|
Post by lkwdsteve on Dec 22, 2006 19:31:23 GMT -5
If you are the same guy, you used to write some good, balanced, and diplomatic commentary in religious threads in the NWT section. That's what I remember.
Rankings. I've written some about the process, but have never critiqued the ranking themselves. NEVER. None of them. Not in the five years I have been following them. The top spot is the only one worth fighting about, if then. So when I wrote "AWN" (in reality I have no way of knowing which is best) above I figured it would engender the predictable negative comments. It did and it's all pretty tiresome, hence the "Yawn" comment.
1) To properly rank folkstyle, in MY theory, a ranker must never see any of the wrestlers and further cannot consider anything but standard folkstyle matches. In short, to do it accurately it should be done by computer. Of course that's not going to happen anytime soon. 2) You bash those that are attempting to do rankings for the quality of their anaysis. Is this the most appropriate criticism? Shouldn't you, instead, tell them to hold off on any rankings until January, as Intermat is doing. Then when they all come out at the same time, side-by-side, you can compare apples-to-apples. But you know what the problem with that will be. Parents, wrestlers, and fans will demand rankings. Thus someone will move to meet that demand as ineffective as the effort might be. 3) Interesting that the New Yorkers, a notoriously difficult crowd to please, liked the rankings (for the most part). Why? Because the names they looked for were there. The names you looked for were not. The names I look at when I peruse rankings are the ones at the top of each weight class and Ohioans. It's human nature.
I don't envy the rankers. Fargo is seductive in that it has national comparisons (degrees of separation?) readily available. But then how do you rationally weigh folk vs. free vs. greco?
The whole process is irrational, and getting bent out of shape about it moreso.
|
|
|
Post by sgallan on Dec 25, 2006 23:36:21 GMT -5
1) To properly rank folkstyle, in MY theory, a ranker must never see any of the wrestlers and further cannot consider anything but standard folkstyle matches.
Which pretty much leaves out any state other than those states in the midwest, perhaps California, and those programs which can get to Reno/Ironman/Beast, or those tournaments in the midwest, and California's five counties. In essense the rankings would be exactly like Amateur Wrestling News where save the occasional exception in a California kid, there is no wrestling west of the Mississippi.
Bottom line is that is an elite program/state ranking criteria where unless you are from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, or New Jersey (Blair) you are pretty much screwed as to being able to get ranked.
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Dec 26, 2006 7:54:56 GMT -5
"and those programs which can get to Reno/Ironman/Beast, or those tournaments in the midwest, and California's five counties."
Actually, my thinking was that a "computer" would consider those tournaments no better than any others. Sort of like the Ohio Football rankings which are completely devoid of any human input. No voting, no subjectivity due to personal observation. The playoff qualifiers in Ohio are set in that fashion.
That system of straight wins and then a secondary calculation of the wins of teams that you beat, creates it's own inborn strenghth of schedule. It wouldn't work for wrestling in the real world. It's only a theoretical or a hypothetical. I say it wouldn't work, because I don't know that there would be a frame of reference for every wrestler in every state (the so-called 6 degrees of separation) that would allow their "connection" with each other across all state lines in each weight class in folkstyle only. Maybe. That's the value of adding freestyle and other off-season events into calculations. It's handy. Other problems, like 100% reporting of results come to mind.
I was also thinking how the personal observations of rankers can effect how a kid is ranked. It gives the observed kids advantages that don't accrue to wrestlers that are never seen. For example how an "observed" kid loses can have an influence. IE-He was injured during a match, got a bad call, got "caught" while leading big, etc. In other words if some (many?) kids suffer because they are never seen (HOW they win or HOW they lose isn't seen), and you cannot change that fact, then NOBODY should be seen (in theory only, of course).
With such a system, which I acknowledge would be impossible, I think the rankings would be much different than AWN or any other service. What I am impying in this and the above post is that current rankings are full of judgment calls which allows for subjective considerations to enter. Look at the mind-numbing converstation on Welsh vs. Chaires. That's representative of the whole process. Everyone throwing their two cents in that has a "stake" in the outcome, even if that stake seems to be one of "bragging rights" only.
|
|
|
Post by DartSharkimus Prime on Dec 26, 2006 13:38:18 GMT -5
Steve, I actually think watching the kids has a huge impact on rankings. Gives the ranking folk a chance to see first hand "how good" someone is. I love watching two powerhouse kids battle on the mat and see what they bring to the table. Folkstyle mainly, because while free is in the mix, for InterMat, it's not the main focus -- while it is the only real tournament where everyone is in the same place (For the most part), watching that style can actually give you an idea of folkstyle success.
If you score three takedowns and lose the match 2-1, 2-1, 2-1 and get pushed out twice and gutted once, who's the better folkstyle wrestler? sometimes with kids that are that good, the FS result holds, but I'm a firm believer in seeing as much wrestling as I can to project some accurate rankings.
|
|
|
Post by nyotter on Dec 26, 2006 18:44:55 GMT -5
Steve, I actually think watching the kids has a huge impact on rankings. Gives the ranking folk a chance to see first hand "how good" someone is. I love watching two powerhouse kids battle on the mat and see what they bring to the table. Folkstyle mainly, because while free is in the mix, for InterMat, it's not the main focus -- while it is the only real tournament where everyone is in the same place (For the most part), watching that style can actually give you an idea of folkstyle success. If you score three takedowns and lose the match 2-1, 2-1, 2-1 and get pushed out twice and gutted once, who's the better folkstyle wrestler? sometimes with kids that are that good, the FS result holds, but I'm a firm believer in seeing as much wrestling as I can to project some accurate rankings. JB look, I don't coach kids to wrestle folkstyle in freestyle matches.......so i'm not sure if i agree with your last paragraph. If my kid is on the 1 side in three periods like that he's getting a bop on the head after the match cuz he did too much work and lost. winners win, regardless of style steve, hard to please?
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Dec 26, 2006 20:48:25 GMT -5
Sure Jason, I understand that. My point was a complete hypothetical and impossible to do.
But consider Scott's point about wrestlers that don't get to display their skills at the events that rankers typically frequent. You make my point for me when you say personal observation has an impact on rankings. Of course it does! And, of course, it gives the kids that are seen that exact advantage over those in more "remote" (if that is the right word) locations who are never seen by any ranker. It's a completely logical calculation, but for theoretical purposes only.
That said, I think all of the rankers have a love of wrestling and love to watch those great high-profile match-ups. In other words, you are first fans and then rankers.
You can't beat personal observation. I decided last year that Thomas Straughn could beat Kemmerer and was the nations best 135 at year's end. That was based on seeing Kemmerer at the Ironman and then watching Straughn performances after he dropped to 135 from his 145 Ironman weight. This year I has a suspicion that Straughn's performance, up three weight classes (152), would more resemble his 145 work (pretty good) than his 135 work (light's out).
The purpose of my posts were to explain, actually imply, why rankings are impossible and why folks shouldn't get bent out of shape over them.
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Dec 26, 2006 20:58:07 GMT -5
"steve, hard to please?"
I think you are confusing me with Diego (or Marty).
I'm easy, by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by DartSharkimus Prime on Dec 27, 2006 16:26:06 GMT -5
Point taken on all accounts, however, I've got bukus of brackets from every high school state tournament on my desk in two five-inch binders.
If I see results where someone beats a kid that I thought was pretty solid, I pilfer and pilfer results as much as I can. Seeing a kid can give me an idea on how tough his state tournament/weight or what not is.
It's a lot of trickle-down. I see many of the top kids between Fargo, Beast, Ironman, Clash, Lone Star Duals, Virginia Duals, Final Four and scour the results of Reno, Five Counties, Tiger Grizz, any and all NY, NJ tournaments that I can get my hands on and things like Dvorak, Brecksville and countless other tournaments. Seeing kids is a help to everyone that the kid has beaten or lost to, whether I've seen them or not.
It's not easy, I can only strive to be as fair and complete as possible.
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Dec 27, 2006 21:21:12 GMT -5
By all accounts your hard work is paying off. Most folks really like what you do with rankings.
Now I'm fairly arrogant (I guess), but not arrogant enough to think I can critique any of you guys that do real serious rankings. But that doesn't mean I ignore them, though I'm more into the team thing.
What would this wrestling world be without rankings? They are an absolute must and your work on them seems to be universally appreciated.
Hey maybe I'll get with the program one of these days and do some complaining myself, if a future grandson (doesn't exist yet) becomes a wrestler. Look out then buddy!
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Jan 17, 2007 22:16:30 GMT -5
I like the one's that have the most PA teams and wrestlers ranked. I don't care for the way AWN's ranker carries himself on the forums so they get last place. SO if AWN ranks the most PA guys and teams, I've got myself a bit of a dilemma. You now have a dilemma. Officially.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 18, 2007 13:03:24 GMT -5
That dilemma was abley resolved when the #3 team dropped to the #4 spot after they beat a very tough team on the basis of.....what was the exact phrase?......."comparative scores", thats it. I don't whine or complain about rankings b/c the truth is I don't care enough to. I follow PA teams generally so I check them out occasionally to see if any are ranked but that's about the extent of it. I disagree on the rationale noted above. I don't think it was a valid reason to drop a team and don't think it would ever be rationalized to anyone on one of these boards.
So I guess the forum behavior trumps just ranking PA teams. Good to know!!
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Jan 18, 2007 18:31:48 GMT -5
I don't give a flying leap about forum behavior. Are you kidding me?
The facts are that AWN rated 18 PA wrestlers top 12 all-class, while Intermat rated ONLY 16. Bias against PA? Bah humbug. Bias against Kansas? Double humbug.
While we are at it, a pox on a couple of Ohio fans for giving Jason a hard time, on another forum, for his ranking of Foore vs. Roddy. That was a joke, especially when one insisted that he, Jason, had some kind of pro-PA or anti-Ohio bias or some such nonsense.
Intermat's and AWN's rankings of Ohio wrestlers were remarkably close. Each ranked 30 Ohioans in their top 12, with Jason's average Ohioan ranking about 5.5 nationally and AWN's about 5.9. As you can see, Intermat actually showed more love for Ohioans (by a slight margin) than AWN.
As I have said, going tilt over rankings is stupid. Ascribing ulterior motives to rankers, such as greed, is unfair and offensive.
|
|
|
Post by DartSharkimus Prime on Jan 18, 2007 18:35:17 GMT -5
... and I'm done with the other one. I'm not going to sit on a stump outside of someone's treehouse and try to talk the folks from the ground up and then have insults hurled back at me.
It's just a good ol' boys club and quite frankly, I don't have the time to worry about some blowhards patting each other on the back all the time.
I about fell out of my chair when I read "not capable" --
|
|
|
Post by lkwdsteve on Jan 18, 2007 19:37:26 GMT -5
OOPS.
Meant to say 20 Ohioans, not 30.
A "good ole boys" club exists on Themat also.
"I about fell out of my chair when I read "not capable" "
Only your girlfriend would know for sure. ;D
For me this all started with the announcement of the Eds Super 8 and the hue and cry that arose from that. Allegations of pocket-lining, etc., with the pea-brains (blow-hard doesn't a seem strong enough word), not understanding that they were actually accusing Urbas and Jordan with their wide brush. Greg Urbas is a very honorable man who lives to help his wrestlers in the gym and in life.
Then came the Ironman seeding "story". The seeding became the story, in a true media sense, rather than the wrestling. I thought that incredibly unfair. Words were bandied about that could have properly described wrestling, but instead were used for the pseudo-story on seeding.
Ah well. Thanks for listening to my rant.
I'm glad you rankers have thick skins.
|
|
|
Post by DartSharkimus Prime on Jan 18, 2007 19:38:57 GMT -5
I never liked the label "ranker" -- makes you seem less important.
"Oh, that's the ranker guy" "Oh, that's the writer guy"
Which one would you prefer?
|
|