Keck should not have done the all-star classic

[Fletcher]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Why should moving up a weight influence ranking?  Did Starocci show that he is a less dominant wrestler at 184 than he was last year at 174?  Did he not show by beating Keck head to head at the All-Star match that him moving up didn't hinder his performance?

 

Using your logic, if last year's 197 pound champion moved down to 184 would he deserved to be ranked higher than Keck because he is naturally the bigger person?

Changing weights clearly impacts performance - some get better or worse by moving up; some by moving down. There's countless examples of this thru NCAA history, so I'm not going to bother arguing over this.

Take away the all-start match (which is what the title of the thread suggests) and Starocci doesn't look as strong as last season. He almost lost to 2 freshmen - that doesn't happen to 174 lb. Starocci from last yr.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Just now, Fletcher said:

Changing weights clearly impacts performance - some get better or worse by moving up; some by moving down. There's countless examples of this thru NCAA history, so I'm not going to bother arguing over this.

Take away the all-start match (which is what the title of the thread suggests) and Starocci doesn't look as strong as last season. He almost lost to 2 freshmen - that doesn't happen to 174 lb. Starocci from last yr.

How has Carter performed worse this year than last year?

• Last year: 17-2, 52.63% bonus rate
• This year: 21-0, 90.48% bonus rate

Your argument that he "almost lost" doesn't hold water.

[Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Pinnacle said:

 

Agree.

Keck should simply be honored they asked him to wrestle in the event. It should carry some prestige to it. Aren't we still trying to grow the sport and all? 

We're trying to grow the sport. College coaches are trying to win.

If the choice is between winning or growing the sport, they're going to choose winning every time. This is why the coaches dismantled the national duals. This is why Iowa doesn't wrestle UNI.

[lisa morales]

He lost RPI points for being 90% bald.

[Fletcher]

44 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Imagine telling an NCAA champ, "Don't wrestle because we are worried you might lose and then the path to the finals will be harder"

This literally happens more than it doesn't. We rarely get returning NCAA champs wrestling at the all-star classic because there's no upside, only downside.

[1032004]

35 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

So no one knows what weight Starocci wrestled last year?  Well I looked it up and if WS is correct he wrestled down at 174.  Thats right he hasn't yet won a single title at 184.  Moreover, last year he didn't beat either of the top 2 places who dominated the rest of the field.  He also didn't beat either of those two this year at 184. He did beat 2 freshmen.  So why is he seeded #1 you ask ... because it doesn't make any sense.

Here's how they should be seeded:

1 Keckeisen 2 Starocci 3 Plott 4 McEnelly 

Now doesn't that look better cause Keck gets McE and Star gets Plott as it should be. 

But alas we will have to deal with this crap the seeding committee pulled on us.  This weight is about matchups and the semis, even though they messed it up seeding doesn't really matter.  

 

 

You think Keckeisen should have been ranked higher than Starocci to start the season?

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You think Keckeisen should have been ranked higher than Starocci to start the season?

Yes he was the returning national champ.  Look at WS, they've got it right.  

[Fletcher]

45 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

So no one knows what weight Starocci wrestled last year?  Well I looked it up and if WS is correct he wrestled down at 174.  Thats right he hasn't yet won a single title at 184.  Moreover, last year he didn't beat either of the top 2 places who dominated the rest of the field.  He also didn't beat either of those two this year at 184. He did beat 2 freshmen.  So why is he seeded #1 you ask ... because it doesn't make any sense.

Here's how they should be seeded:

1 Keckeisen 2 Starocci 3 Plott 4 McEnelly 

Now doesn't that look better cause Keck gets McE and Star gets Plott as it should be. 

But alas we will have to deal with this crap the seeding committee pulled on us.  This weight is about matchups and the semis, even though they messed it up seeding doesn't really matter.  

 

 

There's a logic to this. I guess since we've already seen Keck-Plott (3x) and Star-McEnelly, it makes sense to now do Keck-McEnelly and Star-Plott. Different seeding, same semis.

[SocraTease]

Can't believe the length of this thread.  Keckheisen earned and deserves the #2 seed.

But regardless of what one thinks about the seeding, this is in fact the seed he now has.  

The original assertion that K. should not have wrestled the All Star classic is absurd.  It's what philosophers call a "counterfactual".   It's counter to the facts (hence a hypothetical).  He chose to wrestle it and he did.   

Here's also why he should have wrestled it (which he did).  He's an outgoing senior. He's an NCAA champion at that very weight. He probably wanted to test himself against one of the best.  And, he no doubt learned something about Starocci that he never could have learned by just watching him on videos.   He likely figured this experience would help him if and when they meet up (which they likely will at NCAAs).  He had (and perhaps has) no reason to fear Plott or MacEnally.  

Yes, of course, Starocci would also learn something about K. during the All Star match.  But these two are both NCAA champions, and guys like this want to step up to challenges.  That is what makes greatness great.

If you focus on the outcomes (results) rather than the process, you fall prey to one of the most worst traps in life.  

Act and let go of consequences.  You have the right to your actions but not to the fruits of your action. 

Let go of this counterfactual and enjoy the ensuing competition.   It's just a tiny drama in a grand spectacle of the universe playing with itself, appearing and disappearing, generating forms and then transforming them.   

[Fletcher]

23 minutes ago, SocraTease said:

The original assertion that K. should not have wrestled the All Star classic is absurd.  It's what philosophers call a "counterfactual".   It's counter to the facts (hence a hypothetical).  He chose to wrestle it and he did.   

You must be new here - we propose hypotheticals all the time.

And Aristotle, with his empirical and practical approach, would've agreed with me that Keck should've passed on the all-star.

Edited March 13 by Fletcher

[1032004]

30 minutes ago, ionel said:

Yes he was the returning national champ.  Look at WS, they've got it right.  

I know you’re trolling, but WS is ratings not rankings.  And they don’t even put any more weight (pun intended) on what weight the matches are wrestled, so thanks for proving yourself wrong?  (I’m sure the reason Starocci is lower on WS is due to his injury default losses last year)

Edited March 13 by 1032004

[SocraTease]

23 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

You must be new here - we propose hypotheticals all the time.

And Aristotle, with his empirical and practical approach, would've agreed with me that Keck should've passed on the all-star.

Aristotle wasn't much interested in hypotheticals.  His approach to ethics was virtue and character-based.  It was about striving for excellence—aretê, to use the ancient Greek.  Also, Plato (Aristotle's teacher) was actually a very good wrestler and would have kicked Aristotle's butt and counseled Keckheisen to strive for the highest goals, even if they were unreachable.  

On a slightly lighter note, here's an article that might be of interest.  Thanks for the banter.  I'm looking forward to the beginning of the games.   May all the wrestlers rise to the occasion:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/08/77088/

[Gus]

Pyles threw this out there on FRL and I think I disagree with my pretty strongly. He said that Carter is outsized by most of his opponents at 184. In other words he said that Carter is a small 184. Agree or disagree? He looks like a full sized 184 to me. 

[ionel]

33 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I know you’re trolling, but WS is ratings not rankings.  And ...

As Wkn loves to point out see upper left corner. 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

How has Carter performed worse this year than last year?

• Last year: 17-2, 52.63% bonus rate
• This year: 21-0, 90.48% bonus rate

Your argument that he "almost lost" doesn't hold water.

@Fletcher waiting for you to address how Starocci's performance this year was worse than last year....

[1032004]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

As Wkn loves to point out see upper left corner. 

And they don’t factor in the weight the matches are wrestled, so WS doesn’t help your point….

[Fletcher]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

@Fletcher waiting for you to address how Starocci's performance this year was worse than last year....

I already did. You disagreed and you're entitled to your opinion. Not every conversation has to extend forever.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

12 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

I already did. You disagreed and you're entitled to your opinion. Not every conversation has to extend forever.

Where?  How did you come to the conclusion that a 17-2 record with 52.63% bonus was a better season than 21-0 record with a 90.48% bonus rate

[Pinnacle]

3 hours ago, Fletcher said:

We're trying to grow the sport. College coaches are trying to win.

If the choice is between winning or growing the sport, they're going to choose winning every time. This is why the coaches dismantled the national duals. This is why Iowa doesn't wrestle UNI.

 

These types of statements suggest you are implying they should not be trying to win. 

[Fletcher]

21 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

 

These types of statements suggest you are implying they should not be trying to win. 

Not exactly. Some people think a coach's highest priority should be as ambassadors of the sport. Some think their highest priority should be developing student athletes. Some think it should be winning. Winning is always a goal - it just may rank differently among other priorities depending on the coach.

[1032004]

Wrestlestat had Gable Steveson ranked #5 when he first came back this season but @ionel thinks they have it “right”…

[ionel]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

And they don’t factor in the weight the matches are wrestled, so WS doesn’t help your point….

 

59 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Wrestlestat had Gable Steveson ranked #5 when he first came back this season but @ionel thinks they have it “right”…

Said they have it right on 184 at this point in time not that their algorithm is right but I'm still here for a good argument. 

[BarSeries]

Trading the #1 seed for a National Championship........Keck got the way better deal here. The feel he got wrestling CStar this year is invaluable. 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, BarSeries said:

Trading the #1 seed for a National Championship........Keck got the way better deal here. The feel he got wrestling CStar this year is invaluable. 

...and maybe Kerk and Schwab were playing possum.  

[lu_alum]

Wrestlestat had Gable Steveson ranked #5 when he first came back this season but [mention=2]ionel[/mention] thinks they have it “right”…

You lost me with, “Wrestlestat had…”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk