141 Rankings

[TBar1977 4,499]

I stopped following Flo rankings when they put Jimmy Gulibon #1 and got my hopes up! 

[Eagle26 586]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, lu1979 said:

I would disagree with those who say that you cannot rank a guy in a new weight without results there.  Reasonable projections can be made as guys move up in weight.  Is there anyone who would try to make the argument that Cael or Bo should not have been ranked their senior years when they moved up to 197? or Logan S as a junior moving up to 141?  That being said it is not unreasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the wrestler who has competed at the higher weight if records and accomplishments are comparable.  For that reason I think Rivera should be behind Lee and Eierman right now.  3rd is the right place for Sebass at the moment.

I think this is a pretty good take. Rivera probably should be behind them because they are relatively close and he is new to the weight. With that said, I can’t believe people feel that strongly about whether Rivera should be 1st or 3rd. Either way the rankers are guessing how he will perform up a weight (there are no set rules for how to rank a guy going up a weight). If you are going to say there’s no way he should be ranked 1st, how do you justify him at 3rd? Lol

[1032004 1,420]

2 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

I think this is a pretty good take. Rivera probably should be behind them because they are relatively close and he is new to the weight. With that said, I can’t believe people feel that strongly about whether Rivera should be 1st or 3rd. Either way the rankers are guessing how he will perform up a weight (there are no set rules for how to rank a guy going up a weight). If you are going to say there’s no way he should be ranked 1st, how do you justify him at 3rd? Lol

I don't think people care that much about the ranking itself and I think some wouldn't even say that it's necessarily "wrong" to have him at #1.  It's more about the principle of Flo always saying "rankings are based on results!" but then extrapolating a result for Rivera that isn't really relevant to his current weight class.   Most people (except Flo) admit that there is some subjectivity to rankings.

[jchapman 1,322]

6 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I don't think people care that much about the ranking itself and I think some wouldn't even say that it's necessarily "wrong" to have him at #1.  It's more about the principle of Flo always saying "rankings are based on results!" but then extrapolating a result for Rivera that isn't really relevant to his current weight class.   Most people (except Flo) admit that there is some subjectivity to rankings.

To your point, FLO dropped Wick in their rankings after he went 2-0 with two pins during the previous week.  They said they did that because other wrestlers performed better, and therefore leapfrogged Wick.  Which is very subjective.  

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,047]

while I strive to remove as much subjectivity as possible, I admit that there is always some element of subjectivity in human rankings. glad to finally settle that issue forever. 

2 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

If you are going to say there’s no way he should be ranked 1st, how do you justify him at 3rd? Lol

excellent point. 

[VakAttack 3,994]

35 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I don't think people care that much about the ranking itself and I think some wouldn't even say that it's necessarily "wrong" to have him at #1.  It's more about the principle of Flo always saying "rankings are based on results!" but then extrapolating a result for Rivera that isn't really relevant to his current weight class.   Most people (except Flo) admit that there is some subjectivity to rankings.

I don't see how "rankings are based on results" means Flo is saying they have a completely objective process.  There is obvious, inherent subjectivity to rankings.  You are obviously valuing a person's body of work to put them in a spot.  It's a perfectly valid argument to value Rivera's body of work and put him at #1, even if I wouldn't personally do it.  It's not like there is a dominant NCAA champion at the weight.

[TBar1977 4,499]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

I don't see how "rankings are based on results" means Flo is saying they have a completely objective process.  There is obvious, inherent subjectivity to rankings.  You are obviously valuing a person's body of work to put them in a spot.  It's a perfectly valid argument to value Rivera's body of work and put him at #1, even if I wouldn't personally do it.  It's not like there is a dominant NCAA champion at the weight.

Would you agree that Nick Lee had about a 50-50 chance to be an NCAA Champ at 141 last year? If you would, then there is a 50-50 chance there could be a dominant NCAA Champ at the weight. How does a non NCAA champ at a lower weight and one with no better chances last year leapfrog Lee? 

I would also place Eierman's recent freestyle track record as better than what Rivera has done, but that's a whole 'nother argument. 

[VakAttack 3,994]

41 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Would you agree that Nick Lee had about a 50-50 chance to be an NCAA Champ at 141 last year? If you would, then there is a 50-50 chance there could be a dominant NCAA Champ at the weight. How does a non NCAA champ at a lower weight and one with no better chances last year leapfrog Lee? 

I would also place Eierman's recent freestyle track record as better than what Rivera has done, but that's a whole 'nother argument. 

I feel like I've already been pretty clear that I would go 1.  Lee, 2. Eierman, and 3. Rivera.  However, I am admittedly factoring in freestyle, which many rankers (understandably) don't.  Lee could not, by definition, be a dominant champ if he was 50/50 to be champ.  It seems to me that it's pretty clear that Flo is valuing body of work, regardless of weight.  There's consistency of logic to that, since we see guys move up in weight all the time with little issue.  Rivera also has most of the best wins of this group of three, with Eierman having the one over Yianni being the other "best win".  It's pretty clear that you (and I) are ranking with different criteria than Flo.  Which is fine!   I'm slightly discounting results down a weight, Flo is valuing those wins as equal based on skill level.

[1032004 1,420]

5 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I feel like I've already been pretty clear that I would go 1.  Lee, 2. Eierman, and 3. Rivera.  However, I am admittedly factoring in freestyle, which many rankers (understandably) don't.  Lee could not, by definition, be a dominant champ if he was 50/50 to be champ.  It seems to me that it's pretty clear that Flo is valuing body of work, regardless of weight.  There's consistency of logic to that, since we see guys move up in weight all the time with little issue.  Rivera also has most of the best wins of this group of three, with Eierman having the one over Yianni being the other "best win".  It's pretty clear that you (and I) are ranking with different criteria than Flo.  Which is fine!   I'm slightly discounting results down a weight, Flo is valuing those wins as equal based on skill level.

Hopefully most agree that wins at 125 are irrelevant to 141.   So I think the thing is Rivera doesn't really have much "body of work" at 133 - he only wrestled 15 matches and had 2 signature wins - Gross (who he also lost to) and RBY. I'm not sure I see how that is enough to put him over Lee or Eierman, but at least everyone's in agreement now that rankings are subjective.

[IronChef 1,078]

There is never going to be a totally objective ranking system in wrestling, unless you can come up with some sort of modified Elo ranking (like in chess) that accounts for strength of victory. Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough matches across the sport in a given season to make those rankings make sense. RPI gives it a go, but that incorporates strength of schedule as a way to compare guys who didn't wrestle rather than Elo that is based entirely on head to head matchups.

There is a difference between "100% objective" and "results based" rankings. The first is impossible unless there's a big round robin with all the top guys. The second is what most rankings try to be. Sometimes you just have to make a call based on the evidence you've got. I think the call to rank Rivera first is a bad one. Flo disagrees.

[nhs67 1,994]

36 minutes ago, IronChef said:

There is never going to be a totally objective ranking system in wrestling, unless you can come up with some sort of modified Elo ranking (like in chess) that accounts for strength of victory. Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough matches across the sport in a given season to make those rankings make sense. RPI gives it a go, but that incorporates strength of schedule as a way to compare guys who didn't wrestle rather than Elo that is based entirely on head to head matchups.

There is a difference between "100% objective" and "results based" rankings. The first is impossible unless there's a big round robin with all the top guys. The second is what most rankings try to be. Sometimes you just have to make a call based on the evidence you've got. I think the call to rank Rivera first is a bad one. Flo disagrees.

www.wrestlestat.com

[IronChef 1,078]

I was not aware of the Elo rankings on wrestlestat, so thank you for that. I still question if there is enough competition to make them as valuable as they are in sports with more direct competition, but I'm glad they exist. Elo rankings work best I think with a lot more matchups because there is intertia in the calculation. It also doesn't seem to handle weight changes well either. Rivera kept the same Elo from last season even though he earned it mostly at 125 and partly at 133.

[Husker_Du 839]

Andrew Spencer Spey, can you provide the rationale for Donnell Washington at 6th at 174?

Edited February 2, 2021 by Husker_Du

[portajohn 437]

15 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

Andrew Spencer Spey, can you provide the rationale for Donnell Washington at 6th at 174?

"For ClickBait that's what Flo does."  Ben Askren Feb 2 2021

[nhs67 1,994]

15 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

Andrew Spencer Spey, can you provide the rationale for Donnell Washington at 6th at 174?

I'll handle this, Mr. @Jaroslav Hasek.

Isn't it obvious, Willy?  There are only 5 other undefeated starters.

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,047]

i was led to believe this thread would only feature questions about 141 pounds?

jk, what is up willie? 174 is an absurdly difficult weight this year. Washington has a loss to #2 Massa and a win over #7 Starocci. No one ranked below him has a win as good as as that. 

that's pretty much it. maybe Starocci was too high prior to that match. it's moving Washington up a lot but with limited matches this season we've been zipping guys all over the rankings all year long. not sure Washington is going to finish on the podium this year but it seems just as likely as happening as it is for McNally, Hastings O'Malley, etc. 

whats your top 25 look like?

[portajohn 437]

46 minutes ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

i was led to believe this thread would only feature questions about 141 pounds?

jk, what is up willie? 174 is an absurdly difficult weight this year. Washington has a loss to #2 Massa and a win over #7 Starocci. No one ranked below him has a win as good as as that. 

that's pretty much it. maybe Starocci was too high prior to that match. it's moving Washington up a lot but with limited matches this season we've been zipping guys all over the rankings all year long. not sure Washington is going to finish on the podium this year but it seems just as likely as happening as it is for McNally, Hastings O'Malley, etc. 

whats your top 25 look like?

Considering you put so much weight in Washington's quality win after tonight I'm assuming Aaron Brooks is your new #1 @184.  Considering Myles Amine has been inactive.

[nhs67 1,994]

11 minutes ago, portajohn said:

Considering you put so much weight in Washington's quality win after tonight I'm assuming Aaron Brooks is your new #1 @184.  Considering Myles Amine has been inactive.

That and Amine is going 197 so...

[portajohn 437]

1 minute ago, nhs67 said:

That and Amine is going 197 so...

Last time I checked it's suggested that he's going 197.  Has that been confirmed?

[nhs67 1,994]

56 minutes ago, portajohn said:

Last time I checked it's suggested that he's going 197.  Has that been confirmed?

It's suggested he's going 184 as well...

The only proof that is out there leaning either way is he said it would be silly to cut below his freestyle weight of 189 and that he didn't want to.

[calot 222]

1 hour ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

i was led to believe this thread would only feature questions about 141 pounds?

jk, what is up willie? 174 is an absurdly difficult weight this year. Washington has a loss to #2 Massa and a win over #7 Starocci. No one ranked below him has a win as good as as that. 

that's pretty much it. maybe Starocci was too high prior to that match. it's moving Washington up a lot but with limited matches this season we've been zipping guys all over the rankings all year long. not sure Washington is going to finish on the podium this year but it seems just as likely as happening as it is for McNally, Hastings O'Malley, etc. 

whats your top 25 look like?

Move your 6 Washington and 7 Starocci  to 14 and 15 make Plott 16 

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,047]

4 hours ago, portajohn said:

Considering you put so much weight in Washington's quality win after tonight I'm assuming Aaron Brooks is your new #1 @184.  Considering Myles Amine has been inactive.

Not sure how your logic works. at 174, Washington was unranked and beat #5. too big of a leap for some, which is cool, but what would that have to do with 184 where #5 Brooks beat #8 Weiler? #4 DePrez also beat Weiler at EIWAs.  And what does any of that have to do with Amine? 

I'm also aware of Amine that I mean is likely to go 197, he hinted at it way back in May of 2020. We're waiting on either him to wrestle at 197 or for a statement form the coaches. We saw Massa at 174 so we just bumped Amine and Embree up until we know for sure how the lineup will shake out. Its ultimately an arbitrary decision tho and we unfortunately have to make an assumption one way or another. 

3 hours ago, calot said:

Move your 6 Washington and 7 Starocci  to 14 and 15 make Plott 16 

Plott's best career win is #16 Runyon while Starocci had 5 wins last year over guys who were ranked last year, most fairly highly had they not graduated (Neal Richards, Gregg Harvey, Spencer Carey, Jared Seigrist and Ben Harvey). They may not be household names but Seigrist beat #8 Andrew McNally last season, for example. Definitely see Plott in the mix for AA this season tho. 

[portajohn 437]

1 hour ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

Not sure how your logic works. at 174, Washington was unranked and beat #5. too big of a leap for some, which is cool, but what would that have to do with 184 where #5 Brooks beat #8 Weiler? #4 DePrez also beat Weiler at EIWAs.  And what does any of that have to do with Amine? 

So using last years results. Brooks won the Big Ten's.  I believe it was deeper last year than EIWA's.  Weiler beat DePerez last year in a dual.  DePerez got pinned by Taylor Venz.  Also, Trent Hidlay lost to DePerez last year.  But somehow you have Brooks behind both of them and Myles Amine who has never wrestled a match at 184.  

Edited February 3, 2021 by portajohn

[calot 222]

7 hours ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

Not sure how your logic works. at 174, Washington was unranked and beat #5. too big of a leap for some, which is cool, but what would that have to do with 184 where #5 Brooks beat #8 Weiler? #4 DePrez also beat Weiler at EIWAs.  And what does any of that have to do with Amine? 

I'm also aware of Amine that I mean is likely to go 197, he hinted at it way back in May of 2020. We're waiting on either him to wrestle at 197 or for a statement form the coaches. We saw Massa at 174 so we just bumped Amine and Embree up until we know for sure how the lineup will shake out. Its ultimately an arbitrary decision tho and we unfortunately have to make an assumption one way or another. 

Plott's best career win is #16 Runyon while Starocci had 5 wins last year over guys who were ranked last year, most fairly highly had they not graduated (Neal Richards, Gregg Harvey, Spencer Carey, Jared Seigrist and Ben Harvey). They may not be household names but Seigrist beat #8 Andrew McNally last season, for example. Definitely see Plott in the mix for AA this season tho. 

I understand all that but he did that at opens with no pressure.Now that he's in the lineup he lost to a guy with not a great resume.Going to a open every other weekend is different then facing big 10 competition every week.Not taking away his wins from last year but I think that's gotta be taken into consideration.

[TBar1977 4,499]

7 hours ago, portajohn said:

So using last years results. Brooks won the Big Ten's.  I believe it was deeper last year than EIWA's.  Weiler beat DePerez last year in a dual.  DePerez got pinned by Taylor Venz.  Also, Trent Hidlay lost to DePerez last year.  But somehow you have Brooks behind both of them and Myles Amine who has never wrestled a match at 184.  

Your argument is better than his. I will add one other thing. Brooks has only 1 college loss coming to Venz two weeks after an injury to his knee that would require post season surgery. Otherwise all W's. But Flo has him 5th? 

Edited February 3, 2021 by TBar1977