Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Violet
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Maroon
  • Orange
  • Gold
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Welcome to the upgraded message boards!  Please note: if you have been using a username to sign in that is different than the handle (display name) displayed on the boards, you must now sign in with either your handle (display name) or the email address associated with your account.  If you don't know what this means, then it probably doesn't affect you!

Sign in to follow this  
Nainten

AAA 182

Recommended Posts

Would be interested to hear the case to have Dylan Jones as the #1 in the rankings at 182 given he as lost 3 of 7 wrestled matches this season and two of those losses were by pin.  No notable wins over any ranked wrestler.    Brooks Sacharczyk has only one close loss to Antcliffe (AAA #2) and two convincing wins over Cade Young (AAA #4).  Antcliffe has one SV loss to McCallie’s Sell (AA #1)  and wins over Sacharczyk (AAA #3), Duffy (AA #2), Johnson (AAA #5), and Hagey (AA #5).   Seems at this point it should be Antcliffe and Sacharczyk at 1 and 2 then Young and possibly Jones as 3 and 4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to factor in the Cleveland Factor.  Wherever he falls in the rankings on a objective basis, the Cleveland Factor automatically moves him up 3-4 positions.  It a very scientific algorithm that factors in many elements such as number of views on YooTube, likes on FaceSpace, and amount of marketing posters distributed.  You will find that Jones, Lundy, and others on the roster have also benefited from the CF.

Edited by ObserverW
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ObserverW said:

You forgot to factor in the Cleveland Factor.  Wherever he falls in the rankings on a objective basis, the Cleveland Factor automatically moves him up 3-4 positions.  It a very scientific algorithm that factors in many elements such as number of views on YooTube, likes on FaceSpace, and amount of marketing posters distributed.  You will find that Jones, Lundy, and others on the roster have also benefited from the CF.

Must be more legacy stuff uh? We all know all Cleveland wrestlers are overrated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jones is the highest returning medalist at the weight.  1 lost in big schools while wrestling up a weight.  I'd be the LAST to rank someone for simply being from Cleveland.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hamm said:

Jones is the highest returning medalist at the weight.  1 lost in big schools while wrestling up a weight.  I'd be the LAST to rank someone for simply being from Cleveland.

You should just go ahead and rank Cleveland, Bradley and Soddy dead last just to make sure certain people don’t think you’re biased.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WrestlingGod said:

You should just go ahead and rank Cleveland, Bradley and Soddy dead last just to make sure certain people don’t think you’re biased.

We all need to be. Sooner or later all these legacy voting points and polls has got to come to an end. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hamm said:

Jones is the highest returning medalist at the weight.  1 lost in big schools while wrestling up a weight.  I'd be the LAST to rank someone for simply being from Cleveland.

Ham--your keyboard says one thing but your rankings say another.  I'm going to let you slide on Jones and give you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were just being lazy and chose the highest returning medalist without doing any homework at 82 to see if he is actually the best wrestler at the weigh this year. 

BUT I can't let you slide on Lundy.  What is your rationale to give him the one seed with no prior state medal and zero notable results from this season.  He didn't even wrestle last season.  Are we factoring in freestyle results now? 

Perez 3rd?  Benefield 3rd?  I am just saying there seems to be a great deal of blind faith in some of these guys.  If they were from Antioch or Dickson Co. would they get the same love with the same lack of proven results?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ObserverW said:

Ham--your keyboard says one thing but your rankings say another.  I'm going to let you slide on Jones and give you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were just being lazy and chose the highest returning medalist without doing any homework at 82 to see if he is actually the best wrestler at the weigh this year. 

BUT I can't let you slide on Lundy.  What is your rationale to give him the one seed with no prior state medal and zero notable results from this season.  He didn't even wrestle last season.  Are we factoring in freestyle results now? 

Perez 3rd?  Benefield 3rd?  I am just saying there seems to be a great deal of blind faith in some of these guys.  If they were from Antioch or Dickson Co. would they get the same love with the same lack of proven results?  

I think it’s time to go ahead and insert the ever popular, “if you don’t like them or disagree then go ahead and do them yourself” quote here. 

 

Its just one guys opinion. Lighten up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative.  It's one thing to call the rankings crap and disparage the work Hamm does.  It's another to bring up legitimate, constructive points.  For instance, Jones has one loss while wrestling up this year but it was to another 182er who was also wrestling up.  In fact Samuel Smith wrestled at 182 in his next two matches against Cookeville and Tullahoma on that same day.  So in my book that is a bad loss for the number one guy to -- by Hamm's own criteria -- an unranked opponent.  By that reason alone he should drop.  Also...to weaken the "returning medalist" consideration...aren't we far enough along this season that their body of work should outweigh last year's accomplishments.  I think so and given this both Sacarczyk and Antcliffe merit a higher rank.   Furthermore Antcliffe made it to the semi finals at 170 last year before medically forfeiting out to 6th place.  They never wrestled one another and any claim that Jones' 5th place is a better accomplishment in light of this is suspect at best.  Nevertheless if one has to be dogmatic I'll grudgingly concede this last point.    

Edited by Nainten
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, WrestlingGod said:

I think it’s time to go ahead and insert the ever popular, “if you don’t like them or disagree then go ahead and do them yourself” quote here. 

 

Its just one guys opinion. Lighten up.

That's not 100% the case. Several tournaments this year have used state rankings as part of their criteria, so it does matter. All anyone is saying is, if it's going to be done, let's get it right and have the discussions where people think it might be off and stop hiding behind the "if you don't like it, do it yourself". If that were the case, we would have 1,000 different sets out there. The state needs one set, but that one set needs to be fine tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...