bnwtwg

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...

Did Taylor bring a training partner to seniors worlds?

Or adjust to the rest of the world?

Depends who you ask to define "long"

Late night Taco Bell runs pale in comparison. Again, I am calling out the hypocrisy for those who can't see it well enough. And I know for a fact the one I mentioned has not changed. It's fine! I actually support it! However, I do not support hypocrisy and Jimmy Johnson "I don't treat everyone the same" rule sets.

Nah rarri was an outburst. Spencer was a statement.

You know who I'm talking about and what he was very specifically kicked out for. Ending up relocating to Stillwater to matriculate as a direct result. A coach can run his program however he chooses, but hypocrisy and rules for me but not for thee are wack.

No the funniest thing about Soldier Salute was when Spencer boat raced Ayala and had some very, very pointed words.

For Illinois residents under 21 they most certainly are. That's something I vehemently disagree with because if you can vote or enlist then why not partake, but that's a different political debate.

Who said anything about eleven weight classes? The ask is merely to adjust to the UWW weights, whether free or greco is irrelevant so long as there is more equity.

How does Taylor feel about recruiting kids who get ejected from high profile tournaments for hitting a vape pen in the public restroom? Asking for a worlds training partner.

The point is too many lightweights not enough for larger guys and that won't change because it's the way things have always been done rather than adapt to the world senior weight classes. People around here get real butthurt talking about growth sectors within a niche sport.

It's easy to use in moderation. Personally I stick to international rankings series tournaments and kids bday parties on the weekend. This schnoz stays clean Monday through Friday thank u very much.

If only there was a comparable 97 kg weight class. Oh well, who needs a kid who can make a world team in college when we can have more 4th string 141 pounders in the room who will never sniff the starting lineup!

Imagine how great life as a spectator could be if TrackWrestling and FloArena had a merger of sorts. Probably pretty sick I bet. We can only hope that one day they join forces for the betterment of the wrestling community and they promote the best of both worlds while leaving all the pain points behind.

This blog is the simpler answer to your question. Business intelligence is my bread and butter so I feel qualified to field this question with tenacity. The tl;dr is because quality algos are really difficult and anyone can prompt ChatGPT to get middling results. Real algos are essentially binary and like all things automated, don't always pass the eye test. https://craftofcoding.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/why-designing-algorithms-is-hard/#:~:text=Algorithms are hard because humans,something a machine can do. Why designing algorithms is hard The hardest part of developing software is of course the algorithms. People often think that it’s possible to write a program to do just about anything – but that is just not the case. There are things that humans can do that machines just can’t, and likely never will be able to do. Algorithms are hard because humans don’t think in the same black-and-white manner as machines do. Writing an algorithm to filter an image in a way similar to an Instagram filter is something the human mind cannot do, but interpreting the aesthetics of the filtered image is not something a machine can do. Nor should it. It is too hard to try and frame the complexities of the human mind in a series of steps which can be translated into a program. Even weather predicting models can be flummoxed by the fact that weather is unpredictable, and can change. Anything with some level of randomness in it is more challenging to pin-down, and hence more challenging to write algorithms for. We take algorithms for granted because we think that things that are inherently simple for humans, should be just as easy for machines. Millions of years of evolution have provided us with eyes are able to process visual imagery in a spectacular fashion, yet translating this to algorithmic form for the machine to mimic is almost impossible. Machines are able to easily store imagery, and manipulate it in ways the human visual system cannot, and yet they are not able to instinctively identify objects in a generic manner – although they have made inroads. A human is able to identify a tree species from a distance, a machine is not. Being able to write programs is one facet of software development, but being able to decipher the logic underpinning those programs relies on individuals who can realistically think outside the box, push the envelope so to speak. Look at sorting algorithms. When was the last time a really effective, new sorting algorithm was developed? Most “new” sorting algorithms are usually an extension of an existing algorithm, wringing out a few extra milliseconds of speed. But truly new, transformative sorting algorithms? They just haven’t appeared.

Is it a shame for Steveson, or is it a shame for you? He is his own person who has given decades to the sport beginning global travel and a singular focus beginning as a young child at the sacrifice of other arenas of his life and owes nothing. People display their jealousy and envy in the ugliest ways.

Why is it sad that a recent college graduate is maximizing their financial prospects? Were you going to work pro bono this week?

Salt, wine, and butter are the three ingredients necessary to make any dish a delight.

French onion soup to start then beef tenderloin in the dutch oven with a red wine sauce. Sides are lemon burrata gnocchi, smashed parmesan brussel sprouts, and baked parm asparagus. I make it every year and will continue to do so until the day we have any leftovers.

Hendrickson is a better technician, but Steveson is quicker, stronger, faster and has a snap down go behind from hell. Hendrickson is legitimately a top 20 in the US, at any level, technician. It just so happens he can't execute that technique against opponents who are the (formerly and hopefully still) best in the world or a big ass oak tree. Don't forget that right before Parris won a world medal Hendrickson darn near broke his ribs. Levels and such, just giving him his proper respect on the way to another 3rd place medal.

If you are asking larger athletes to give up a disparity of weight then why can you not do the same if smaller athletes? Why, other than tradition, is there such pushback against matching works championship weights? And again, if you give more opportunities then more athletes will follow. It's like some of you have never created a new line of business because you want to waste time figuring out if you can marginally increase a fully saturated market and it shows.

People bitch about 8 pounds being too much. Do the same thing they tell bigger guys - hit the gym and shut up.

Can you name some examples of guys who didn't wrestle but had AA potential because they didn't want to make an 88 pound decision?

We are not talking about high school. We are talking about high level wrestling at the collegiate level. 103 or whatever it is nowadays is also often forfeited. Don't lose the forest for the trees.