Bring home the gold Metcalf!!!

[WWDMHawkeye]

And against the world #1, no less. This Chinese guy could prove to be his toughest match of the tournament, at least from a physically punishing standpoint, however. I doubt he runs into anyone that physical, huge, and strong the rest of the way. That Chinese guy was for real -- pushed Brent around, got to his legs, and was a whisker from the winning takedown at the end.

 

[Knight563]

@HWC_wrestling: No rest for Metcalf.... Will have reigning World Champion and #1 ranked wrestler in the world from Iran next round

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

The good news is that it's all downhill from here if he gets by Mohammadi. NOW'S THE TIME, BRENT!

 

[Knight563]

The good news is that it's all downhill from here if he gets by Mohammadi. NOW'S THE TIME, BRENT!

What's our history with the Iranian?

 

[TyWDenton]

@HWC_wrestling: No rest for Metcalf.... Will have reigning World Champion and #1 ranked wrestler in the world from Iran next round

Any idea on a time????

 

[hwkwrestlingaddiction]

Any idea on a time????

3:27 is what I was told

 

[Knight563]

@IAwrestle: 5-4 will be the final score. Metcalf ALMOST had the leg lace. #VegasWorlds2015

A lot of bad words being yelled in my head right now!!! Love Metcalf and he knows he's right there for 2016!

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

What's our history with the Iranian?

I'm not aware that they've met before. Maybe someone else knows if they have. Frustrating match to watch.

 

[Knight563]

Mohammadi (Iran) beats Metcalf, 5-4, at 65 kg. Now, Metcalf needs Mohammadi to reach finals to enter repechage and chance for bronze.

 

[TarpHawk]

Not to change the subject, but 31 guys in the lower half of the bracket and 16 guys in the top? And instead of double elimination, you only stay in if the guy who beats you makes the finals? In a 47-man bracket? With no seeds? I get that the most important place is first, but should everything below that really be as arbitrary as rock-paper-scissors? (Don't even get me started on the stupidity of having two bronze medals.) I guess it's all about first, and I suppose I'm okay with that if I simply block out the innate unfairness of how it works for everyone else.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Spot on, Tarp. It's a ridiculous system. Then, again, what else would you expect from this governing body? They've managed to almost kill the sport recently with their absurd rules. Fortunately, most of those got abolished to restore freestyle to something worth watching. To claim that the international wrestling governing body is completely inept is a massive understatement. Logic would dictate you'd seed the World Championships and Olympics based on international rankings, possibly factoring in past placement at Worlds/Olympics, etc., but that's the problem. Logic and international wrestling don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

 

[Squarehat]

Agree with you Tarp.

 

[Herkuleez5]

Spot on, Tarp. It's a ridiculous system. Then, again, what else would you expect from this governing body? They've managed to almost kill the sport recently with their absurd rules. Fortunately, most of those got abolished to restore freestyle to something worth watching. To claim that the international wrestling governing body is completely inept is a massive understatement. Logic would dictate you'd seed the World Championships and Olympics based on international rankings, possibly factoring in past placement at Worlds/Olympics, etc., but that's the problem. Logic and international wrestling don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

I also agree that it is screwed up how some of these brackets end up and what side of the bracket you are on but I am not sure how you seed it either. A lot of the US wrestlers do not compete in some of the big tournaments overseas so who is to say who is better? I'm not saying it is a bad idea to seed a tournament but I have a feeling our guys would not get a fair shake. Without competition against the elite of the world it would be tough. Be great if all of the best traveled to the same 4-6 tournaments every year and then you would have a better idea.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

No system will be perfect -- heck, the NCAA brackets always have some controversy. That said, we can all agree that Gilman taking on Garrett in the first round, Clark taking on Brewer in the first round, Sorensen and Tsirtsis in the first round, etc., would be absolutely nuts -- and would never happen.

USA guys are getting around to more international tournaments these days. If more exposure internationally were required to make the rankings, I'm sure our guys would make it to the events where they needed to prove themselves. Sure, there would be some potential for corruption. There's already plenty of that, anyway. I still think some effort to create a reasonable bracket would be better than just a random draw. Some checks and balances could be put in place to minimize the influence of corruption on the rankings/seeds for Worlds and the Olympics. There would always be some controversy, but I bet the system would be much better than what we have now.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Seeding by rankings opens the door for more corruption. I would prefer seperation criteria for past World/Olympic placements only.

 

[Herkuleez5]

I agree that those first round matchups at the NCAA's would never happen but I also thought Brewer, although hurt, was a nightmare for the guys that had to face him on that side of the bracket. Those guys had to be asking themselves WTF? I agree with you WWDM that something needs done beside blinds draws because that is not fair to the best in the world if the top 4 face each other on the same side of the bracket.

I like the idea of PBS but my one question to that would be how far do you look back? If I was a world champion 2 years ago but I have not had any wins over top talent since do I get to use that for criteria? When we are dealing with the world it becomes so tough.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

I agree that those first round matchups at the NCAA's would never happen but I also thought Brewer, although hurt, was a nightmare for the guys that had to face him on that side of the bracket. Those guys had to be asking themselves WTF? I agree with you WWDM that something needs done beside blinds draws because that is not fair to the best in the world if the top 4 face each other on the same side of the bracket.

I like the idea of PBS but my one question to that would be how far do you look back? If I was a world champion 2 years ago but I have not had any wins over top talent since do I get to use that for criteria? When we are dealing with the world it becomes so tough.

Use a point system with less points the further you go back. For example for last year (2014) gold=6, silver=4, bronze=2 and lose a point for every year you go back so for 2013 gold=5, silver=3, bronze=1. Points not accumulative so you only get points for 1 placement. Actual point values could be different (more, less or even extra for Olympic placements) but you get the idea. The Fargo Junior tournament uses a seperation criteria similar to this.

 

[Herkuleez5]

Use a point system with less points the further you go back. For example for last year (2014) gold=6, silver=4, bronze=2 and lose a point for every year you go back so for 2013 gold=5, silver=3, bronze=1. Points not accumulative so you only get points for 1 placement. Actual point values could be different (more, less or even extra for Olympic placements) but you get the idea. The Fargo Junior tournament uses a seperation criteria similar to this.

Liking where you are going with that Papa Bear

 

[lenoxhawks]

The obvious and easy solution is to make all tournaments double elimination and seed each one. The double elimination will allow for more head to head matchups and easier future seeding. Seeds based on head to head and past years results.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

I like your idea, too, Papa. This was the kind of system I was getting at but didn't describe very well. Some kind of a point system based on previous performance in international tournaments. It would certainly be easier said than done, but I have to believe the international wrestling community can do better than the current system, or lack thereof.