SocraTease

Ok; I sit corrected on the origins and "maintenance" (and bequeathing) of the Hodge Award, but I still stand on the aforementioned points about pins, bonus (aka "dominance"), and a stellar record with an outlier loss. I wonder if WIN (or Mike Chapman, et. al.) j unilaterally "revised" the criteria or how much they (or he) consulted the larger wrestling community. Just curious. My point: what I rarely see enough of in the wrestling community is meaningful transparency about process and decisions—from referees not defending their calls, to coaches hiding athletic injuries, to subjective seeding (or ranking) criteria, to wrestler's "ducking" sometimes and calling it something else. Perhaps it is just a feature of the "game" (match) or simply "gaming" the system but .... it is perhaps worth thinking (and talking) about. I find the wrestling community to be quite (too) conservative or at least closed in this regard—relying on the old guard, authority and often authoritarianism, lack of public record-keeping or sharing, so on. It's actually gotten much better over the years with services like FLO and Intermat, and others in part because journalism (and the Internet) seeks to bring what is hidden to light and to rely on analysis rather than mere custom or authority. You (Wrestleknownothing) actually perform a valued service in this regard because you look at the data, the analysis, the trends, the history of the sport, and so on and try to make sense of things for (us) readers who may be in the relative dark sometimes. So perhaps you deserve an "Honorary Hodge" for your work across numerous seasons and even a few "pins" of facts upon theories and speculation.

That 2022 article just looks like an article (or articles) by Win magazine—a kind of loose reporting. I have never seen anything that is officially put out by the NCAA (or another legitimate body that governs the voting for the award) except what I posted earlier. I wonder if no such document actually exists and Hodge voters are just following reporting done by wrestling services that might actually "get it wrong" so to speak. In lieu of an official document with the criteria that voters are supposed to follow, I find it conceivable that Hodge voters are just following what is loosely seen as common practice now, supplanting the original Hodge criterion (pins) with "dominance" or "bonus rates". If so, that simply represents a change in cultural practice—valuing tech falls and majors as much as pins (which goes against the original language of the award.) I bet pinners like Scalles and Askren and even more recent guys like Taylor, Nolf, and Nickal (who all had 50 plus pins), among others, might find that problematic. It would amount to a form of hijacking the award through interpretative subterfuge. Again, I'm not sure if this what has happened or not, but until we see written confirmation of the actual and current and revised award criteria by a legitimate body that governs the Hodge, this is a distinct possibility. If pins are (or should be) part of the Hodge criteria, then to ignore them is a kind of "crime" against Hodge the process (and maybe even Hodge himself). On a related note, "record" is clearly part of the criteria, but that has somehow been widely and unofficially interpreted as meaning you can't lose a single match and win the award. Personally, I would vote for a wrestler who pinned 20 guys or more (or was completely and utterly dominant in his weight class), and won NCAAs but perhaps lost one match due to, say, an injury default or even an apparent fluke like getting caught in a cradle and giving up four back points (causing one close loss) to a lesser wrester that he had beaten many times previously. Steveson and Mesenbrink, for example, are clearly "dominant" in their weight classes, but if they would lose a pre-NCAA championship match due to injury default (e.g., like Kasak), should they de facto become "ineligible" for the Hodge? Or, if say, Haines wins out, and beats both KOT and Hamiti, shouldn't he at least be considered as a Hodge candidate. Translation: I don't like the "purity" vote and thinking that one has to be undefeated to win the Hodge. There are, it seems, conceivable exceptions to that 'pure' "rule".

Can you give us a source for the claim that pins are eliminated as a criterion for the Hodge? This is from an August, 2024 NCAA.com article, but maybe there is some document that is more official or supersedes it: "Originally created to celebrate the pin in college wrestling, the Dan Hodge Trophy is based on seven criteria including record, number of pins, dominance, past credentials, quality of competition, sportsmanship/citizenship and heart. The trophy is based primarily on the results of a single season, but past accomplishments are considered as well, particularly in years where the competition is tighter." https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2022-04-02/dan-hodge-trophy-history-winners-and-how-it-works

Well, I think you are right about the point concerning pins. I believe it was (or still is) written into the original Hodge award language that pins are the (or a) top criterion. But voters seem to ignore that and translate it into "dominance" as you note. Steveson rarely pins and Starocci isn't a big pinner either. And neither is Mesenbrink, among others like Bartlett, Ramos, and KOT. Someone Askren is nodding his head (formerly) full of tall hair.

I find it hard to believe that Hodge voters wouldn't support an unprecedented five-timer who has not yet received the award if he wins out and continues to bonus most of his matches, though the vote may be close with Steveson, who has won the award previously and is on low match count. Has there ever been a 4 timer besides C-Star who never won the Hodge? Yianni I guess ... perhaps because he lost in his senior year. Btw: is Yianni still competing in freestyle? I see he is one of the coach heading to the upcoming ranking series, but that he isn't wrestling.

"And the third comes from his belief that he will deny his opponent an escape point by putting in a two minute ride in the secomd or third." I would modify this remark to say that he knows he (Starocci) will get an escape point himself for the third of the three points you reference. Denying an opponent an escape doesn't give Starocci a point, and you've already indicated he will likely get a point from riding time. That's my two cents (or rather one point).

Penn State had a 60 match win streak, I think, before losing to Iowa and beginning their present 70 match win streak. 130-1 over the last decade. Insane. A 99.2 percent winning percentage. They are creeping up on the reliability of death and taxes.

How does Penn State's 2025 Murder's Row compare with these lineups?

The marching beat of the lineup is a bit off: 1-2, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2. It needs to be adjusted at either Big Tens or NCAAs to a more rhythmic 1-2 pattern. Or perhaps it is just Cael having fun with dissonance and idiosyncrasy .

My guess is that Brands has both Ferrari and Arnold weigh in. Then he waits to see where the dual is when they hit 184. If the match is virtually wrapped up by then (and it may not be), he considers going with Arnold to better prepare him for NCAAs

I just saw that. Bartlett and Mendez will likely meet again soon at B1Gs, though there are some other potential landmines in their path: Hardy, Vombaur, and Lemley being the top 3 contenders.

Separated at Girth?

That sounds like a reasonable watershed. So it is basically BG (Before Gable) and AG (After Gable) ... though of course Gable wrestled until 1970 in college It would be an interesting (and also controversial) enterprise to attempt to define wrestling eras based on changes in style—e.g., "the postmodern era" as commencing with, say, "Funk" (circa the arrival of Askren though preceded by Schalles, among possible others.). And now there might be a post-post modern era where extremely talented high schoolers transition quickly to college ... and so on. Perhaps future historians will designate a BC (Before Cael) and AC (After Cael) era based particularly on his coaching style: Points + Fun + Gratitude ... or something like that

But Bartlett JUST beat Mendez and it is (and should be) this season's rankings not across seasons. If they hadn't wrestled this season, sure give Mendez the nod because he pulled out a last second win over Bartlett at NCAAs and beat him at Big Tens (even if Bartlett beat him in the dual last year). The only way I can see ranking Mendez informally above Bartlett is if you also consider the All-Star match this year, but that is not supposed to count in official rankings

For what it is worth, today's Wrestlestat has Bartlett at #1. Today's Win rankings has Alirez at #1 and Mendez at #2. What, pray tell, absurd reasoning leads them to put Mendez above Bartlett? I think FLO's and Intermat's rankings appear tomorrow.