fishbane

I don't see uncovered area. I also don't see the precursor to near fall that you mentioned earlier. None of your earlier examples are really applicable as they don't involving locking hands around the entire torso/both legs so there would never be a locked hands call for those. Your later example of bear hug is applicable. If you bear hug someone from neutral where it's legal and take them straight to their back then you can keep the lock if they are in NF criteria otherwise you have reaction time to release the lock. You cannot bear hug or body lock from top and then work the guy over to NF. That's a locked hands call every time. From a TD or mat return it's a tricky play to keep the lock because it might help you hold them and get the fall/points, but if they squirm out you could give up a point. One somewhat related example to this discussion is the guillotine. This is the turning move with a leg in where the top wrestler grabs the defensive wrestlers far arm and puts it behind his back using it to turn him over. The offensive wrestler can lock his hands around the defensive wrestlers head once NF criteria is established a move that would otherwise be an illegal headlock. This would result in an illegal hold penalty and not a technical violation like we had been discussing, nevertheless there is no mention of near fall precursor or imminent possibility of near-fall in this rule. "Locked Hands — Guillotine. The offensive wrestler cannot lock hands around the head of the defensive wrestler when using the guillotine until the offensive wrestler meets a near-fall criterion." In practice there might be some margin. Where say you lock your hands before NF criteria in a way that is only legal in NF criteria (ex. bear hug or around the head w/guillotine) and turn the guy real fast. The referee might not notice or call it. Then again they might notice, stop action, and award a point. The neutral danger rule 4.2.3 doesn't add anything in the way of modifying locking hands from my reading.

I finally stopped being lazy and looked up the rule. Rule 5.8 "Interlocking Hands — Description. Wrestlers in the position of advantage may not interlock or overlap their hands, fingers or arms around their opponent’s body or both legs unless all of their opponent’s weight is supported entirely by the defensive wrestler's feet or the defensive wrestler’s pinning area is meeting a near-fall criterion. The opponent of a wrestler committing this technical violation shall receive one match point." I think every one can agree that with 9 seconds left after the TD was awarded that Big Tone had his hands interlocked around Parris's body Parris's weight was not entirely supported by his feet (standing position). The only remaining question is if Parris was in NF criteria. I suppose there can be differing opinions on that, but it would seem that the person with the best view, the referee, did not think Parris was in NF criteria because he did not award Big Tone any NF points. The only way for this to be possible would be if Parris was oscillating back and forth between NF and not NF criteria. NF for 1s, back >45 for 1s, back to NF for 1s ... until the end of the period. Still when NF criteria is broken to stop the NF clock it would be locking hands. It would seem that no NF and no locking hands is an impossible outcome. The ref has one out but it really isn't a very satisfying one - reaction time. 5.8 allows for reaction time in the call "Interlocking Hands — Reaction Time. Reaction time for interlocking hands exists in all areas except for the locked hands call down on the mat." Since this was locked hands maintained after a TD call the referee could allow for reaction time. Still 9 seconds of reaction time seems excessive. Typically we think of reaction time as less than a second, but in the rules there is a definition for reaction time in rule 2.2 "Reaction Time The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous." So 9s of reaction time would be allowed within the rules if the referee determined it to be. I don't think that would be a reasonable determination. Locking hands around Parris's body in that situation definitely helped Big Tone keep him in a near- NF position. Since it was a neutral danger/scamble situation it seems likely that control could change at any time. One could argue that allowing Big Tone to lock his hands for 9 seconds in a position he was not allowed to cost Parris an opportunity at an escape or reversal before the end of the period.

I don't know that this is home cooking it just makes no sense. The ref awarded the takedown with 9 seconds left in the period and Big Tone kept his hands locked for the remainder of the period. I thought the only way that would be allowed without a locked hands call is if he had Parris in NF criteria, yet no NF was awarded.

They did win a dual, but just to clarify this is not their first ever win of a Big Ten in conference dual. They beat Michigan State their second year in the conference. This makes 2 wins in their history of big ten conference duals.

Here is the sequence

At the end of the 2nd period after Big Tone got that TD what was the call exactly? Was it that Parris was <90 long enough to trigger neutral danger and get Big Tone the TD, but after the TD award Parris never broke 45 for at least 2s to trigger a NF? If so why wasn't Big Tone called for locked hands? I thought you had to have your opponent in NF criteria to legally lock/keep your hands locked when in control. The refs looked at the replay and changed nothing. That may have been a Brands challenge or their own review it wasn't clear on the broadcast. Anyway they neither awarded NF or a point for the technical violation. How is that possible? Did they just miss the locked hands? Do I not understand the rule?

It would be nice if they released the voting results...

Mark Branch 13-9 Jake Rosholt 22-9 Jeff Jaggers 28-9 Jeff Walter 34-9 Ernest Benion 29-8 Robbie Waller 31-7 Aaron Holker 32-7 John Lockhard 32-7 Jim Gibbons 32-6-2 Stewart Carter 32-6-2

It is the most by a 3x champ, but not by that much. Nate Carr is 2nd with a a record of 122-17-1, followed by Mark Schultz with a 97-15. Neither of them were 4x AAs like Rosholt.

Yuge

Oldest is Charles Jones who won NCAAs in 1992 at 27 years old. I think military service inturrupted his education. The youngest is Pat Milkovich at 18.25 years. Not sure about AA

I'm not sure. I think rule is that you can wrestle up one weight from where you weigh in. So if you weigh in above 158, you could wrestle your weight, 167, and up one or 177. If that is the rule he would have to weight in above 177, which would have put him as a 190lber and he could wrestle one up or 275.

It's interesting, if you look at his record for the year he is 13-9 on wrestling stats. This includes 5 wins at NCAAs, so he should have been 8-9 going into NCAAs, which I think is correct. However, as you pointed out, if you add up the wins and losses from the individual matches he is 9-8. Wrestlingstats is not consistent with the record it reports. I think his record from Big 8s, where he finished 3rd, is correct, so the error must be in a regular season event. Looking at the Lock Haven tournament he went 2-1 and lost to an OSU teammate, Parker. This would be consistent with a 2nd or 3rd place finish, though it could also be that he defaulted out after losing in the championship bracket. Since Parker is also a OSU wrestler, wrestling stats has his record available. At the same tournament he went 4-2. I suspect the error is in that Lock Haven tournament. Parker, the teammate that beat him in the Lock Haven tournament, had a wild season. He met Branch in that tournament wrestling 167lbs and the week after wrestled in a dual against Oklahoma at 158. He then wrestled 5 straight duals at 177 before wrestled against PSU at 167. Then it was back to 177 for 3 more duals, before jumping up again to 190 against Iowa. He wrestled the final dual against OU at 190 and then bumped up again to 275 for Big 8s. There he went 1-2, finishing 4th, and qualifying for NCAAs where he went 0-1. For the year he was 8-14; 1-0 at 158, 4-3 at 167, 2-6 at 177, 0-2 at 190, and 1-3 at 275. The year before he wrestled at 158 apart from the 1st tournament of the year where he wrestled 167. In 1993, he was 21-6 at 158 as a starter and 3-2 in that one tournament at 167.

Mike Van Arsdale 109-43-2 Jeff Walter 98-43 Kirk Trost 136-43 Mark Ellis 91-39 Barry Weldon 104-37 Zach Roberson 106-35 Mark Reiland 105-34-3 Ernest Benion 113-34 Chris Bono 128-34 Michael Macchiavello 69-33 Carl Perry 87-33 Ben Cherrington 93-32 Dean Morrison 106-32-3 Daryl Weber 104-32 Jake Jaggers 105-32 Aaron Holker 102-31 Rob Rohn 106-31 Jude Skove 131-31-3 Jason Kelber 123-30 Steve Bosak 131-30 Glen Pritzlaff 106-29 Dustin Fox 109-29 Eric Siebert 112-29 Jordan Leen 119-29 Frank Molinaro 121-29 Luke Becker 126-29 Keith Stearns 72-28-3 David Lee 145-28-8 Scott Collins 119-28-3 J.J. MNcGrew 88-28 Steve Marianetti 119-28 Jim Jordan 156-28-1 Byron Tucker 109-27 Kendall Cross 111-27-3 Mark Munoz 111-27 Chris Barnes 119-27 Mitch Clark 119-27 Jarrod King 125-27 Pete Bush 96-27-1 Tony Purler 99-26-1 Tony Purler 99-26 John Hughes 121-26-2 Dwight Gardner 122-26 John Lockhart 123-26 Brad Vering 124-26 Gary Barton 46-25-1 Paul Keysaw 59-25-2 Jim Scherr 109-25-4 Teague Moore 113-25 Marty Kistler 118-25 Matt Gentry 138-25 Howard Harris 169-25 Additions/Corrections in bold. Barton probably has the lowest career winning percentage of an NCAA champ. Van Arsdale has the most career losses tied with Walter and Trost, but Van Arsdale had two ties as well setting himself apart. For losses in a single title winning season the most is 9 with Branch, Jaggers, and Walter tied. Branch easily has the lowest winning % for a single season.

Single season NCAA championship year. It starts to become common for <+6 losses Mark Branch 13-9 Jeff Jaggers 28-9 Jeff Walter 34-9 Ernest Benion 29-8 Robbie Waller 31-7 Aaron Holker 32-7 John Lockhard 32-7 Jim Gibbons 32-6-2 Stewart Carter 32-6-2

Jeff Walter 98-43 Mike Van Arsedale 109-43 Kirk Trost 136-43 Mark Ellis 91-39 Barry Weldon 104-37 Zach Roberson 106-35 Mark Reiland 105-34-3 Ernest Benion 113-34 Chris Bono 128-34 Michael Macchiavello 69-33 Carl Perry 87-33 Dean Morrison 106-32-3 Daryl Weber 104-32 Jake Jaggers 105-32 Aaron Holker 102-31 Rob Rohn 106-31 Jude Skove 131-31-3 Jason Kelber 123-30 Steve Bosak 131-30 Glen Pritzlaff 106-29 Dustin Fox 109-29 Eric Siebert 112-29 Jordan Leen 119-29 Frank Molinaro 121-29 Luke Becker 126-29 Keith Stearns 72-28-3 David Lee 145-28-8 Scott Collins 119-28-3 J.J. MNcGrew 88-28 Steve Marianetti 119-28 Jim Jordan 156-28-1 Byron Tucker 109-27 Kendall Cross 111-27-3 Mark Munoz 111-27 Chris Barnes 119-27 Mitch Clark 119-27 Jarrod King 125-27 Pete Bush 96-27-1 Tony Purler 99-26-1 Tony Purler 99-26 John Hughes 121-26-2 Dwight Gardner 122-26 John Lockhart 123-26 Brad Vering 124-26 Paul Keysaw 59-25-2 Jim Scherr 109-25-4 Teague Moore 113-25 Marty Kistler 118-25 Matt Gentry 138-25 Howard Harris 169-25

Maybe not in absolute number, but a better chance with winning % 13-9. He was <.500 going into NCAAs. The next year he was 22-7 as a finalist.

Not the best way to put it. The path Schultz had to win states was likely more unique than a NCAA/multiple NCAA champ that not winning states/national preps. Or are you just referring to State being singular and States being plural? Can't be on the fence with that?

I suspect multiple NCAA champ transfers is probably the least unique on the list. Schultz was also nearly a non-state champ. He won states his senior year and had never won a wresting tournament in his life before the first round of the post season his senior year.

Academic struggles are the most sound reason to repeat a grade. There are ways to catch up like tutors, summer school, and independent study. If the struggles are only in one subject that is less of a reason to be held back in middle school and high school. If you don't get algebra in 8th grade, you can still take that class in high school. You might not learn calculus in high school, but you'll be ready to learn it in college. When academic struggles are manufactured like with Cary Kolat it seems like a waste of time. In 8th grade Kolat's dad told him to pay attention, but fail intentionally. He received 4 Fs, 1 A, and repeated 8th grade. Taking Kolat as an example, holding him back in 8th grade undoubtably held back his academic progress, but it also probably held back his athletic progress. He placed 3rd at the Midlands as a high school sophomore. He was 4th at the Olympic trials in 1992 when he was a high school senior. If he had not intentionally failed 8th grade he could have been wrestling in those trials after a year in a college room. Do you think he could have made more progress by 1992 if he had traded that extra year in a middle school room for one in a college room? Kolat probably thinks so Though trying to make an Olympic team in high school may be a fairly unique problem, the principle is more universally applicable. Holding someone back in 8th grade holds back their wrestling progress too. Take any wrestler in 8th grade. Pick a date more than 1 year in the future. The goal is to make this individual the best possible wrestler by that date. Is repeating 8th grade an optimal strategy for this challenge? Staying in middle school and wrestling 7th/8th graders or not at all because they aren't eligible, compared with spending that year in a high school room competing against 9th-12th graders. Almost universally the choice will be to go directly to high school. The reason why it seems like holding a wrestler back can have an athletic benefit is because the goalposts are moved at the same time. The question isn't how can I be the best wrestler possible 4 years from now. It's comparing your potential results 4 years from now with your potential results 5 years from now against a field 1 year less experienced on average.

He was a 2x NCAA champ. 1x State champ. https://intermatwrestle.com/articles/2068/One-on-One-with-Tim-Hartung? Cody is Cael's older brother. So little only in the sense of being physically smaller to Cael, but three years older. He lost to Guerrero twice in the OT in the NCAA finals.

I'm not sure. I think 20 is about the oldest a normal track student should be upon graduation from high school. If he graduates at 20, then redshirts and wrestles 4 years that could make him 25 his 5th year in college. Alternatively, if he graduates high school at 19, then does a grey shirt/gap year before enrolling full time, and uses a redshirt in his career it can happen. In theory an individual could delay enrolling in elementary school until the oldest compulsory age which would have them turning 20 some time during their senior year of HS. That person could then defer enrolling in college for 1 year whilst continuing to wrestle with a club/RTC and not sacrifice any eligibility. They could then take a redshirt and up to two Olympic redshirts during their college career (assuming timing works out and they qualify) along with 4 years of competition. Such a person could turn 27 before NCAAs their senior/4th year of college competition. A person could break the record and be the oldest ever NCAA champion doing that. No need for injury waivers, pandemics, repeating grades they had already passes, intentionally failing grades, religious missions, military service, or time away from training/competition.

During the Iowa-PSU broadcast on BTN they said that 1/28 is RBY's 24th birthday. After graduating high school in 2018 at 19 years old he wrestled as a true freshman at PSU in the 2018-2019 college season. His career has been 8-COVID-1-1-?. In an upcoming Flo film he talks about how his grandfather held him back in 8th grade because he thought he was a little bit small to be a 106lb. He said he did nothing, just stayed home for a whole year, trained, and played video games everyday. RBY was 182-0 in high school.

@WrestleknownothingSparks just said that Bo Nickal predicted a 60-0 dual win by the Nittany Lions. Now that's a homer pick!

You listed 3 things. Guess he's not good at multitasking...