Jump to content
NJDan

Can someone explain why medals at Olympic weights are superior?

Recommended Posts

I get why an Olympic weight medal could be deemed better than a world championship medal, but to me that b/c wrestlers from 10 weight classes converge into 6 weight classes. But when the world championship is contested, it's not like the non-Olympic weights are contested by beginners. Some guys who wrestled in the Olympics move up or down to non-Olympic weights. Some guys who may be just as good, but were too small or too big for Olympic weights, but who are otherwise just as good, will now be able to compete. 

Edited by NJDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The ones who win the Olympics are not the ones changing weights.

That's likely true this year since the WCs are so soon after the Olys. But is it still true for WCs that happen 1--3 years after the Olys? And even so, if a wrestler is comfortable at 57Kg, he will likely wrestle at that weight in the Olys and the WCs. But what about a guy like Daton Fix or RBY or others who are too big for 57 and small for 65, but otherwise just as good as the 57 guy in their country? They might go up or down in the Oly year and may or may not make a team. But the same guy may prefer an non-Oly weight when that weight is being contested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone feels the Olympic weight medals are more “superior”,  there are certainly those who do not. But then there are also some who understand the sport and can evaluate with their eyes and understanding and see where the greater concentration of depth and talent is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the general sense that an Olympic Gold is better than a World Gold might involve the following perceptions:

1.  Six weights as opposed to ten (so you are competing against the best of the best).  Even the World champs and medalists at the non-Olympic weights have to go up or down to make a team.   In the past cycle, Borroughs, Cox, Gwiz, Colon, and Green (all World medalists) didn't make the team.

2.  It is now tougher to qualify to make a field of 16 in the Olympics than a larger field at Worlds.

3.  Wrestlers (and countries) will focus their training and competition cycles more on the Olympics than Worlds, and hence take them more seriously.  Thus, the competition will be more intense.  For example, the US allows guys to take an Olympic redshirt but not a Worlds redshirt.

4.  The prestige and status of an Olympic medal (or Gold) is and has been so much higher historically given the attention and awareness throughout the world.  Many people don't know anything (or much) about wrestling until they (might) see  or hear about it every four years.

That being said, in some sports, the prestige of an Olympic medal is far less than another kind of championship.   This is the case, for example, in soccer (the World Cup is the absolute height), tennis (the 4 grand slams are preferable to an Olympic medal), cycling (Tour de France), baseball, and some other sports.

Edited by dmm53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because international wrestling is structured as a pure olympic sport (ie weight lifting..). Wrestling doesn't have much developed independent of that model. Folk is the only style that created a structure outside of the Olympic purview, and in its case its capped for growth by strict age windows. 

So if the sport revolves around the olympics, yeah people are going to question weights that aren't in the Olympics. Some would even argue that worlds and continentals are meant to functions as just high level training opportunities in between Games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dmm53 said:

I think the general sense that an Olympic Gold is better than a World Gold might involve the following perceptions:

1.  Six weights as opposed to ten (so you are competing against the best of the best).  Even the World champs and medalists at the non-Olympic weights have to go up or down to make a team.   In the past cycle, Borroughs, Cox, Gwiz, Colon, and Green (all World medalists) didn't make the team.

2.  It is now tougher to qualify to make a field of 16 in the Olympics than a larger field at Worlds.

3.  Wrestlers (and countries) will focus their training and competition cycles more on the Olympics than Worlds, and hence take them more seriously.  Thus, the competition will be more intense.  For example, the US allows guys to take an Olympic redshirt but not a Worlds redshirt.

4.  The prestige and status of an Olympic medal (or Gold) is and has been so much higher historically given the attention and awareness throughout the world.  Many people don't know anything (or much) about wrestling until they (might) see  or hear about it every four years.

That being said, in some sports, the prestige of an Olympic medal is far less than another kind of championship.   This is the case, for example, in soccer (the World Cup is the absolute height), tennis (the 4 grand slams are preferable to an Olympic medal), cycling (Tour de France), baseball, and some other sports.

 Ballon Dor is higher than the world cup. You can be miserable riding the bench and win a WC. You are on the moon if you win the Ballon Dor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HawkY said:

 Ballon Dor is higher than the world cup. You can be miserable riding the bench and win a WC. You are on the moon if you win the Ballon Dor. 

As you likely know, the Ballon d'Or is not a competition or tournament.  It is award given to the best soccer (football) player.   Like the Heisman Trophy (NCAA football) or Hodge (NCAA wrestling), it is bestowed by an outside body.   A World Cup title in soccer is earned by a team.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dmm53 said:

As you likely know, the Ballon d'Or is not a competition or tournament.  It is award given to the best soccer (football) player.   Like the Heisman Trophy (NCAA football) or Hodge (NCAA wrestling), it is bestowed by an outside body.   A World Cup title in soccer is earned by a team.   

After re reading it,  looks like you did say championship. Okay Ballon Do'r is not a championship. I do think it is the ultimate achievement in soccer though. I'd much rather win Ballon Dor than be a generic WC winner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the grand scheme of things, a world title at any weight should be and will be considered equal. 20 years from now nobody is going to say world championships at 79 or 92 don’t count. Just like we aren’t saying that about world championships from the USSR era and when there were always 10 weights. Now we can debate which was harder. Clearly, right now most of the Olympic weights are significantly tougher. But like I said, I don’t think we can weight their value any differently because of that. There’s always a few NCAA weights that are tougher than others but we don’t change the value of an NCAA championships because of it.


If I need to know anything about wrestling or sports, I ask@ShakaAloha because he knows more than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Only 1 in 6 World or Olympic gold medals are Olympic.  Or, put another way,  there are 5 times as many World champions as Olympic champions.

Yes, of course that's true and in that sense it's obviously harder to win the Olympics.  But I was asking about WC medals and why it matters whether it should matter whether a WC medal is at 57 as opposed to 61 etc. When there is  world championship, I am not sure I see why the wrestlers at a non-Oly weight should be deemed less worthy than those at Olympic weights. Put another way, what if one year the NCAAs were contested at just 6 weights rather than 10 (125, 141, 157, 174, 197 and Hvy). A guy like RBY might be out of luck if he can't make 125 and can't beat Nick Lee. But the next year, if the NCAAs went back to 10 weights, RBY might win at 133. Should his victory be worth less?

Share this post


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

Yes, of course that's true and in that sense it's obviously harder to win the Olympics.  But I was asking about WC medals and why it matters whether it should matter whether a WC medal is at 57 as opposed to 61 etc. When there is  world championship, I am not sure I see why the wrestlers at a non-Oly weight should be deemed less worthy than those at Olympic weights. Put another way, what if one year the NCAAs were contested at just 6 weights rather than 10 (125, 141, 157, 174, 197 and Hvy). A guy like RBY might be out of luck if he can't make 125 and can't beat Nick Lee. But the next year, if the NCAAs went back to 10 weights, RBY might win at 133. Should his victory be worth less?

If rby wants to win the pinnacle of the sport, he'll change weights during the quad, not the year of the Olympics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



. Some guys who wrestled in the Olympics move up or down to non-Olympic weights.


Yes some guys do exit the weight to thinner weights, as you stated.
But when we condense all those good guys into one weight .......

Anyways every Olympic weight class is deeper with talent year in and out .
Love y'all and excited for our world championships sh*t talks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NJDan said:

Yes, of course that's true and in that sense it's obviously harder to win the Olympics.  But I was asking about WC medals and why it matters whether it should matter whether a WC medal is at 57 as opposed to 61 etc. When there is  world championship, I am not sure I see why the wrestlers at a non-Oly weight should be deemed less worthy than those at Olympic weights. Put another way, what if one year the NCAAs were contested at just 6 weights rather than 10 (125, 141, 157, 174, 197 and Hvy). A guy like RBY might be out of luck if he can't make 125 and can't beat Nick Lee. But the next year, if the NCAAs went back to 10 weights, RBY might win at 133. Should his victory be worth less?

There's nothing inherently less valuable about the non-Olympic weights. What makes a weight less valuable is the level of competition. And as a rule, the Olympic weights tend to have a higher level of competition because the ultimate goal is to win the Olympics and there is perceived value in competing and having success at the weight you know you're ultimately going to have to wrestle at in the Olympics. For example, I think Rashidov is a natural 61, but he chose to move up to 65 in 2019 to get ready for the Olympics.

If 61, 70, 79, 92 were as consistently deep as the Olympic weights, they would be as valuable.

Share this post


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

There's nothing inherently less valuable about the non-Olympic weights. What makes a weight less valuable is the level of competition. And as a rule, the Olympic weights tend to have a higher level of competition because the ultimate goal is to win the Olympics and there is perceived value in competing and having success at the weight you know you're ultimately going to have to wrestle at in the Olympics. For example, I think Rashidov is a natural 61, but he chose to move up to 65 in 2019 to get ready for the Olympics.

If 61, 70, 79, 92 were as consistently deep as the Olympic weights, they would be as valuable.

The world medals in the Olympic weights are more respected in the year or two prior to the Olympics because a lot of the better guys begin to acclimate their bodies to the Olympic weights since the points earned at those weights impact their seeding in the Olympics and medaling at Worlds in an Olympic weight could give them an advantageous position in their respective country's Olympic selection process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the number of competitors at Olympic weights compared to non-Olympic weights is the best argument for why Olympic weights are considered "superior". This is especially true at the WC preceding the Olympics. 

In 2019 MFS:

57 had 35 competitors

61 had 30

65 had 44

70 had 30

74 had 39

79 had 23

86 had 43

92 had 18

97 had 26

125 had 28

Olympic weights averaged 35.5 competitors

Non-Olympic weights averaged 25.25

Edited by denger
wrong number

Share this post


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

I think the number of competitors at Olympic weights compared to non-Olympic weights is the best argument for why Olympic weights are considered "superior". This is especially true at the WC preceding the Olympics. 

In 2019 MFS:

57 had 35 competitors

61 had 30

65 had 44

70 had 30

74 had 39

79 had 23

84 had 43

92 had 18

97 had 26

125 had 28

Olympic weights averaged 35.5 competitors

Non-Olympic weights averaged 25.25

Honest question: I know the Olympics only allow 16 per weight and there are qualifiers. But for the WCs, how is it determined who can compete. Or can any country send one guy for each weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NJDan said:

Honest question: I know the Olympics only allow 16 per weight and there are qualifiers. But for the WCs, how is it determined who can compete. Or can any country send one guy for each weight?

Only qualification is that your federation is in good standing with UWW.  Each country can send one per weight.

 

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...