I guess what I don't understand is why this happens when I'd submit that awarding these trophies and titles to wrestlers should be easier and less subject to subjectivity than, say, the Heisman. We're not comparing QB's to running backs to wide receivers to determine who was the best football player. We're comparing wrestlers who wrestled wrestlers to wrestlers who wrestled wrestlers. We can compare black and white numbers to see who had the most wins, pins, techs, majors, avg team points scored per match, average team points vs. end of the year all Americans, etc. There are cases when one candidate might have one or two more wins while another has a couple more pins while another has scored more avg. team points. Then the water is a bit more muddy. But in the Ringer vs. Retherford talk, that wasn't the case. Retherford had more wins, more pins, more bonus point wins, more dominance through Nationals. We can split hairs and debate other things till the cows come home (or at least till a new season starts and gives us new topics), but as much as I respect the Ringer, I just don't understand how he beats Retherford in ANY award this year that is only supposed to consider this year. I know the Hodge considers their whole career, but ONLY if the record, pins, etc. don't point to a clear winner. Again, I'll reiterate my respect for Ringer. Tremendous wrestler that we'd have loved to have in the blue and white. But his numbers simply don't trump Zain's.
