Takeaways from the NCWA All-Star Match?

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Idaho said:

I would take Lee, Brooks, RBY and Starocci  over O'Toole pound for pound right now... Maybe Yianni depending on how the season shapes up. There is a long way to go - looking forward to some of those 165 matchups. 

Yianni?  There's another guy at his weight thats better thus p4p superior. 

[MPhillips]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Yianni?  There's another guy at his weight thats better thus p4p superior. 

Who?

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Who?

Gomez

[MPhillips]

10 minutes ago, ionel said:

Gomez

Not Johnson...

Edited November 23, 2022 by MPhillips

[ionel]

Just now, MPhillips said:

Not Johnson

He could be also but we definitely know that Gomez is p4p above Yianni, I didn't say Gomez was #1 p4p. 

[MPhillips]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

He could be also but we definitely know that Gomez is p4p above Yianni, I didn't say Gomez was #1 p4p. 

Perhaps Sasso can be P4P in five minute matches...

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Perhaps Sasso can be P4P in five minute matches...

P4P5m 

[AnklePicker]

4 hours ago, BAC said:

What are you seeing that would make you say that?  I agree he looked excellent last night but... Hamiti is good but not THAT good.  I think O'Toole's a coin flip at best against Carr (I'd pick Carr), and only slightly better odds against Griffith.  He has no senior level credentials to speak of.  PFP, I don't see how he's in the same conversation as Lee, Brooks, RBY or Yianni (despite his loss), and personally I'd have at least Fix and Starocci ahead of him too.  But I know you've been around the block so I'm curious what makes you put him above all the other multi-time champs and senior world medalists.

Well at the end of the day it’s the old eye test. I think his defense is better than all of the guys you listed. I also think he’s better on top than all but Lee. He doesn’t have a deficiency on bottom and his takedowns are underrated. The kid has one loss in his career and it occurred as a true freshman bumped up a weight.  He also teched 11-0 in the finals of the junior worlds. Now I know it’s not senior worlds but it’s also nothing to sneeze at. I think he’s a better overall folkstyler than anyone on your list.  Freestyle is harder to argue at this point but if I’m a coach doing a draft, give me O’Toole. 

[KCMO2]

8 hours ago, ionel said:

Yianni?  There's another guy at his weight thats better thus p4p superior. 

I don't necessarily agree with this.  If they wrestled 10x I'd give the majority to Yianni, Gomez just happened to have Yianni's number in the one match they wrestled so far.   Gomez should have lost in his all-star match if Sasso hadn't died in the third period, and he got whooped by an un-ranked freshman earlier this month.  One win doesn't automatically make him the better p4p wrestler.

[jross]

Mekhi doesn't try to ride Carter, and that's been the difference in both losses.  Carter is tough on top.

[jross]

Carter only sat on the ankle for a short time.  Carter looked busy for most of the third period against an active bottom man who was difficult to turn.  It reminded me of a 'stalling on top, it's a problem' discussion as an example where it was not a problem.

 

Highlights from Pat Milkovich for the 'stalling on top its a problem' discussion from March 2021 below

Quote

I have to respectfully disagree with the comments that it is somehow the top man's stalling that's keeping the bottom man down or makes wrestling boring. At what point does it become the bottom man's responsibility to control that position? I was taught that being on the bottom was my opportunity to score points, limit the top man's accumulation of riding time control, and either get me neutral or reverse him. I also learned that just like on the feet for TDs, there are things I can do on the bottom to create setups and counters that allow me to escape or reverse in a short amount of time, regardless of the top guy's tactics. It doesn't matter if the top man catches/rides ankles, puts in legs, spirals, or whatever.  My first responsibility is prevention (i.e., movement or standup on the whistle and establishing hand control), and then it's countering.  Being lousy on the bottom makes the top man's job much easier, just like when you are lousy on top. It makes the bottom man's job much easier to get out.  When you get broken down to your stomach, break down to your elbows, let your wrists/ankles get tied up, don't control his hands/wrists, don't create movement/get to your feet, get hip separation, or let a guy get legs in...that's your fault or your coach's fault...yours for either not having learned/drilled the techniques necessary for success or your coach's for not having taught you those techniques needed to succeed.  I find it utterly amazing that instead of learning all the different methods that would help one on the bottom, the discussion turns to eliminate those positions or requirements. Do you want more action in the top/bottom positions? Award 1 pt or every 30 seconds of RT.  That would force both wrestlers to be incredibly more active. 

 

and

Quote

In the body of my response, being on your stomach is one of the prime reasons one gets "ridden,"  or turned.  Why is he on his stomach to begin with? There are a multitude of methods to prevent that. Everything in wrestling has a stimulus/response mechanism called "setups." There are setups for takedowns, setups for riding, mat returns, breakdowns, pinning, escaping, and reversals, etc. Once a wrestler understands those processes, it rarely matters whether he is on top, bottom, or neutral.  The S/R methods all share commonalities among humans, and they are predictable. Trying to explain verbally adequately the techniques of riding is extremely challenging. Top and bottom wrestling is the most difficult to learn and teach. It's becoming a lost art, and I understand why so many coaches and wrestlers like freestyle. It’s way easier. Consequently, it's why I love folkstyle, a wrestler can't be good in just one facet; he has to exhibit comprehension and competency in all three facets. 

On the bottom, one important technique is keeping your hands/wrists free.  Watch the NCAA's and notice how many wrestlers break down to an elbow while on the bottom.  Big NO, NO. Wrists are begging to be controlled.  Stay off your elbows, keep your hands/wrists free,  stay off your belly, and you've just gotten light years better from the bottom.

Riding or controlling the bottom man doesn't mean you grow roots on his ankle or stay stuck in one position. The true art of top wrestling is learning to change off, switch sides, and work the bottom man from head to ankles while making him carry your weight, keeping him out of balance, and creating pressures and torques to make him use more of his strength and energy to neutralize or counteract all the forces. You and others may call it stalling, but it isn't.  It has a cumulative effect on the bottom man's stamina and psyche.  He's not scoring points, and time is ticking down. He's frustrated, fighting hard, wasting energy, and getting tired, top guy is gaining a point, and you're in his head because he knows he can't get out unless you let him out. If/when he does get out, his reactions may be slower because he wasted so much energy on the bottom...and you're still in his head with riding time. In close matches with quality kids, the determining factor is RT. That's why RT is an asset to the sport.  No one should be given a free out or up just because he can't do it himself. If he doesn't like being on the bottom, learn to get out, and you are now in your desired "neutral." If someone can dominate you on top, he deserves some reward.  Appropriately, that is riding time, control time, you suck on bottom time... call it whatever. Still, the top guy should not be penalized, taken out of a position of dominance/control, and put on his feet just because the bottom man is inept. That's a form of "income inequality." Plenty of lousy bottom wrestlers can't get out but are difficult to turn because they've spent so much time there. So RT is his penalty and the top's reward.  

 

and

Quote

The only thing I saw that would concern me as a coach or a referee was PSU stayed locked in place with the claw...if he were a little savvier, he would have "looked busy." "Looking Busy" is an art too, whether in neutral, top, or bottom. He could have gotten off the leg hook and moved out.  OSU wasn't going anywhere with the claw anyway. He could have moved out to the side and bumped the elbow with his knee, and OSU goes flat, and his wrists are vulnerable, and then he has to work back up.  It's a game and one needs to learn how to play it. Controlling someone from the top is a great weapon, just like getting out on the bottom is a great weapon. Which of the two has the knowledge and training to use the weapon better? If the 5 count limits the use of the hands on the ankle (to help the bottom guy apparently) then smart wrestlers learn how to improvise...pinching the down man's leg or throwing in legs. Not his fault the bottom man has no defense or counter. Rick Sanders used to say when he was on bottom, he had his opponent right where he wanted him. That's the way to look at it. I don't understand why folks are so against "riding." There are a lot of guys you will never get a chance to turn.  The next best option is to control and limit, tire him out, make him work to keep position, keep him from scoring, frustrate him, get your RT, and get in his head because he knows you are better on top than he is on bottom.  They eliminated RT in HS, went to top, bottom, neutral, defer, and that changed the quality of T/B wrestling.  No more skills and strategies to build on at college. The guys who did have good T/B coaching in HS seem to be very effective in college. Furthermore, you have so many coaches and kids wrestling freestyle, which virtually eliminates T and B (of course it's easier to eliminate folkstyle T/B). So, they get in college and flatten out on bottom, look helpless, and lobby the ref for help or rule changes to help them. Watch the NCAA's. Lots of kids on bottom breaking down to their elbows...Big NO NO, or they get broken down to their stomach or their wrists caught. For many reasons, I would much prefer you to have my ankles than my wrists, but that's just me.  

 

[JBluegill133]

I'm really pulling for Warner this year, but I just can't see him putting together an entire tournament.  He seemed more aggressive this year, albeit against weaker competition, but against Elam it was back to the same old same old. Hope I eat crow, but that match didn't inspire much optimism for a title.

[H82Lose]

O'Toole DOMINATED. Elam looked really, really good. 141 is wide open this year, Woods might be the favorite?? 

[Le duke]

O'Toole DOMINATED. Elam looked really, really good. 141 is wide open this year, Woods might be the favorite?? 

Aside from McKee, O’Toole had the worst opponent. Many of the other matches were between top 2 or top 3 guys. Hamiti isn’t on that level. The result should have been worse, honestly. It was a 1 vs 6 match, going with placement from last year.

Example: For sake I’m of comparison, 1 vs 6, Brooks wrestled Romero at NCAAs last year, beating him 14-3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[H82Lose]

3 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Aside from McKee, O’Toole had the worst opponent. Many of the other matches were between top 2 or top 3 guys. Hamiti isn’t on that level. The result should have been worse, honestly.

Example: Brooks wrestled Romero at NCAAs last year, beating him 14-3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He cannot be that bad, he was an AA as a true freshman.  I also think it was more about style match up vs rankings. They both scramble, so I think they were hoping to see a scramble fest, and it ended being domination. I won't argue that there could have been a better opponent picked...but again, I think the thought was an action packed match.  

[Le duke]

He cannot be that bad, he was an AA as a true freshman.  I also think it was more about style match up vs rankings. They both scramble, so I think they were hoping to see a scramble fest, and it ended being domination. I won't argue that there could have been a better opponent picked...but again, I think the thought was an action packed match.  

I didn’t say he was bad; I said he had the worst opponent. Elam vs Warner, Kerk vs Cass, Starocci vs Mekhi, Brooks vs Keckeisen were all much more equal opponents, based on rankings and results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[H82Lose]

33 minutes ago, Le duke said:

I didn’t say he was bad; I said he had the worst opponent. Elam vs Warner, Kerk vs Cass, Starocci vs Mekhi, Brooks vs Keckeisen were all much more equal opponents, based on rankings and results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since Aliruz won, you are correct.  On paper, that was a worse opponent but turns out that 141 is wide open. Keckeisen surprisingly got dominated as well. I thought that would be a better match. 

[Le duke]

Since Aliruz won, you are correct.  On paper, that was a worse opponent but turns out that 141 is wide open. Keckeisen surprisingly got dominated as well. I thought that would be a better match. 

I think the gap between 1st and 6th is bigger than 5th and R12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Idaho]

One of these guys will win 141: Matthews, Woods, Allirez, Bergeland, Shahar, Alvarez, Bartlett, Vasquez, Droegenmueller, Carlson, Hart, Swiderski, Crook or Belton. Taking bets now.