karelin

Who is the only wrestler to be a 4x finalist with a unified state tournament(private and public) all four years.

Tn's three 4x champs had years when only one faction competed. This not to take anything away from them; they were all great. Martin Francis didn't compete against the private(ironic isn't it) schools his first year or two. Phillip Simpson and Matt Keller didn't compete in a unified state their latter years. On a side note, they both won the state in 1999 at the same wt-125(it could have been a better match-up than any, ever- even better than Nelson vs. McTorry). If together, obviously we have one less 4x champ. Not only did this individual compete all 4 yrs in a unified state, he is the only wrestler in TSSAA history to go undefeated 3 straight years. He had 2 losses as a freshman, both by one pt, with a penalty point in the last secs. to make the difference, and both losses against state champs. He lost to Sandlin of Baylor in only his second HS match, later avenging that loss twice, the second time by a major dec. His 2nd and last loss was in the state finals 12-11(hand caught in singlet, called for grabbing the uniform). He is my pick as not only the best, but the toughest wrestler ever. This guy could have won the next 4 wt classes above him. Who is he? David Vance-3x champ, and runner-up(1988-91).

Like xbody, I once assumed that women's wrestling would be a salvation to our beloved sport, but now I believe this to be the contrary. Look at what FILA has done, actually the IOC, but only because FILA originated the concept in the early 80's; we have lost 3 wt classes in both styles (free&greco)since the inception of women's wrestling. This was done to limit the number of medals the IOC would have to give over-all to wrestling. We got snookered.

Add JT Hagen to the list; he's back in the wrestling room at Cornell and vying for a starting position at 157.

Here is an article written on the 'Intermat' about the over-reaction to various and recent changes-good insights.

Over-legislation from head to shoestring

by Randy Simpson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are a country of extremes. Example: At one point, women were discriminated against to such a degree in this country, female Olympic gold medalists couldn't get a scholarship in their sport of interest. Now we give girls scholarships for sports they've never played and discard male athletes in the name of "doing the right thing."

A few years ago, we underwent practically an overnight transformation in the world of collegiate wrestling in regard to weigh ins. Basically, you weighed in whenever the coaches wanted, and weighed whatever they wanted, used whatever means necessary - plastics, saunas, 100 degree rooms, and, of course, cut as much as you wanted and dropped weight classes whenever you wanted. We went from that to strict rules on when to weigh in, how to cut weight (outlawing all of the above mentioned techniques), body fat tests, hydration tests - even to the point of how to weigh in (step on the scale once, no running to lose weight after weigh-ins start, etc.) Don't get me wrong - I think the rules are fine for the most part - but I also feel that they are an example of overkill, of going from one extreme to the other, which we are known for in our great society.

Another rule that has gone to extremes, in my opinion, is the shoestring rule. At one time, not long ago, there was no such rule about taping the shoestrings. The reason a rule was created in the first place, was because of wrestlers abusing the situation to get a rest. Some guys did this in the national tournament to get a breather - and they got away with it, and this was a bad thing for our sport. So the rules committee came along and decided to make a change. In college, the rule was: if the shoestring came untied and led to a delay in the match, that wrestler was charged as such, and was warned for stalling. If the wrestler needed to take time to tie the laces, an injury timeout was assessed. Fair enough. There was no rule about requiring the laces to be taped, or putting a shoelace guard on, or anything of that nature. It was the wrestler's responsibility to make sure they stayed tied.

In high school, it is a different situation altogether. The shoelaces must be "secured", or the wrestler is assessed a penalty point, the coach is called for unsportsmanlike conduct, and the kid is warned for stalling to boot. Seems pretty draconian for one little lace, doesn't it? Especially when you consider that this particular shoelace in question might not even come untied during the match. We just don't know. And by the way - Unsportsmanlike Conduct? On the coach? Wow. That'll teach him, the cheater. So if you end up with two freshmen who forget to lace up in the same meet, the coach is out of the tournament.

Is this really necessary? Does the punishment fit the "crime"? Kind of seems like we're killing the dog to get rid of the fleas.

The colleges had it right.

Keep in mind here that the basic crime being committed is delay of match. Stalling, if you will. So, instead of just calling stalling and issuing an injury timeout when the lace comes undone, we have made a rule. And that rule is responsible for every wrestler in the country having to tape his shoelaces, then, if he has to remove the shoe, retaping them again, before he dare step back onto the mat. So that rule is undoubtedly responsible for a big jump in athletic tape sales. And that rule is also responsible for practically creating an entire industry - lace guards, zip-up shoes, etc. And that rule is responsible for giving referees yet another little picky thing to worry about.

And that rule is unnecessary.

Bearman, well said; since its inception the 32 man bracket has been the showcase that it should be for our great sport. Yes, the split has definitely watered things down, but last year's event was a great experience for all who were there. However, I would suggest one thing to coaches attempting to get their kids seeded-please don't say 'he was a state qualifier', especially D-2.

Commoner, you articulate very well many good points in your previous post, but you make two glaring contrasting and rather offensive remarks in doing so. "A dozen cheaters" are "not the bad guys" doesn't make sense(cheaters are bad guys); sounds like another biased point of view.

But consider another situation; look at our two neighboring states to the south. Yes, they probably have too many divisions, but none are determined by public vs. private. Look at what St Ed's does in Ohio every year, with Walsh Jesuit leading the Div. below them. There may be some complaints, but I guarantee you no more than public school Great Bridge gets in Va.

The fact of the matter is that all teams that win get critized; why do kids go out of their way to go to strong programs. Is it because the coaches there recruit them? I don't know of one coach that recruits; the bottom line is that a strong program recruits itself. Aspiring athletes want to belong with sucessful programs. I am impressed when a program comes out of nowhere such as Kenwood, Smyrna, Franklin,etc; but the top 10 teams in the state haven't changed a whole lot because tradition is tough to beat.

Just wondering why it would be so important to attend while missing work.

The only way that two teams from the same school can compete on the same day is for one team to be in a JV- tourney-only with JV wrestlers. The rules clearly state that two teams from the same school cannot compete in two different varsity level tourneys at the same time.

How can a team be at two tournaments at the same time, legally?

Sly,

In your remarks to walkenvol you mentioned being at the trial in Chattanooga; I am curious, why you were there?

Posted by coacht:

Let me know if we have left any teams out or if we have any listed that do not have wrestling teams. The link is under Interact on the left.

The D-2 wrestling poll isn't set up right at all; please check and while your at it, check the results so far.

Craig Long of McCallie is clearly the best 275 to have never won the state-why-Bubba Miller. Bubba beat Long 4 of 7 meetings, the last 3 losses coming at the state tourney. Yet after saying all this, Ray Dalton says that Scott was much better than Bubba, this when Scott was only a Jr. It must also be noted that Scott was ranked #1 in the country his Sr. year. What other wrestler from Tn. has had that distinction. Which brings up a valid point, already alluded to, do you count Scott in the mix since he transferrd from Pa after his soph year?

Zachary Ryne beat 2 state champs badly(Weist-his only loss that year and Voilles), getting OW in both tourneys in 1995; this in his JR year. Also, Craig Long only lost to Bubba Miller in the state his last 3 years.