BAC

NCAA ringers? At 57kg, I like Darian Cruz a lot and I'm happy he's an Olympian. But in freestyle, he's not a ringer. He really doesn't have any international accomplishments of note. He's never come close to making a US team, and for PR, he's never come close to medaling at Worlds. RBY was a legit obstacle, but he was on the opposite bracket. At 65kg, I like Austin Gomez a lot. But in senior-level freestyle, he's no ringer either. Dangerous, but erratic, and has never been medal threat (tho maybe he is now). I wouldn't call Lachlan McNeil a ringer. The Cuban has medaled, but not recently, and he's pushing 40. The Argentinean is a tough out too, but never close to medaling. Nick Lee was definitely the favorite here, as was Zane at 57kg (or at least co-favorite with RBY). There's a reason these NCAA guys aren't pushing for a spot on the US team: they know its a longshot. (Well, maybe not RBY.) At Last Chance, there is *always* a bunch of medalists from other countries. And it tends to be a much bigger bracket too. Its nasty. We won't know until all the qualifiers are done, but Jon Kozak tweeted the other day that at 65kg, Tulga Tumur-Ochir, Haji Aliyev, Islam Dudaev, Bajrang Punia and Kotaro Kiyooka hadn't qualified. I'm not sure if the US has *ever* pushed someone through at this tournament. It's hard to overstate how heartbreaking the Pan Am result was.

Folding in international accomplishments, Kurt Angle deserves mention. 2x NCAA champ, world champ, Olympic champ. I might still pick Kolat as the overall guy, both because of his college and (especially) high school dominance, and because he was jobbed so many times internationally that his 1x bronze/1x silver don't accurately reflect how good he really was.

I thought it was interesting that Brands, in the pre-OSU/Iowa press conference, made reference to the "bad blood" between the two teams stemming from Olympic Coach Gable's unabashed advocacy in legal proceedings of his Iowa guy, Randy Lewis, to get the 1984 Olympic team spot instead of the guy that won trials, OSU's Lee Roy Smith (John's older brother), ultimately leading to Gable's censure by USA Wrestling. But is there really any lingering bad blood? Even in the wrestling community, far more don't know the story than know it. And in Flo's article, they talk about Brands' references to "understanding wrestling history" and "bad blood," but completely whiff in understanding what he was talking about: “(Dan) Gable, Randy Lewis, Lee Roy Smith, 1984,” Brands said on Tuesday, going through some of the names and dates of the series, which Oklahoma State leads 29-25-2. “You can keep going. And those are things that are real, they're real, and enough time has gone by where maybe it’s, ‘Let's let bygones be bygones,’ but I'm not sure it really works that way. I think that those pains run deep. They run deep.” https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/12160118-iowa-wrestling-heading-to-oklahoma-state-with-plenty-of-lineup-options C'mon man. Brands wasn't "going through some of the names and dates of the series." This is one very specific event in wrestling history that exploded the rift between Iowa and everyone else, and especially with OSU. Pretty much no one agreed it was the right outcome, except diehard Iowa fans and the arbitrator, swayed by the head Olympic Coach (and Iowa coach) demanding for a re-wrestle of the last 80-some seconds of the match. But it also was 40 years ago. Its a good bet Gable and the Smith family haven't forgotten, and Brands hasn't, but has everyone else? A longtime Iowa sportswriter authored that article and no one at Flo saw what he missed. If you're interested, run a google search. You'll find a number a contemporaneous articles from 1984, which are your best source. Or check out Wrestlers at the Trials, a neat little book by James Moffatt. Interesting stuff.

Yeah maybe, but you don't know until you try, and clearly the defensive strategy hasn't worked. The guys who have beaten Brooks recently are guys who opened it up: Zahid. Taylor. And Brooks' win over the Russian Nationals champ at U23s was a nailbiter as the Russian was coming after him. The list of people with wins over Brooks in the last 2-3 years is very small and none of them won on defense.

Hidlay does not get nearly the respect he deserves, and he absolutely is a legit threat to Brooks. Yes, if he pulls it off the Hodge still goes to Starocci, but the Hidlay-Brooks matchup is still a great storyline. For three years in a row, Hidlays has lost to Brooks in the NCAAs finals/semis. All close: 3-2, 6-4 SV, 6-3. If Brooks didn't exist, then Hidlay would be, at minimum, a 3x finalist and 1x champ, and might even being going for his 4th right now (if he won in the finals in '22-23). The main difference is that this year, Hidlay seems to have level-jumped and, more importantly, opened up his offense. He went from a 25% bonus rate when he lost to Brooks as a freshman, to his current 85%. Before this year, he'd never bonused a top-10 opponent. This year he majored #3 Beard and #5 Cardenas. Of course, Brooks isn't exactly standing still, and is still the favorite. But the question I want to know is -- how will Hidlay wrestle him this time? Brooks has made no secret of the fact that he hates wrestling Hidlay since he won't open up, making for a defensive battle. Does Hidlay stick with that game plan, or does he open it up more this time -- more like his other matches? I hope he opens it up. He's a senior, and if he really wanted his title he could have stayed at 184. But he decided to make another run at Brooks. If you're going to lose to the man 4x, at least go out on your shield. My own guess is we see a different Hidlay this time around, and the match ends up being very entertaining.

I like Taylor for this. Won the world title, beat an all-time great Iranian in the finals, via pin. What else can you ask for? Its comparable to Snyder winning the Sullivan after beating Sadulaev, and Rulon winning after beating Karelin. If Taylor didn't exist, Yazdani would be an 8x world/Olympic champ, and considered the best ever. I like Elor and Gray, but I don't think their 2023 compares well to Taylor. Gray's had a great career, but she only took bronze in 2023. Elor won, but didn't beat someone of Yazdani's caliber. Give me a year where Elor knocks off one of Japan's multi-timers, and she'd get my vote if I had one. Not Ledecky either. If the Sullivan were a lifetime achievement award, Ledecky would be deserving, but she's not what she once was. She's nails in the 800 and 1500, winning both in 2023, but isn't as competitive in the 200 or 400 anymore. If she gets it, its a make-up for being (wrongfully) overlooked in the past. Clark is a popular choice -- the media's really been fawning over her lately, and she's drawing crowds -- but she won it last year. Sullivan doesn't seem to like repeat winners. If hotness were among the criteria, the Sullivan would go to Stanford's Brink (dayum!), but since Rulon won it once I'm pretty sure its not a factor. So Taylor it is.

Honestly, outside of current top D1 coaches and top active competitors, he probably has the highest name recognition there is, at least among current top high school recruits. From his Hodge career, to making the Olympic team, to becoming one of wresting's top MMA fighters, to becoming a lead Flo personality, to running the Asken Wrestling Academy, he's always been in the wrestling limelight, and he has one of the more memorable personalities and styles. My guess is over 95 of the top 100 recruits know who he is. If you're hiring a coach, and the top D1 coaches aren't moving and the top active competitors aren't ready to move into a full time coaching position... do you know a potential candidate who has MORE name recognition among top high school recruits? Heck, he probably has better name recognition among top high schoolers than 90% of existing D1 coaches. You don't have to like the guy, but questioning his name recognition among recruits is a pretty bad take.

Yeah, you and Vak could be right too. It's certainly true that the guys Brooks handles most easily are the guys who actually try to win. The question is, will Glazier wrestle to win, or to not get majored? I'm hoping that in a dual in Carver he'll want to go for the W.

I think the only guy to keep Brooks to a decision this year is Hidlay. Glazier's put together a real nice season, but Brooks is an absolute freak.

125: Ayala Dec over Davis 3-0 Iowa 133: Nagao Dec over Schriever 3-3 141: Woods Dec over Bartlett 6-3 Iowa 149: Rathjen Dec over Kasak 9-3 Iowa 157: Franek Dec over Haines 12-3 Iowa 165: Mesenbrink Dec over Caliendo 12-6 Iowa 174: Starocci M.Dec over Kennedy 12-10 Iowa 184: Arnold Dec over Truax 15-10 Iowa 197: Brooks M.Dec over Glazier 15-14 Iowa 285: Kerkvliet T.F. Hill 19-15 PSU Not an Iowa fan but everyone's underselling them at home. The Arnold/Truax pick is admittedly a stretch and wildly unlikely to happen. Curious to see how Caliendo fares against Mesenbrink.

IKR? That’s grating. If I had his password I’d have logged in and made the edit myself.

Is going to Russia even an option? It's been on the State Department's "Do Not Travel" list since the Ukraine invasion, and I'm not aware of any USA Wrestling-sanctioned visits to Russia since the invasion, nor since Russia was barred from international competition. I'm not aware of any specific rule barring a US athlete from flying to Russia and competing, but I suspect they'd be doing it without the support of USA Wrestling.

I know this is a Starocci thread, but I'm puzzled why everyone is so sure KOT gets another title this year. I'm sorry, but I have O'Toole's chance of repeating this year at sub-50%. His record is 1-2 against Carr, a guy who's never had more than one loss in a season (and he already has his loss this year). Its amazing to me how little respect Carr gets on this forum, with everyone putting him on a different "level" than KOT. And throw in Mesenbrink, who is a dark horse to upset either/both of them. And didn't KOT just barely nip Peyton Hall 8-7? I have KOT and Carr as a toss-up, and MM, although probably a step behind both, is just enough in the mix to put the odds of KOT a little under 50%.

9 of 10 in the top 5.... now THAT would be remarkable.

It’s good to see. He’s in USA singlet now, so it reflects on more than just Iowa now if he goes off the rails. But the difference in maturity and self control is like night and day. Proud of him.

Even if they had gotten the name right, the bigger error is calling a 2-1 score in a Will Lewan match “slower than expected.”

Cody seems very candid and well-spoken. Props.

At first I thought Brands was going to step up to the plate when he seemingly called out the first reporter for nibbling around the AJ issue: Reporter: "Will you be having any additions to the roster second semester?" Brands: "Just ask the specific question." Reporter 1: ".... Will you be having any additions to the roster second semester?" Pathetic journalism, and I was ready to give props to Brands for inviting direct discussion of the issue, only for the reporter to drop the ball a second time. But then another reporter DID man up and ask it: Reporter 2: "Can you comment on AJ's conduct at the end of the Soldier Salute and what is recruiting status is for the second semester? Brand: "You know the answer to that Mike. You've been doing this a long time..." Oh come on Tom. Just answer the freaking question. AJ just did a podcast making it sound like everything's hunky-dory with Iowa and saying he'd just been admitted, and Pyles has gone on record saying it is "very likely" AJ's recruiting status is unchanged at Iowa, but over at HR reporter they're saying they nixed AJ. So no, we don't know. Saying no one's joining second semester "at this time" is an empty truism. Of course he can't go into detail, but a simple "No we are not recruiting him now" or even a "The situation is fluid, we will have to wait and see how it plays out" would be better than just berating journalists for doing their job. No one's listening to the interviews to hear you spew out empty "one day at a time" cliches and scowl at the journalists. Either answer the questions or don't do interviews at all. And the journalists are even worse. If you're not going to ask real questions, or push back even a little bit when there's resistance to telling the truth, get a new job.

Bucky, Here is the only backstory you need to know. In the "Creeps in the wrestling community" thread (elsewhere on this page), there is discussion about youth wrestling videographers, one or two in particular, who are perceived by many as shooting and thumbnailing their videos in an overly suggestive manner, attracting the attention of (if not outright catering to and/or profiting from) the prurient desires of a certain unsavory subset of the population, leading to otherwise unremarkable youth wrestling videos having millions of views. Some in the wrestling community have sounded the alarm -- hence the thread -- and pushed back. Various members of the wrestling media, including JB, have chimed in with more context. Several pages in, "commonsense2400" formed an account and started posting in defense of one or more of those whose works are at issue, and -- apparently believing "the best defense is a good offense" -- started taking aim at posters, accusing them of everything from defamation to aiding and abetting criminal acts. These included pot shots at JB which have now morphed into this new thread. That's your context. Judge for yourself. My opinion, FWIW, is EVERY post of "commonsense2400" should be regarded as bad faith intimidation tactics existing for the SOLE purpose of bullying into silence those who take issue with makers of the videos that have caused widespread serious concern in the wrestling community.

Why do you keep saying this? Surely you know it isn't true: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72431 If you are going to try to intimidate people with accusations of defamation, you might want to make sure your own posts are truthful. You also may want to educate your client on Youtube's Community Guidelines policy against sexualization of minors: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801999 Note that, per the first link, thumbnail selections must conform to these Community Guidelines as well. To all: I would encourage you to likewise review the above Community Guidelines on Youtube regarding the prohibition of sexualization of minors and, if you believe in good faith that a given Youtube video crosses the line as articulated in these standards, irrespective of who posted it, report it here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802027 I would encourage you to use discretion in reporting. Obviously it needs to be more than a kid in a singlet in wrestling match. IMO, casting too broad a net or penalizing high-end videography is not good for the sport. Step back, be objective, be fair, and don't report it unless it is "sexually suggestive" within the meaning of the published policy. But if it is: do your part and report it. Per Youtube guidelines, if they agree, the video will be removed and the Youtuber will get a "strike." The policy also says: "If you get 3 strikes within 90 days, your channel will be terminated." It also says that violations will be reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Gotcha. I could go down a rabbit hole on this one, but respectfully, the answer isn't opening Youtube up to liability. The cost of self-policing is absolutely massive, and content hosts will err on the side of caution, so what will happen is a massive overcorrection where either (a) a huge portion of content goes behind a paywall (passing costs to the consumer), or (b) a huge part of the internet dries up (as content hosts lack the resources to review/police it), or, most likely, (c) both. The other legislative problem is that politicians are too caught up in what minors can do online, and not focused enough on what adults can do to harm and exploit minors. State and federal legislators LOVE to pass new laws restricting what kids can see/do on the internet -- Youtube is currently under an FTC consent decree from 2019 for failing to police this -- but what do legislators do to protect the kids from adults? Precious little. You want a legislative fix? Here's mine. Amend the Copyright Act to provide that parents/guardians of minor children automatically own a limited copyright in the image/likeness of their minor child, and can enforce that copyright by requiring videos/photos be taken down, unless they have given express permission (e.g. via signed waiver for an event). In other words, expand the right to make a DMCA takedown request to parents. Right now, all we have is a messy patchwork of state privacy laws, most of them inadequate. The Copyright Act provides a quick and easy nationwide solution.

You gotta be careful what you ask for here. If common wrestling positions can constitute "simulated sexual conduct," and if the appearance of the typical wrestling singlet can constitute "transparently clothed genitals," then not only would every single youth wrestling video risk prosecution for child pornography, it also would mean those who who watch or store those videos are guilty of viewing/possessing child porn, and those who sponsor wrestling events are engaged in criminal acts. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Prosecuting someone on these grounds would create a chilling effect on wrestling media that could be a death knell for the entire sport. If you're going to go after someone criminally, it needs to be based on their very specific conduct in relation to child pornographers and consumers, and not merely the high-res nature of the videos.

I'm actually saying something a little bit different. I'm not talking about whether Flo or other organizations give permission. I'm talking about the permission they receive. I'm talking about putting the control in the hands of the state/national wrestling organizations, instead of giving unfettered discretion to the media organizations to use or misuse their photos/videos as they see fit. Let me give you an example. Let's say the Indiana state organization of USA-Wrestling (lets call it "USAW-I") is holding a U17 state freestyle tournament. Can anyone just walk in and start filming? No -- not if USAW-I doesn't allow it. They can forbid videos/photography, or impose limits. They can permit filming only where media credentials are given. And they can dictate the terms of those credentials. You don't like it, you don't get to film. So lets say 3 media organizations/individuals apply for media credentials. Instead of just handing out credentials and video rights unconditionally, USAW-I can say on the rights form: Sure, you can record, but we retain ownership of the copyright on whatever you record. We grant you a license, but we retain the right to rescind that license or to exercise our rights under the copyright laws if we determine, in our sole discretion, that they work is inappropriate, offensive or is being misused by you or others. If USAW-I does that, and videos from their tournament are shot in a dodgy way or have a mysteriously high number of Youtube views or show up on a sketchy website, then complaints are routed to USAW-I, which can immediately do a "takedown notice" under copyright laws (see https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en), and then under federal law, Youtube (or whatever the website is) has to comply promptly, usually in a matter of days if not hours. Caveats: -- Many wrestling organizations aren't so great about exercising these rights. But they do have them. This episode should be an eye-opener to state organizations to be more vigilant about implementing and enforcing no-video/no-photo rules absent organizer permission, particularly in the youth context. -- This isn't the only approach. Wrestling organizations can simply be more vigilant about who they give credentials to. But the problem is, it is hard to know. There's no doubt legit videographers out there, who also have a side business of catering to prurient interests. Organizations also can retain the right to rescind credentials, but that doesn't solve the problem of them having already acquired a library of stuff to peddle. -- Some media organizations may take exception to not owning copyrights in their works. Owning a license isn't as valuable as owning a copyright. Personally I think it is justified in the youth context. If necessary, an exception could be made with well-known media organizations, but even there, the credential agreement should include limitations -- e.g. using the videos only on their own websites, not re-licensing them without the organization's permission, and/or agreeing to exercise a DMCA takedown notice if requested by the organization. Point is, there are workarounds to accommodate the media organization's desire to own its own IP, while still ensuring the organization retains the ability to be responsive to instances of misuse. -- It isn't always the state wrestling organizations that control media access. Sometimes it is private organizations, which I hope would follow suit. Sometimes it is the media organization itself (e.g. I assume Flo controls access to its "Who's Number One" event). I'm not worried about them, as they're keeping the rights for themselves and I can't imagine they'd ever license it to a suspect actor. -- There's other complicators too. I'm not in the loop on the processes currently used by USAW and other organizations, and what processes they mandate to their state organizations, and what limitations they have by virtue of falling under the USOC/IOC umbrella. I'm also not sure how flexible the wrestling media would be in agreeing to additional copyright restrictions in the youth context. Flo, for example, has come a long way from its early days of just sort of showing up and filming until they get kicked out (and risking copyright objections from exclusive broadcasters), to now apparently negotiating exclusive rights for themselves in many of the events they cover. But I think its an idea worth exploring as I gather this issue is more widespread than we realize, and exists in wrestling's underbelly where we seldom look.

That is awfully naive. Do you see as many creepy videographers lining up at youth judo, karate, boxing tournaments? How many Youtube sites are out there with close-ups of those competitors? Show me the comment section where some perv is saying "Dang, little Johnny looks sexy in that baggy gi." Now look at the Youtube website that everyone's talking about. Click the "popular" tab, so you see the most-viewed videos first... over a dozen with a million views. What do all those videos stills/thumbnails have in common? Besides almost all being little-known youth wrestlers, almost all under-18 males in singlets. What body anatomy is visible in outline form, front and center, in them? Now take a wild guess. Why do you THINK these videos have so many views? I'm sure there'd be some pervs around the sport no matter what, and I'm not saying moving away from singlets would be a cure-all. I'm sure it wouldn't be. But if you think the choice of attire has nothing to do with the attention our sport gets from this segment of the population, your head is in the sand. Admitting this is most definitely NOT justifying the predators, nor is it blaming the victim. It is simply stating a fact. Attire choice influences decisions. It doesn't justify those decisions, but it influences them. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. If you want to say "we shouldn't have to change our attire just to keep the pervs away," go for it. But don't pretend it isn't influencing their behavior when it obviously is.