BAC

It wasn't the weight. Its not like he was fading at the end of matches. He was just flat-out getting wrecked and looked out of it mentally. I give him credit for going thru wrestlebacks but I think the Missou freshman version of Eierman would have torched this version, much less the version that was going toe-to-toe with Lee/Rivera a couple years ago. I'm sure the HWC stipend is nice but I think he knows its time to move on.

I was wondering this too. Whipped Brands 10-0, then proved it wasn't a fluke in beating him again for third. Maybe Brands is a bit rusty but Gunderson had other good wins too, including techs over Foca and Lujan. Looks like he's finishing into his RS sophomore year at Northern Iowa: https://www.wrestlestat.com/wrestler/73049/gunderson-john/profile Not the most impressive results. Starter in 2022 as a true frosh where he got whooped, then redshirted in 2023, and a non-starter this year with a couple losses at Soldier Salute. But I wonder if he's turned a corner after rolling around with Keckeisen. He was a big 86kg'er, and looks like an absolute unit. Will be interesting to see how he does in college next season. Looks like 2 years of eligibility left, maybe 3 if there's an extra Covid year floating around in there.

I agree that's hard to know, but the bigger question for UWW (or really the IOC) is: what do we do about potentially blameless athletes in a country has violated the rules of participation and merits exclusion? The current approach merely requires a lack of evidence of the athlete's support of that position. It means that boneheads like Sadulaev who attend a pro-war rally won't be able to compete at the Olympics, but virtually every other athlete from that country will. And so Russia will be there, at least 99% of it, just not in name. A more robust ferreting-out would require individual athletes to affirmatively disavow under oath their country's prohibited practices (e.g. in Russia's case, doping or invading Ukraine). That's still over-inclusive (as many will like), but better guards against the exception swallowing the rule. That'll never happen, due to concerns that it puts a target on those athletes' back. Some have suggested an even narrower exception, where athletes must provide affirmative evidence of resistance against the prohibited practice. I think that's a non-starter for the same reason as above. The cleanest answer is to just not allow any exceptions. I admit I'm partial to this solution. Not just for the reason you state -- how could we possibly know what's in the heart of individual athletes? -- but also because bans are toothless if almost all of that country's athletes get to go anyway. It puts no real pressure on the violating country, as the individual athletes really couldn't give a darn if they get to wear the Russian uniform or not, as long as they get to compete and try to win a medal. But if the result was full banishment, then that creates *enormous* pressure within the country, from athletes as well as their supporters and millions of fans, against the government to change their practices. You can say that's unfair to the individual athletes, but I'd say their remedy lies in defection and establishing citizenship elsewhere, preferably under rules established by the IOC (including residency in new country plus abandonment of prior citizenship) so that the privileged isn't abused (as it has been by Russia and its sister -stan countries in the past).

He was terrifying today. He's going to be an immediate D1 force.

Forrest was at 127lbs all this last season. 57kg is clearly the right weight for him and that’s where he went. Not sure what fluctuating you are talking about. He doesn’t look particularly strong but clearly he is, and his technique is just so on point. Bassett was at 138 all year, but I think he was more of a 132lber, and was wrestling up to make room for Mason Gibson. When he entered college tournaments this season it was at 133. I think it’s pretty clear he would have gone 61kg if it was a weight class, unless he grew a bunch in the past couple months. In any case, he is plainly at a strength disadvantage with the 65kg guys. I think it likely made a difference in the Kolodzik match.

You’re answering a question I didn’t ask.

I assume they swapped with other wrestlers at international tournaments. For example McDanel won the Deglane in France back in January so I assume he got it there. I don’t see the problem with it as it’s just an OTT qualifier, not OTTs. However I might make an exception for Knox’s Belarus singlet, since they are banned for invading Ukraine. If Belarusians can’t wear a BLR singlet should/can anyone else? Probably would have been better to leave that singlet at home.

Ok fine: Conor McGregor's Proper No. 12 Whiskey Is Just As Bad As You'd Expect (businessinsider.com) Is Proper 12 this bad? : r/whiskey (reddit.com)

Let's just say Connor McGregor should've stuck to MMA. (I'm going to keep speaking elliptically until you get it!)

Lets just say that if you tried it, you'd realize it is not necessarily a sin to leave an glass of bourbon on the table, unconsumed.

It’s definitely not obvious. And I share your doubt that you can explain it in an understandable or plausible way. So I think we agree?

What is your theory, exactly? That Nate Carr Sr, ISU alum and rabid fan, whose eldest son Nate Jr. went to, wrestled for and graduated from ISU, and who had another son, David, who also committed to wrestle for ISU... BUT, before David committed, Nate Sr. DEMANDED that ISU give him a job one year later, otherwise Nate Sr. would force David to go somewhere else? Think about what you are saying for a moment. It isn't the lack of a smoking gun that makes any suggestion of corruption wildly implausible. I don't even buy that it was in "convenient" in the way you're claiming, as though it were some sort of crazy coincidence. If anything, considering how accomplished Nate Sr. was as one of ISU's best graduates, and given that his sons went there too, it would be surprising if Nate Sr. didn't get involved in their wrestling program in some way. I mean, Nate Jr. has a head coaching job now, and he has only a fraction of the accomplishments and experience that his dad has. You don't think ISU wanted Nate Sr? If there was an inducement, I frankly think it is more likely it worked the other way: Let's try extra hard to bring on Nate Jr's kids so that we have a shot at getting Nate Sr. involved in our program. I doubt even that is true, since any decent program would be thrilled to have his kids on their team (especially David), but my point is that its just a really poor example of potential corruption or "convenient" coincidence.

Clearly you've never tried Proper Twelve.

He coached at West Virginia and was named National Assistant Coach of the Year by the NWCA. Did the ministry thing for a while, then ran 2 wrestling clubs, then at Perry a few years when his kid was there. Fold in his NCAA tittles at ISU, and world and Olympic medals, and it’s hard to say he isn’t exceptionally qualified. That aside, hard to say his hiring was a recruiting inducement when one kid (Nate Jr) had already graduated ISU and David committed a year before. I’’m all for combating recruiting abuses but it would be good to be a bit more judicious in allegations of corruption. ISU was lucky to get Nate Sr on board irrespective of his sons, and the odds of Nate Jr or David going anywhere but ISU if Nate Sr didn’t get hired later at the RTC are zero.

I don't think the test is whether a country is "authoritarian" or not. Nor is it whether the people of that country have unpopular opinions, or if it is a "Western" country, or any of the other things you're saying. I don't even buy the argument that it is "political" or "all about politics." Instead, the basic idea is that in the Olympics -- which is an exhibition of fellowship among nation-states -- you don't get to compete if you try to take another nation-state's land for yourself. And that's pretty much it. Russia decided they wanted to claim for themselves some land that the UN has long recognized belongs to Ukraine. So poof, just like that, Russia doesn't get to participate. And that's OK by me. It seems to me that "don't steal another country's land" is a pretty easy standard to abide by if you want to participate in the Olympics. And along with "don't have a government-sanctioned doping program", I think it is pretty clear what you can't do, even if Russia didn't get the memo (on either). Of course, the reason we've having this conversation at all is that the IOC decided to have an exception for land-grabbing countries, where their independent athletes still get to participate if they aren't supporters of the land-grabbing. Granted, that answer isn't always clear, but it is super misleading to say "how come we're punishing Russian athletes' opinions but not the opinions of ....[X]." It isn't punishing opinions. Russian athletes are already excluded, because Russia is land-grabbing. They only question is whether individual Russians can get back in, albeit as a neutral athletes, by showing that they had nothing to do with all that land-grabbing. And if you're Russian, its pretty simple: don't go banging the drum about how awesome it is to be a land-grabber. At least not if you want to compete in the Olympics. Now, if you want to expand the pool of countries who can't participate in the Olympics to go beyond (1) those with state-sanctioned doping programs and (2) thieves of other countries' UN-recognized lands, have at it, but beware: it gets real tricky to draw the line in a clear, objective, non-political way. But as it stands, I think it is actually very simple. For countries: don't implement doping programs and don't land-grab. And if you're an athlete in one of those countries: don't dope and don't support land-grabbing. And if you can't do those things, don't come crying to me, since everyone knows you don't take land that isn't yours and you don't take illegal drugs to beat your competitors. Duh.

Fair enough. Haven't been over to HR/Rivals in a while. When I have in the past, there's usually a lone dissenter who gets shouted down by sycophants. Maybe that's changing. I do wonder though -- what's the resistance to change internally at Iowa? Is it Brands' ego, i.e. that he thinks he knows better than everyone else, so if a coach isn't preaching his sermon he doesn't want them around? Or is more an Iowa cultural thing -- the "us vs. the world" mentality that they've cultivated for decades, which has an isolating effect? The interview Metcalf gave about his interactions with Gilman on this latter point -- and how they changed and evolved post-Iowa-bubble -- is pretty eye-opening. It makes me think its both: an insular culture, of which the Brands brothers are active proponents. And M*/Telford have never coached anywhere except at Iowa under Brands, so they don't know any better than to sing that same tune. Whatever it is, it's a shame because Tom Brands is, though I hate to admit it, otherwise an excellent coach. And honestly, if there's anyone who ought to move on, its Terry Brands, who deserves better. To me, his greatest accomplishments as a coach are (1) the way he elevated the Chattanooga program when he was HC there, albeit for only a couples years, and (2) his national freestyle coaching work, especially for Cejudo. Of course he's at Iowa by choice, but to me, he's totally wasted there. He's too good to be his brother's echo.

Brooks likes the underhooks but, like Taylor, his offense is dynamic. Their last match was 5-4, and Brooks took him down with a hi-c and again with a double. He also has some nasty trips and picks. It isn't going to be that Brooks suddenly comes up with some new crazy move, but rather with the same stuff he uses to beat everyone else, and the same stuff he threw at Taylor last time. Lets assume conditioning and strength are a wash. If so, my guess is that Taylor is still the better counter-wrestler, but won't be able to match Brooks' offensive output. The difference, I think, will be how sharp and clean Brooks' attacks are. Last time he was a bit imprecise and Taylor exploited it. The truth is they have very similar styles. Not sure if Brooks pulls it off this time or not, but when it happens, I think people will say Taylor ran into a younger, fitter, faster version of himself.

Brooks absolutely has a shot here. Going into the year, I'd have had him at 3rd best in the world, behind Taylor and Yazdani. Yes, Taylor handled Brooks pretty well in 2023 WTTs, but didn't dominate him by any means -- and Brooks beat Zahid (who ended up medaling up a weight) in about the same way Taylor has beaten Zahid. Brooks also won U23s over the Russian National champ. And with Brooks filling out physically to Taylor's weight, I expect them to be closer. Plus, even if Brooks hasn't improved to the level that Taylor was at last year, you have to remember he's still ascending that hill, while Taylor is on the back end of it. We won't know how much of a bite out of Taylor that Father Time has taken until OTTs. But 33 is old for this game. I'll predict a 2-1 series. Slightly favor DT but a Brooks win wouldn't surprise me at all.

Personally I just don't think its about "Iowa Style" or non-Iowa Style, its that they just don't have the right coaching staff to elevate their guys to the highest level. Brands is an effective coach, no doubt, but he's just one guy, with a very specific stylistic approach and knowledge base. The problem is that he hasn't surrounded himself with enough complementary ideas and perspectives to compete effectively against top programs with more dynamic and varied coaching staffs. I don't think having 2 Brands brothers is much better than just one. They are pretty much clones of each other, and neither brings something to the table that the other doesn't already bring. After that you have Morningstar and Telford, but they're both Brands wrestlers/disciples, and neither was known for their on-the-mat creativity or diversity in technique, so its hard to see how they broaden the coaching staff's knowledge base. Same with Dennis, the HWC coach. To be sure, one good thing the Hawks have done in the last couple years is revive the moribund HWC, which now has several former AAs. But even there, its all just former Brands wrestlers. It is, in short, all Brands. All Brands, all the time. The net result is that if you're a new Hawk recruit, the teaching and technique you get is going to be largely limited to what's in Brands' head. The potential solutions to challenges you face will be largely limited to Brands' preferences. If the Brands don't know something or aren't good at something or don't care for a solution or approach that others like very much, you probably won't learn it. That's just extraordinarily limiting. They've effectively walled themselves off from the rest of the universe of coaching perspectives. There are SO many schools of thought out there, so many ideas and techniques, but they just aren't penetrating the Iowa/Brands bubble unless the recruit already knew it when he got there. Call it Iowa bashing if you want, but I don't think I am, as I think this is pretty much factual and hard to refute. Just look at all the examples of PSU guys losing to Hawks, only to get coached up to flip the series in their favor: RBY-DeSanto, Cass-Kerk, Kemmerer-Starocci, Rathjen-Kasak, and so on. There's almost no examples going the other way. There's examples of Iowa improvement, but then they hit the "Brands ceiling" -- the limits of what Brands knows or can solve -- and others pass them by. That's why there are so few if any recent Hawks who pierced the highest levels who weren't already sui generis when they arrived. It will stay this way until they either get rid of Brands, or Brands gets over himself long enough to bring other coaching perspectives into the fold. I don't see either happening anytime soon, nor do I see any Iowa fans raising any of these concerns, so don't expect anything to change.

Just chiming in to say that Coach Borrelli is one heck of a coach. There's always a couple programs that seem to have no business being discussed in the same paragraph as the PSUs, Iowas and Oklahoma States of the world, yet there they are, as they do so much with so little -- consistently taking mid-grade recruits and turning them into AAs. Little Rock is today's darling, but I'm thinking Northern Iowa under Schwab, or Edinboro under Flynn, or maybe American under Cody. Teams inexplicably in trophy contention, or at least top 10, by force of coaching. That's CMU. Yes, they've lost some of their sheen over the last few years, but how many teams have been so good for so long, while working with so little, as Borrelli's teams the past 30 years? Not many.

They're sure sticking by it. A little weird the school district let them do that.

Mirasola at 197? I figured Steven Little would be there after transferring in from Little Rock.

JB is great. DC is a train wreck. Totally unprepared to talk about the wrestlers, uneducated on the rules, lots of uninformed takes, and overall treating NCAA as little more than an MMA springboard rather than an end in itself. Hard pass.

Three 4th place finishes in a row. Right on schedule, he's in the consy semis. Can he make it 4 for 4 4th? Its a tough path. He'd have to beat Munoz, who handled him earlier this year. Then he'd have to lose to Berge/Salazar, which would really require him pumping the breaks since he'd be red-hot by then. But I think he can do it.

I'm still salty that Carr got a 4 seed. It should've been Mesenbrink and Carr meeting in the bottom half, with the winner getting Keegan in the finals. Or even Mesenbrink as the 4 seed, going thru Keegan, with Ramirez/Carr in the bottom bracket. Though I'm rooting for Mesenbrink, everyone knows Carr and Keegan are the class of this weight, and I'd have preferred Mesenbrink have to go through one of them to earn the right to deprive us of a Carr/Keegan final.