Sadly, too many wrestlers, fans don't know much history of their sport

TomM · February 22, 2015, 09:47:27 PM

Sadly, too many wrestlers, fans don't know much history of their sport
http://www.examiner.com/article/sadly-too-many-wrestlers-fans-don-t-know-much-history-of-their-sport

Someday, you'll have to defend Kyle Dake, or David Taylor, or Cael Sanderson.

No, not in a street fight -- I'm sure these guys can more than handle themselves that way -- but in a future discussion of all-time great amateur wrestlers.

You laugh, but... imagine having to make a case for Dan Gable vs. some untested high school phenom. A decade ago, this was the topic of discussion on an unofficial state wrestling forum -- "Who'd win, Gable or The Kid?" And, in the thread, the 1972 Olympic gold medalist and near-perfect wrestler at Iowa State was getting trounced by The Kid in a mythical match-up. (I'm not naming the young wrestler, because his identity isn't that important to the point of the story... and he had nothing to do with the online discussion.)

Now, it's possible the folks weighing in on Gable vs. The Kid were joking around, picturing a then 50-something, "I've had my hips replaced" Gable going up against some 18-year-old stud on the mat. There are two more likely explanations: 1. Fans have a lack of knowledge and appreciation of all-time greats or 2. Fans think any current wrestler would beat even the greatest grapplers of the past.

This subject came to mind recently after following an online discussion on Twitter between two individuals connected with a major college wrestling program. One mentioned the name of a long-dead wrestler who many historians would consider to be one of the all-time best amateur wrestlers of the pre-World War II era. In the conversation, it appeared that neither guy had any clue about the greatness of the all-time great, with one questioning how you could even compare old-school grapplers to today's best.

That's a valid issue. After all, wrestlers of 40, 50 or 75 years ago competed in far fewer matches in their college careers than collegians of today or ten years ago. (Dan Hodge, three-time NCAA champ for University of Oklahoma in the mid-1950s, was 46-0 in college; Cael Sanderson, 159-0 at Iowa State from 1998-2002.) Today's athletes benefit from better strength training, smarter workouts, more scientific nutrition. Yet, to dismiss the accomplishments of previous-generation college matmen is short-sighted.

This short-sightedness may have been a factor when the NCAA asked wrestling fans to name the all-time great college wrestlers to celebrate the 75th anniversary of its mat championships in 2005. Of the fifteen who made the list, only three competed before 1970: Gable, Hodge, and Yojiro Uetake, three-time Oklahoma State superstar of the mid 1960s. In an October 2005 InterMat article about the NCAA 75th Anniversary Team, I wrote that it was possible that voters only selected individuals they had seen in action -- either in person, on TV, or in online videos. (It's hard enough to find college-era action footage of Hodge or Gable on YouTube; next to impossible to see past greats such as Bill Koll or Stanley Henson online.)

There are a handful of old-star mat stars who seem to transcend time, earning a place of respect even among young wrestlers and fans. Dan Hodge and the late Doug Blubaugh immediately come to mind... perhaps because they had remained connected to the sport via appearances at wrestling camps and tournaments.

Wrestlers and fans use the phrase "oldest and great sport" to describe the activity they love. Yet, too many of them demonstrate an ignorance of the individuals that made the sport so great... and laid a foundation for today's coaches and competitors. Some day, today's greats will be dismissed with comments such as, "His opponents were weak." You will know otherwise, and you will have to defend Dake, David and Cael against this ignorance. Sadly, there aren't many around to put in a good word for Bill Koll or Stan Henson or their brothers of decades ago.

Want to know more? To learn more about some all-time greats, check out websites for Cael Sanderson, Dan Gable and Dan Hodge. For a historical perspective, check out InterMatWrestle.com's "NCAA 75th Anniversary Team: Did the best men win?" and other InterMat Rewind historical features.

The season may be over... but there's still news! Keep up with all the post-season awards, coach hirings, firings and retirings, new programs and other developments year round... by clicking the "subscribe" button at the top of the page to make sure you don't miss a single article from College Wrestling Examiner, winner of Amateur Wrestling News' Dellinger Award as wrestling writer of 2011. It's absolutely FREE!

Resources

College Wrestling 101: Links to College Wrestling Examiner articles answering basic questions about wrestling, including rules, scoring, uniforms, more

Follow College Wrestling Examiner Mark Palmer on Twitter

MarkK · February 23, 2015, 08:31:21 AM

I agree,but it is understandable. Almost all sports except maybe football and baseball have this problem. What is hard for me is how many fans, myself included sometimes, can't figure out what the implications of matches in a tournament mean. Most I get and almost all I will make myself understand before the night is over. However even at regionals I have to explain to parents about why their child might have a wrestleback and we have to wait and see the outcome of another match. They've been around the sport for a while. It just can be confusing. Then there is mat assignments that obviously and thankfully are assigned by next available mats, but it is not easy for casual fans or even die hards to follow. then there are the points awarded for pins or advancements, or place and trying to figure if your team has a shot still. To me it's not that difficult but I see a lot of people and it may as well be Cricket. They don't get it. They get the fact that their Joe Grandson is wrestling and he has the goal of winning. That's about it. What constitutes points. When do back points accrue, why does he have to have the guy start on top or why is he called for stalling when he is 6 points ahead and the other guy earned none of those points. He ought to have earned the right to send in the second string. I'm not complaining, I do see possible solutions. It would be great if teams would inform their parents more on the finer points of wrestling and tournaments, etc.

One of the hardest things I saw this year was when a mom showed up to watch at regionals and she was upset that her child had to wrestle in a weight that was not their natural weight and hadn't wrestled at because they were bumped by a superior wrestler who was seeking his opportunity. To watch mom question the other wrestler as to why this happened it was awkward. Sure the son probably should have told mom before she got to the meet. She wasn't happy. I think she understood, but those simple instances of not understanding what is the nature of the sport give it a poor light and those who are casual fans rarely become lifelong fans.

Do any teams you know of have great support materials for parents to give them a heads up on wrestling protocol, and scoring, and expectations, weight control, etc.? Maybe I'm off on that but I hear a lot of crazy comments sitting in the stands and realize that there are a lot of misinformed but well intentioned fans.

Handles II · February 23, 2015, 10:22:41 AM

MarkK
To your point about the mom and her kid. I explain it in a the realm of a different sport. Ie football the coach moves her kid from full back to tight end, or from receiver to defensive back. Baseball from 3rd base to left field. Generally people have an easier time understanding that their son got beat out, or moved in a dual meet situation if you explain it in terms of the easy sports.

MarkK · February 23, 2015, 01:23:42 PM

I understand that Handles and agree. This was regional though and not a dual meet. I think she eventually got it. Not before she had to ask the other wrestler though

farmerbk · February 23, 2015, 04:10:10 PM

I always have this type of discussion with my dad about our high school. Would the state runner up at 171 that I knew beat the state champ at 167 that he knew? And other such hypothetical scenarios. Most of the time we have "our" guys and neither can convince the other of a winner. But the other day I sent him a link of some old wrestling involving guys from our school and I made the point that wrestling, as a sport, advances through the years. He agreed and looking at the particular match it didn't look as impressive as he remembered. That being said, it's all about context. Who was more dominant in their era is a more accurate measure of how good a wrestler was. An analogy would be the '67 packers taking on the 2010 packers. I don't think anyone would argue it would be a slaughter in favor of the modern team. The nutrition, training and scheming are so far advanced it wouldn't be fair. But the '67 packers are still revered as the better team, in context. It's not as blatant in wrestling, and someone like gable might transcend his era but in reality of a very good wrestler of today would wrestle a very good wrestler of 40 years ago, most of the time the modern wrestler would win-and that's a testament to what some of the greats did to advance the sport. But it doesn't mean the modern wrestler was historically better. Just my .02.

yaknowwhatimean? · February 23, 2015, 04:22:50 PM

I believe the topic was history of the sport, not rules. Does it really matter if a current wrestler has no clue who Verne Gagne was before the sleeper hold? Or after for that matter? No. The fact that they are wrestling should be enough. It is hard enough to get kids out for the sport to begin with, but when they do, we decide they need to know the history as well or get called out on the forum for not knowing who some dude was 30 years before they were born? Lets just be happy that kids are still choosing wrestling in this day and age of screens and pussification. I myself love the history of wrestling, but if I didn't would that make me less of a wrestler? i know plenty of football players today who have no idea who the best RB ever was (Jim Brown for those of you who don't know). And when they ask who that is, I have them look it up. That's how you teach history of the sport.

hammer · February 23, 2015, 11:27:13 PM

I have to agree with youknow. I don't think a wrestler has to know the past greats and what they did to become a good wrestler today. I am also a history junkie but that did not mean I was going to be a good wrestler. Most of today's kids when talking football or baseball have a very little grasp on the greats of the 80's and 90's that I do but they still are good football and baseball players.

Most kids that are into wrestling will if instructed to look up a great of the past and they will enjoy those clips on youtube or such. Just have to give them name and they will look it up. I laughed when I told a teenager to look up Kurt Angle. He asked why would he, Angle is a pro wrestler and nothing to do with amateur. I just told to look him up under amateur wrestling. He was totally amazed with the results he got. The kid then asked if he was the best of all time. I laughed and gave him about 10 more names and boy that kid got hooked on the history of wrestling. Some of the other kids, well not so much but it is fun when a younger wrestler gets hooked on history of wrestling.

yaknowwhatimean? · February 23, 2015, 11:57:38 PM

That's what I'm talking about Hammer. If nobody tells todays youth of the past, how will they figure it out? Awesome post.

andrewn5 · February 25, 2015, 12:34:45 AM

Quote from: farmerbk on February 23, 2015, 04:10:10 PM
I always have this type of discussion with my dad about our high school. Would the state runner up at 171 that I knew beat the state champ at 167 that he knew? And other such hypothetical scenarios. Most of the time we have "our" guys and neither can convince the other of a winner. But the other day I sent him a link of some old wrestling involving guys from our school and I made the point that wrestling, as a sport, advances through the years. He agreed and looking at the particular match it didn't look as impressive as he remembered. That being said, it's all about context. Who was more dominant in their era is a more accurate measure of how good a wrestler was. An analogy would be the '67 packers taking on the 2010 packers. I don't think anyone would argue it would be a slaughter in favor of the modern team. The nutrition, training and scheming are so far advanced it wouldn't be fair. But the '67 packers are still revered as the better team, in context. It's not as blatant in wrestling, and someone like gable might transcend his era but in reality of a very good wrestler of today would wrestle a very good wrestler of 40 years ago, most of the time the modern wrestler would win-and that's a testament to what some of the greats did to advance the sport. But it doesn't mean the modern wrestler was historically better. Just my .02.

Could not agree with you more. Athletes today are overall superior to those of the past and to think otherwise would be foolish.

bigG · February 25, 2015, 05:52:49 AM

Yes and no. I have yet to see a wrestler as physically dominant as Karolin. Gable would have been competitive in his 40's had he chosen to be.

Techniques advance; but the dedication and work ethic don't necessarily. I would say, on average, the whole wrestling team was much more fit and physically tough in the old school; whereas there is more elitism today. So, the studs of today might beat those of yesteryear, I don't think the median wrestler is any better. The trade is technique v. tough strength. There is a difference between weight strength and hay bale strength. Why I recommend both. To bad small bales are falling by the wayside.

MarkK · February 25, 2015, 11:46:26 AM

these are always impossible. I have to believe given the techniques of today and training practices, many of yester year's champions would have been equally placed. We will never know. I do think it is important to remember those former greats and appreciate their contributions.

bigG · February 25, 2015, 07:00:04 PM

You and me both!

The great thing is: Ben Peterson- Gold, double leg, no mysteries....Jordan Burroughs-Gold, double leg, no mysteries.

All those studs are heroes. Laurent Soucie was my guy. SoutSide!

" I shoot, I score.
You shoot, I score."

The best seem to master that. Gable, Hodge, Hellickson. You name it. Even John Smith had that balance. No one-trick ponies aloud. As a HS sophomore, I was lucky prived to have tried my double on Russ Hellickson and feel what it is like deal with his double. Wow! Big-time influence on me. He was being gentle. Might have better chances against a grizzly. Russ is it.