Iowa has to reevaluate what it takes to peak properly.

[HoundedHawk]

There has been a lot of talking about needing a phenom or two, or not being strong enough, etc. However, I think the big question is: Why are we not peaking with what we have?

The last five years has not yielded a team truly peaking.

Of course, we didn't win any team titles, but it's also startling that in those 5 years we only had one 2nd place finish.

Our last five finishes were 3,3,4,4,2. Are those finishes, as a whole, show we are peaking at nationals? NO.

And take a look at this year. Not a single wrestler won a title or even the consolations. Not one single first place, and not one single third place. We're not even winning in the loser's bracket.

Only two out of our ten (Clark & Gilman) exceeded their seeds.

We are NOT peaking.

I can't imagine the Brands not giving it there all, working as hard as possible, but what has been proven for half a decade is that what they're doing is not yielding peaking for nationals.

I don't know the answer. But sometimes people need to work smarter, rather than harder.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

This season only to keep control of the discussion-
Is it possible that most of the wrestlers did wrestle to their capabilities?
Not winning the title does not equate to not peaking.

If tOSU crapped their pants Fri/Sat and IA won the team title with about the same placements they have now would you make a thread saying that the champs didn't peak properly?

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by PapaBearSLIM:
This season only to keep control of the discussion-
Is it possible that most of the wrestlers did wrestle to their capabilities?
Not winning the title does not equate to not peaking.

If tOSU crapped their pants Fri/Sat and IA won the team title with about the same placements they have now would you make a thread saying that the champs didn't peak properly?

I don't know if I would have made a thread about it or not. But that doesn't change the fact that we again underperformed, It doesn't change the fact we didn't meet our ranking as a team. It doesn't change the fact only 2/10 wrestlers exceeded seeds, with the rest probably all going below. And it certainly doesn't change the fact we haven't peaked at nationals for 5 years.








This post was edited on 3/24 4:45 PM by HoundedHawk

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Mr. Askren, seeding has nothing to do with peaking.
I ask again is it possible that they mostly didn't under perform and the majority of the IA wrestlers placed just about where they stack up against the rest of the nation at their respective weights? Collectively this adds up to a 2nd place finish which is disappointing to a lot of fans but does that equate to not peaking?

You are listing team finishes to support your non peaking argument which is almost as bad as Askren's seeding/peaking scientific study. 1 or 2 wrestlers over performing or under performing can dramatically change team placement but does not tell you whether the other 8 or 9 guys "peaked" properly or not. If you believe in peaking it needs to be examined on an individual basis.

 

[Jackhawk87]

Who wasn't wrestling at or near the best they did all year??

Gilman - close to peaking. Beat Dance and Garrett. Got caught against Moisey. Got countered against Waters.
Clark - peaking.
Jeva - peaking. Got beat by 2 AAs as already discussed. Destroyed Dardanes.
Sorensen - close to peaking
Kelly - ?
Moore - hurt
Evans - Close to peaking. Beat Storley again. Came close against Brown and Kokesh. Doesn't seem to wrestle his best on the back side.
Brooks - Close to peaking. Beat Abounder. Got beat by the #1 and #3 seeds.
Burak - Close to peaking. Just can't get by the guys ahead of him
Telford - Close to peaking. Upset by an athletic heavy. Backs (were they really back points??) killed him. Coin flip with a few top heavies. Just didn't fall his way at Nationals.

Maybe you have a point the last few years, but not so sure about this year.

 

[HIWILLE]

Originally posted by PapaBearSLIM:
This season only to keep control of the discussion-
Is it possible that most of the wrestlers did wrestle to their capabilities?
Not winning the title does not equate to not peaking.

If tOSU crapped their pants Fri/Sat and IA won the team title with about the same placements they have now would you make a thread saying that the champs didn't peak properly?

Well SLIM you could help us out by having a nice talk with White & Bey and sending them our way

They would not regret it and close to there home

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by PapaBearSLIM:
Mr. Askren, seeding has nothing to do with peaking.
I ask again is it possible that they mostly didn't under perform and the majority of the IA wrestlers placed just about where they stack up against the rest of the nation at their respective weights? Collectively this adds up to a 2nd place finish which is disappointing to a lot of fans but does that equate to not peaking?

You are listing team finishes to support your non peaking argument which is almost as bad as Askren's seeding/peaking scientific study. 1 or 2 wrestlers over performing or under performing can dramatically change team placement but does not tell you whether the other 8 or 9 guys "peaked" properly or not. If you believe in peaking it needs to be examined on an individual basis.

Don't call me "Mr. Askren". I've been to the last 21 nationals and rooting for Iowa all the way.

Yes, it's possible they didn't under perform, but that the seedings were in accurate (especially with Dwieza), but on an individual basis they did not peak on average.

I already stated that Gilman and Clark did better.

Did Dwieza peak? Hard to say "Yes", imo.

Did Sorenson peak? Not really. Lost two matches. Looked better at Midlands, imo.

Did Kelly peak? Absolutely not.

Did Moore peak? His peak would have just been a mole hill anyway, But last year when healthy he absolutely tanked, and the year before that too, TANKS NO PEAK.

Did Sammy peak? No. Got beat at B1Gs in a match he shouldn't. IMO, was more energetic in the beginning of the year. Perhaps an injury didn't allow him to peak.

Did Evans peak? No. 3-3 at nationals for the third straight year. Didn't make the finals at B1Gs this year.

Did Burak peak? No. Looked better earlier in the year, imo.

Did Telford peak? LOL, NO. Lost to a man who had never scored on him before, and then lost to WI who had beat twice before.

 

[sloehawk]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
There has been a lot of talking about needing a phenom or two, or not being strong enough, etc. However, I think the big question is: Why are we not peaking with what we have?

The last five years has not yielded a team truly peaking.

Of course, we didn't win any team titles, but it's also startling that in those 5 years we only had one 2nd place finish.

Our last five finishes were 3,3,4,4,2. Are those finishes, as a whole, show we are peaking at nationals? NO.

And take a look at this year. Not a single wrestler won a title or even the consolations. Not one single first place, and not one single third place. We're not even winning in the loser's bracket.

Only two out of our ten (Clark & Gilman) exceeded their seeds.

We are NOT peaking.

I can't imagine the Brands not giving it there all, working as hard as possible, but what has been proven for half a decade is that what they're doing is not yielding peaking for nationals.

I don't know the answer. But sometimes people need to work smarter, rather than harder.

I felt we became more tentative as a team as the year went along. When you only have 2 of 10 exceed their seedings, certainly that isn't what you hope for when the tournament starts. We've had some major underachievement in the last 5 years relative to Nationals expectations (and a few injuries as well).

I don't about the peaking or not peaking, but it hasn't been good overall, that's for sure. When we're not in the "real" conversation on the Final Day, we're not wrestling well, period.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by sloehawk:

I don't about the peaking or not peaking, but it hasn't been good overall, that's for sure. When we're not in the "real" conversation on the Final Day, we're not wrestling well, period.

We are in the conversation about everything during the season. Then the last day . . . nothing. NOT peaking.

 

[BELDEEN]

The "conversation" is subjective. Collegiate programs do not wrestling enough tournaments to effectively seed the NCAA's. Seeds are often based on dual matches and that is whole different animal.

No excuses, we under performed and tOSU wrestled very well. Brands has been saying the same message all year. Score more points. 1st period points.

IMO we are not going win titles on our feet playing the takedown game. Defenses are better. Everyone's conditioning is better. Also when you can win 80-90% matches wrestling like Tsirstis many kids are going to shift to that style. The only way we're going to win more titles is getting a takedown and turning guys over. Need to get stronger. Need to work on our mat wrestling.

 

[redghost1974]

Looking better in the beginning of the season doesn't tell the whole story if they peaked or not. The beginning of the season results should be taken with a grain of salt, our competition may not be in shape, freshmen in development, ect. I agree our B1G results were meh, and our first round at nationals was horrible. The duals before the B1G's looked horrible. If our guys had been on their offense and not wasted the whole first period, we would be singing a different tune.

We lost the title in the first round IMHO, working through that many matches on the backside is darn tough. Maybe not peaking is wrestling too tight and not opening up the offense.