That's not my point, although it's a true statement. Lots of times less talented wrestlers beat more talented guys just because they are stronger, faster, or maybe even meaner. I think that maybe you may be looking at my comments about the lightweight guys in the wrong perspective. I'm not saying all lightweight kids suck. I'm just saying they are younger and they generally have poorer technique than the kids with more experience under their belt, which makes logical sense. Of course all great wrestlers were 101 pounders at one time or another. For me it was 6th grade (not that I was particularly great, but I was that weight in 6th grade). For Spencer Lee it was 10th. For Gable Steveson it was probably 4th grade. But I digress.
Regarding your question, I'll pick the late bloomer with superior technique every time. There are reasons guys might be late bloomers. Maybe a guy had a terrible HS coach but he thrives in a college wrestling room under superior coaching. I don't know who was Stephen Neal's coach in HS, but Neal finishing 4th at NCAAs as a FR when he only placed 4th at the HS level the year before shows how much coaching can improve a guy (as long as that guy has the minimum physical skills). The late bloomers that have the best potential are the guys who are superb athletes who were undercoached. Give those guys some decent coaching and bam, instant contender.