Soldier Salute

[1032004]

2022

125 - Suriano - down from 133

133 - RBY - same weight

141 - Lee - same weight

149 - Yianni - previously up from 141

157 - Deakin - previously up from 149

165 -  O’Toole - same weight

174 - Starocci - same weight

184 - Brooks - same weight

197 - Dean - up from 184

285 - Gable - same weight

 

So among champs, it certainly seems more common to stay at the same weight than move up.  Just not sure of the index compared to total people that move up or stay the same.   

 

[scourge165]

18 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

2023 champs:

125 - Glory - same weight

133 - Vito - up from 125

141 - Alirez - previously down from 149

149 - Yianni - previously up from 141

157 - O’Connor - previously up from 149

165 - O’Toole - same weight

174 - Starocci - same weight

184 - Brooks - same weight

197 - Nino - previously up from 184

285 - Parris - same weight 

 

Ok...so O'Toole is now at '74 and the winner of '74 is almost certainly going to be him or the runner-up at '57 from this year(possibly Hamiti who wrestled '65 his entire career). 

Starocci is the heavy favorite at '84, up a weight.

Brooks already won it '97

Parris was a 6'5 full-sized HWT who was never going to Wrestle 197 and exactly the type of guy who makes it THAT much harder for a '97 to move up and why it takes a rare guy like Snyder to do so. 

I feel like if I was a Lawyer...this is where I'd say...case closed.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I took a look at 1999 to present. There were 144 wrestlers with multiple AA's at multiple weights.

It is a real mixed bag when going up in weight. For every Tariq Wilson, who had his worst finish at his highest weight in his last year, there is an Eric Larson, who kept getting better as he kept getting bigger.

The more interesting results are in the weight cutters.

While there were not a lot of examples of guys going down in weight as they aged, more often than not they improved their result when they did.

• Phillip Simpson from 8 to 2, 
• Myles Amine from 3 to 2,
• Tyrone Lewis from 5 to 3,
• Travis Frick from 8 to 6,
• Scott Barker from 6 to 2,
• Raymond Jordan from 5 to 3,
• Micah Jordan from 6 to 2,
• Max Askren from 5 to 1,
• Matt Pell from 7 to 3,
• Mark Perry from 3 to 1,
• Jacob Volkmann from 4 to 3, 

Meanwhile I only found two examples of guys getting worse when cutting

• Mike Patrovich from 4 to 6,
• Kirk White from 5 to 6, 

[1032004]

16 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Ok...so O'Toole is now at '74 and the winner of '74 is almost certainly going to be him or the runner-up at '57 from this year(possibly Hamiti who wrestled '65 his entire career). 

Starocci is the heavy favorite at '84, up a weight.

Brooks already won it '97

Parris was a 6'5 full-sized HWT who was never going to Wrestle 197 and exactly the type of guy who makes it THAT much harder for a '97 to move up and why it takes a rare guy like Snyder to do so. 

I feel like if I was a Lawyer...this is where I'd say...case closed.

 

Lol wut?

For one, if your argument is guys doing BETTER as they move up, then technically you should not be including prior champs…

But I was, although it only makes sense to focus on that particular year.  But to help you out should probably exclude 125 and heavyweight since 125’s can’t move up and my argument is that 197’s do well moving up.  So even doing that, of the remaining 8 weights, in the last 3 tournaments 14 had not wrestled at a lower weight previously and 10 had.  

Also was Parris really “full sized”?  I thought he was about 250ish?

[1032004]

Looking at some of the favorites for this year between 133-197

133: could go either way, Crookham/Byrd/Bouzakis/Bailey career 133’s so far, Ayala/Davis up from 125

141: could go either way, Alirez and Bartlett down from 149 (yes I know Bartlett wasn’t a real 149 but also was never a 133), Mendez up from 133

149: Henson/Van Ness/Watters career 149’s, Parco only wrestled 141 as a redshirt.  Lovett did do the rare 2 weight bump and AA’d at the higher weight after  not AA’ing at the lower one

157: Shapiro career 157 so far, Kasak up from 149

165: Mesenbrink career 165 so far

174: O’Toole/Haines/Hamiti all up

184: Starocci up from 174, Keckeisen career 184

197: Buchanan/Cardenas/Ferrari/Little career 197’s so far, Barr up from 184

 

So in all likelihood we’ll see a career 165 win there, and someone bumping up win 174.  

133, 149, 197 I’d lean towards a non-bumper

184 lean towards a bumper 

141 and 157 tossups

[nhs67]

7 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Ok...so O'Toole is now at '74 and the winner of '74 is almost certainly going to be him or the runner-up at '57 from this year(possibly Hamiti who wrestled '65 his entire career). 

Starocci is the heavy favorite at '84, up a weight.

Brooks already won it '97

Parris was a 6'5 full-sized HWT who was never going to Wrestle 197 and exactly the type of guy who makes it THAT much harder for a '97 to move up and why it takes a rare guy like Snyder to do so. 

I feel like if I was a Lawyer...this is where I'd say...case closed.

 

Parris is 6'1" tall and wrestled 220 his last three years of high school.  A lot of 215/220lbers go down (Amos/Focus to name a couple very recent).  Add in that he was absolutely ragdolled by Cassioppi just after he graduated and bumped up.  It wasn't unrealistic to think he might go down after that.

Also, the runner up at 157lbs last year is wrestling at 157lbs this year still for Iowa.

[scourge165]

6 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Lol wut?

For one, if your argument is guys doing BETTER as they move up, then technically you should not be including prior champs…

Did...did you just start this with "Lol wut?" Am I texting with a teenage girl or are we talking about Men's Wrestling?

If Jordan Burroughs Wrestles 149, then 157 and finally 165, I think he makes my point. There's no "technicality" to be violated. 

I think going up...helps you more in Wrestling.
You think cutting or staying the same helps you.

I don't agree and I feel like all your listing of just the champs is helping my case and you somehow think it's helping yours.

You can argue that Bastida has been better at HWT...despite not placing there the last two years after a 5th at 197(and other extenuating circumstances like being a Cuban immigrant who'd never Wrestled Folkstyle) but I can't use...Levi Haines or Keegan O'Toole or Starocci, Brooks, Kasak(I don't mean to be listing PSU guys, but your list is from the last 5 years)? 

How's that make sense? This started with the premise that '97 was such a weak weight class Bo friggin Nickal and Aaron Brooks had better bonus points % up there. I argued...that's normal. Guys get better as they get older and as they go up. 

You argued...what you've argued. They do better when they go down or stay at the same weight.

I really think we can wipe that last part off the table now. The guys who cut down a weight and do better pale in comparison and they're guys like Nick Pell who was at '84 because Woodley and Askren were at '65/'74 or Poeta or outliers. They're pretty rare. 

Quote

Maybe @Wrestleknownothing could help but I’d be pretty confident in betting that outside of going from 197 to heavyweight, on the whole guys saw better place improvement if they stayed at the same weight or went down compared to moving up.

So no, in NO world does it "make more sense" to look at ONE tournament out of kids career.

 

Quote

But to help you out should probably exclude 125 and heavyweight since 125’s can’t move up and my argument is that 197’s do well moving up.

Stay on a singular point then. That'd "help" me out the most. I honestly don't even know what you're doing going year to year and using just champs. I honestly feel like each time you post, you're making my point. 

Quote

So even doing that, of the remaining 8 weights, in the last 3 tournaments 14 had not wrestled at a lower weight previously and 10 had.  

And...to be clear, you really find his to be compelling? Using the year Aaron Brooks takes a 1st, KNOWING he's going to go up to 197 and ONLY using Champs?

I don't get the point of this...why we're using one-year snapshots when the whole point is how they do over their careers? That's my entire argument. Growing, adding weight, and going up weights makes for better Wrestlers than cutting. 

Quote

Also was Parris really “full sized”?  I thought he was about 250ish?

Seems like a pretty full-sized HWT. 

More so than a guy like Hilger who was weighing 215 and then had power though a 12,000 calorie-a-day diet to be able to Wrestle HWT without giving up 30-40 pounds to the bigger HWTs. He also looked heavier than Stevenson to me...and he was in the 260s. So...I don't know if he was 250 or 265, but yeah, I'd say he was a full-sized HWT.

 

Not sure what YOU'D consider a full-size HWT, but I struggle to see how Parris doesn't fit the definition...unless we're being painfully literal and using just guys who weigh in at 284.9. 

 

[scourge165]

1 hour ago, nhs67 said:

Parris is 6'1" tall and wrestled 220 his last three years of high school.  A lot of 215/220lbers go down (Amos/Focus to name a couple very recent).  Add in that he was absolutely ragdolled by Cassioppi just after he graduated and bumped up.  It wasn't unrealistic to think he might go down after that.

Also, the runner up at 157lbs last year is wrestling at 157lbs this year still for Iowa.

Right...which is the argument for closing the gap between '97 and HWT. 

 

And the post I was responding to was from '23 when O'Connor won it and Haines was the runner-up...that's why I said "From this year." Because O'Connor was the guy listed as the champ.

I also don't care what Parris Wrestled in HS. Could he have gone down? I guess...but he was a pretty healthy sized HWT. Perhaps not 6'5, I see him listed at 6'2 or 6'3, I may have conflated him and Coon a bit, but the point remains, he was a normal size HWT. I don't know what him and Cassioppi have to do with it, but...alright. He got "ragdolled" by Cassioppi. Him cutting down to '97 I imagine would have been miserable. You think 4-5 years at '97 was just as reasonable a weight for him as HWT?  

 

 

This is all a LOT less important to me than the larger argument that going up weight classes is better and guys have more success doing that rather than cutting and going down a weight class. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:03 AM by scourge165

[nhs67]

3 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Right...which is the argument for closing the gap between '97 and HWT. 

 

And the post I was responding to was from '23 when O'Connor won it and Haines was the runner-up...that's why I said "From this year." Because O'Connor was the guy listed as the champ.

I also don't care what Parris Wrestled in HS. Could he have gone down? I guess...but he was a pretty healthy sized HWT. Perhaps not 6'5, I see him listed at 6'2 or 6'3, I may have conflated him and Coon a bit, but the point remains, he was a normal size HWT. I don't know what him and Cassioppi have to do with it, but...alright. He got "ragdolled" by Cassioppi. Him cutting down to '97 I imagine would have been miserable. You think 4-5 years at '97 was just as reasonable a weight for him as HWT?  

 

 

This is all a LOT less important to me than the larger argument that going up weight classes is better and guys have more success doing that rather than cutting and going down a weight class. 

I don't actually disagree with your point that cutting weight is bad if you want to be a better wrestler.  I also never said him goimg 197lbs was reasonable.  You're being dramatic.

That said, I do disagree with you using information that is easily proven false to solidify your claim - or at the very least make it appear to make more sense.

In no report has Parris ever been 6'5" tall.  That is like saying Shane Carwin was 6'5" tall three fights after he was 6'2" tall, as a 36 year old man.

You can also dismiss his ragdolling all you want, it doesn't make it any less relevant for me to point it out, as we were talking about prospective weights as well as physical growth.  He was a 220lb True Frosh hwt that DNP and finished as a 255lb NCAA champ.

Also, the Haines bit?  Why use two seasons ago?  That doesn't make sense and seems as if you're still trying to cherry pick and choose whatever you feel like, which yoi are being critical of others doing.  Use more relevant, recent information.  That will help your case better, or at the very least make you appear less silly and/or hypocritical when you try to point out anybody else also cherry picking 'only' champs.

It honestly looks like you need to take a deep breath, read, then re-read most of who is saying what in this thread.  You're all over and you're trying to refute different points than others are actually trying to make, using exaggerated misinformation along the way.  There is a definable term for that, I believe.

Edit: It was a ragdolling, btw... https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6225604-285-lbs-semifinal-anthony-cassioppi-illinois-vs-mason-parris-indiana

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:56 AM by nhs67

[1032004]

6 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Did...did you just start this with "Lol wut?" Am I texting with a teenage girl or are we talking about Men's Wrestling?

If Jordan Burroughs Wrestles 149, then 157 and finally 165, I think he makes my point. There's no "technicality" to be violated. 

I think going up...helps you more in Wrestling.
You think cutting or staying the same helps you.

I don't agree and I feel like all your listing of just the champs is helping my case and you somehow think it's helping yours.

You can argue that Bastida has been better at HWT...despite not placing there the last two years after a 5th at 197(and other extenuating circumstances like being a Cuban immigrant who'd never Wrestled Folkstyle) but I can't use...Levi Haines or Keegan O'Toole or Starocci, Brooks, Kasak(I don't mean to be listing PSU guys, but your list is from the last 5 years)? 

How's that make sense? This started with the premise that '97 was such a weak weight class Bo friggin Nickal and Aaron Brooks had better bonus points % up there. I argued...that's normal. Guys get better as they get older and as they go up. 

You argued...what you've argued. They do better when they go down or stay at the same weight.

I really think we can wipe that last part off the table now. The guys who cut down a weight and do better pale in comparison and they're guys like Nick Pell who was at '84 because Woodley and Askren were at '65/'74 or Poeta or outliers. They're pretty rare. 

So no, in NO world does it "make more sense" to look at ONE tournament out of kids career.

 

Stay on a singular point then. That'd "help" me out the most. I honestly don't even know what you're doing going year to year and using just champs. I honestly feel like each time you post, you're making my point. 

And...to be clear, you really find his to be compelling? Using the year Aaron Brooks takes a 1st, KNOWING he's going to go up to 197 and ONLY using Champs?

I don't get the point of this...why we're using one-year snapshots when the whole point is how they do over their careers? That's my entire argument. Growing, adding weight, and going up weights makes for better Wrestlers than cutting. 

Seems like a pretty full-sized HWT. 

More so than a guy like Hilger who was weighing 215 and then had power though a 12,000 calorie-a-day diet to be able to Wrestle HWT without giving up 30-40 pounds to the bigger HWTs. He also looked heavier than Stevenson to me...and he was in the 260s. So...I don't know if he was 250 or 265, but yeah, I'd say he was a full-sized HWT.

 

Not sure what YOU'D consider a full-size HWT, but I struggle to see how Parris doesn't fit the definition...unless we're being painfully literal and using just guys who weigh in at 284.9. 

 

I said “lol wut” because I was confused how you were trying to claim that 3 guys that won titles before moving up in weight somehow proves your point.  Your argument has been that guys typically IMPROVE as they move up in weight.  If they already won a title down a weight before moving up, that’s generally not really improving.

And you were the one that first focused on champs.  Here’s one of your earlier statements: “Lets take the NCs each year every year and see how they did as a Jr and Sr vs Fresh and Soph. Where do you think there's a bigger correlation? Their grade or the weight?”

You were also the one that turned this into an overall moving up vs cutting or staying the same argument.  Yes, plenty of guys do just as good or better when moving up.  But plenty of guys struggle too.  But for guys going from 197 to heavyweight, that struggle is pretty rare, and again, you continuing to try to use a guy that was undefeated going into NCAA’s as an example of that is pretty funny (Bastida has also only wrestled one NCAA tourney at heavyweight btw).  Got any other examples?  My overall point in posting originally was more in response to @bnwtwg and I think a couple others who have repeatedly claimed in other threads that there should be an ADDITIONAL weight in between 197 and heavyweight.  I strongly disagree with that.  I’m totally on board with shifting 184 and 197 up though.

I would say 270+ would be “full sized”  IMO.  I do think it’s interesting that you’d consider 250 to be “full sized” after previously commenting about the “90 lb gap.”

[1032004]

16 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I took a look at 1999 to present. There were 144 wrestlers with multiple AA's at multiple weights.

It is a real mixed bag when going up in weight. For every Tariq Wilson, who had his worst finish at his highest weight in his last year, there is an Eric Larson, who kept getting better as he kept getting bigger.

The more interesting results are in the weight cutters.

While there were not a lot of examples of guys going down in weight as they aged, more often than not they improved their result when they did.

• Phillip Simpson from 8 to 2, 
• Myles Amine from 3 to 2,
• Tyrone Lewis from 5 to 3,
• Travis Frick from 8 to 6,
• Scott Barker from 6 to 2,
• Raymond Jordan from 5 to 3,
• Micah Jordan from 6 to 2,
• Max Askren from 5 to 1,
• Matt Pell from 7 to 3,
• Mark Perry from 3 to 1,
• Jacob Volkmann from 4 to 3, 

Meanwhile I only found two examples of guys getting worse when cutting

• Mike Patrovich from 4 to 6,
• Kirk White from 5 to 6, 

Thank you kind sir.  Any way to see guys that went from 197 to heavyweight compared to other weight bumps?

[Fadzaev2]

On 12/30/2024 at 11:01 PM, Greenwave said:

Guys this is on the venue giving them information.   I agree it was horrible but what did Soldier Salute give them.

I agree 100%....often times that is the case.  I'm wondering too, if there was a conflict with Big Ten+, and using Track, since Track is with Flo now????  It looked like Track was originally set up, but it wasn't working right.  You can't televise/livestream wrestling with a large number of mats, cameras, and not have a dashboard for the quadpod, so you know which mat wrestlers are on.    We'll see how Southern Scuffle goes now!!  I haven't checked it out yet.

Edited Wednesday at 02:04 PM by Fadzaev2

[scourge165]

5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

I don't actually disagree with your point that cutting weight is bad if you want to be a better wrestler.  I also never said him goimg 197lbs was reasonable.  You're being dramatic.

How am I being dramatic?

Literally your words;

10 hours ago, nhs67 said:

Add in that he was absolutely ragdolled by Cassioppi just after he graduated and bumped up.  It wasn't unrealistic to think he might go down after that.

So you NEVER said him going to 197 was reasonable...but you said it "wasn't unrealistic?" And that's ME being dramatic?

5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

In no report has Parris ever been 6'5" tall.

Ok...and I corrected that already...so not sure why you're back on that.

9 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Perhaps not 6'5, I see him listed at 6'2 or 6'3, I may have conflated him and Coon a bit, but the point remains, he was a normal size HWT.

So...do we need to do this again?

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I would say 270+ would be “full sized”  IMO.  I do think it’s interesting that you’d consider 250 to be “full sized” after previously commenting about the “90 lb gap.”

Well, that's just Math. 285-197
What's the difference in weight there? 88 pounds. Is that "about" 90 pounds?

 

But sure, then Kerkvliet, Stevenson, they're not full-sized HWTs. 

5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

You can also dismiss his ragdolling all you want, it doesn't make it any less relevant for me to point it out, as we were talking about prospective weights as well as physical growth.

Yeah, I didn't really dismiss it in text, but I AM dismissing the idea that Parris losing in HS to Cassioppi in HS was ever going to make him go down...which you both said "wasn't unrealistic," and then said I was being dramatic.

I guess if someone says going down a weight is "realistic" then I think it's reasonable...but I'm just using your words here. 

 

5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

Also, the Haines bit?  Why use two seasons ago?  That doesn't make sense and seems as if you're still trying to cherry pick and choose whatever you feel like, which yoi are being critical of others doing. 

He was LITERALLY using the 2023 Champs! I don't kno how much more black and white that one can possibly be. He showed a list of the 2023 National Champs...and Haines took what place in 2023? So I'm not cherry picking anything, I was directly responding to HIS examples.

So when he uses O'Connor as the 157LB Champ from 2023...why are you possibly complaining that I'm doing "the Haines bit," and "correcting" me that he was a champ? I know he was a Champ, but he was very specifically using the year he WASN'T a champ. 

5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

It honestly looks like you need to take a deep breath, read, then re-read most of who is saying what in this thread.  You're all over and you're trying to refute different points than others are actually trying to make, using exaggerated misinformation along the way.  There is a definable term for that, I believe.

Dude...you brought up a High School match between Cassiopi and Parris as a reason why it "wasn't unreasonable" for Parris to go down to 197, then complained I was being "dramatic," claiming you never said it was "reasonable" for him to Wrestle '97 and finally when I referred to Haines as "the runner up" when he used the 2023 Champs, claimed I was "cherry picking" information.

 

What's the definable term for that?

[scourge165]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

And you were the one that first focused on champs.  Here’s one of your earlier statements: “Lets take the NCs each year every year and see how they did as a Jr and Sr vs Fresh and Soph. Where do you think there's a bigger correlation? Their grade or the weight?”

Yeah, NOT in response to you. In response to this comment;

Quote

Studs like Brooks, Hidlay, Nickal all made significant jumps in bonus rates going up to 197.  It's just not an elite weight class.  We've had one, J'Den Cox, true 197 pounder in the last decade that is world class.  Could add Snyder if he didn't make that early transition to 97kg

Using Brooks, Nickal, J'Den Cox...and then Hidlay who didn't win it and Snyder.

 

Hardly shocking that multiple time Champs are going to have the most success their Sr years or have a higher bonus rate(and I also pointed out Starocci was doing the same thing...as is O'Toole and Haines and I'd guess MOST returning champs).

 

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I said “lol wut” because I was confused how you were trying to claim that 3 guys that won titles before moving up in weight somehow proves your point.

It's sure as hell proving my point more than they do better when going down...

 

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Thank you kind sir.  Any way to see guys that went from 197 to heavyweight compared to other weight bumps?

This will in no way settle the debate you two are having , but....

There were only three who AA'd at 197, then went up and AA'd at 285 since 1999. All three did better at 285.

Kyle Snyder - 2nd at 197, 1st and 1st at 285
J.D. Bergman - 3rd and 4th at 197, 2nd at 285
Alan Gelogaev - 7th at 197, 3rd at 285

But the big caveat, and why this does not settle any debate, is that there are two categories missing: those who AA'd at 197 and then DNP'd at 285, and those who DNP'd at 197, then AA'd at 285.

[ionel]

Too many variables, focus on one wrestler.

Ron Clinton:  2nd 167, 3rd 191, 1st 167

Now he did only lose 1 match at tournament So & Jr year but proof you will only get better if you go up then back down.  Its the up-down not the up or down. 

[1032004]

19 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

This will in no way settle the debate you two are having , but....

There were only three who AA'd at 197, then went up and AA'd at 285 since 1999. All three did better at 285.

Kyle Snyder - 2nd at 197, 1st and 1st at 285
J.D. Bergman - 3rd and 4th at 197, 2nd at 285
Alan Gelogaev - 7th at 197, 3rd at 285

But the big caveat, and why this does not settle any debate, is that there are two categories missing: those who AA'd at 197 and then DNP'd at 285, and those who DNP'd at 197, then AA'd at 285.

Thanks.  True, forgot you were only looking at multiple time AA’s.

[nhs67]

2 hours ago, scourge165 said:

How am I being dramatic?

Literally your words;

So you NEVER said him going to 197 was reasonable...but you said it "wasn't unrealistic?" And that's ME being dramatic?

Ok...and I corrected that already...so not sure why you're back on that.

So...do we need to do this again?

Well, that's just Math. 285-197
What's the difference in weight there? 88 pounds. Is that "about" 90 pounds?

 

But sure, then Kerkvliet, Stevenson, they're not full-sized HWTs. 

Yeah, I didn't really dismiss it in text, but I AM dismissing the idea that Parris losing in HS to Cassioppi in HS was ever going to make him go down...which you both said "wasn't unrealistic," and then said I was being dramatic.

I guess if someone says going down a weight is "realistic" then I think it's reasonable...but I'm just using your words here. 

 

He was LITERALLY using the 2023 Champs! I don't kno how much more black and white that one can possibly be. He showed a list of the 2023 National Champs...and Haines took what place in 2023? So I'm not cherry picking anything, I was directly responding to HIS examples.

So when he uses O'Connor as the 157LB Champ from 2023...why are you possibly complaining that I'm doing "the Haines bit," and "correcting" me that he was a champ? I know he was a Champ, but he was very specifically using the year he WASN'T a champ. 

Dude...you brought up a High School match between Cassiopi and Parris as a reason why it "wasn't unreasonable" for Parris to go down to 197, then complained I was being "dramatic," claiming you never said it was "reasonable" for him to Wrestle '97 and finally when I referred to Haines as "the runner up" when he used the 2023 Champs, claimed I was "cherry picking" information.

 

What's the definable term for that?

Ypu are jumping all over the mapnhere, man.  All over.  And yes.  You are cherry-picking as you conveniently are ignoring directly adjacent posts while trying to make a point that we are actually on the same side of - you are just using *I poop my pants, don't laugh at me* examples and false information, as I already stated.

Since you have no problem burying yourself in your own drabble, I will recuse myself.

You are clearly hurt.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.  I am sure 103 didn't as well.  I apologize for my part in that.

Try to be tougher this year, perhaps?  Not a requirement, just a suggestion.

[1032004]

7 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Yeah, NOT in response to you. In response to this comment;

Using Brooks, Nickal, J'Den Cox...and then Hidlay who didn't win it and Snyder.

 

Hardly shocking that multiple time Champs are going to have the most success their Sr years or have a higher bonus rate(and I also pointed out Starocci was doing the same thing...as is O'Toole and Haines and I'd guess MOST returning champs).

 

It's sure as hell proving my point more than they do better when going down...

 

 

You also repeated the question you asked about national champs to me.  But honestly looking at champs is probably a good start.  And again, I agree that as a whole (so not just champs), many guys do just as good or better as they move up in weight, but many don’t (albeit generally not guys who were already champs).  I still disagree that talking about what guys did in future years after the year being discussed is relevant though.  Over the last 3 seasons, in the years they won, more often than not the champs had not yet moved up in weight during their career.

[BruceyB]

On 12/31/2024 at 4:18 AM, 1032004 said:

Fair enough, maybe it’s not many “people.”  @bnwtwg definitely though.

Yes, 197’s often do better at heavyweight.  Using Bastida as an example for not is pretty funny, considering he was undefeated going into NCAA’s including wins over the guys that ended up finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th (two of those by major) he was/is most definitely better at heavyweight, but was injured during NCAA’s last year.

Looking at this season, you’ve also got Isaac Trumble, best finish R16 at 197, currently ranked #5 at heavyweight.

Other past examples: 

Lucas Davison: best finish R16 at 197, 3x AA and 1x finalist at heavyweight

Cassar: backup at 197, champ at heavyweight

Derek White: slightly over .500 at 197, R12 then NCAA finals at heavyweight

Jacob Kasper: 1-2 at NCAA’s at 184, 2x AA at heavyweight 

 

As a lightweight guy, I would actually disagree that “125’s often do better at 133.”  If anything that might be the jump guys struggle with the most.  Looking back in the wrestlestat era unless I missed it I don’t see a single guy such as the above that wrestled 125 as a non-redshirt and failed to AA, then bumped up to 133 and AA’d.  Sure lots of guys that did well at 125 also do well at 133 though. 

Closest example might be Vito who went from 3rd & 4th at 125 to a 2x champ at 133, but if you use that example then you’d also have to use Kyle Snyder in the first list considering he had 4 losses at 197 and only 1 over the next 3 years at heavyweight.

You have a lot of good points in here, and I tend to agree that while 197 is often a very competitive weight class, a lot of these guys have been bigger for most of their career and aren't necessarily as adept to wrestle through positions like you have to at lighter weights. I thought it was essentially a universal truth that light-middle light-weights often have more success when they grow into heavier weights later, because the guys aren't as fast, and at the lighter weights you generally get into more flurry/scramble positions than at the higher weights. I believe David Taylor said this when he made the jump from 112 his junior year to 135 for his senior year.

I would argue, however, against 125s having a harder time jumping from 125 to 133 than guys do at other weights. Plenty of guys have had better years at 133 than they previously had at 125, but almost all of them were just sucking too much weight and couldn't perform their best at 125, and then when moving into a more natural weight (and having more experience), they perform better than before.

I don't know if anyone is curious enough to pull the numbers.. but I wonder if you took all of the champs/and or finalists from 2000-2024 across all 10 weights, how many of the champions/finalists were in their first year at a new weight (true freshman don't count), and which weight had the most "bump up" champions. 

[1032004]

9 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

 

I don't know if anyone is curious enough to pull the numbers.. but I wonder if you took all of the champs/and or finalists from 2000-2024 across all 10 weights, how many of the champions/finalists were in their first year at a new weight (true freshman don't count), and which weight had the most "bump up" champions. 

I did it a few posts up for 2022-2024.

[BruceyB]

11 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I did it a few posts up for 2022-2024.

I'm not including guys who are in their 2nd or 3rd year after bumping.. and I would like to see a bigger sample size. I also disagree with you and would consider someone who won a title, then bumped up and won again as an example of someone who did "better" at the next weight up, because 1. they didn't do worse, and 2. whether the weight class is tougher or not, they proved that they could go up in weight and win again by beating a different field of larger competitors.  And my point of running these numbers was to see if there was a correlation between, for example, the improvement rate of guys bumping from 184 to 197 vs guys bumping from 125-133. The goal would be to see which weight has the most bump ups reach the finals and/or win the tournament. The highest success weight jump to the least successful weight jump.

I read through the majority of the back and forth.. but evidence shows that guys who bump up in weight generally do better at their new weight than their old. Not everyone, obviously. So cherry picking examples to support either side here is a waste of time as there are so many examples of either side of the argument. You need a comprehensive list of guys who bumped weights and to know whether they improved or performed worse.

To say guys who "stayed at the same weight do better than those who move up" and then to compare the number of champions who spent their career at a weight vs guys who bumped up is nonsense. Of course there are more champions that didn't jump up because more wrestlers stay at the same weight than jump up!

It's pretty apparent more people perform better then they go up a weight class than not. There are multiple reasons this happens, things like.. they were likely cutting to much weight at hold their previous weight class, and that can obviously have negative effects on performance. They feel better at the new weight and are able to perform better.  They are also another year older, more experienced, and further matured. Going up in weight is generally beneficial because the guys who do it obviously are moving up because their old weight class is no longer their ideal weight. The bump isn't caused by going up a weight class, it is by wrestling in their ideal weight class, rather than holding a weight that they no longer fit.

And when it comes to the Yonger Bastida argument, last year was by far his best year, and happened to be his worst NCAA tournament. He was 26-0 with a ton of top 10 wins including Hendrickson going into the tournament. He had a bad day, was hurt, whatever. In 2022 when he placed, the only wrestler inside of the top 17 he faced was #11.. the bracket broke nicely for him to AA. The next year he lost to #13 and #7, and last year he lost to the #3 and #10. He has lost to everyone in the top 10 he's faced at nationals, and only beat one person in the top 15. 

If you made it this far, thanks for your time!

[bnwtwg]

14 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I said “lol wut” because I was confused how you were trying to claim that 3 guys that won titles before moving up in weight somehow proves your point.  Your argument has been that guys typically IMPROVE as they move up in weight.  If they already won a title down a weight before moving up, that’s generally not really improving.

And you were the one that first focused on champs.  Here’s one of your earlier statements: “Lets take the NCs each year every year and see how they did as a Jr and Sr vs Fresh and Soph. Where do you think there's a bigger correlation? Their grade or the weight?”

You were also the one that turned this into an overall moving up vs cutting or staying the same argument.  Yes, plenty of guys do just as good or better when moving up.  But plenty of guys struggle too.  But for guys going from 197 to heavyweight, that struggle is pretty rare, and again, you continuing to try to use a guy that was undefeated going into NCAA’s as an example of that is pretty funny (Bastida has also only wrestled one NCAA tourney at heavyweight btw).  Got any other examples?  My overall point in posting originally was more in response to @bnwtwg and I think a couple others who have repeatedly claimed in other threads that there should be an ADDITIONAL weight in between 197 and heavyweight.  I strongly disagree with that.  I’m totally on board with shifting 184 and 197 up though.

I would say 270+ would be “full sized”  IMO.  I do think it’s interesting that you’d consider 250 to be “full sized” after previously commenting about the “90 lb gap.”

I never said that. I said the weights should match UWW. Ten weights is fine, but if we grow the sport with more participants I can only see a net-positive. Kind of like growing a business and such...

[bnwtwg]

How many of you on this board have made the decision as a high level wrestler in the modern era including testings to either cut 30 pounds and be ragged, or stay where you are and hope your quickness overcomes the sheer strength advantage, or decide to bulk so hard that you are stiff as a board? I'll raise my hand. A better example of a MUCH more accomplished wrestler would be Jacob Warner. Or Michael Beard. Or Jacob Kasper. Or Kollin Moore. Et cetera et cetera.

My guess is none of you hit 200 until you paid the dad tax with an extra cheeseburger and another beer. I was there by the middle of my sophomore year with a six pack that I maintained until I was 37. I was a better wrestler than football player and I love the sport, so did I make a mistake by going B1G in the wrong sport? A guy I lost to at HS state went pro in the NFL for a few years riding pine and I took me probably 12-15 years before my salary out-earned his fresh out of college paycheck.

So yeah, I think I have an idea. Was I Kyle Snyder or Anthony Cassar? Hell no. They are the outliers, not reality. And last I checked, reality is this sport is withering on the male side directly due to NIL and football in that order, and the average American male is larger than ever. So my non-anecdotal evidence also confirms this butthurt bunch of previously skinny guys sucking in their gut to hunch over the keyboard should get over it and face the raw numbers.

103 is a weak weight full of underclassmen and undersized seniors. That's how I feel about your username.

[1032004]

7 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

I never said that. I said the weights should match UWW. Ten weights is fine, but if we grow the sport with more participants I can only see a net-positive. Kind of like growing a business and such...

Yeah so you want an additional weight between 197 and heavyweight, and to lose a middleweight.

What is your opinion about shifting 184 and 197 up?