Parco
- Thread starter GableBeer
- Start date
Still not seeing Drake to 33 as an advantage to him or the team. He doesn’t seem big for 125, and just had an amazing year. I’d rather have him solidify 125 and hawks find a 33.
This is very salty and possibly Big Cass in the mix also
Normally I agree with you but in this case I have to side with Spooner. We need guys at every weight that can AA
Im not sure this would be the case. If Cali goes 157 then PK will be our guy at 165. If PK gets the spot at 165 I really like him to AA
Hope you're right. PK is so damn tough.
More worried that Cali is going to pay a huge price going to 157. Higher risk of injury, gas tank issues. He's a finalist at 165.
It isn't at most schools. It definitely is at Iowa.
Anthony sucked down hard to get to 149. I doubt he's small for 157. He's probably more of a 165 towards the end of his college tenure (if he makes it).
Disagree...sort of. He's good sized due this height. He would need to add muscle to be a high end 133. That hasn't been our forte in recent years.
Again, only ONE team has EVER had 10 AA's. When the weakest spot on your team is a 12-16th ranked guy, your team is almost guaranteed to have less "holes" in their line-up than every other team in DI. Hell, until this past season, even PSU has consistently had 1-3 holes in their lineup much worse off than that.
If the team was full of those type of guys, then YES, it would be a problem. But, calling that the hole in the line-up is too much of a "spoiled" fan mentality when you actually look at the make-up of all the teams across DI...
It’ll be interesting if he goes up. I heard this smoke at nationals too. If he’s really wanting to go up the cut must stink. He loses some leverage with his height at 133 but maybe he adds some finishing power and gains to his good gas tank being on full feed with some added muscle.
Agreed. If you don't AA in six attempts, you were a hole in the lineup of a team going for a championship.
YES I KNOW,
The point is we need to focus on an AA at every weight and hope we get 6-10 each and every year. The gap will widen from the top 5 teams and the rest because of this NIL BS so our focus needs be higher otherwise I agree with you.
I want our guys to have the chance to become AA’s just as bad as the rest but competition for the spot at each weight is needed.
We aren't looking at the make-up of all teams across D1. We're talking about Iowa. And that is a hole at Iowa or a PSU.
There's nothing spoiled about it. Iowa is an elite program and with that comes high expectations. If a weight falls short of an AA it's failure on some level, be it coaching, performance, talent, etc.
It's such a ridiculously narrow-minded view. Calling a 12-16th ranked guy a "hole" when he is already the worst guy in the line-up is laughable. Hell, in many years you don't even qualify all 10 guys. When your worst guy on the team is most likely going to win multiple matches, even using the word "hole" is sad and misses the entire point.
A "hole" is a guy that would struggle to qualify and most likely would go 0-2. Hell, I would even agree that it works for a guy that is outside the top 20.
Since this is a hole at "Iowa", please tell me how many times Iowa has had all 10 guys ranked in the top 8? The results may surprise you if you think "Iowa" just always has 10 guys that should AA. Even when Gable was at his apex, it simply wasn't the norm...
How many AA's did Iowa average under Gable? How many at PSU under Sanderson? Are you telling me Gable failed 1/3 of the time or more? Sanderson?
Look, I get wanting an AA type guy at every weight. But, I don't care who the team is, that has never been realistic. Like I said, even PSU never really had that until just this past season. Even some of their best teams had as many as 3 "holes" that were even less productive.
We may be arguing the semantics of the word when it is placed where it is, but I just buck hard against calling a 12-16 type guy a hole when he is arguably the "worst" guy on the team. To me, no matter who the team is, you are set up pretty damn well if that is the case...In plenty of years, those 2-5 points he scores could very well make the difference at NCAA"s....
You mean the years when Gable averaged 8 Big Ten champs a year?
Kennedy is a hole until proven otherwise. It's all about perspective and expectations. He was a top ten recruit that hasn't produced in that matter at all. And it doesn't look like he will.
Yeah. but we're not talking about "in plenty of years." This year. with Penn State as the behemoths - Kennedy is a hole. We've seen his production. So he's not even an up-coming guy. (think Kale Peterson at 133).
No. You're looking at this from a different point of view as the rest of us.
At Angelo’s commitment day, Flo interviewed him and told the coaches he could go 149-165, so I think 157 is ideal. Last year he made the big cut to 149, but Rathjen won the spot at SS. He looked very sucked down. He would probably be a little small at 165, but at least wouldn’t have to cut weight. Like I said, if beats PK out for 165, PK may want to consider transferring for his senior year.
Yep, please go back and figure out those NCAA statistics. Tell me how man AA's he averaged and how many were actually top 8 going into NCAA's. Mind you, this was when Gable had arguably the most dominant dynasty in all of sports going. I think you will be rather surprised to see how few times it actually happened...
Please tell me what other view there is to look at a 10 man roster and call the guy that is 12-16 a glaring "hole" in the line-up, as if you have had a bunch of teams EVER when all 10 are better than that....
It's a lineup hole. A spot where they were not strong. It doesn't mean the team or the coach sucks.
The expectations of an Iowa starter is to be an AA. Falling short of that is a disappointment and yes a hole in the lineup.
There is a HUGE difference between saying you need all 10 guys to be true AA contenders to compete with PSU and calling a 12-16 type guy a glaring "hole".
To me, a hole is a guy that has no chance to beat a guy at NCAA's. A hole means zero production. It is exceptionally hard to win 2 matches or more at NCAA's and calling that person a hole doesn't sit well with me...
Edited to add: As a former wrestler, I guess I bristle hard and take it a bit personally when that term is used. Hole is a just a word I hate to see used to describe any wrestler. But, I get it when the guy can't win any meaningful matches. However, it is so ridiculously hard to win multiple matches at that tournament and I just can't let that word go, no matter the context...
Last edited:
Admittedly, a lot of my differences in opinions on here stem from looking at it from a wrestler/coach point of view. I bristle a bit when the fan perspective simply expects things, because that is what they believe should happen. The same is true on here when describing a wrestler that is still in the top 5% of every wrestler in his weight class.
Shows the cut is harder than we think. That’s probably why he doesn’t have much muscle.
If Crookham goes up then 33 may just be an easier weight to win. It worked wonders for Vito to go up to 33. The only issue is the hole at 25 would be bigger then the hole we have right now at 33.
Seems like Parco likely stays at 49.
Rathje probably has to try to make 41 then? What is consensus on Block vs Rathje if both healthy and can get to 141?
Rathje probably has to try to make 41 then? What is consensus on Block vs Rathje if both healthy and can get to 141?
Read what I wrote again. I wasn’t just talking starters. I am literally talking every kid at his weight in DI. On top of that, you could probably then add every other kid wrestling in the other college divisions and you could then probably push him into the top 1 or 2%…
No, Anthony was there at Angelo’s commitment day, so flo interviewed him also since they knew he had committed to Iowa.
I apologize for all the quotes, and some being from other threads. I've been piling them up when I didn't have time to reply and in a few cases when I wasn't sure I should, so If I can remember the context for all, here goes;
It was Alex and Kennedy, not Kemerer that was being discussed, and that changes your numbers considerably. I usually agree with most of what you say, but this time not so much. You're Just like my wife (no pics) in that you can never let it go. Not necessarily a bad trait, but it sure makes for some long threads when you go up against the wrong people.
How about Traylor, because he'll always be dragged behind Bael, and he was willing to pack up his life and leave his alma-mater (much like Bael).
I don't remember this in context, or how I wanted to reply, but I think I agree with it. Right now the biggest thing about TnT that I'd support is their blind loyalty. I think we missed out on the only feasible/available replacement though (for now).
Now THAT'S marketing! We do have a janitor though.
The more I think about it, this doesn't even deserve a reply. It could land another person on the ignore list though.
AAs during Gable's years as Head Coach; 5, 6, 6, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8, 6, 5, 4, 6, 9, 9, 7, 6, 9, 7, 8. I can't tell you how many were ranked Top 8, but that's how many finished AA. A few of those years there were only 6 AAs per weight. There were a few bad years in there, and injuries contributed to some of those years, but he pretty consistently had 7 - 9 AAs, and most Iowa fans considered the rest as "holes" in the line-up, even if we loved the guys filling them.
Last edited:
why? In all honesty what has PK done for anyone to think all of a sudden he is going to figure it out when it matters?
If we all just give you a participation trophy will you leave???
Thank you for doing the research. So, even being arguably the most dominant HC over a 21 year run, he still “only” averaged just over 7 AA’s per year. Which actually is remarkable, but only furthers my point how ridiculous it is to say you should have a guy at that level at every weight. It just isn’t realistic.
What is realistic is having 3 or 4 Finalist types, 2-3 mid range AA types, 1 or 2 fringe AA types and a couple 12-16 types. 4 finalists and 3 other AA’s wins it most years and if you had a makeup like the one above, you can have a very good chance to score at every weight and maybe even get a luck draw with upsets or injuries and that 12-16 type could end up AAing to cover for one of the expected falling short.
Simply put, I took umbrage with the word “hole”. No matter how you stretch the definition, I just don’t see any way I personally can use it for a guy like that. But, I understand, even if I disagree, how a pure and solely fan perspective can see it that way.
He held his own in a very tough 174 class, he was not big or strong enough for the weight. I think he is an AA at 165
