90's the way it's done.  You do though...excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iscored2onu said:

"so what"?  You just said - it's a mathematical computation of who performed best in the 90's.  That's not true though.  I would say Tom Brands performed much better than many people on that list...never losing in the finals in the 90's.  Also, your assumption of me disagreeing simply because of a placement of 1 wrestler is completely false.  Tom Brands is the only person on the list that fits the criteria.  If another person were also impacted that way, I would have mentioned them too..but feel free to try to spin it to your own narrative.  You don't have to agree with what I stated...but it doesn't make it wrong, either.  Two people can have differing opinions, but you come off as the guy that can never be wrong.  I still say the rankings aren't reflective of the best performers of the 90's the way it's done.  You do though...excellent!

Oh, you big mad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner you can understand what these lists are, the sooner you can start enjoying them.

This poster has posted probably 25 of these lists, and every time we bicker about the methodology.  This list is not a qualitative ranking, but they present or remind us of interesting parts of our history.  For me this time it was the obviously underappreciated (at least by me) career of Marcus Mollica.

I hope these lists continue, and hope my friends here can enjoy them for what they are as much as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Iscored2onu said:

"so what"?  You just said - it's a mathematical computation of who performed best in the 90's.  That's not true though.  I would say Tom Brands performed much better than many people on that list...never losing in the finals in the 90's.  Also, your assumption of me disagreeing simply because of a placement of 1 wrestler is completely false.  Tom Brands is the only person on the list that fits the criteria.  If another person were also impacted that way, I would have mentioned them too..but feel free to try to spin it to your own narrative.  You don't have to agree with what I stated...but it doesn't make it wrong, either.  Two people can have differing opinions, but you come off as the guy that can never be wrong.  I still say the rankings aren't reflective of the best performers of the 90's the way it's done.  You do though...excellent!

The list is nothing more or less than what it claims to be. The methodology is clear and consistent. It's ok if you think Brands was better than 8th. Make a list yourself and explain why. Your list will be as valid as this one, as long as you explain yourself. Don't complain when a specific objective criteria doesn't match your subjective opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you include the post-NCAA career as a wrestler -  Brands would rank 1st in the 90's.

Using just their NCAA career and the 90's being the time most of one's career occurred I rank these guys as the top 5.  

1. Pat Smith - hard to argue with 4 titles.

2. Brands

3. Lincoln McCllravy

4. Alan Fried - 2x runner-up to Brands, also missed a year due to OSU probation. 

5.  Joe Williams 

 

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...