Bo working out with World Champion David Tylor every day has really helped him at 197.
Way to early 10 match parlay for NCAA
- Thread starter sunshinedynomite
- Start date
Thank you for the Wikii link. Not sure on your personsl stance on the matter, but after reading the article I am still wondering why they have people vote on an award that has clear-cut criteria.
Did you read the article? I couldnt find anything that describes how or why this happens.If I missed it, please point it out.
Has the award always been decided by a vote, or was it changed to be subjective after the NCAA introduced the NCAA Most Dominant Wrestler Award, which actually uses FACTS, no vote necessary.
The FIRST sentence of the Wiki article states that the Hodge goes to the nations Most Dominant Wrestler. How many times have these 2 seemingly identical awards went to different guys?
The bolded part of your post is not true. It says Most Outstanding Wrestler.
.What you call clear cut criteria are not really clear cut since no weighting is assigned to each of the criteria.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that anyone can just go in an edit a wiki article.
But yeah, I don't understand why there's arguing going on here about what the process is when the process is so opaque. WIN Magazine's offers up 7 criteria, doesn't weight them, and doesn't offer much in the way of transparency about who voted for whom or why. So if we're talking about the Hodge, you can make your argument for x guy over y within the constraints of the stated criteria, but ultimately WIN has a lot of flexibility because it's their award and for all we know can make up the voting results from scratch.
What's always been odd to me is how peripheral WIN often appears to be to D1 wrestling, yet they enjoy the honor of bestowing wrestling's most important individual award. WIN's site is filled with dated, confusingly ordered articles, leading me to assume that the I in "WIN" must stand for Ironic instead of Insider. I also assume WIN must be funded, because it doesn't appear to be a profit-oriented business (despite offering ads and print subscriptions). Does anyone here actually read/buy/patronize WIN?
Award criteriaEdit
The trophy is awarded based on seven criteria:[1][2] 1. Record 2. Number of pins 3. Dominance 4. Past credentials 5. Quality of competition 6. Sportsmanship/citizenship 7. Heart
They appear to be weighted to me. Are you insinuating that “ Heart “ carries as much weight as “ Record”.
If they arent weighted, why bother numbering them?
Thank you Tikk, not trying to be an ass about this,maybe I should drop it as it seems no one is able to answer my original questions.
A few guys (Zain, Metcalf?) have DESERVED the award (by WIN’s own criteria) but werent awarded it becuse of a system that awards poularity over the actual STATS. Maybe Ringer is happy recieving the award, and feels he did enough career wise to earn it, but if the criteria are indeed weighted (maybe they arent) then in no way did he deserve it.
Just because somebody puts items in a list doesn't necessarily mean those items are in priority order or weighted. It might just be a list.
I think we know based on the past what the criteria is ... whomever WIN decides they want to win it will win it. It's not opaque ... its subjective.
I think we know based on the past what the criteria is ... whomever WIN decides they want to win it will win it. It's not opaque ... its subjective.
I will jump in when I can get to a computer...still traveling. Don’t want any autocorrects. The board never forgets.
Well, even though I said the same thing, I'll at least caution that WIN likely is constrained by a small enough, collegial voting pool that had they chosen someone not in line with voters' preferences, they'd lose credibility within that voting pool, because that pool talks among themselves. And the results aren't really so out of line, overall, though we quibble around the edges.
But I imagine that if they heard from enough voters (actual voters, not the aggregated fan "vote") that Nolf and Nickal deserve to share it because picking between them is ridiculous, they'd find a way to make that happen.
This isn't that confusing. THere are 7 criteria, but only 3 are objective. Only 3 could be determined by a formula with only 1 right answer. After that, they are subjective.
Past credentials is a judgment call. As is 'quality of competition' (i.e. is the BIG dual schedule harder than others? did he 'duck'? was the weight loaded at Nationals? Did the bracket fall apart in his favor? etc.). Add in "heart", plus the freedom to 'weight' the criteria (even if the 7 are in order, are they 25/20/15/10/10/5/5 (or whatever) or are the first 3 80% of the criteria?)...
Plenty of room for voter interpretation even with 7 criteria.
Past credentials is a judgment call. As is 'quality of competition' (i.e. is the BIG dual schedule harder than others? did he 'duck'? was the weight loaded at Nationals? Did the bracket fall apart in his favor? etc.). Add in "heart", plus the freedom to 'weight' the criteria (even if the 7 are in order, are they 25/20/15/10/10/5/5 (or whatever) or are the first 3 80% of the criteria?)...
Plenty of room for voter interpretation even with 7 criteria.
Disagree a bit. None of the criteria are completely objective. There’s enough variation in number of matches wrestled, caliber of competition, etc., at the very top, normally, that voters can justify their vote. Again, I’ll explain later.
I’ve always understood the criteria to effectively be guidelines for the voters. I’ve also understood them to be in order of importance, but again, that is only a guideline for each voter. I like the system the way it is. To me, it would be much more valuable to win an award chosen by a select handfull of the greatest competitors in the sport’s history. Anyone can crunch a few numbers, but where is the mystery, suspense, and satisfaction?
WIN isn’t really a big name in the media landscape at this point, but what the heck is the New York Athletic Club? Straw man, I know—and the heisman probably isn’t the most popular thing around here. What I do think, is that media sources should have less say over these awards, and previous winners should have more.
WIN isn’t really a big name in the media landscape at this point, but what the heck is the New York Athletic Club? Straw man, I know—and the heisman probably isn’t the most popular thing around here. What I do think, is that media sources should have less say over these awards, and previous winners should have more.
I get where youre coming from Roar, and I suppose you could apply this same logic to the NCAA Most Dominant Award.
We have different definitions of "weighted." To me, that would mean points or percentages would be assigned to each category.
If we go back a whole 3 years ago, Dieringer won only 4 Past Credentials. Zain bombed him in Categories 2 + 3 + 5. And the voters said Category 4 > Categories 2 + 3 + 5.
Which is consistent with Hodge history -- frankly, any awards history. Doesn't matter the sport, all MVP trophies are Lifetime Achievement Awards.
NCAA provides very clear scoring for Most Dominant Award. And publishes the standings regularly during the season.
To use your term, this award's weighting is well defined, with an actual equation. Add 3 pts per decision, 4 pts per MD, 5 pts per TF, and 6 pts per pin or forfeit or default or DQ. Subtract same for losses. Score tourney matches as if they were duals. Divide the sum by # matches.
Last edited:
I understand their method but it could still can be thought of as subjective
Strength of schedule etc
Now Ive convinced myself that neither award is based on facts, thanks guys.
I feel like there is room enough in the world for both objectivity, such as it is (algorithms can be biased just about as often as people), and subjectivity. I guess you feel objectivity deserves the highest prestige. That's not my opinion, but it's a perfectly valid one.
Where exactly does Strength of Schedule play into the Most Dominant Award?
It's a math equation, and Strength of Schedule isn't part of that equation.
Yes, the Most Dominant Wrestler Award absolutely IS determined by facts. Predetermined, well-defined, never-in-question facts. See E-J's post again.
I will publish these facts, up-to-date, when I am able...my spreadsheet has all the top guys done, but I'm sitting in a library, away from home, and don't have the data.
I realize its based on facts, but doesnt mean everyone will agree with the outcome.
For example ONLY—-Sure Zain teched everyone in his weight, but someone inevetibaly will claim it was only because he scared everyone down to 141.
Though not near as subjective as the Hodge, but it does have a slight subjectivity to it.
Re. the Hodge Trophy, been following it for years, and have learned a few things along the way, aside from what wiki says;
-- The number of voters changes each year, but only slightly, and it's currently in the mid-40's, comprising past Hodge winners, select national wrestling media, and some reps from national wrestling organizations, as well as a few retired coaches.
-- Each voter gets four votes, voting for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places. Wrestlers are awarded 4 points for each 1st place vote, 3 for each 2nd place vote, 2 for each 3rd place vote, and 1 for each 4th place vote. Highest point total wins.
-- Any suggestion that it's a "popularity contest" is way off. There's enough intelligent voters, basing their vote on the criteria, that egregious voting is impossible. One thing that could happen, is that lifetime achievement could be held higher, and a 3-time NC Dieringer could win over a Retherford. And even that is rare...in fact being the only time where debating facts showed half an ounce of inconsistency. I, personally, was ok with it.
-- There is only a slight regional nature to the voting, where we've seen a couple voters vote for "their guy". 2014 review below shows this.
-- In 2014, David Taylor won the Hodge;
-------- He won 38 of 43 1st place votes, six 2nd place votes, zero 3rd place votes, and one 4th place vote
-------- One could ask how that one voter could vote David 4th with his performance that year, and that's a legit question. It's a numbers game, and insignificant in the larger scheme, even statistically-speaking.
-------- Stieber came in second that year, with three 1st, eighteen 2nd, eighteen 3rd, and five 4th place votes, and won the fan vote (worth two 1st place votes).
-------- Ruth was 3rd, and garnered two 1st place votes, among his other votes.
-------- Perry was 4th, also garnering two 1st place votes, among his votes.
-------- Next four were Dieringer, Delgado, Ramos, and Gwiz.
That's it. The outliers are so small (insignificant) in number, that the system works. If someone wants to take the time to look up each wrestler's performance that year, have at it. DT is the obvious choice, to me, no blue/white glasses at all.
There has never been a vote tie. The one year that two Hodge's were handed out, it was a conscious and compelling reason. It would be highly unusual to change anything for 2018-19.
Feel free to ask me questions, though I'm leaving the library soon...will answer as I'm available, as again, I'm travelling.
-- The number of voters changes each year, but only slightly, and it's currently in the mid-40's, comprising past Hodge winners, select national wrestling media, and some reps from national wrestling organizations, as well as a few retired coaches.
-- Each voter gets four votes, voting for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places. Wrestlers are awarded 4 points for each 1st place vote, 3 for each 2nd place vote, 2 for each 3rd place vote, and 1 for each 4th place vote. Highest point total wins.
-- Any suggestion that it's a "popularity contest" is way off. There's enough intelligent voters, basing their vote on the criteria, that egregious voting is impossible. One thing that could happen, is that lifetime achievement could be held higher, and a 3-time NC Dieringer could win over a Retherford. And even that is rare...in fact being the only time where debating facts showed half an ounce of inconsistency. I, personally, was ok with it.
-- There is only a slight regional nature to the voting, where we've seen a couple voters vote for "their guy". 2014 review below shows this.
-- In 2014, David Taylor won the Hodge;
-------- He won 38 of 43 1st place votes, six 2nd place votes, zero 3rd place votes, and one 4th place vote
-------- One could ask how that one voter could vote David 4th with his performance that year, and that's a legit question. It's a numbers game, and insignificant in the larger scheme, even statistically-speaking.
-------- Stieber came in second that year, with three 1st, eighteen 2nd, eighteen 3rd, and five 4th place votes, and won the fan vote (worth two 1st place votes).
-------- Ruth was 3rd, and garnered two 1st place votes, among his other votes.
-------- Perry was 4th, also garnering two 1st place votes, among his votes.
-------- Next four were Dieringer, Delgado, Ramos, and Gwiz.
That's it. The outliers are so small (insignificant) in number, that the system works. If someone wants to take the time to look up each wrestler's performance that year, have at it. DT is the obvious choice, to me, no blue/white glasses at all.
There has never been a vote tie. The one year that two Hodge's were handed out, it was a conscious and compelling reason. It would be highly unusual to change anything for 2018-19.
Feel free to ask me questions, though I'm leaving the library soon...will answer as I'm available, as again, I'm travelling.
Last edited:
You meant the Downtown Athletic Club, a completely different animal, but your bringing it up bolsters my point, b/c the Heisman voting adheres to a far more trustworthy process, given that Deloitte is responsible for the results, and the presenter is a trust, not the Downtown Athletic Club (and hasn't been since 2001).
The New York Athletic Club (midtown, bordering Central Park South) is a wrestling supporter and has hosted the Bill Farrell for the last bunch of years.
Oops, right. I haven’t followed the heisman very closely in a couple of decades, so I wasn’t aware of the changes.
I will agree with a PP, that I like the selection process as it is. Is it perfect? Maybe not (maybe). Since I’ve been following college wrestling, I have yet to think the Hodge selection was based on anything other than legitimate accomplishments. They’ve been right on, or possibly one-off (from my personal choice) every year since I can remember. Imo, no matter how they decide, they’ve gotten it right. Do I think Zain didn’t win it because he was a sophomore? Maybe. Ringer was just as deserving when you look at all the criteria.
I have no specific reason to dispute the results WIN reports, which you cite above, necessarily, nor do I have any reason to imagine why WIN would report fabricated results.
But having some experience with organizations and their elections, and perhaps an overall dimmer view of humanity given my day job, I also have no reason to trust that the results WIN reports are accurate because, as I mentioned above, WIN appears to exist on wrestling's periphery, offering only a thin website with dated articles, and an equally thin print publication, stacks of which are available for free at NCAAs. I get the sense that WIN is some sort of vanity project, funded by millionaire, perhaps too bored or disinterested to realize that WIN appears to be out of touch.
I mean, go to WIN right now, click on COLLEGE WRESTLING and marvel at the latest story: "Ohio State sends six to Saturday’s CKLV Invite semifinals" by Mike Finn. Their latest article is about the quarterfinals of a tournament that took place five weeks ago. They couldn't even be bothered to update readers that this tournament presumably also hosted a semifinals and finals round. So I don't think I'm off base in questioning WIN's raison d'etre.
I guess you’re never smart enough to quit going to libraries?
Thanks Roar, I agree on all points except you thinking egregious (or jaded at minimum) voting is IMPOSSIBLE... unlikely yes, impossible, dont be naive.
Sorry to be arguementitive, like I said earlier, slow Saturday...
Last edited:
Pretty cynical post, tikk, imo. The Hodge Trophy also has Culture House involvement. and an Asics component. I know all the characters, but honestly don't know exactly how each piece works. WIN reports the results, and they've earned some of what you delivered, but the Hodge Trophy piece, in talking with some from the organizations involved, is well-run. I have some experience too, closer than most.
Apologizing for being argumentative, in the same post that you're being argumentative puts me in a never-ending-do-loop state. Just doesn't make sense.
Admittedly cynical, sure. I appreciate that you feel good about them (and since I know you that goes a long way), but for me personally I can only respond to their public face, which face a bit embarrassing. I'd feel better about their stewardship of the sport, given the trust position they've claimed by virtue of hosting the Hodge award, if they offered any evidence of transparency and/or competency.
We never forget, but we do forgive, after pointing it out for a few chuckles!
My thought is it is a bit of a popularity contest, and I think the votes for David prove it. Anyone that quantifies the standards and still came up with David as a fourth place votes proves it is based on popularity, at least with that voter. Now you can argue, and did, that the system allows for it and pretty much ignores those outlying votes.
The 2014 voters should've been embarrassed by this and made a correction -- that David Taylor was not a unanimous winner. I know that's a nitpick since the right guy won, but the evidence for him was overwhelming.
He was the only undefeated wrestler in the country that year. Also he was Most Dominant by 0.5 pts per match.
Here are the stats -- W-L, Pts/Match, reg decision wins, total losses:
Taylor: 33-0, 5.1, 2, none
Stieber: 28-1, 4.6, 2, Zain + avg officials + flu + long bus ride
Ruth: 35-1, 4.5, 5, Dean
Perry: 31-1, 3.9, 13, Howe
Voting for Perry was especially egregious. Lost, 1.2 pts/match worse than Taylor, and 13 regular decisions with several in OT.
Interestingly, even without Zain and Dean, Taylor still would've had the best season. Stieber would've been 26-0, 5.0; Ruth 33-0, 4.8. (Without Howe, Perry would've been up to 4.2 pts/match.)
I'd be interested in seeing the 2012 voting -- because that year Taylor and Ruth were much closer than anybody in 2014 was to Taylor. (2012 Taylor = 33-0, 5.1; 2012 Ruth = 31-0, 4.8)
Will try to find the 2012 data, but unlikely I will. It’s not in my current data stash...
I didn’t do all that poorly.
Gross and Zacherl weren’t injured when I picked.
