Define “Great Wrestler”
- Thread starter SCub
- Start date
To me, great is just above Elite.
And as we all know, Elite = Big Ten qualifier (more than once).
So, just above.
And as we all know, Elite = Big Ten qualifier (more than once).
So, just above.
In most years there are about 260,000 boys participating in high school wrestling and we have over 700 that start for D 1 programs. From a numbers perspective to be a D1 starter in most cases require you to be a great wrestler. The issue is the level of greatness between being AA and normal starter and then you have different level of greatness for national champs .
The answer depends on whether you’re a Penn State fan or a Rutgers fan.
Last edited:
I look at great based on the level of competition. As an example you could be a great HS wrestler, but not a great college wrestler. Or a great college but not international. Or vice versa, some are late bloomers.
"If there was a Hall of Fame for collegiate wrestling, where would you put the bar?"
"If there was a Hall of Fame for collegiate wrestling, where would you put the bar?"
If it's a Hall of Fame for collegiate wrestling, I would presume the base criteria should be highly selective.
I don't see how 4 low AAs might cross the minimum bar, especially considering the potential weakness of the weight.
Similarly 1 Championship would admit possibly 10 new HOFers every year of 330 NCAA entrants (3%). That, as a default, doesn't seem selective enough. I'm thinking a greatness HOF should admit no greater than 0.5% (as to assure only the 99 percentile of NCAA qualifiers are admitted).
So HOF-level greatness would seem to warrant multiple D1 NCAA Championships.
I don't see how 4 low AAs might cross the minimum bar, especially considering the potential weakness of the weight.
Similarly 1 Championship would admit possibly 10 new HOFers every year of 330 NCAA entrants (3%). That, as a default, doesn't seem selective enough. I'm thinking a greatness HOF should admit no greater than 0.5% (as to assure only the 99 percentile of NCAA qualifiers are admitted).
So HOF-level greatness would seem to warrant multiple D1 NCAA Championships.
Interesting take on this. To me it breaks out like this:
Elite > Great > Good > Average
Would agree that to even start at a D1 school you have to be a pretty good high school wrestler....but depending on school and conference not necessarily even good, many are just average as we are comparing them to all other college wrestlers, not to all people who have wrestled at one point in their lives. A great college wrestler at a minimum has to win (or runner up) their conference and AA at nationals. Elite wrestlers are the ones that win multiple NCAA titles....it's a very small group.
Elite > Great > Good > Average
Would agree that to even start at a D1 school you have to be a pretty good high school wrestler....but depending on school and conference not necessarily even good, many are just average as we are comparing them to all other college wrestlers, not to all people who have wrestled at one point in their lives. A great college wrestler at a minimum has to win (or runner up) their conference and AA at nationals. Elite wrestlers are the ones that win multiple NCAA titles....it's a very small group.
Multiple NCs.
All wrestlers are equal, but some wrestlers are more equal than others
All wrestlers are equal, but some wrestlers are more equal than others
2x Sectional Runner-Up oughta be the bar.
But do Elite or Great get into the HOF? ... because stating that might address the OP's oringinal premise/question?
Nobody wants to debatre arbitrary taxonomy, right? It's pretty boring and pointless.
In most cases from a numbers perspective the word great is overused with the exception of this wrestling board. Seems like a lot of response are from the perspective of being a Penn State fan as opposed to our experiences of wrestling. I will always say anyone who was an AA achieved something great. People saying multiple time NC are limiting that to 190 people all time (since 1928 to present). Can’t begin to think what fraction that is
I can't define it, but if they're not great, they suck. There's no middle ground. - @RB-Old
Since I have a few minutes to waste in pointless discussion:
Referring back to the Cliff Keen thread, I would consider Cam Amine to be at least a "very good" college wrestler. As noted, the guy is a three-time AA, finishing 7-4-4 the last three seasons, in a tough and deep weight class. The percentage of college wrestlers who can do as well is pretty damn small. Yes, his style is unappealing, but he is better than merely "good".
So, IMO, if a guy like Amine is not considered "great" (which I sort of understand), you need a "Very Good" category between "Great" and "Good". If you don't like "Very Good", maybe there is a better word or term to use.
This works. I see it in the ones who get more than one. I was really pulling for Mark Hall to cross that line and put all conversation to rest when Covid f*cked him over. We just watched Nick Lee and RBY cross that line
I know a lot of wrestlers that were great, none of whom would consider THEMSELVES great.
If there was a Hall of Fame for collegiate wrestling I would put the bar right beside it. Wrestling fans can drink!
If I was starting any HoF I would look at it by generation or era. Start with the best wrestlers from the earliest era and induct a number that captures those that are HoF worthy. I would think for wrestling during the first 20 (these numbers are examples) year period (first era) there are 25 people. Maybe more or less. Then each person after that would have to be better than the "worst" of the people already in the HoF. That standard would continue. If a person from 80 years later is determined to be more HoF worthy than someone already in, then they are inducted. No one would be "kicked out" the number would just increase from the original 25.
I know it is hard to compare across eras, but this method would make any HoF very exclusive.
You mean IRONTURD?
Anyone that beat me.
(FYI: There were a ton of great wrestlers in the 80s and 90s).
(FYI: There were a ton of great wrestlers in the 80s and 90s).
I agree multiple NCs gets you in the conversation there's a lot of wrestlers who have one.
Anyone that beat Spencer Lee. So yeah, there are a lot of great wrestlers.
A great wrestler is anyone who wrestles with heart, dedicates themselves to the sport, displays good sportsmanship, improves on and off the mat, and achieves a level of success that goes beyond their potential
James English was a great wrestler, and never won a championship. So was Jimmy Gullibon. So was James Yonushonis.
Championships and All American medals are not the measure of a great wrestler.
James English was a great wrestler, and never won a championship. So was Jimmy Gullibon. So was James Yonushonis.
Championships and All American medals are not the measure of a great wrestler.
Still get goosebumps. I could watch that 7th place bout 100 times. In my opinion it's in the top ten all time greatest PSU matches, up there with them all.
There is really nothing wrong with saying there are wrestles that are better than others. You can still appreciate the effort and dedication of the room guys and their importance to the overall performance of a team, but there is definitely a line which separates them from the three-time champ. Saying there is a line of greatness doesn't denigrate other participants that gave it their all.
Great wrestlers?
anyone that has embraced the grind in college or military.
‘great college wrestler? Anyone that has made a d1 team.
all American is a phenomenal college wrestler.
champion? Rare incredible a 1%.er.
olympian 1% of 1%
anyone that has embraced the grind in college or military.
‘great college wrestler? Anyone that has made a d1 team.
all American is a phenomenal college wrestler.
champion? Rare incredible a 1%.er.
olympian 1% of 1%
I'll jump on PSUBioMed's post --- and add --- it's an incredible feat to compete at the D1 level. Spending 4 or 5 years in a room with your teammates competing for a spot in the line-up makes a great wrestler! Most of us on this forum are above average at something, couch sitting or procrastinating ... and hindsight as well!
An avid fan of the sport appreciates the kids competing regardless of the uniform they wear ...
An avid fan of the sport appreciates the kids competing regardless of the uniform they wear ...
I appreciate all the responses here. In hindsight, the question is flawed. You can be a great person, a great competitor, a great role model - spend 4 years in the room, be a D1 athlete, be committed, be disciplined and be worthy of all of our respect and admiration. “Great” is poorly defined so the question is the problem. Any time one person describes a wrestler is GREAT - any number of other people have a different interpretation.
When I think of GREATNESS, however, I think of the very select few. The top 1% (roughly the number of competitors elected to HOF in baseball or football).
When I think of GREATNESS, however, I think of the very select few. The top 1% (roughly the number of competitors elected to HOF in baseball or football).
Similar threads
