Wrestleknownothing

We are supposedly getting two more years of Ferrari after this.

Flo and Intermat still have a number of disagreements on who should be/is the starter at a number of slots. I have not done the research to see who is right. But I know a few off the top of my head. Daniel Cardenas is redshirting at Stanford. And they are both just guessing at 197 for PSU. Can anyone else fill in the gaps? There are also a number of wrestlers where there is consensus on who is starting, but a big difference of opinion on where they should be ranked. The table is sorted from largest to smallest difference (Flo minus Intermat) and filtered to include only those where the absolute value of the difference is seven or more.

Maybe he can be the answer to your question, @Pinnacle

If that really is the issue, why is Musk not suing the Anti-Defamation League or GLAAD, who have said the same? He is going after Media Matter purely as a distraction. They are small, non-sympathetic, and easy to pick on.

Your understanding of the proxy process is quaint. BlackRock owns something like 7% of every company. And they have NEVER been involved in a proxy fight. And they never will. They are fiduciaries. They must vote for their clients good, not for their own beliefs. BlackRock cannot decide to invest more heavily in (or divest from ) a company. BackRock's 25 largest active equity funds have $78 billion in AUM. Their 25 largest passive funds have $1.75 trillion. With 95% of their equity assets following indexes, they have virtually no discretion. While his words may sound like coercion to you, they do not to CEO's who know that investment decisions are not theirs to make. He is talking about pay at BlackRock because he has no ability to influence pay elsewhere.

Yeah, I do not think that one is right and one is wrong necessarily. I just object to this conceit that rankings are not ratings, because rankings are not subjective, or predictions. In the above case the criteria are not applied evenly, so it is hard to argue that the rankings are objective. But the very nature of choosing which criteria to apply is subjective. So even if you apply your criteria objectively it is still, at its root, a subjective process. Then when you use your individual rankings to make team projections, as we all do, you are making a prediction based on the assumption that your rankings equal the final results. I would rather everyone just admit that there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in rankings. As for me, I have said many times no one gets better at wrestling by not wrestling. That applies equally to Ferrari and Steveson. However, I can also subjectively state that the gap between Steveson and his field was much larger than the gap between Ferrari and his field however many years back you want to go. So, subjectively I can still place Steveson in the #1 spot against a stronger competition, while dropping Ferrari to #4 against lesser competition.

Then let's look at Steveson's 285 ranking logic. They have him first "based on top ten wins over Greg Kerkvliet, Wyatt Hendrickson, Cohlton Schultz, Taye Ghadiali, and Luke Luffman." Those wins all occurred in 2021 and 2022. Now let's compare that to Ferrari's 197 ranking logic. They have him fourth, reasoning "Ferrari hasn't wrestled anyone other than Buchanan ranked in the top 8 and his wins over Buchanan were over two years ago." They also ask the question, "but should he be ahead of Buchanan, Cardenas, and Elam who have all competed at least two NCAA Tournaments since AJ Ferrari won his title?" And their answer is no as revealed by their rankings. So they discount Ferrari's wins because they were over two years ago, but include Steveson's wins even though they were over two years ago. They also think that having competed at two or more NCAA tournaments since Ferrari's last title is enough to promote non-winners of those tournaments above Ferrari, but Kerkvliet, who has also wrestled at two tournaments since Steveson won his last title, does not get the same benefit. And unlike any of the three ahead of Ferrari, Kerkvliet has actually won a tournament. The most recent.

I just read the Flo justification for ranking Steveson above Starocci in the pound for pound rankings and it turned on loses occurring in 2019 for Steveson and 2021 for Starocci's along with bonus rates (@Truzzcat). So there must not be a time limit.

Person, woman, man, camera, TV. These seem to be both a cognition test and the qualification criteria for cabinet level positions.

Is there a time limit to that? AJ Ferrari is 2-0 against Stephen Buchanan (2021), but you have Buchanan #1 and Ferrari#4. Ferrari also has a significantly better record against common opponents than #3 Rocky Elam, and #2 Jacob Cardenas.

There is a lot wrong with your argument. First, the attached article places the blame on concerns advertisers have with Musk dating to before he even closed the deal. Media Matters is only mentioned as having taken a poll. It is GLAAD and ADL that are credited with calls to action. Second, no one who is serious, or understands BlackRock's business model, thinks they are coercing, or have the ability to coerce, anyone. What lever could they possibly use?

Managing index funds, married with my third child on the way.

Ditto

There have been some many more guesses since then. That is just the last one you are aware of. And, yes.

If I had to guess I would say Intermat is also penalizing Mendez for the two losses last year.

Yeah, I'm not advocating one way or the other. Just responding to your question with a pro-Mendez argument.

Like a child. Who gets on stage in front of the people he is trying to woo back and tells them to go F themselves? A petulant child.

Your timeline does not hold up to scrutiny. The Media Matters report came out on Nov 17, 2023. Musk was tweeting support for antisemitic conspiracy theories prior to that. The one that got the most reaction was on November 13. But Musk had been feuding with the Anti-Defamation League for months at that point. And as a result companies like Disney and Apple had already been pulling ads from Twitter prior to the Media Matters report. Perhaps the Media Matters report increased the momentum, but the problem was one of Musk's own creation. He created the problem, and the atmosphere that allowed Media Matters to even get noticed. He would love nothing more than to take the blame off himself by trying to blame others. That he wants to do that by silencing an opposing voice also demonstrates his hypocrisy when it comes to being a free speech absolutist.

They were definitely not the same field. See above.

Mendez wrestled a tougher schedule in 2024 than Alirez did in 2023. For example, while they had identical bonus percentages against D1 opponents who did not forfeit (66.67%) Alirez did it against wrestlers ranked 62 on average while Mendez did it against wrestlers ranked 47 on average. Mendez wrestled a tougher slate of opponents in the regular season, at the conference tournament, at at the NCAA tournament (though the average seed Alirez beat was higher than Mendez at NCAAs). Mendez scored more bonus points than Alirez at NCAA's. And Alirez's only bonus (the elusive pinfall) came against a wrestler with a losing record. Mendez did it more recently than Alirez.

Rather than edit to correct I thought I would do the thing I hate, the self-quote, in order to preserve my prior wrong statement. Alirez's ELO did not go down at all during his redshirt 2024 season. It was just frozen in amber. Meanwhile, Mendez's ELO took big jumps at the end of the 2024 season with Big10 (dual and tournament) and NCAA results. So really what the algos said was Mendez had a more impressive season in 2024 than Alirez had in 2023.

He is on wrestlestat. And wrestlestat also has Alirez three behind Bartlett. Clearly the algo values current results, so skipping a year penalizes Alirez. Flo says it is because Mendez suffered two loses last year while Mendez was undefeated the prior season. That strikes me as the weakest of reasons, such that it feels more like justification for what they wanted to do. I call bullshat (once again) on their performative claims of a rankers oath. But as for Intermat? Ya got me. @InterMat Staff, any thoughts here?

I am partial to: The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote: "Stink! Stank! Stunk!"

I am a poster without a soul