Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Angry_Fish

If DT/KD beat JB at WTT, what happens?

Recommended Posts

Would they still have to finish higher than JB at an international event to secure the spot on the world team at 74KG? Jason Bryant tweeted that the procedures were posted on themat.com a few days ago, but I can't find them.

 

Anyone have a link?

 

Thanks.

 

 

-------------------------------

 

Also wondering if winning 74 KG at WTT prevents the winner from making the cut to 70KG and entering that tournament as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I think I digested it.

 

It is pretty simple for 74KG. The winner at that weight at WTTs will represent the US at Worlds (barring injury).

 

Interesting though that even if DT beat JB last night, JB would still get the bye into the WTT finals. But that is where his privilege ends.

 

Also interesting that if, for example, Ed Ruth were to lose to Gavin in the finals of WTT, Ruth could still earn the spot on the team through the (new?) 2nd chance qualifier provision. Ed would have to win one of 4 specific international tourneys and then enter an additional tourney (along with Gavin) and Ed would have finish higher than him (additional exceptions apply).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of 74 kg these are the scenarios.

 

1. JB wins WTT and he is the guy.

 

2. Someone other than JB wins WTT then both the champion and JB as runner up would go compete at a predetermined international tournament before the World Championships. JB would then have to out medal whoever beat him at the WTT in order to make the team. In the event of both wrestlers getting bronze the wrestler who defeated JB would go to worlds. If neither wrestler medaled same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also interesting that if, for example, Ed Ruth were to lose to Gavin in the finals of WTT, Ruth could still earn the spot on the team through the (new?) 2nd chance qualifier provision. Ed would have to win one of 4 specific international tourneys and then enter an additional tourney (along with Gavin) and Ed would have finish higher than him (additional exceptions apply).

 

Since Ruth did not win any of these events

Ivan Yariguin

Yasar Dogu

Don Kolov

Alexander Medved

 

your statement is not correct. All of these tournaments have already taken place for this year so there is no chance for Ruth or anyone else to win them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of 74 kg these are the scenarios.

 

1. JB wins WTT and he is the guy.

 

2. Someone other than JB wins WTT then both the champion and JB as runner up would go compete at a predetermined international tournament before the World Championships. JB would then have to out medal whoever beat him at the WTT in order to make the team. In the event of both wrestlers getting bronze the wrestler who defeated JB would go to worlds. If neither wrestler medaled same situation.

 

it just feels wrong that JB can still be the guy despite losing the WTT.

 

We have best of 3 for a reason, to try to definitively decide who our guy is. The additional burden of proof on JB's competitors feels onerous to me. I understand that we want to put our best guy on the mat, but our best guy should be able to win a best of 3 after resting all day and all night while the challenger has to run the mother of all gauntlets to get to try out in the best of 3. But to then also give a guy like JB the opportunity to redeem himself at some random international tournament after losing two of three matches in which he is handed a worn out opponent... I don't love that, especially given how cockamamie the draws can get at international tournaments.

 

Is there any other country that has this convoluted a process? I almost prefer the subjective approach the Russians are said to use on occasion, since the coaches who know their athletes best make the choice in those situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of 74 kg these are the scenarios.

 

1. JB wins WTT and he is the guy.

 

2. Someone other than JB wins WTT then both the champion and JB as runner up would go compete at a predetermined international tournament before the World Championships. JB would then have to out medal whoever beat him at the WTT in order to make the team. In the event of both wrestlers getting bronze the wrestler who defeated JB would go to worlds. If neither wrestler medaled same situation.

 

it just feels wrong that JB can still be the guy despite losing the WTT.

 

We have best of 3 for a reason, to try to definitively decide who our guy is. The additional burden of proof on JB's competitors feels onerous to me. I understand that we want to put our best guy on the mat, but our best guy should be able to win a best of 3 after resting all day and all night while the challenger has to run the mother of all gauntlets to get to try out in the best of 3. But to then also give a guy like JB the opportunity to redeem himself at some random international tournament after losing two of three matches in which he is handed a worn out opponent... I don't love that, especially given how cockamamie the draws can get at international tournaments.

 

Is there any other country that has this convoluted a process? I almost prefer the subjective approach the Russians are said to use on occasion, since the coaches who know their athletes best make the choice in those situations.

Other countries sometime pick the wrestler they want to represent them whether or not they win the qualifier. I think it makes good sense to use the criteria the U.S. has established. We want someone who is a proven winner, hell until JB loses a World Gold or Olympic Gold I would just as soon see him represent the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We want someone who is a proven winner, hell until JB loses a World Gold or Olympic Gold I would just as soon see him represent the U.S.

 

I have no problem with that. Then do away with the silly WTT charade and let international tournament results dictate who our rep is. Making a guy do everything short of wearing a ball and chain while wrestling the champ to win the opportunity to lose the spot he rightfully earned at an international tournament feels as unfair as how you characterize what other nations supposedly do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We want someone who is a proven winner, hell until JB loses a World Gold or Olympic Gold I would just as soon see him represent the U.S.

 

I have no problem with that. Then do away with the silly WTT charade and let international tournament results dictate who our rep is. Making a guy do everything short of wearing a ball and chain while wrestling the champ to win the opportunity to lose the spot he rightfully earned at an international tournament feels as unfair as how you characterize what other nations supposedly do.

 

What you are ignoring is that these are predetermined criteria and not subjective. If we have somebody who has proven to be elite against the top international competition, to take the spot from him you have to also prove you are elite against this same competition. It's very hard to win those listed tournaments, and somebody who can should not lose a spot to a person who only excels domestically. You don't "earn" the spot from a defending world champion unless you prove you are also capable of becoming one yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We want someone who is a proven winner, hell until JB loses a World Gold or Olympic Gold I would just as soon see him represent the U.S.

 

I have no problem with that. Then do away with the silly WTT charade and let international tournament results dictate who our rep is. Making a guy do everything short of wearing a ball and chain while wrestling the champ to win the opportunity to lose the spot he rightfully earned at an international tournament feels as unfair as how you characterize what other nations supposedly do.

 

What you are ignoring is that these are predetermined criteria and not subjective. If we have somebody who has proven to be elite against the top international competition, to take the spot from him you have to also prove you are elite against this same competition. It's very hard to win those listed tournaments, and somebody who can should not lose a spot to a person who only excels domestically. You don't "earn" the spot from a defending world champion unless you prove you are also capable of becoming one yourself.

 

Right, which is exactly what I said I have no problem with. If Taylor needs to outplace Burroughs against an international field to take his spot, great! Let's do that. I'm not "ignoring" anything.

 

What I find objectionable and unfair is this concept of having to wrestle an entire tournament to then, hours later, wrestle a best of 3 series against the champ who was sitting on his ass all day watching. What's the purpose of this if we are going to use international placement to determine the starting spot anyway? Do you really think that best of 3 held under those conditions is actually fair? Is that really the best way to determine who is better? Assuming you have wrestled this type of tournament before yourself, how did you feel after your fourth or fifth match? Like wrestling three more matches against the best guy in the world or like throwing up into the nearest bucket?

 

I know wrestling is a tough sport, but is there any other sport where challengers are more disadvantaged when trying to make the team? I can't think of one.

 

I understand the champ should have an advantage, I get it, I agree with that. But the current advantage is egregious. That's my only point. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the system if, say, the best of 3 was held a day later, or if we really care about international performance more, if it were scrapped altogether in favor of a best of 3 international tournament placement or even just one. Right now, it's one hoop too many to jump through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I find objectionable and unfair is this concept of having to wrestle an entire tournament to then, hours later, wrestle a best of 3 series against the champ who was sitting on his ass all day watching. What's the purpose of this if we are going to use international placement to determine the starting spot anyway? Do you really think that best of 3 held under those conditions is actually fair? Is that really the best way to determine who is better? Assuming you have wrestled this type of tournament before yourself, how did you feel after your fourth or fifth match? Like wrestling three more matches against the best guy in the world or like throwing up into the nearest bucket?

 

 

I know it sounds bad, but please just think for a second about how few of our guys are able to consistently medal at worlds (Just Burroughs). I'm pretty sure that in the 2 year existence of this rule, it has only been applied once (60kg in 2012). What if Burroughs happens to be sick the day of the WTT Phase 1? Should that cost him his spot despite his consistent domination of international competition? I get that we all love to see upsets where people have one great day and unexpectedly win a tournament (see Jake Deitchler), but the trails are not about that, they're about making sure we are sending out the best team. The current criteria is very fair and allows essentially anyone the opportunity to demonstrate success internationally.

 

Am i right in assuming that the only two people it currently applies to are Marable and Burroughs? Or does Marable's win at 74kg not count for 70kg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the selection criteria are great. There is a huge burden of proof domestically AND internationally to take out our proven winner. Someone like JB can focus his training to peek in September rather than June, yet he still has to be good enough to earn the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the selection criteria are great. There is a huge burden of proof domestically AND internationally to take out our proven winner. Someone like JB can focus his training to peek in September rather than June, yet he still has to be good enough to earn the spot.

 

There should be a significant burden of proof. But the goal is not just to keep the champ in his seat, it's to select the best possible wrestler.

 

The process now is like asking the leader of a pack of marathoners on mile 22 to race the reigning champ for the last four miles (the champ gets to start on mile 22), beat him, and then outrace the guy at another world-class marathon. Yes, the burden of proof is huge. Overly huge.

 

You're basically asking challengers to train for a different sport. World class wrestlers train for 6 minute matches with once- or twice-a-year peaks for 2-3 days of no more than five matches spread apart to allow for ample rest in between. They don't train for a tournament crammed into one day which is merely a warm-up for the real 3-match test against the best guy in the world a couple of hours later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of 74 kg these are the scenarios.

 

1. JB wins WTT and he is the guy.

 

2. Someone other than JB wins WTT then both the champion and JB as runner up would go compete at a predetermined international tournament before the World Championships. JB would then have to out medal whoever beat him at the WTT in order to make the team. In the event of both wrestlers getting bronze the wrestler who defeated JB would go to worlds. If neither wrestler medaled same situation.

 

Richard, I understand what you are saying, and that is how I thought it worked too, but that is not what is published in this PDF:

 

http://content.themat.com/events/MFSWor ... edures.pdf

 

On page 3, it lists what you describe in the context of the "International Tournament Champion Exception – Second Chance Qualifier". But the only advantage described for a "Returning World Championships Proven Performer" is the automatic bye into the Finals of WTTs.

 

Are you suggesting they failed to list the additional privilege (that you described above) for a "Returning World Championships Proven Performer"

 

Thanks.

 

EDIT: Also, if what you say is true, could Taylor/Dake choose to enter the 70KG event in Fargo even if they beat JB in Madison? They might do this out of fear of not making the team at 74KG despite beating JB in WTTs? I thought this might have been the reason the powers-at-be dropped the extra requirement of having to medal higher than JB even after beating him in WTTs? Follow me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that wrestlingnerd makes a good point about how disadvantageous the current system is for the challenger at the WTTs. Sitting out while the opponent wrestles all day is a huge advantage, especially with a best of 3 series.

 

At the same time, I do like the fact a proven medal winner won't lose his spot after one bad tournament. If Taylor or Dake were to win WTTs, I think JB has earned the right to have one last opportunity to make Team USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the rule giving returning world champs a bye to the WTT did not exist, Burroughs would still have the bye by winning US nationals. So complaining about the rule seems like whining for the sake of whining.

 

Also, I am in favor of anything that encourages our world/Olympic champs to come back and keep competing. We are far worse at champion retention than at creating champions. We'd be right there with the world's best if all our champions stuck around for 5 years of titles/medals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not complaining. I'm challenging that this alleged rule still exists. The PDF posted above lists no such rule. And it would be a glaring omission, IMO. I think Richard, et al, are assuming this old rule is still in place when in fact it is not...

 

If Richard, et al, are correct about this rule being in place, that document needs to be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angryfish,

when I initially read the document I raised similar questions to our staff who is in charge of this procedure. The response I was given is the one I shared previously on the board. After reading through it once more that procedure is outlined. As far as your other question if dake/taylor beat burroughs at the trials I dont think they can switch weights but believe burroughs could. have to double check there though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Richard.

 

But that simply is not what the document states. If that is the actual governing document and KD/DT beat JB at WTTs and are then forced to out medal him in a tourney to make the team, USA Wrestling will have a controversy (and likely a legal battle) on their hands.

 

I'm not claiming that what you describe is not what the authors intended for it to convey, but the language simply does not support the interpretation you have described in this thread. I suggest that document get pulled and re-written if your description is its true intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes AF i'd love a clarification of this. its kinda a big deal.

 

I thought the rules were as Richard Immel stated but if its not in the official documents...?

 

I like the system wa have now WAY more than allowing the WTT to solely determine our representative. The burden SHOULD be huge for a domestic guy to unseat a reigning World/Olympic champion. Especially one who may be focusing more on international opponents and style rather than the domestic guys who will all be gunning for his spot.

 

Maybe the solution as far as the WTT goes is to have the winner of the challenge tournament compete against JB (or whoever got the bye into the finals) the next day? It does seem overly disadvantageous to force the challenger to face the toughest p4p wrestler in the world after 3 or 4 wins against the nations other top guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree this definitely needs to be clarified.

 

Also agree that the winner of the challenger tourney should get a day to recover.

 

Do all 6 challenger tourneys in Day 1 and all 6 best-of-3 Finals the next day.

 

By the way, the "Proven Performer" definition in that document is more liberal than former champs. Much more liberal. Not sure all those people should get such a privilege.

 

Also seems crazy that DT could win the US Open, win the WTT challenger tourney(without JB participating), beat JB best of 3 and still not be on the team.

 

I would propose that if a World Champ does not win the US Open, he has to participate in the challenger tourney at WTT. The winner of the US Open (eg DT) would not get a bye to the finals either (if there is a returning world champ), but at least they get something tangible that carries over to WTT out of winning the US Open. At least forcing JB to wrestle in the tourney helps their cause.

 

Strictly using DT/JB as an example b/c DT came so close to beating him.

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...