fishbane

It's not like Smith didn't have domestic competition either. We had world champs before (Lewis) and after him (Brands) at his weight and he beat them.

1988 Olympic gold medalist Sarkisian was in that event. It's not like everyone took the year off. That kind of odd finalist can happen especially before they started seeding the brackets. In 2012 Jake Herbert was in a crazy unbalanced 84kg bracket. The bracket was won by Sharifov over Espinal in the final. Espinal's side of the bracket featured a single wrestler (Marsagishvili) that won a single medal (bronze 2011) at another Olympic/world championships.

The Washington Post had an in-depth feature on Jim Jordan that was published a couple weeks ago just after his bid for speaker was derailed in that secret ballot. I found it pretty interesting and gave some insight to him as a wrestler and the Strauss scandal. I've linked to it below. If you don't have a Post subscription you can dodge the paywall by changing to reader view if your browser supports that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/jim-jordan/

Yes, I think the weight class reduction has added difficulty for the modern guys especially before the expansion of worlds, and for those competing at Olympic weights. I am not sure it effects Baumgartner's accomplishments as much as others. In 1996 the top weights were 90, 100, and 130kg. It then went to 87, 97, and 130kg, then 84, 96, and 120, then 86, 97, and 125kg, and now 92, 97, and 125kg in non-olympic years. I don't know that any of that moves the needle and makes soon set of weights significantly more competitive at 130/120/125kg. Would adding 3-4 kg to the second biggest weight make the top weight less competitive? If so dropping 5-10kg from the top end would make its less competitive. To me the reduction in weight classes is more of talking point in figuring out where Smith, Kemp, Jackson, and the Shultzes rank than Big Bruce.

It wasn't me that you were responding to, but I don't see this as docking for losses at the end of an amazing career. It's more of an accumulation off accolades that leads some to prefer Baumgartner, Schultz, or Snyder. I'll take an example from baseball to illustrate Mickey Mantle and Henry Aaron. Mantle was a part of 7 World Championship teams, won 3 AL MVP awards, and lead the AL in WAR 6 times over an 18 year career. Aaron, who was 2 years younger than Mantle, was on 1 World Series winning team, won 1 NL MVP, and lead the NL in WAR twice over a 23 year career. If you are picking teams and 1957 Mantle and any version of Aaron are available the choice is obvious - Mantle was better in 1957. Mantle was better than Aaron's best season a handful and times. He had a higher peak and was better on a per game average over his career. Despite this I think Aaron is almost universally ranked above Mantle in lists of greatest baseball players of all time. His high level of play and longevity resulted in him retiring holding the MLB records in many counting stats including games, AB, HR, RBI, extra base hits, and total bases. He also retired with the second most hits in history. In wrestling and combat sports in general it is more of an all or nothing proposition. A Hank Aaron type wouldn't get the same recognition. Being in the top 5-10 in the world consistently over a 20 year period doesn't matter as much as winning a handful of titles.

No idear. Longest medal streaks - I think 1) Snyder 9 (2015-2023) 2) Baumgartner 8 (1983-1990) 3) John Smith 6 (1987-1992) 3) Dave Schultz 6 (1982-1987) 3) Kyle Dake 6 (2018-2023) 6) Bruce Baumgartner 5 (1992-1996) 6) Jordan Burroughs 5 (2011-2015) (2017-2022?) 6) Bill Scherr 5 (1985-1989)

Antonio McKee? Legend says it happened in 1989 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lIKip3hpxA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIM_vm4Du4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJKwmBrPHSY

The logic being used to select the repechage wrestlers isn't that they proved anything, but rather that it has been proven that there are at least two wrestlers better than the wrestlers not in the repechage - the wrestler they lost to and whoever ultimately defeated that guy. The repechage does a not awful job at determining the second best wrestler in that half off the bracket or at least that's the logic The guy who loses in the first round to the finalist does get a free pass to the repechage, but he also has to wrestle 1-2 matches whilst the semi-final loser is waiting - its not easy, so that may help account for the poor record. However in a way making him wrestling 2-3 matches in a row balances the fact that he only wrestled 1 and the semifinal loser wrestled 2-3 the day before. They all need to win the same number of matches too finish 3rd. Probably the fact that they now seed the wrestlers is a bigger factor. Yazdani's repechage performance in 2018 was pretty remarkable. After losing to Taylor in the first round he won three straight matches beating Taylors opponents by a wider margin that Taylor did to finish 3rd. It is far better than most other olympic combat sports which just give bronze medals to the semifinalists

He would have needed a major to tie the dual. During the season in question, 1996-97, I think there were ties in duals, but this was for the NWCA National duals championships, so presumably some tie breaking criteria would have come into play. I can't imagine they would just share the title. I have no idea what the tie breaking criteria was for the event, but applying the current criteria to the dual would favor OSU. Assuming McIlravy majored Arias the teams would be tied in team points (17-17), first criteria - match victories (5-5), and second criteria - # of Pins, forfeits, DQ, defaults (0-0). The third criteria, total match points from Dec, MD, and TF would likely settle things. In the 9 other matches OSU held an edge in total match points 53-36. It would be impossible for McIlravy to close the match point gap via a MD. He would need an edge of 17 points which would be a TF and then the team score wouldn't be tied. Maybe if the 4 point TF was a thing in 1997 he could have won by 17 with the team score tied and the total match points tied. Even in that highly unlikely outcome (how do you get a 17 point advantage w/o NF?) OSU would likely just win on the 4th criteria - total NF points. OSU had a 4-1 NF advantage in the dual and I doubt Arias accounted for 3 of those. For McIlravy to change the outcome of the dual he would need at least a 5 point TF over Arias. Keep in mind that McIlravy was not wrestling for a reason (concussion symptoms) which makes a TF less likely. Also where the bout would have been wrestled in the dual could have come into play. At the 150lb bout OSU was up, but they had not yet scored any bonus points. It would not have been clear that a TF was going to be the difference in the dual so McIlravy may not have had felt the urgency to get it.

There weren't actually that many changes from the dual. Really only two. Guerrero, Reyna, Branch, and Smith all outplayed their Iowa counterparts at NCAAs. The big change was, as you said, McIlravy missing the dual. Still he would have had to not only win but win and get 1 bonus for a tie or two bonus to win outright. Arias was a decent wrestler and entered NCAAs that year as the 10 seed. Two plus bonus points was a possibility, but also might not have happened. The other change was at 118 where Moore beat Whitmer in the dual and Whitmer reversed the result in the NCAA semifinal. This was famously Whitmer's senior season and only season as a starter for the Hawkeyes. Moore entered NCAAs as the 2 seed and would win it next season. The 1 seed, Morgan, was upset before the final. OSU was really good that season. They scored 113.5 team points - that's enough too win many years. If there was a team that good this season this wouldn't really be a discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYO75V3DD00

Dake and Tsargush have wrestled before. I think this match was won by Dake.

Yes! 1997 Iowa was 2x better than Minnesota at NCAAs. He was correct that they were only 50% better than runner up OSU at NCAAs. This was quite the turnaround from a few months earlier at when OSU was 60% better at NWCA National Duals.

This is true. Mesenbrink isn't on the rankings for PSU either. Olympic redshirts aren't fully accounted for yet either.

Is a spot at the Olympic trials on offer at Bill Farrell?

True, but a little misleading. Ithaca College won D3 NCAAs either that year or within a year of that, so they were really good for a D3 team. Cornell probably had a pretty similar stature in wrestling when Koll took over to that of present day UNC. Koll took over a Cornell team that was 10th at NCAAs and had a 3 AAs the year before. Koll takes over a UNC team that finished 12th with 3AAs the year prior.

I'm sure some would have said the same thing about Cornell.

Not all 3 game suspensions are created equal and neither are all 1 year suspensions. I recall when Jordan Oliver first failed a drug test at the US Open. It was literally the worst possible timing for a 1 year ban. Not only did he miss the trials that year, but he was banned for the entire qualifying process the next year. This effectively made is a 2 year ban from trying to make the team. In that instance the ban was tied to the failed test. With on going gambling activities it's a little less clear when the ban should start. First gambling activity? Last bet? Since Brands started gambling in September 2022 and not knowing the exact penalty (1 year? 2 year? permanent ban?), he is possibly fortunate he was able to compete in the post season this past season.

Zero reason? That’s clearly not true. Many reasons have been given you have either ignored them or disagree with them. A football player’s girlfriend wouldn’t have the same access to team facilities as another athlete. She also isn’t representing the athletic department the same was as an employee/athlete. This is similar to a normal student. If the basketball team is betting against the football team it could cause the public to question if the team is trying to win or whether there are shenanigans afoot. It definitely reflects poorly on the athletic department. If there is no fixing or inside information involved and the basketball team just thinks the football team is bad, it is still negative for the university. It casts a shadow on the efforts of the football team and their integrity when they did nothing wrong and are simply not that good at football. You could spoint out that a handful of football players girlfriends betting against the team could do the same thing. I would agree that is true and the school/NCAA should investigate. I would also say that if a football player has a girlfriend that is betting against his team he should dump her. Just like the school should dump athletes that wager on their school. We have seen some unusual behavior spurred on by sports betting since it became widespread. This year there was a fan who yelled out during Mardy Fish’s backswing because he had bet on Steph Curry to win. Fans with a betting interest have done this multiple times in professional golf tournaments this year. I think it not wanting anyone within the athletic department to have a financial interest in football team losing is a compelling reason to ban betting on the schools sports or any NCAA sport sponsored by the school, because you dont want to incentivize bad behavior. To me there is no reason to allow it. The NCAA certainly has the right to ban conduct that, whilst not illegal, could negatively affect the institution and allowing athletes and athletic department staff to wager on their own school has no upside. None at all. It can only bring disrepute and cause the public to question whether the integrity of the game is being upheld.

https://uww.org/article/world-championships-sadulaev-forfeits-undergo-scans-neck-injury "Sadulaev is suffering from a neck hernia, towards the end of his spinal cord. Medical scans will determine if it is a tumor or if Sadulaev can return to the mat without surgery."

According to UWW "65kg champion Takuto OTOGURO (JPN) also pulled out due to a foot injury he has been carrying for one year."

Playing for the Giants my concerns would be more that my friend would lose money and I wouldn't want to feel responsible. Or general annoyance that he would be betting against me because some player is injury or just not believe in us. Nothing really unethical or illegal - just being a bad friend. Do you think there should be no limits on athletes betting on other sports teams at their institution? Supposing there is a late season largely meaningless football game and bunch of Iowa athletes from other sports (Baseball, basketball, wrestling, golf, track, and women's sports) as well as athletic department staff not directly involved in the game bet against the Hawkeyes and they lose the game. I could see how if that information came to light it would bring disrepute onto the university and NCAA athletics even if they were all just betting against them because they were really bad and that's why they were playing in a meaningless game late in the season. It will always be the NCAA and the institution that takes the reputation hit and not the sports books, so they will be the ones making the rules. Whose image was hurt most by the Black Sox scandal? The players, the team, the league, or the sports books? The incorrect answer is obvious. The sports books don't care if it's fixed, so long as they mitigate the risk they will make money either way. They take bets on WWE events!

If I played fro the Giants and I found out a friend was making bets based on information I told him that would probably annoy me. It would make me not want to share information with that person. I can't think of a major professional sports league that allows their athletes or employees to bet on league contests even involving other teams. The Iowa athletic department is essentially running 20 different professional teams some more profitable than others. The athletes are essentially employees of the same entity. I am sure there is some interaction between the different sports - they don't have 20 different weight rooms, running tracks, ect. Information could be learned from proximity and not by someone directly sharing information like your friend example. Allowing betting on sports at the same institution has little benefit to the institution or the NCAA and can only really damage their reputation if there is an incident, so why allow it? I think the NCAA rules could be relaxed in some aspects. I don't see the conflict in allowing betting on professional sports (NFL, MLB, Overseas Tennis, ect.) and sports that are not sponsored by the school (In Iowa's case one example might be NCAA men's ice hockey), but I'd keep the penalties for betting on your own NCAA sport or your own institution.

I dunno about that but Brands should get a lawyer and sue Draft Kings. According to his tweet he signed up because they said if he placed a $5 bet on an NFL game as a new member he would receive $200, yet the account summary he posted only shows $51 in rewards and promotions. Looks to me like he was cheated out of $149.

The repechage system seems like someone asked a mathematician what's the fewest matches you need to determine the top 3 wrestlers. Then they decided that was one too many matches. The thing is whilst this would be just fine if you are only interested in determining the top 3 the logic doesn't work below 3rd. It's possible the 4th best wrestler is not even involved in the repechage. And it's not like they don't care about the places after 3rd. They give out a second 3rd, sometimes 5th and/or 6th get Olympic qualification, and they award rankings points based on more than just the top 3 placements.