Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was looking to re-calc my NCAA all-time leading scorers to do it on a per match basis. I noticed that from 1981-1984 Jim Zalesky wrestled 23 NCAA tournament matches (6,5,6,6). That is the most I have seen so far, but I am only looking at the list of high scorers which generally means that you have won some titles.

It occurs to me that the max number of matches it was possible to win would have been 32 (8 per year). This was possible from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's when there were both full wrestlebacks and more than 32 wrestlers in many brackets. To wrestle 32 matches you would need to place in the 3-8 range and be in a championship pigtail match every year.

So my question is, has anyone wrestled more than Zalesky's 23 NCAA tournament matches?

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted

Can't look right now but think John Fisher/Michigan is close to that or maybe more. he did have a pig tail or two along the way to help with match count. mid to late 80s at 134.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I was looking to re-calc my NCAA all-time leading scorers to do it on a per match basis. I noticed that from 1981-1984 Jim Zalesky wrestled 23 NCAA tournament matches (6,5,6,6). That is the most I have seen so far, but I am only looking at the list of high scorers which generally means that you have won some titles.

It occurs to me that the max number of matches it was possible to win would have been 32 (8 per year). This was possible from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's when there were both full wrestlebacks and more than 32 wrestlers in many brackets. To wrestle 32 matches you would need to place in the 3-8 range and be in a championship pigtail match every year.

So my question is, has anyone wrestled more than Zalesky's 23 NCAA tournament matches?

Full wrestlebacks weren't implemented until 1996.

Prior to that you had to lose to a quarterfinalist which was implemented in 1986.

Prior to that you had to lose to a semi-finalist. I believe that was implemented in 1972. 

Prior to that it was the finalists.

Way before that (30s...) there was a system used that they would determine 1st place on the first day. Then on the second day anyone he beat wrestled for 2nd. Then on the third day those he beat (not sure it that applied to either day or not) wrestled for 3rd.

  • Fire 1
Posted

And that wasn't meant as any kind of criticism. It was simply to help you figure what years to look through. Obviously the people to check are 4xAAs- generally 3-5th. The farther back you go the fewer cons bouts there would likely be.

Posted
34 minutes ago, 11986 said:

Can't look right now but think John Fisher/Michigan is close to that or maybe more. he did have a pig tail or two along the way to help with match count. mid to late 80s at 134.

Guy had a drive like no other in the room, too.

  • Fire 1

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Posted
24 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

And that wasn't meant as any kind of criticism. It was simply to help you figure what years to look through. Obviously the people to check are 4xAAs- generally 3-5th. The farther back you go the fewer cons bouts there would likely be.

Nor did I take it as a criticism. I always appreciate your historical knowledge.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Nor did I take it as a criticism. I always appreciate your historical knowledge.

Some think my knowledge is more hysterical than historical but thanks.

  • Fire 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 11986 said:

Can't look right now but think John Fisher/Michigan is close to that or maybe more. he did have a pig tail or two along the way to help with match count. mid to late 80s at 134.

Nice pull with John Fisher. I have him at 29 matches (8,7,8,6)

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
9 minutes ago, Jrod65 said:

Pat McKee will probably end up pretty high on the list.  He is already at 16 matches in two trips.

That would be mighty impressive. Unless he is a 32/33 seed he gets no pigtails to fatten up the total with.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

That would be mighty impressive. Unless he is a 32/33 seed he gets no pigtails to fatten up the total with.

Wouldn't need pigtails if his performances follow the past two years.  He has lost in the 1st or 2nd round, and wrestled all the way back to the 3rd/5th place medal matches.

Posted
9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It occurs to me that the max number of matches it was possible to win would have been 32 (8 per year). 

Larry Quisel wrestled 9 x in 1999. Lost in 1st rd, dropped into consolation pig tail, won 8 straight to get 3rd. So I guess max matches could have been 36 but a lot of craziness would have to line up just right. 

  • Fire 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 11986 said:

Larry Quisel wrestled 9 x in 1999. Lost in 1st rd, dropped into consolation pig tail, won 8 straight to get 3rd. So I guess max matches could have been 36 but a lot of craziness would have to line up just right. 

Not sure I can easily explain but you can increase the possible number of cons matches when the pigtails are symmetric top to bottom. On my phone, don't feel like looking it up but this might be what happened here.

Edited by gimpeltf
  • Fire 1
Posted
14 hours ago, 11986 said:

Larry Quisel wrestled 9 x in 1999. Lost in 1st rd, dropped into consolation pig tail, won 8 straight to get 3rd. So I guess max matches could have been 36 but a lot of craziness would have to line up just right. 

You get a Gold Star

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
13 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Not sure I can easily explain but you can increase the possible number of cons matches when the pigtails are symmetric top to bottom. On my phone, don't feel like looking it up but this might be what happened here.

That looks like what I think you are describing. There were four championship pigtails, one for each group of 8, that led to four consolation pigtails.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...