Y2CJ41 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Interesting statistics: Between 1990 and 1999 there were 7 sophomore state champs and 1 freshman state champ Between 2000 and 2010 there were 12 sophomore state champs and 9 freshman state champs Between 2010 and present there were 8 sophomore state champs and 3 freshman state champs What does this show us in terms of wrestling in Indiana? Are we getting better as a state or are the elite just more prevalent now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabio Jr. Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 #INDIANAELITE The kids who set their goals seem to go full force in to wrestling. How many of those kids focused on wrestling alone. Were any of them 2-3 sport Athletes? of course data you cant (reliably) find so kind of unfair but that stuff could be an indicator. What are these numbers by class? I'm assuming the small class is not very vocal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 i think in general we are seeing better athletes in all sports because of the focus on only one sport in so many cases.....the superstar 3 sport athletes are far and few between now compared to 25 years ago.........they're still out there but just not as prevalent......the kids that do start focusing on one sport at a younger age see the payoff earlier in high school now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 It was so rare 20+ years ago to see a fresh or soph state champ. I think the big reason is all the year round wrestling schools/academies. There are so many more opportunities, more national tournaments, etc. that the fresh/sophs are exposed to better competition at an earlier age. That plus kids are specializing at a much earlier age now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 The last time we did not have either a freshman or sophomore state champion was 2004. The last time no freshman or sophomore was in the state finals...1997! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I agree with others about the conclusion (we are getting better) and the reason (year-round specialization). Even as recently as the 90s, lots of high state placers were stars in baseball or track (spring sports), but now almost all the top kids below the bigger weights are focused completely on wrestling year-round from a young age. I remember thinking in the early 2000s (when we started seeing elite kids win championships as freshmen and sophomores and we started having kids challenging for Fargo and other national titles on a yearly basis) that we were entering a "golden age" we hadn't seen before. It's definitely continued since then. I don't know how our change compares to similar changes in other states where specialization has also taken over, but I do know that in Indiana we are producing national stars at a far greater rate than ever before. To have had Reece and Angel and Howe (Tsirtsis seems to be next in line) staying nationally and internationally relevant for so long during this period is something very, very special that I think will continue as we continue having so many kids doing what Y2's statistics point out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H1N1 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Indiana is better, but it's only a small group near the top that is actually better. Overall, the quality of wrestling has fallen imop. The academies are great and the 10% of Indiana kids that train at those are outstanding. The elite programs like EMD, Perry, Penn, Cathedral, Warren, Franklin, etc are training maybe another 10% of top wrestlers outside the academies. But that 20% total of elite wrestlers is really it. After that elite group, we just fall off a cliff. The other 80% of wrestlers have poor to average skills. That was not the case 20 years ago. Many non-elite wrestlers (who often were 2 or 3 sport athletes) had solid wrestling skillsets years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katanakahn Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The last time we did not have either a freshman or sophomore state champion was 2004. The last time no freshman or sophomore was in the state finals...1997! As you stated in the original post, interesting statistics. But they're just that, interesting statistics and by no means a valid data set from which conclusions can be drawn. You have demonstrated a valid correlation, but we have no data from which to determine the causation. There are a ton of variables at play and valid study would be needed to even begin to have a real discussion on the cause. I would argue that kids are simply more active in general at a younger age. When I was a kid, baseball in the spring/summer, football in the fall and basketball in the winter were pretty much your only options. And there was little to no activity outside of those seasons. Today, you can add many other sports to the mix, and there is likely a club of one kind or another that allows you to remain active year round in SOMETHING that you enjoy. Wrestling was unheard of before Junior High, and then, only the most dedicated would participate in AAU. Again, this is merely anecdotal, I realize that. Specializing in one sport exclusively can be a real gamble. Burn out is a big risk. So I concur that having so many opportunities to learn and practice a sport today is a great advantage to the youth. I will still reserve judgment on specializing on one sport until there is more data to research. Interesting that I got this article in my email yesterday, it goes well with this discussion: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Wrestling/Features/2014/June/11/Time-Off-the-Mat Bottom line, good conversation, more research is needed to come to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 As you stated in the original post, interesting statistics. But they're just that, interesting statistics and by no means a valid data set from which conclusions can be drawn. You have demonstrated a valid correlation, but we have no data from which to determine the causation. There are a ton of variables at play and valid study would be needed to even begin to have a real discussion on the cause. I would argue that kids are simply more active in general at a younger age. When I was a kid, baseball in the spring/summer, football in the fall and basketball in the winter were pretty much your only options. And there was little to no activity outside of those seasons. Today, you can add many other sports to the mix, and there is likely a club of one kind or another that allows you to remain active year round in SOMETHING that you enjoy. Wrestling was unheard of before Junior High, and then, only the most dedicated would participate in AAU. Again, this is merely anecdotal, I realize that. Specializing in one sport exclusively can be a real gamble. Burn out is a big risk. So I concur that having so many opportunities to learn and practice a sport today is a great advantage to the youth. I will still reserve judgment on specializing on one sport until there is more data to research. Interesting that I got this article in my email yesterday, it goes well with this discussion: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Wrestling/Features/2014/June/11/Time-Off-the-Mat Bottom line, good conversation, more research is needed to come to the truth. There's been plenty of academic research done to support the theory that more practice time in a skill is causally related to greater proficiency in that skill--especially when that time investment comes at a young age. It has also been well-documented the enormous number of hours that Indiana's national-level stars invested from the time they were young on through their middle school/high school/college careers. The only missing piece to the puzzle is to know if this large number of hours is greater than the hours that were invested by their predecessors. Between the aforementioned elite academies, greater availability of information about top camps and tournaments, and the ever-growing size of middle-class disposable income available for tournaments and travel; I'm very confident that this part is true and that a detailed academic paper on the topic would reveal results in line with what people on this thread and many others like it have already hypothesized. (And btw, kids are NOT more active nowadays, on average. Lots of data has been collected across academic fields in an effort to curb childhood obesity. These data show that kids are far less active today than before due to video games, tv, computers, etc. There may be more ORGANIZED activities available, but that doesn't mean that kids are more active overall.) This certainly doesn't address the burn-out issue. It will always be a risk and wrestling is a sport that will always deal with a large level of attrition in participation by talented kids. And I, too, would love to see a detailed analysis on all the issues related to younger kids having greater success. I only write the above arguments to say that I don't think people's assessments here are far off--even without a perfect predictive model and results in front of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 I remember when people started predicting that Alex Tsirtsis and Angel Escobedo would be 4 timers. Many people, including myself, were very skeptical since how rare it was to have a four time champ. We have had eight four-time champs and four have been in the last 10 years. I tend to agree with H1N1 in that I think our elite guys are getting better, but still reserving judgement on our next tier of wrestlers. I think our elite guys are separating themselves from the pack considerably. I think that specialization and high level of training and competition has shown to help these elite guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katanakahn Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (And btw, kids are NOT more active nowadays, on average. Lots of data has been collected across academic fields in an effort to curb childhood obesity. These data show that kids are far less active today than before due to video games, tv, computers, etc. There may be more ORGANIZED activities available, but that doesn't mean that kids are more active overall.) Thus my admission of Anecdotal. My kids are way more active than I was as a youth, but that is hardly a valid dataset. When all is said and done, there will still only ever be a tiny percentage of all athletes that are able to compete at the highest level, even if all athletes compete from their earliest opportunity and receive all of the training available to them, there will be a sorting process and the overall percentages don't change. So we are creating a situation where it is becoming more or less required, and that can be good for the sport, especially looking towards international competition. Separating what the child wants from what the parent wants is a concern, it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Some will even argue that children don't know what they want and are unable to make life altering decisions, so the parent needs to make the decision for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 One thing a very wise person pointed out was the age of kids as incoming freshmen these days. More and more kids, especially boys, are starting kindergarten later and thus they are 15 before they enter high school. I know many kids who were 17 when they graduated including myself. Now it seems extremely rare that a kid is 17 when they graduate. On top of that you have the "redshirting" that occurs, which again lead to older freshmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 i think in general we are seeing better athletes in all sports because of the focus on only one sport in so many cases.....the superstar 3 sport athletes are far and few between now compared to 25 years ago.........they're still out there but just not as prevalent......the kids that do start focusing on one sport at a younger age see the payoff earlier in high school now..... I would disagree that a kid is a better athlete because he specializes in one sport. I would argue that the opposite is true. A multisport athlete developes more athletic ability overall because of the different athletic skills learned in different sports. A very easy way to see this is to watch a non-baseball athlete throw out a first pitch of a game. Probably the biggest question I would ask regarding the freshman and sophomore state champs is what is the actual age of these kids now compared to 15-20 years ago. More and more we are seeing parents wait to send their kids to kindergarden or first grade. I was 17 when I graduated high school and now you see kids turn 17 before wrestling season their junior year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookies03 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 One thing a very wise person pointed out was the age of kids as incoming freshmen these days. More and more kids, especially boys, are starting kindergarten later and thus they are 15 before they enter high school. I know many kids who were 17 when they graduated including myself. Now it seems extremely rare that a kid is 17 when they graduate. On top of that you have the "redshirting" that occurs, which again lead to older freshmen. You posted this as I was posting my comment. Amazing how close our posts are about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I'd guess that the newer weight management rules has resulted in less upperclassman being able to make the cut to the lowest two weight classes than they were under the old system. This increases the likelihood of a freshman or sophomore winner at those weight classes compared to before. I'm sure it's not the whole issue but it is likely a factor to consider. Couple that with some of the other factors mentioned earlier and it help better explain the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Interestingly I did quick research and came up with these freshman or sophomore state champs and their ages based off of USAW results. 15 as a freshman = 18 as a senior Eric Galka Ethan Harris Brandon Wright Sean McMurray Kyle Ayersman Nathan Boston Stevan Micic Chad Red 16 as a freshman = 19 as a senior Alex Tsirtsis Angel Escobedo Reece Humphrey Josh Harper Andrew Howe Camden Eppert Ethan Raley Cody Phillips Jason Tsirtsis Cody Phillips Neal Molloy Tommy Forte Bobby Steveson Jeremiah Reitz ****Note when it states 19 as a senior, it means that the individual would turn 19 during the year they graduated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Its mater deis fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachM Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 It's obviously a combination of factors. Things like age and wrestling acadamies are definately a big part of why place winners in indiana do so well in national level events, not just the champs. One big thing has to be the rise of big summer tournaments that keep kids training. Events like Disney duals, and others, keep kids practicing all summer, even if they are playing football and soccer. Many top athletes are multi sport kids, gelen Robinson is a great example. I never had a comprehensive summer team practice schedule complete with 20+ dual meet opportunities in the summer and if I had I probably would have been a lot better wrestler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Gelen Robinson is an anomaly, he is not a good example to use. There really are very few state champions that are multi-sport athletes and even less at weights 160lbs and below. This year even Wes Bernard didn't play football to focus on wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I would disagree that a kid is a better athlete because he specializes in one sport. Based on the rest of the post by the person that said we are seeing "better athletes" in all sports because of specialization...what he meant to say was more "skilled" athletes. That part I definitely agree with. Swimming times have dropped considerably in the last 20 years, the fastball velocity needed to get drafted by MLB has increased, and all college and pro football coaches say that quarterbacks, for example, have proficient skill sets at 18 years old now that they couldn't have dreamt of 20 years ago. All of this, I believe, is strongly, strongly related to specialization and the raw hours being input that are honing these "skilled" athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busstogate Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Positionally, we are good on our feet, getting better from top, and suck, suck, suck, from the bottom. If I hear another wrestler question why they were "put on the bottom", I am going to need an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayruss Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Indiana is better, but it's only a small group near the top that is actually better. Overall, the quality of wrestling has fallen imop. The academies are great and the 10% of Indiana kids that train at those are outstanding. The elite programs like EMD, Perry, Penn, Cathedral, Warren, Franklin, etc are training maybe another 10% of top wrestlers outside the academies. But that 20% total of elite wrestlers is really it. After that elite group, we just fall off a cliff. The other 80% of wrestlers have poor to average skills. That was not the case 20 years ago. Many non-elite wrestlers (who often were 2 or 3 sport athletes) had solid wrestling skillsets years back. I completely disagree with you and think that the kids today are way more talented. My brother wrestled about 15 years ago, and he was a regional qualifier with a decent record, and I think if he wrestled today he would definitely be a .500 or below wrestler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts