dragit

True - that's a bad sign. I made that transition in the last few years, too, and I would guess that others have as well.

I'll offer a theory out of left field that they saw baseball, the National Pastime, realize it had to make fundamental changes, which are working, and took that as a message for a sport with similar problems in terms of an aging fan base.

Those were not exciting matches.

James English from Penn State (149 lbs 2014 7th place) may be the right answer. Regardless of whether anyone did so more recently he is the poster boy for the spirit behind the question. Gutted out a series of brutal injuries, including his neck, finally got his chance, I think as a 6th year senior, was hurt at NCAAs and still almost beat eventual champ Tsirtsis and then placed and beat former champ Maple in the 7th place match. I believe his points were the difference between 1st and 2nd in the team standings and Cael carried him off the mat. To me him and Whitmer are bookends for the honor roll of last year starters, both super inspirational.

It would, with even more fanfare, if Glory beat Spencer in the finals. Can't remember a robust discussion of what folks thought would have happened if those two had wrestled on Saturday night. I'm not sure what the odds should have been on that.

This is really helpful because I think it illustrates the different views on this. You think he couldn't and shouldn't have said your quote above. Whereas I think he should have said that or something like it not only yesterday but also three weeks ago to explain the MFF. I would have thanked and certainly wouldn't have trashed him for saying what I think most people assumed was true but hadn't been said, instead of seeming to go out of his way not to confirm what seemed to be this understandable explanation that isn't an excuse. To me he could have said your sentence, plus maybe one or two other such short declarative sentences that specified what his physical problem was and why he wasn't competing in the medal rounds, plus the many very gracious sentences he said about Ramos, and that would have been perfect. Instead he said nothing three weeks ago and spent many more sentences giving indirect and vague information on a 100% friendly podcast. It's like Marinelli last year MFF'ing without a direct explanation. It looked like he might have hurt a rib and it was too painful to wrestle. But it wasn't clear. Why not say, Marinelli hurt his rib and it's too painful to wrestle. Instead he said nothing and Brands gave a weird meandering answer that many inferred to mean it was more mental than physical. Maybe I'm naive and what I'm suggesting would be roundly hated. Probably Lee haters would hate, but they hated anyway, didn't they? I am NOT a Lee hater, quite the opposite, and my sense is that if he'd said the above, the Lee likers and non-Lee haters who have posted some frustrations on this issue wouldn't have done so.

I don't know what a bias falicy (or a bias fallacy) is, never learned that in my pedestrian education. I can say I've gone back and watched again and I definitely agree with your point that you can give credit to your opponent and separately state that you were injured, and that he did say that his health wasn't the reason he lost and that Ramos deserves all credit. Good on him. I don't know what your second sentence means -- not sure who you are saying took credit for what. I think you're complimenting him for acknowledging that he was healthy enough to wrestle. But after being healthy enough to wrestle the semis and not sustaining an injury in that match, he MFF'd even though he was healthy enough to wrestle. That has been an issue that has driven some discussion on the boards, and his response to that in the interview was that the wrestlebacks "didn't matter." My bias has always been extremely pro-Spencer Lee, as often expressed on the board, but in this case, I thought that the MFF wasn't handled well that weekend, and after three weeks I still thought his answers about the issue were a little meandering. He's the biggest name in wrestling, he makes money off his endorsements, public interest in a prominent athlete's injuries and reasons for not competing comes with the territory. No one "owes" anyone anything in this world that they're not legally obligated for. But fans of a sport can be expected to have interest and want some specifics in situations like this, and to express opinions about that.

I was probably more in your camp than the more complimentary takes. He was truly and sincerely complimentary about Ramos and Glory and it was great that he clearly was trying to say that Ramos just beat him, don't chalk it up to anything else. But it was a little confusing for him to say, no, I wasn't injured, health was no factor in my semifinal match, and then to also say that he has big health problems (which I don't think he ever specifically said were his knees, though implied), and to not offer an explanation for his not wrestling on Saturday. If there is no injury, as asserted, then why MFF, a term that, by definition, essentially incorporates an injury? He seemed to be saying that because of his general condition, he didn't want to risk further injury before the freestyle tournament this month, but his disinterest in the wrestlebacks and explaining his absence from them was pretty palpable, and at times even bled over into his somewhat sour take on college wrestling altogether. This is quite understandable. He had an extraordinarily challenging career with unprecedented knee injuries and terrible luck with covid. He's probably the most scrutinized college wrestler ever. And now he has to be questioning whether his body gives him any chance of reaching his ultimate world goals. And it is true that, while I'm sure on our wonderful social media, he has seen a lot of unkind and unfair trashing, he on the whole has been given the extraordinary adulation that he deserved. I don't think "defensive and grievances" is out of bounds as a description for a lot of his comments and tone. Your points about why people would ask questions about him seem to me to be well founded and not a basis for his abject bewilderment. Heavy lies the crown, I guess. In the end, I, like you, hope -- so much -- that we get to see the guy who blitzed the fields at 2018 NCAAs and 2019 U.S. Open have a real shot, with working appendages, at reaching his senior level goals.

Thanks, that's helpful. What have you observed re mopping with bleach since you are there throughout?

OK. We're on a wrestling board where people offer opinions about wrestling stories. A top wrestler almost died from an infection after NCAAs. A former national champ and current coach has tweeted concern re the mats at NCAAs. As far as we can tell they are not bleaching the mats as they previously did. "Nothing beats soaking your mat in bleach or the mat cleaning solution and letting it dry completely." Instead, this massive corporation has substituted the use of a technology that only "works...if used correctly." The people working for this massive corporation who I have seen in brief video clips do not appear to be "go[ing] slow when using the UV mop and not walk[ing] at normal speed." The "overall point" to me would be, in the interest of the student-athletes' help, to try to meet a bar somewhat higher than "better...versus not using it at all." I have no idea if UV mops are effective if used correctly, and how they compare to bleach. But I think I'm on solid ground to express concerns about the NCAA's corporate decisions and execution of those decisions on how to clean the mats. If they do less mopping with bleach than in the past, then they need to be responsible for the potential results of that change.

Which is all nice and a good idea. Using the word GOAT in the title before the season ended was a very bad idea. There was an allusion to Gable above, this was like the, in retrospect cringeworthy, time at the last Iowa State home meet where they showed him the banner with all his accomplishments and said they'd left one for the last championship. Bad karma and bad for the wrestler's mental game.

This strikes me as classic corporate stupidity by the NCAA. Someone walks in with some super technology and they just bite on it instead of using their common sense.

My bad. Dylan Palacio from Cornell did some hilarious videos after he graduated known as homeless wrestler. He holds a sign up and tells people they get $1,000,of they can take him down, but 10 bucks if he wins. He acts like he's addled and incompetent and suckers them in and surprise, the former AA body slams them. The idea and his comic timing are great. Here are a couple, there are more on youtube.

Speaking of which, it's been way too long since Palacios posted any new homeless wrestler videos.

Which could be a reason why his uncle thought he could post that without ever having to cash that check.

There's got to be a punch line about Dake and sunlight in there somewhere.

They also have gigantic financial aid, so generous that if your family is average income you may pay nothing. It can actually theoretically be better than at a scholarship school where they have to split up the 9.9.

This is well argued but in the end I'm not sure it makes a difference either way. Bias affects votes. A voter's views of sportsmanship/heart will in many cases be the difference on a close call (up or down), regardless of the official criteria. If AJ Ferrari comes back and goes undefeated with high pins and bonus next year, and Keegan O'Toole or David Carr or Shane Griffith is undefeated and close but clearly behind Ferrari in dominance criteria, Ferrari ain't gonna win regardless of whether the intangible criterion is on the list.

Dan Gable?

I hope not, but sadly this is probably true. He is not as physically able now as he was when he blitzed the US Open, and I think he probably won't get back to that level of health.

Yes - Captain America was - I WANT SOME ICE CREAM!!!

Exactly. He was in a ton of pain, so much so that I recall being really annoyed at the Stanford coaches' incessant yelling at their guy when it was obvious that Ruth couldn't function and wasn't going to be able finish the match.

It's not the OW or who we think is the best wrestler. It's the Hodge Trophy. Parris was the most dominant, most pins, and did it in what may have been one of the two toughest weight classes. If Parris doesn't win then it's not really the Hodge rather just a makeshift OW.

1. Parris 2. O'Connor and Alirez (tie) No other strong contenders. Parris should win. Undefeated, thoroughly dominated a very challenging weight class with a very diverse group of opponents, lots of pins.

Love it. Even that Pitt singlet looks like something from the 70s.