'97 Hawkeyes vs '24 Nits Head to Head

[DeangeloVickers]

Just for fun let's look at the head to head and likely outcomes. Weight classes dont align perfectly so we'll go in order. I'll try to be fair .

118/125 Whitmer vs Davis - decision Whitmer, 3-0. No chance Davis score a td on Jesse.

125/133 Mena vs Nagao - dec Mena, 6-0. (I don't think this one would come down to a decision to take down vs Nagao ). Mena was just better.

134/141 Ironside vs Bartlett - this year's Bartlett keeps it to a reg decision but Mark was on another level. 9-0.

142/149 Gillis vs Kasak, toss up but Gillis wrestled well in the tourney, ended up 6th, I take Gillis in a close match 12-0.

150/157 Lincoln Mac vs Haines - I'd pay admission to watch this match all alone but SR yr LM wasn't being denied. Regular Dec 15-0 Iowa.

158/165 Joe Williams vs Messenbrink. Mess is a prodigy but Joe was in another level in 97. His reshots and defense too damn good. Reg decision JW, 18-0.

167/174 Uker vs Starocci - Uker was a grinder in '97 and while he likely keeps it to a regular decision, I'll give Star the major here under 2024 scoring rules, 18-4.

177/184 Ersland vs Truax, Eastland was tough to score on but lacked offense, reg decision Truax, 18-7.

190/197 Fullhart vs Brooks, Lee was one of my favorite all time Iowa bigs but Brooks on another level. Fullhart keeps it to a reg decision though, 18-10.

Hwt Hand vs Kerk, Hand was just a pup in '97 but big advantage Kerk, he probably majors him.

18-14 Iowa would be my final score prediction.

 

[comment1283]

How about we focus on this morning/afternoon and save what will be a dumpster fire of a thread for the slow times of the off season

 

[MitchLL]

Just for fun let's look at the head to head and likely outcomes. Weight classes dont align perfectly so we'll go in order. I'll try to be fair .

118/125 Whitmer vs Davis - decision Whitmer, 3-0. No chance Davis score a td on Jesse.

125/133 Mena vs Nagao - dec Mena, 6-0. (I don't think this one would come down to a decision to take down vs Nagao ). Mena was just better.

134/141 Ironside vs Bartlett - this year's Bartlett keeps it to a reg decision but Mark was on another level. 9-0.

142/149 Gillis vs Kasak, toss up but Gillis wrestled well in the tourney, ended up 6th, I take Gillis in a close match 12-0.

150/157 Lincoln Mac vs Haines - I'd pay admission to watch this match all alone but SR yr LM wasn't being denied. Regular Dec 15-0 Iowa.

158/165 Joe Williams vs Messenbrink. Mess is a prodigy but Joe was in another level in 97. His reshots and defense too damn good. Reg decision JW, 18-0.

167/174 Uker vs Starocci - Uker was a grinder in '97 and while he likely keeps it to a regular decision, I'll give Star the major here under 2024 scoring rules, 18-4.

177/184 Ersland vs Truax, Eastland was tough to score on but lacked offense, reg decision Truax, 18-7.

190/197 Fullhart vs Brooks, Lee was one of my favorite all time Iowa bigs but Brooks on another level. Fullhart keeps it to a reg decision though, 18-10.

Hwt Hand vs Kerk, Hand was just a pup in '97 but big advantage Kerk, he probably majors him.

18-14 Iowa would be my final score prediction.

As long as Mena knows to take top or bottom!!!!!

LOL After 27 years, I still laugh.

 

[DeangeloVickers]

How about we focus on this morning/afternoon and save what will be a dumpster fire of a thread for the slow times of the off season

Or you could just ignore the thread if you don't want to participate.

 

[USPMAN]

Just for fun let's look at the head to head and likely outcomes. Weight classes dont align perfectly so we'll go in order. I'll try to be fair .

118/125 Whitmer vs Davis - decision Whitmer, 3-0. No chance Davis score a td on Jesse.

125/133 Mena vs Nagao - dec Mena, 6-0. (I don't think this one would come down to a decision to take down vs Nagao ). Mena was just better.

134/141 Ironside vs Bartlett - this year's Bartlett keeps it to a reg decision but Mark was on another level. 9-0.

142/149 Gillis vs Kasak, toss up but Gillis wrestled well in the tourney, ended up 6th, I take Gillis in a close match 12-0.

150/157 Lincoln Mac vs Haines - I'd pay admission to watch this match all alone but SR yr LM wasn't being denied. Regular Dec 15-0 Iowa.

158/165 Joe Williams vs Messenbrink. Mess is a prodigy but Joe was in another level in 97. His reshots and defense too damn good. Reg decision JW, 18-0.

167/174 Uker vs Starocci - Uker was a grinder in '97 and while he likely keeps it to a regular decision, I'll give Star the major here under 2024 scoring rules, 18-4.

177/184 Ersland vs Truax, Eastland was tough to score on but lacked offense, reg decision Truax, 18-7.

190/197 Fullhart vs Brooks, Lee was one of my favorite all time Iowa bigs but Brooks on another level. Fullhart keeps it to a reg decision though, 18-10.

Hwt Hand vs Kerk, Hand was just a pup in '97 but big advantage Kerk, he probably majors him.

18-14 Iowa would be my final score prediction.

Now that you see Kasak won 7 on the backside, came all the way back to take 3rd, you can edit your 149 match…..that would make it 17-15 nits……Kasak, a true freshman wrestling up a weight…crazy huh😉

 

[goethe14]

These threads never make sense. Athletes are so much better conditioned and trained. Iowa 97 would get destroyed by Iowa 24. It’s not the same sport 25 plus years later.

 

[manatree]

Just for fun let's look at the head to head and likely outcomes. Weight classes dont align perfectly so we'll go in order. I'll try to be fair .

How about we focus on this morning/afternoon and save what will be a dumpster fire of a thread for the slow times of the off season

@DeangeloVickers You have entered the No Fun Zone

 

[Aardvark86]

Just for fun let's look at the head to head and likely outcomes. Weight classes dont align perfectly so we'll go in order. I'll try to be fair .

118/125 Whitmer vs Davis - decision Whitmer, 3-0. No chance Davis score a td on Jesse.

125/133 Mena vs Nagao - dec Mena, 6-0. (I don't think this one would come down to a decision to take down vs Nagao ). Mena was just better.

134/141 Ironside vs Bartlett - this year's Bartlett keeps it to a reg decision but Mark was on another level. 9-0.

142/149 Gillis vs Kasak, toss up but Gillis wrestled well in the tourney, ended up 6th, I take Gillis in a close match 12-0.

150/157 Lincoln Mac vs Haines - I'd pay admission to watch this match all alone but SR yr LM wasn't being denied. Regular Dec 15-0 Iowa.

158/165 Joe Williams vs Messenbrink. Mess is a prodigy but Joe was in another level in 97. His reshots and defense too damn good. Reg decision JW, 18-0.

167/174 Uker vs Starocci - Uker was a grinder in '97 and while he likely keeps it to a regular decision, I'll give Star the major here under 2024 scoring rules, 18-4.

177/184 Ersland vs Truax, Eastland was tough to score on but lacked offense, reg decision Truax, 18-7.

190/197 Fullhart vs Brooks, Lee was one of my favorite all time Iowa bigs but Brooks on another level. Fullhart keeps it to a reg decision though, 18-10.

Hwt Hand vs Kerk, Hand was just a pup in '97 but big advantage Kerk, he probably majors him.

18-14 Iowa would be my final score prediction.

These things are always funny to me.

But as my uncle Charlie, who spent 50 years in pro baseball (mostly scouting), always told me, the simple reality is that modern athletes are always better than those of yesteryear. No shame in nostalgia, but it’s a law of nature.

 

[PAfanski]

Kasak wins, PSU 17-15

 

[TNTwrestle]

These threads never make sense. Athletes are so much better conditioned and trained. Iowa 97 would get destroyed by Iowa 24. It’s not the same sport 25 plus years later.

I highly doubt these athletes are any better conditioned than Gable's teams were. Yes training/nutrition has advanced/changed, but if those athletes had access to today's training they would be just as good. I am not buying the evolution of man thing. If those guys came twenty-some years later, they would still be Champions. Winning championships is just as much mindset as it is physical, if not more. The '97 team, training with today's standards would have similar results to what the OP posted. I might argue with a couple of his assessments, but think he's more right than wrong.

 

[eb05]

ironside stalls out bartlett

 

[dtripp26]

If Gillis couldn't throw ya, he wasn't winning. Cael would have him appropriately scouted.

 

[bourbon n blues]

I highly doubt these athletes are any better conditioned than Gable's teams were. Yes training/nutrition has advanced/changed, but if those athletes had access to today's training they would be just as good. I am not buying the evolution of man thing. If those guys came twenty-some years later, they would still be Champions. Winning championships is just as much mindset as it is physical, if not more. The '97 team, training with today's standards would have similar results to what the OP posted. I might argue with a couple of his assessments, but think he's more right than wrong.

But they wouldn't. Assume in these compare and contrast over a generation there is a time machine involved. Because what you say is true, however in my scenario it's like how many US Army Rangers would it take to beat the Mexican army at the Alamo?

For me? two belt feds with two men each and replacement barrels, a few thousand rounds each and 4 snipers . Get Santa Anna out there and have the snipers all take shots at the highest ranking officers available. Being that they were 200 yards or so away your average deer hunter here could probably turn the tide.

If we use the time machine the best of the modern teams win. If we take PSU and they are coached by the current staff at Iowa PSU would win, if both are in their primes now that would be interesting.

 

[GlenHawk]

I know this is more about the head-to-head matchup, but I was listening to FRL this morning and they brought up a couple of things I found interesting.

These may have already been shared somewhere here but they had Iowa at 177.5 on today's scoring system (not factoring in 3-point takedowns). However, the more interesting part for me was when they said that if Kasak were wrestling in 1997, he would have gone 0-1 and not received the opportunity to wrestle back. They said that if you lost the first round, the only way you earned a wrestleback was if the guy who beat you made the semi-finals.

I was pretty young in 1997 but I don't remember that being a thing. It certainly seems dumb, especially with so many examples of guys wrestling back to medal. When did that change?

 

[hawkeye54545]

Conservatively, Hawks by a million.

 

[Chuck C]

ironside stalls out bartlett

Depends if Angel is the ref or not.

 

[HawkAlum2002]

I know this is more about the head-to-head matchup, but I was listening to FRL this morning and they brought up a couple of things I found interesting.

These may have already been shared somewhere here but they had Iowa at 177.5 on today's scoring system (not factoring in 3-point takedowns). However, the more interesting part for me was when they said that if Kasak were wrestling in 1997, he would have gone 0-1 and not received the opportunity to wrestle back. They said that if you lost the first round, the only way you earned a wrestleback was if the guy who beat you made the semi-finals.

I was pretty young in 1997 but I don't remember that being a thing. It certainly seems dumb, especially with so many examples of guys wrestling back to medal. When did that change?

I mentioned that in a different thread since Abas lost his next match, but it wouldn't have been that way in 1997. Up until 1985 you only wrestled back if you lost to a semifinalist. 1986-1995, you wrestled back if you lost to a quarterfinalist. 1996 and on everybody gets a second chance. It's really just a repechage like they do for the Olympics in wrestling and several other sports (judo, tae kwan do, rowing). In fact Olympic rowing way back in 1996 or 2000 I think was the first time I ever heard that word.

 

[GlenHawk]

I mentioned that in a different thread since Abas lost his next match, but it wouldn't have been that way in 1997. Up until 1985 you only wrestled back if you lost to a semifinalist. 1986-1995, you wrestled back if you lost to a quarterfinalist. 1996 and on everybody gets a second chance. It's really just a repechage like they do for the Olympics in wrestling and several other sports (judo, tae kwan do, rowing). In fact Olympic rowing way back in 1996 or 2000 I think was the first time I ever heard that word.

Thank you for the explanation!

 

[horraybeer]

Frl is a bunch of morons. Pyles is scum who doesn't know SH!T.

 

[TNTwrestle]

But they wouldn't. Assume in these compare and contrast over a generation there is a time machine involved. Because what you say is true, however in my scenario it's like how many US Army Rangers would it take to beat the Mexican army at the Alamo?

View embedded media

For me? two belt feds with two men each and replacement barrels, a few thousand rounds each and 4 snipers . Get Santa Anna out there and have the snipers all take shots at the highest ranking officers available. Being that they were 200 yards or so away your average deer hunter here could probably turn the tide.

If we use the time machine the best of the modern teams win. If we take PSU and they are coached by the current staff at Iowa PSU would win, if both are in their primes now that would be interesting.

There's not as much technology involved, modern automatic weapons and sniper rifles vs the rifles of the day is not a fair fight. 1997 athletes in their prime with 2024 training is apples to apples. Navy Seals vs mid -19th century Mexican army is apples to watermelons.

I know this is more about the head-to-head matchup, but I was listening to FRL this morning and they brought up a couple of things I found interesting.

These may have already been shared somewhere here but they had Iowa at 177.5 on today's scoring system (not factoring in 3-point takedowns). However, the more interesting part for me was when they said that if Kasak were wrestling in 1997, he would have gone 0-1 and not received the opportunity to wrestle back. They said that if you lost the first round, the only way you earned a wrestleback was if the guy who beat you made the semi-finals.

I was pretty young in 1997 but I don't remember that being a thing. It certainly seems dumb, especially with so many examples of guys wrestling back to medal. When did that change?

Hawk Alum beat me to it, but I already had your quote ready when I read his post.

 

[The Vak]

I haven't listened to FRL yet but I think the Iowa team with the "adjusted record" was actually the 83 team, or maybe the 86 team, not the 97 team.

 

[manatree]

There's not as much technology involved, modern automatic weapons and sniper rifles vs the rifles of the day is not a fair fight. 1997 athletes in their prime with 2024 training is apples to apples.

If we're going to project 1997 athletes with 2024 training, shouldn't we also project 2024 athletes with 2051 training?

Rules have always been changing. Did the team score set in 1997 have an asterisk because the scoring was different than the 1986 team? Is anyone up for the challenge of going back to adjusting Iowa State's 104 points in 1969 to the 2024 rules? What about those OKSt teams from the 30s & 40s?

Asterisks are for wussies.

 

[DeangeloVickers]

Now that you see Kasak won 7 on the backside, came all the way back to take 3rd, you can edit your 149 match…..that would make it 17-15 nits……Kasak, a true freshman wrestling up a weight…crazy huh😉

Yeah, tip my cap to that kid. He didn't look like a point scorer when he wrestled in Carver, he made so.e strides. I think I'd still lean Gillis but not by much.

 

[T8KUDWN]

The changes that have been made from 1997 to 2024 are pretty significant when it comes to scoring and being able to score bonus points. Asterisk, no asterisk, whatever... but it's not apples to apples.

 

[bourbon n blues]

If we're going to project 1997 athletes with 2024 training, shouldn't we also project 2024 athletes with 2051 training?

Rules have always been changing. Did the team score set in 1997 have an asterisk because the scoring was different than the 1986 team? Is anyone up for the challenge of going back to adjusting Iowa State's 104 points in 1969 to the 2024 rules? What about those OKSt teams from the 30s & 40s?

Asterisks are for wussies.

All true, another thing , if PSU was in the 2024 tournament and Iowa 1997 also was or vice versa, no one is getting a scoring record. We would have something like the 2018 race with PSU, OSU, Iowa, Michigan, and NC State. They scored 141.5, 134.5, 97,80,80.

This year it was PSU 172.5, Cornell had 72.5, Michigan had 71, Iowa State had 68.5, Iowa had 67. 451.5 points vs 533 in 2018. Obviously two evenly matched teams at the top will prevent the other from amassing a potential all time score. And on the comparison between those two years it seems the 3-5 teams also performed better overall.

 

[MSU158]

I highly doubt these athletes are any better conditioned than Gable's teams were. Yes training/nutrition has advanced/changed, but if those athletes had access to today's training they would be just as good. I am not buying the evolution of man thing. If those guys came twenty-some years later, they would still be Champions. Winning championships is just as much mindset as it is physical, if not more. The '97 team, training with today's standards would have similar results to what the OP posted. I might argue with a couple of his assessments, but think he's more right than wrong.

This argument is so true. The key to being successful in wrestling has so very much to do with work ethic and flat out determination. A Lincoln Mac or Joe Williams would absolutely thrive under modern rules and training regimens. Its not like they didn't have the skills, fundaments and abilities that wrestlers now have. They would still weight the same as their opponents. As long as there are weight classes you would still be wrestling against an opponent of the same size.

An elite athlete in 1997 isn't innately a lesser elite athlete than the current ones. The current ones simply have had access to better training methods, techniques and nutrition. Give the die hards of yesteryear the same access and MOST would thrive.

I say this because I have had the arguments in comparing the best golfers of the past to now. If you don't think Jack Nicklaus or Bobby Jones would have still been at the top with access to all the training equipment these guys have now you are nuts. As good as they were, imagine if they had instant access to watch their swings on monitors and correct things that quickly.

Finally, the only real difference in athletes of different eras are in sports like Football and Basketball where the increased size, strength and relative speed increases in guys THAT BIG stand out. If you limited them to the same size of the guys of old, but gave them the same access to modern tech, the gap would be negligible...

One other factor that should be mentioned is population growth. The millions of additional people to choose from simply increase the amount of unicorns made even if the percentage is the same...

 

[bourbon n blues]

The changes that have been made from 1997 to 2024 are pretty significant when it comes to scoring and being able to score bonus points. Asterisk, no asterisk, whatever... but it's not apples to apples.

Again in 2018 the top 5 teams scored significantly more points than 2024. The top five averaged 106.6 with a high of 141.5 vs a low of 80. This year the top 5 averaged 90.3 points with a high of 172.5 vs a low of 67. So before the 3 point take down the scores were higher in 2018 vs 2024. Last year the top five had 431.5 so this year with the new rules the top 5 only have 20 more points. Only PSU made a dramatic jump on scoring with 35 more points.

In the years prior to 2018 and after 2023 you 426.5 in 2022, 484 in 2021 ( with Iowa beating PSU by 15.5 points , 129 to 113.5), then 456.5 in 2019. So this years top 5 teams scored 5 less than 2019, less than 2021, 25 more than 2022, 5 less than 2019, and obviously less than 2019.

So in overall scoring it doesn't seem like the changes have really mattered and all it illustrates is PSU is pretty far ahead of the rest of the pack, at least for this year. sand that's how you set a scoring record, your team is head and shoulders above the pack. When you have two very solid teams overall scoring can be up but no one is setting records.

 

[bourbon n blues]

This argument is so true. The key to being successful in wrestling has so very much to do with work ethic and flat out determination. A Lincoln Mac or Joe Williams would absolutely thrive under modern rules and training regimens. Its not like they didn't have the skills, fundaments and abilities that wrestlers now have. They would still weight the same as their opponents. As long as there are weight classes you would still be wrestling against an opponent of the same size.

An elite athlete in 1997 isn't innately a lesser elite athlete than the current ones. The current ones simply have had access to better training methods, techniques and nutrition. Give the die hards of yesteryear the same access and MOST would thrive.

I say this because I have had the arguments in comparing the best golfers of the past to now. If you don't think Jack Nicklaus or Bobby Jones would have still been at the top with access to all the training equipment these guys have now you are nuts. As good as they were, imagine if they had instant access to watch their swings on monitors and correct things that quickly.

Finally, the only real difference in athletes of different eras are in sports like Football and Basketball where the increased size, strength and relative speed increases in guys THAT BIG stand out. If you limited them to the same size of the guys of old, but gave them the same access to modern tech, the gap would be negligible...

One other factor that should be mentioned is population growth. The millions of additional people to choose from simply increase the amount of unicorns made even if the percentage is the same...

That's the thing, the older guys didn't have access so they would be at a disadvantage and that's why you can't compare eras. The modern guys win and as I laid out if PSU was as good then as they are now no one is setting a scoring record. that comes about from dominance over the field.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Yeah, tip my cap to that kid. He didn't look like a point scorer when he wrestled in Carver, he made so.e strides. I think I'd still lean Gillis but not by much.

Again, it's hard to compare eras and a dual isn't a tournament, so if we talk a scoring record we would have to have PSU run through the field without Iowa and have Iowa then run through this field without PSU. Because two all time great teams will score a lot but no one is going to get that 170 or higher level with the top two neck and neck.

 

[MSU158]

That's the thing, the older guys didn't have access so they would be at a disadvantage and that's why you can't compare eras. The modern guys win and as I laid out if PSU was as good then as they are now no one is setting a scoring record. that comes about from dominance over the field.

But, that isn't how this type of comparison works. You do it figuring all other outside influences are equal. That is the entire point of fantasy match ups. That is why people can say who is best "pound for pound". Otherwise, of course you would mainly be picking the best heavyweights many years simply because their size advantage would be too much for nearly all to overcome. So, you are essentially just comparing wrestling ability and mentality....

 

[T8KUDWN]

Again in 2018 the top 5 teams scored significantly more points than 2024. The top five averaged 106.6 with a high of 141.5 vs a low of 80. This year the top 5 averaged 90.3 points with a high of 172.5 vs a low of 67. So before the 3 point take down the scores were higher in 2018 vs 2024. Last year the top five had 431.5 so this year with the new rules the top 5 only have 20 more points. Only PSU made a dramatic jump on scoring with 35 more points.

In the years prior to 2018 and after 2023 you 426.5 in 2022, 484 in 2021 ( with Iowa beating PSU by 15.5 points , 129 to 113.5), then 456.5 in 2019. So this years top 5 teams scored 5 less than 2019, less than 2021, 25 more than 2022, 5 less than 2019, and obviously less than 2019.

So in overall scoring it doesn't seem like the changes have really mattered and all it illustrates is PSU is pretty far ahead of the rest of the pack, at least for this year. sand that's how you set a scoring record, your team is head and shoulders above the pack. When you have two very solid teams overall scoring can be up but no one is setting records.

The scoring rules 100% matters.
Like I said earlier it's not apples to apples.

 

[TNTwrestle]

If we're going to project 1997 athletes with 2024 training, shouldn't we also project 2024 athletes with 2051 training?

Rules have always been changing. Did the team score set in 1997 have an asterisk because the scoring was different than the 1986 team? Is anyone up for the challenge of going back to adjusting Iowa State's 104 points in 1969 to the 2024 rules? What about those OKSt teams from the 30s & 40s?

Asterisks are for wussies.

I never said one word about asterisks. I never mentioned points at all.
My statement was that great athletes are great athletes, no matter the era. If you gave Jim Thorpe the advantages of 2024 training techniques, I firmly believe he be as dominant today as he was in the 1930s. Certain skills require certain physical abilities, but a winner's mindset can overcome some physical deficiencies. Not all, but some. If you try to tell me Mitchell Messenbrink has God-given physical abilities better than those of Joe Williams, I'll laugh at you. Hard work and mental toughness win matches sometimes as much as proper training and drilling situations, etc. (I know, that sounded like Tom Brands, but also Dan Gable). My whole point was; given equal training techniques/opportunities, wrestlers from the '80s and '90s would be competitive with athletes from 2024.

 

[manatree]

The scoring rules 100% matters.
Like I said earlier it's not apples to apples.

What fruits and veggies would you like to use when comparing 1997 Iowa to 1986 Iowa? 1976? 1969 Iowa State? What year did they start giving placement points to the top eight instead of the top six?

 

[T8KUDWN]

What fruits and veggies would you like to use when comparing 1997 Iowa to 1986 Iowa? 1976? 1969 Iowa State? What year did they start giving placement points to the top eight instead of the top six?

So you are saying the scoring rules do matter.

 

[manatree]

So you are saying the scoring rules do matter.

I'm saying that the rules, scoring and otherwise, have always been changing. It does not change the fact (or lessen the achievement of) of Penn State breaking the record in 2004. Or Iowa in 1997. Or Iowa in 1986. Or any other time the record was broken since the 1920s. Are you going to go back and adjust for the increase in the number of weights? The increase in the size of the brackets? Was the 1997 record any less of a record even though there were ten weights as opposed to only eight back in the good old days? Or that they scored the top eight instead of top six in past years? At one time they only scored top three I think at one time the loser of the finals did not automatically get second place. Instead they had to wrestle one of the other semifinalists to determine 2nd and 3rd. Perhaps that is the origin of the term wrestle backs.

Here's a listing of historical brackets. Perhaps someone else can find a listing of all of the rule changes. Break out your slide rule, pocket abacus and start running numbers.

https://www.wrestlingstats.com/ncaa/pdf/brackets/

 

[MSU158]

I'm saying that the rules, scoring and otherwise, have always been changing. It does not change the fact (or lessen the achievement of) of Penn State breaking the record in 2004. Or Iowa in 1997. Or Iowa in 1986. Or any other time the record was broken since the 1920s. Are you going to go back and adjust for the increase in the number of weights? The increase in the size of the brackets? Was the 1997 record any less of a record even though there were ten weights as opposed to only eight back in the good old days? Or that they scored the top eight instead of top six in past years? At one time they only scored top three I think at one time the loser of the finals did not automatically get second place. Instead they had to wrestle one of the other semifinalists to determine 2nd and 3rd. Perhaps that is the origin of the term wrestle backs.

That is why baseball discusses asterisks for certain records. If you have more games to hit more home runs, of course the record isn't the same. If you only have to get 2 takedowns an escape and riding time to get a MD, that is absolutely different than needing 3 takedowns an escape and riding time when that is essentially impossible to happen without giving the opponent an escape point...

With that said, PSU was so good this year, they deserve all the credit in the world for breaking the record. But, that doesn't mean the rule changes didn't help them do it...

 

[T8KUDWN]

I'm saying that the rules, scoring and otherwise, have always been changing. It does not change the fact (or lessen the achievement of) of Penn State breaking the record in 2004. Or Iowa in 1997. Or Iowa in 1986. Or any other time the record was broken since the 1920s. Are you going to go back and adjust for the increase in the number of weights? The increase in the size of the brackets? Was the 1997 record any less of a record even though there were ten weights as opposed to only eight back in the good old days? Or that they scored the top eight instead of top six in past years? At one time they only scored top three I think at one time the loser of the finals did not automatically get second place. Instead they had to wrestle one of the other semifinalists to determine 2nd and 3rd. Perhaps that is the origin of the term wrestle backs.

Glad you answered my question, scoring rules matter.
Duh, of course that's where the term wrestle backs comes from.

 

[manatree]

That is why baseball discusses asterisks for certain records. If you have more games to hit more home runs, of course the record isn't the same. If you only have to get 2 takedowns an escape and riding time to get a MD, that is absolutely different than needing 3 takedowns an escape and riding time when that is essentially impossible to happen without giving the opponent an escape point...

With that said, PSU was so good this year, they deserve all the credit in the world for breaking the record. But, that doesn't mean the rule changes didn't help them do it...

And the rule changes helped the 1997, 1986, etc. teams break the record as well.

What's next, adjusting for the change in drag coefficient when teams moved away from horsehair mats?

 

[bourbon n blues]

And the rule changes helped the 1997, 1986, etc. teams break the record as well.

What's next, adjusting for the change in drag coefficient when teams moved away from horsehair mats?

True.

 

[MSU158]

And the rule changes helped the 1997, 1986, etc. teams break the record as well.

What's next, adjusting for the change in drag coefficient when teams moved away from horsehair mats?

Incredibly disingenuous argument. When a SUBSTANTIAL rule change occurs it is completely fair to point out how it affects records. This is why many sports historians now say "modern era" records or only go back to a certain time frame.

I would say the same thing if you compared 1997 or 1986 to prior years that had rule sets that would considerably change the amount they scored. If they shattered the record I wouldn't care that much but, in the case of PSU, they broke the record by 2.5 points. It is fair to make an argument that the new rules helped them get at least the 3 points necessary to surpass 170. Mind you, I am not even arguing that they don't deserve the record. I am simply pointing out that the argument itself has considerably more merit than you are allowing...