Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sockobuw

ioaw/psu thoughts

Recommended Posts

I thought the match was a great dual meet with a great atmosphere.  Both teams have positives they can take away from the experience.

 

(I think) Gibbons and Johnson got the tie break wrong when they were commentating during the 285 match.  They stated that the tie breaker would look at first take down.  I was under the impression that it was wins per team, then bonus points, then match points totals, and then first take down.  Yes, Iowa got the first take down, and the fact is they scored the most match points by about 5 if Conaway or Beitz were to have snagged a last second take down.

You caught their comment midstream and missed some of it. THANKFULLY, they were fully prepared this time and stated that not only would Lawson have to win his match but also by exactly how much (I think they said 4) for Penn State to win the dual. Around that critical piece of information for the viewers, they were explaining the tiebreak levels. What you caught, was them talking about if Lawson won by enough to result in a cumulative bout score tie, then it would go to first TD which belonged to Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not want to use the word "peaking", but what word would you use for J. Jaggers?  He definitely had rough patches during the season, but he was ALL GO come NCAA Tournament time!

I think that was about weight management. I read someone else on that issue, maybe it was Pat Milkovich (not sure), discuss the process of the body and weight issues, how it was a season-long process with a culmination. The word peaking would seem to apply, almost certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Iowa looked flat against Maryland.  Their best performances were obviously at Midlands, Okla St., Minnie and maybe tOSU.  They got it done and won the toss-ups at 125/197 and despite Clark losing to DJD who anyone can lose to if they're not prepared for the grip & dump.  Peaking too early is entirely possible.  It's happened in sports for as long as there has been competition.

Iowa under Brands has frequently peaked early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear as day in cycling.

 

In the realm of wrestling, just look at the Russians. You can beat them throughout the year, but they are hammering at Worlds.

yeah im not denying the existence of training. every college team is training on the same schedule. what does one team or wrestler do that allows them to peak better than other teams or wrestlers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason Burak looked any better in the last minute of that match was because McIntosh was spent trying to get the major and in the last 15 seconds, Burak was the one fighting off shots. 

 

Burak is a big, strong 197 without much offense. That's enough to get him to low AA, but not much more. 

 

The same can be said for Sorensen spending most of his energy trying to rack up points early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peaking is an intangible and definitely not a constant.  You can't define it with set boundaries.  Peaking can be substantially different per team, and definitely per wrestler.  Wrestlers like Metcalf had no idea what peaking(he basically peaked the whole time) was while they wrestled in college.  Wrestlers like Jaggers, Ness and especially Grajales(last season) did it in a major way.  The way I would define it and at least try to measure it, in the way it pertains to wrestling, is:  It is the way a wrestler manages his weight and conditioning to get through the season while minimizing the affects of the weight cut and maximizing his conditioning for a set time frame.  The problem with measuring it is that it requires being there throughout the season to see the weight management, training regimen and overall health of the wrestler throughout the season.

 

My point is that it is there and can be measured.  It is, however, very hard for most of us to use as a predictor as I am sure most of us don't have access to the data necessary to properly do so.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peaking is an intangible and definitely not a constant.  You can't define it with set boundaries.  Peaking can be substantially different per team, and definitely per wrestler.  Wrestlers like Metcalf had no idea what peaking(he basically peaked the whole time) was while they wrestled in college.  Wrestlers like Jaggers, Ness and especially Grajales(last season) did it in a major way.  The way I would define it and at least try to measure it, in the way it pertains to wrestling, is:  It is the way a wrestler manages his weight and conditioning to get through the season while minimizing the affects of the weight cut and maximizing his conditioning for a set time frame.  The problem with measuring it is that it requires being there throughout the season to see the weight management, training regimen and overall health of the wrestler throughout the season.

 

My point is that it is there and can be measured.  It is, however, very hard for most of us to use as a predictor as I am sure most of us don't have access to the data necessary to properly do so.

if peaking can't be defined then it cant be measured, thus it is not scientific and can not be used to improve predictions. no predictive power = useless concept. 

 

if it just means training in some specific way that results in winning a national championship then sure, the wrestlers than win NCs all peaked at the right time. let me know when we can figure out who is peaking before the tournament and we will have something interesting to discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peaking is for wrestlers not fans.

 

But, as a judge once famously said about pornography, after acknowledging that he couldn't define it, "I will know it when I peak at* it". 

technically SCOTUS Justice Potter was referring to obscenity but yes, exactly my point. you only know when someone has peaked after you see them peak. 

 

so after the NCAA tournament we can look at the results and see who peaked. great, we all agree that it is real in that respect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

technically SCOTUS Justice Potter was referring to obscenity but yes, exactly my point. you only know when someone has peaked after you see them peak. 

 

so after the NCAA tournament we can look at the results and see who peaked. great, we all agree that it is real in that respect. 

Then I made three errors (replaced "see it" with "peak at it" and intentionally misspelled peek.

 

Hope no one was peeking.

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...