Asylamer

Mondelli was tough, but even if he wouldn't have bitten Eric Covington, and had wrestled in the state, he wouldn't have beaten either Breden or Barthalamew in the title match. He was in a tough weight class his jr. and sr. years.

Who is the best wrestler never to win the State? I'm gonna say James Vance from Overton ('94) He placed 2nd in 92, 93, and 94.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. As a former, successful HS wrestler, I have a pretty good understanding of hardwork and competition, and cheerleaders do both. I had some friends who were cheerleaders, who worked hard and entered in competitions along with the rest of their team. Granted they don't compete like other sports with competition every week for 2-4 months, unless they consider cheering at football/basketball games along with the other teams cheerleaders competition, which I'm sure most do. But they do have actual competitions with other teams, where a score is kept. Now what defines a sport? Good cheerleaders have to work hard to stay in shape, they have practices, it takes skill, they sweat, they bleed, they have coaches, and they compete. Someone could make the argument that the aspect of strategizing to beat the opponent, such as, shifting weight classes around to get the best matchups or snapping the ball directly to the halfback to catch the defense off guard, isn't there. However they have to have different formations, different cheers, and practice them in order win there competitions, they suffer the same emotions of winning and losing just like any other team would, and I'm sure there is last minute strategies to win their competitions. So if this doesn't meet the requirements to be defined as a sport, what does?

The golf board is under Fall Sports.

"...other ways to waste our time." Agreed...but sometimes entertaining...and sometimes theraputic...and sometimes educational...and always opportunity to enter into dialogue on many issues of a topic we like to talk about while fitting into a time frame of our own choosing...maybe this is a good way to waste time.

"Who's better?" If the intent of the question is which is the better wrestler, then to answer the question fully we have to go beyond the single double overtime match in the State. There is no question as to which wrestler will be recorded as the best wrestler in the 2003 TSSAA Division I Championships. And, although the winner may very well be the better wrestler, I take issue with those who cite the outcome of that match as the sole criterion for determining him the better wrestler. There can be a huge difference in "who's (the) better" wrestler and "who's (the) better" wrestler in a given match. Those of us who have been around for a while can probably cite matches that we have seen here at home to illustrate that point. However, I will recall the ultimate illustration. Years ago I read a correction to the spelling of a particular wrestler's family name. Today I couldn't remember whether it was Owen or Owens. After thirty minutes of search engines using both his name and associated events, I finally hit on the Washington Wrestling site and found his name, Larry Owings. Here was this guy who rocked the NCAA Wrestling world in 1970 by winning a high profile National Championship and I couldn't even recall his exact name. I knew his opponent's name. During the thirty or so minutes I was searching for Owings' name, I was scanning though site after site under the opponent's name trying to find mention of that match. The opponent's name was Dan Gable. Who was the better wrestler, Larry Owings or Dan Gable? Although, Larry Owings kept the score close enough that he was able to surprise Gable with a takedown and back points in the final seconds of the match, and his score was greater than Gable's at the end of the match, and his name is recorded as the NCAA Champion, and we might agree that at least during the last minute or so of the match Larry Owings was the better wrestler for that span of time, (and not to discredit what Owings did) all of us know that Dan Gable was the better wrestler. That was the only NCAA loss in his career. Gable went on to win the '72 Olympics without allowing a single point to be scored against him.

countrypk, "Had Keller wrestled Simpson", barring no consequence other than the singular outcome of the match, there would have been no affect on any state level championship, because the match could not have occurred under circumstance affecting a TSSAA championship. On the other hand, if your assumption is an imaginary single state tournament all-inclusive and uninterrupted, that could quite possibly affect the 4-timer status of all who have achieved that status since the division. Then of course, the assumption of that scenario would bring on more year by year speculation and discussion, wouldn't it? [Edited by Asylamer on 4-23-03 10:59P]

Congratulations to both Quinn Gibson and Steve Logsdon. Good luck in the finals.

hipyou,I failed to find the inference in slingshot's post in reference to some of the outstanding crop of wrestlers to come along since the split that he felt that their emergence was because of the split. I read his point to be the same as your read on their emergence, that they achieved "IN SPITE of the split." It appears to me that he is calling attention that, to the contrary of the predictions that have been broadcast long and loud about how our sport is suffering or is going to suffer, wrestling is still producing. And here I will throw in my own take. The scholastic sport overall has never been healthier in the state of Tennessee than it currently is. That is a statement of observation, not of analysis. If successes were analysized, we would probably find that they are the results of a variety of circumstances, not simplistic, single-shot courses, events, or actions. [Edited by Asylamer on 4-16-03 2:19A]

tnmat, "In accounts of which I am aware of the DI coaches' group..." sums up what I am sure of and my comment sums up what I intended to say. Just as an added item of information for you, however, one of those DI rejections came as a proposal/suggestion from the DII coaches...the idea that you have apparently bought into...separate duals, one individual. And to offer one possible answer to your question in your earlier post, "How can anyone be opposed to that?": A knowledge of history borne by years of observation of cause and effect.

luchador, "...it was not the wrestling community that pushed for the split....no one was campaigning for the split..." is certainly not an accurate history of all of the wrestling community's sentiments during the years leading up to the split. Chattanooga/Nashville/other newspaper archives possibly have stories that document a different sentiment expressed by some of the wrestling community surrounding a court hearing held in Chattanooga during the first half of the last decade. Some other posters have alluded to wrestling's non-involvement in the split. Insofar as influence goes, that may be true. But insofar as sentiment goes, not true. In the accounts of which I'm aware of the DI coaches' group when considering proposals to recommend change in the current tournament format, the coaches have overwhelmingly rejected change. If this information is accurate, it does not support the idea that the split was just about football...and basketball.

Great account, Reftn. It is that kind of reportive enthusiasm that helps folks who missed out to also share in the spectacle. As another poster responded, he's starting the ball rolling to be in St. Louis himself next year. Thanks for the story. [Edited by Asylamer on 3-25-03 8:55A]

Reftn, And also, suddenly the official's style becomes important. Your post on 3-19 is a great example. You gave an example of a wrestler who "could have been hit for stalling 50% of the time", because he used stalling maneuvers to set up his offensive specialty. As you indicated, if the official knew the wrestler's style, his stalling tactics weren't really stalling or they were stalling, but they were okay because they were a part of his plan...an approach to officiating that sort of employs a "The end justifies the means" philosophy. If an official didn't know the wrestler's plan, then the wrestler could have been called for stalling half the time, but if the official did understand the wrestler's plan, that 50%-of- the-time stalling was permissible. I can see all kinds of possibilities and potentials for outcomes with an official who can justify tolerating infractions of a judgemental nature or can justify extending the time allowed before making the call because he understands what the offending wrestler has in mind for utilizing the infraction.

Reftn, You, along with some other officials, are and have always been open to interaction with coaches on rule interpretation. This provides growth for both parties. Officials need to understand (and most probably do) that many coaches understand rules about as well as the officials do. Sort of like many officials understand on the mat coaching and strategies about as well as the coaches do. (Of course we fans understand both rules and coaching as well as both refs and coaches do.) So, those areas of rules that have to be interpreted are where there are the greatest needs for meetings of the minds. ("Locked hands" doesn't require interpretation. Reaction time might.) And it is here that differences in philosophies may present the greatest challenges for satisfactory resolutions. You brought up in your above post that the rule book allows the entire 28 foot circle for wrestling. Now, how the wrestlers get from the center of the mat to any other part of the mat is where interpretations can become clouded by differences in philosophies, i.e., how fast moving in a backward motion is too fast? how many trips to the outside line is too many trips? how many manuevers to avoid contact is too many avoidances? etc. There are wrestlers (and some say programs) that almost always find the 28 foot line to take a stand. That reflects a certain philosophy. Other wrestlers take a stand in the center and want to go head to head there. That reflects a philosophy. To be able to succeed at either of these approaches to the match, the wrestler must have the agreement of his opponent. If the agreement is not there (B won't be manuevered by A to the 28 foot line, or A won't allow B to tie up in the center of the mat.), then the referee's philosophy comes into play and he makes an interpretation of some rule that applies to one wrestler or the other or both. Then opposing coaches whose own philosophies are in play on the mat....etc. I agree with you big time on the verbal "center". We've seen too many times the advantage taken of one wrestler by another because of a mental relaxation that can occur following such a verbal. Actual warnings would be far better and would get the job done in a more direct manner.

While most of us would probably recognize what constitutes stalling within a given range, there are still advocates on either side of that range who feel strongly that their position is correct. I understand the cat and mouse games that some wrestlers/programs play. I think it probably allows some less athletic wrestlers to be competitive. And there is something to be said for that. I also understand the "make 'em wrestle in the center" proponents. While this cuts down on the "strategic retreat" ploy, it more than makes up for any missed excitement provided by that strategy with close toe to toe combat that probably gives us fans the highest level of what we came to see. Back during the '80s there was a small contingency of outstanding officials who actively made calls that centered the action on the mat, creating a "no place to run, no place to hide" atmosphere that gave us some truly outstanding toe to toe wrestling. Many mats even had zones indicated or painted several inches inside the outside line. When wrestlers ventured into these zones, many good officials cautioned them back toward the center. I really liked what was happening, but too many others did not. That philosophy, as such, was around for a relatively short period of time before it disappeared altogether, well maybe almost disappeared. There is still some sentiment around that would like to see wrestling, if not confined to, at least strongly cautioned to be executed in the center of the mat.