Dark Energy

True - I can see this logic. But I think the more defensive person would still be at risk of being put on a shot clock. I suppose the concern is that the better wrestler (Zare) would lose. But I think the result would have ended up the same … 2-0 Zare.

Thanks for interacting on this and thinking about it. I’m not sure someone needs to go on shot clock by end of first. Why do you think it is needed? Worst case, match finishes 0-0 and the winner is the one that got criteria at start of match. Kinda like 1-1 criteria win. I agree that a full point to start match would be too much of an advantage. But a full point is given for the forced 1st period shot clock situation. Which, perhaps is worse? Now, the optics of a 0-0 win suck. I get it. But not really different from a 1-1 win where both points were shot clock points. Both are creating arbitrary winners. I’m thinking it is unlikely a match would go 0-0 distance. Someone likely to be called for passivity in that situation. But, it could happen.

I agree. Never said you did.

Huh? You wrote ‘American Exceptionalism is the belief that …’ You wrote it’s a belief. I’m confused. I wrote that ….. ahhh, perhaps I should have said ‘If a person doesn’t believe that …’ You seem to be thinking that I was attacking you …. Still, not sure how since I used the word ‘if’ … but anyway, I made no assumption on what your belief is. Feel free to correct me. Skins can be thin.

What did the tweet say? I missed it and can’t find it.

If you don’t believe that, you don’t know much about world history, geo-politics, global economic disparities, and military budgets / experience.

If your hypothesis is correct, then very bad idea. Not sure I agree it is that much of an advantage. But don’t know.

Quick thought - figure get reactions. In chess, one player has the white pieces, another black. Some feel there is a slight advantage to player with white pieces since they move first. Idea - random assignment to red or blue wrestler as basically having criteria to start the match. Now, from very start, someone is winning, someone is losing. Objective - promote scoring, avoid artificial passivity / shot clock moments. Just an idea - curious on reactions.

Others have said this but I’ll jump on. I’d agree that rankings have predictive power. If you looked at predictions (call these predictive rankings) against rankings, there would often be very good correlation. But regular rankings are usually not 100% correlated to predictive rankings. They are different.

Well then I ask you to reread your posts and understand that you, on multiple occasions implied they were the same. You did this by replying to someone who, was talking about rankings and predictions, using a seeding example. And on another occasion providing points with the approach of using ‘seeding / rankings’ as a way of saying point is same for both. And multiple times slipping back and forth. The case you are trying to make is wobbly enough …. you should work to be more consistent in terms and terminology.

Since when do seeds = rankings?

Ok - so if wrestler A majors 90% and wrestler B pins 75%, in Hvy, you are more impressed with A. What if both 90%? From your posts, I assume A still. Fair? Now, for both scenarios above, which is more dominant? Seems like you are avoiding that word. Perhaps you feel A is better (aka more impressive) but wondering if you feel is also more dominant.

So, just to be clear … you think that when Wrestler A majors wrestler C, and wrestler B pins wrestler C, that means, in the Hvy weight class, wrestler A is more dominant than B. Ok. And, then wrestler A majors all their opponents and Wrestler B pins all their opponents, in the Hvy weight class, wrestler A is more dominant. I now understand how you think. I disagree with you but thanks for being clear.

Looks like Bo Nickal is being clear that he wants the Hodge to be for the ‘best wrestler’ … so he wants the criteria changed for the Hodge. OR … like I’m suggesting - a new award is needed. Hey Bo! Make it happen!

The bonus percentage was quite close. The pin percent and dominance score was not at all. And sportsmanship - also not close. Honest question - Wrestler A majors 90% of his opponents. Wrestler B pins 75% of theirs. Are you going to call A more dominant? I hope not.