peanut

Right. I don’t know what the decision is based on. But if it’s based on evidence, statements, and credibility, it’s easy to see how Athlete A might be treated differently than Athlete B.

Right. Theres a difference in who attacked who first. There’s also a difference in that Israel is a Western ally while Hamas is not. Fair or not, a Western-led political system cannot exist for long if it does not look out for its survival.

125: Figueroa 133: Bailey 141: Alirez 149: SVN 157: Haines 165: MM 174: O'Toole 184: Keckeisen 197: Little 285: Kerkvliet (if he returns) or Bastida

I have no idea what the standards are, what the evidence was, what statements those athletes may have made, or whether any statements they may have made were consistent with the evidence. But it's easy to imagine a scenario where Athlete A credibly describes being pressured or coerced into appearing at certain events, while Athlete B appears to truly support a certain cause.

Who wins, 2002 Sanderson or 2024 Brooks? In 2002, Sanderson won his fourth NCAA title at 197, was the NCAA tournament's outstanding wrestler, and won the Hodge. Ditto for 2024 Brooks. So who wins? Before you answer, consider that 2024 Brooks has 2024 Sanderson in his corner. If anyone can figure out a way for 2024 Brooks to beat 2002 Sanderson, it's 2024 Sanderson.

Is it possible to subscribe to Peacock for only a month?

It's pretty easy. Which countries are a clear and present danger to the Western-led world order? There are certainly plenty of countries which reject Western values, but only one country launched an unprovoked and violent attack on a Western ally and democracy. (The attacking country also stands accused of a bunch of war crimes.) Then once you identify a clear and present danger to the Western-led world order, you decide whether to ban everyone from that country, or simply individuals who clearly support the attack.

The IOC is founded on Enlightenment values—including individual rights, human rights, and democracy. The IOC apparently sees invasion-supporting athletes as a threat to everything it stands for, and they have a right to prevent those athletes from using the Olympics as a platform to further their agenda.

Looks cool to me.

At last year's world championships, the average age of a freestyle gold medalist was 25.5. There's been talk about JB's age -- who will be 36 this summer -- but what Dake's? He just turned 33. Has he slowed down at all?

Seems like an April Fool's joke.

IMO JB’s main issue is age. Freestyler’s primes seem to be in their mid 20s. But JB turns 36 this summer. Saitiev last won gold at the age of 33, and I suspect that JB’s last gold will end up being the one he won at 34 (in 2022). No shame in aging like everyone else.

Based on the eye test, I think Brooks is only an underdog against DT and Yazdani — and frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s edged past one or both of them already.

Who will win OTTs at 86kg, 97kg, and 125kg? [Corrected]

Who will win OTTs at 57kg, 65kg, and 74kg?

There is a small group of wrestlers who won world/Olympic golds in the same year as an NCAA title — but none of them are four timers. Of that group, Uetake may have the strongest argument for college GOAT. The group is Uetake, Kemp, Smith (x2), Neal, JB, Snyder, and Steveson.

There are professional freestyle leagues in Germany, India, and Iran. Meanwhile, there are no professional folkstyle leagues.

Freestyle used to be horrible to watch. People playing the edge, ball grabs, lack of action, alleged corruption, etc. But then the IOC voted to cut wrestling from the Olympics, which put UWW in survival mode. One of the results was a slate of rule changes that made freestyle fun to watch. IMO it's now better than folkstyle. Among the best of those rule changes -- again IMO -- is the step out rule.

It’s a popularity contest, though, not an algorithm. Brooks will win the Hodge but I still think Starocci has an outside chance of being a co-winner.

Brooks will get the Hodge. But I can see a scenario where he shares it with Starocci. We all know what happened this year.

Cormier is the right choice for commentator at the NCAA championships. He’s comfortable on the mic. He’s a relatively big name. He understands people who do not follow wrestling. He’s funny. And for casual fans (as well as plenty of wrestling fans) he’s a good story teller and entertaining. The NCAA championships are a time to showcase the sport to a wider audience, and technical commentary is not the right choice. Cormier is.

Brooks = LeBron. A savant at his sport who is so good that everyone forgets he’s there. Starocci = Kobe. Insane work ethic. Insane desire to win. Insane desire to dominate. Keck = Luca Doncic. LeBron but slower. Arujau = Curry. A guy who was initially overlooked but became a world beater. Kerk = Jokic. Big dude who dominates with ho-hum efficiency. MM = Ant Edwards. Young guy with astounding physical gifts. KOT = Durant. Elite at everything. Figueroa = Jalen Brunson. Came in without a ton of fanfare and made it to the top Haines = Shai GA. Goes out there and quietly puts up a ton of points. No drama.

Looking from the outside, Mendez seems to have a certain swagger and confidence. I wonder if that’ll set the tone for Ohio State for the next few years. They have some impressive young athletes who should only get better.

Oh snap!

Con Mirasola at 197 beat Max Dean in December. So he should be ready to go.