Updated Poll: Who wins the 2025 Hodge?

[SocraTease]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The NCAA article is an old article that they lightly update each year. Unfortunately they do not update it to correct the criteria.

As for the year the criteria was changed, I was off by a year. It was 2022 when the criteria became dominance/bonus-point percentage. 2022 was also the year Steveson won with 1 pinfall, the lowest total of the eight finalists.

Here is the 2020 WIN article with the old criteria: 2020

Here is the 2021 WIN article with the criteria only referenced, but not detailed: 2021

Here is the 2022 WIN article with the new criteria: 2022

That 2022 article just looks like an article (or articles) by Win magazine—a kind of loose reporting.  I have never seen anything that is officially put out by the NCAA (or another legitimate body that governs the voting for the award) except what I posted earlier. 

I wonder if no such document actually exists and Hodge voters are just following reporting done by wrestling services that might actually "get it wrong" so to speak.

In lieu of an official document with the criteria that voters are supposed to follow, I find it conceivable that Hodge voters are just following what is loosely seen as common practice now, supplanting the original Hodge criterion (pins) with "dominance" or "bonus rates".  If so, that simply represents a change in cultural practice—valuing tech falls and majors as much as pins (which goes against the original language of the award.)

I bet pinners like Scalles and Askren and even more recent guys like Taylor, Nolf, and Nickal (who all had 50 plus pins), among others, might find that problematic.  It would amount to a form of hijacking the award through interpretative subterfuge. 

Again, I'm not sure if this what has happened or not, but until we see written confirmation of the actual and current and revised award criteria by a legitimate body that governs the Hodge, this is a distinct possibility.

If pins are (or should be) part of the Hodge criteria, then to ignore them is a kind of "crime" against Hodge the process (and maybe even Hodge himself). 

On a related note, "record" is clearly part of the criteria, but that has somehow been widely and unofficially interpreted as meaning you can't lose a single match and win the award.  Personally, I would vote for a wrestler who pinned 20 guys or more (or was completely and utterly dominant in his weight class), and won NCAAs but perhaps lost one match due to, say, an injury default or even an apparent fluke like getting caught in a cradle and giving up four back points (causing one close loss) to a lesser wrester that he had beaten many times previously.   

Steveson and Mesenbrink, for example, are clearly "dominant" in their weight classes, but if they would lose a pre-NCAA championship match due to injury default (e.g., like Kasak), should they de facto become "ineligible" for the Hodge?  

Or, if say, Haines wins out, and beats both KOT and Hamiti, shouldn't he at least be considered as a Hodge candidate.   Translation:  I don't like the "purity" vote and thinking that one has to be undefeated to win the Hodge.  There are, it seems, conceivable exceptions to that 'pure' "rule".

Edited 11 hours ago by SocraTease

[Wrestleknownothing]

28 minutes ago, SocraTease said:

That 2022 article just looks like an article (or articles) by Win magazine—a kind of loose reporting.  I have never seen anything that is officially put out by the NCAA (or another legitimate body that governs the voting for the award) except what I posted earlier. 

I wonder if no such document actually exists and Hodge voters are just following reporting done by wrestling services that might actually "get it wrong" so to speak.

In lieu of an official document with the criteria that voters are supposed to follow, I find it conceivable that Hodge voters are just following what is loosely seen as common practice now, supplanting the original Hodge criterion (pins) with "dominance" or "bonus rates".  If so, that simply represents a change in cultural practice—valuing tech falls and majors as much as pins (which goes against the original language of the award.)

I bet pinners like Scalles and Askren and even more recent guys like Taylor, Nolf, and Nickal (who all had 50 plus pins), among others, might find that problematic.  It would amount to a form of hijacking the award through interpretative subterfuge. 

Again, I'm not sure if this what has happened or not, but until we see written confirmation of the actual and current and revised award criteria by a legitimate body that governs the Hodge, this is a distinct possibility.

If pins are (or should be) part of the Hodge criteria, then to ignore them is a kind of "crime" against Hodge the process (and maybe even Hodge himself). 

On a related note, "record" is clearly part of the criteria, but that has somehow been widely and unofficially interpreted as meaning you can't lose a single match and win the award.  Personally, I would vote for a wrestler who pinned 20 guys or more (or was completely and utterly dominant in his weight class), and won NCAAs but perhaps lost one match due to, say, an injury default or even an apparent fluke like getting caught in a cradle and giving up four back points (causing one close loss) to a lesser wrester that he had beaten many times previously.   

Steveson and Mesenbrink, for example, are clearly "dominant" in their weight classes, but if they would lose a pre-NCAA championship match due to injury default (e.g., like Kasak), should they de facto become "ineligible" for the Hodge?  

Or, if say, Haines wins out, and beats both KOT and Hamiti, shouldn't he at least be considered as a Hodge candidate.   Translation:  I don't like the "purity" vote and thinking that one has to be undefeated to win the Hodge.  There are, it seems, conceivable exceptions to that 'pure' "rule".

The NCAA article is the "loose reporting". WIN is the official source. The award is from WIN magazine, not the NCAA. The award was created by Mike Chapman, the founder of WIN. It even says as much in the first paragraph of your NCAA article.

https://www.mike-chapman.com/other-projects/win-magazine

Mike is a titan of wrestling reporting who has earned his way into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame with his years of service to, and support of wrestling.

https://nwhof.org/hall_of_fame/bio/1785

We would all do well to educate ourselves on Mike's impressive career.

Edited 11 hours ago by Wrestleknownothing

[Wrestleknownothing]

As for wrestlers winning the award without being undefeated, Brent Metcalf did that in 2008.

[SocraTease]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The NCAA article is the "loose reporting". WIN is the official source. The award is from WIN magazine, not the NCAA. The award was created by Mike Chapman, the founder of WIN. It even says as much in the first paragraph of your NCAA article.

https://www.mike-chapman.com/other-projects/win-magazine

Mike is a titan of wrestling reporting who has earned his way into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame with his years of service to, and support of wrestling.

https://nwhof.org/hall_of_fame/bio/1785

We would all do well to educate ourselves on Mike's impressive career.

Ok; I sit corrected on the origins and "maintenance" (and bequeathing) of the Hodge Award, but I still stand on the aforementioned points about pins, bonus (aka "dominance"), and a stellar record with an outlier loss.   

I wonder if WIN (or Mike Chapman, et. al.) j unilaterally "revised" the criteria or how much they (or he) consulted the larger wrestling community.  Just curious.

My point: what I rarely see enough of in the wrestling community is meaningful transparency about process and decisions—from referees not defending their calls, to coaches hiding athletic injuries, to subjective seeding (or ranking) criteria, to wrestler's "ducking" sometimes and calling it something else.  

Perhaps it is just a feature of the "game" (match) or simply "gaming" the system but .... it is perhaps worth thinking (and talking) about.

I find the wrestling community to be quite (too) conservative or at least closed in this regard—relying on the old guard, authority and often authoritarianism, lack of public record-keeping or sharing, so on.  It's actually gotten much better over the years with services like FLO and Intermat, and others in part because journalism (and the Internet) seeks to bring what is hidden to light and to rely on analysis rather than mere custom or authority.

You (Wrestleknownothing) actually perform a valued service in this regard because you look at the data, the analysis, the trends, the history of the sport, and so on and try to make sense of things for (us) readers who may be in the relative dark sometimes.  So perhaps you deserve an "Honorary Hodge" for your work across numerous seasons and even a few "pins"  of facts upon theories and speculation.   

 

[Iwrite]

WKN and SocraTease  -- Good discussion and beneficial to anyone interested in wrestlers being honored. When I first came up with the concept back in 1994, I sat down with Dan Hodge (my first book was "Two Guys Named Dan" in 1976 and we became very good friends) and told him of my plans to create something similar to the Heisman Trophy, to draw more media attention and to give college wrestlers something extra to shoot for. Dan endorsed the idea and said if I named it after him, he would like pinning to be an essential part. In 1956, Dan won three national titles (collegiate, freestyle and Greco-Roman) in two weeks time by pinning all 13 foes. I quickly agreed that pinning would be a main factor. But since then, Bryan Van Kley (who bought WIN from me many years ago) and I have tried to "keep up with the times" by including dominance to mean techs and majors, as well as pins. And we consult with many former coaches and leaders of the sport who are on the voting committee and try to listen to what fans are saying (WKN and JB, in particular) and some of my longtime friends who have been involved with the sport for over half a century. Bryan and I are proud that over 20,000 fans vote on line each year and that all the colleges that have a winner play it up big, both at the annual wrestling banquet and at a football game in the fall, often with 70,000 fans in attendance. And we greatly appreciate our sponsor Asics. The goal was always to make wrestling more visible and to honor those who excel at Mankind's Oldest Sport.  -- Mike Chapman

 

 

[SocraTease]

1 hour ago, Iwrite said:

WKN and SocraTease  -- Good discussion and beneficial to anyone interested in wrestlers being honored. When I first came up with the concept back in 1994, I sat down with Dan Hodge (my first book was "Two Guys Named Dan" in 1976 and we became very good friends) and told him of my plans to create something similar to the Heisman Trophy, to draw more media attention and to give college wrestlers something extra to shoot for. Dan endorsed the idea and said if I named it after him, he would like pinning to be an essential part. In 1956, Dan won three national titles (collegiate, freestyle and Greco-Roman) in two weeks time by pinning all 13 foes. I quickly agreed that pinning would be a main factor. But since then, Bryan Van Kley (who bought WIN from me many years ago) and I have tried to "keep up with the times" by including dominance to mean techs and majors, as well as pins. And we consult with many former coaches and leaders of the sport who are on the voting committee and try to listen to what fans are saying (WKN and JB, in particular) and some of my longtime friends who have been involved with the sport for over half a century. Bryan and I are proud that over 20,000 fans vote on line each year and that all the colleges that have a winner play it up big, both at the annual wrestling banquet and at a football game in the fall, often with 70,000 fans in attendance. And we greatly appreciate our sponsor Asics. The goal was always to make wrestling more visible and to honor those who excel at Mankind's Oldest Sport.  -- Mike Chapman

 

 

Thank you for your good work and your generous-minded explanation and account, Iwrite (aka Mike)!

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, Iwrite said:

WKN and SocraTease  -- Good discussion and beneficial to anyone interested in wrestlers being honored. When I first came up with the concept back in 1994, I sat down with Dan Hodge (my first book was "Two Guys Named Dan" in 1976 and we became very good friends) and told him of my plans to create something similar to the Heisman Trophy, to draw more media attention and to give college wrestlers something extra to shoot for. Dan endorsed the idea and said if I named it after him, he would like pinning to be an essential part. In 1956, Dan won three national titles (collegiate, freestyle and Greco-Roman) in two weeks time by pinning all 13 foes. I quickly agreed that pinning would be a main factor. But since then, Bryan Van Kley (who bought WIN from me many years ago) and I have tried to "keep up with the times" by including dominance to mean techs and majors, as well as pins. And we consult with many former coaches and leaders of the sport who are on the voting committee and try to listen to what fans are saying (WKN and JB, in particular) and some of my longtime friends who have been involved with the sport for over half a century. Bryan and I are proud that over 20,000 fans vote on line each year and that all the colleges that have a winner play it up big, both at the annual wrestling banquet and at a football game in the fall, often with 70,000 fans in attendance. And we greatly appreciate our sponsor Asics. The goal was always to make wrestling more visible and to honor those who excel at Mankind's Oldest Sport.  -- Mike Chapman

 

 

You are the man, Mike. Thank you.