If your standard for disqualifying Taylor from your top 5 is that he never beat a 4x NCAA champ who went on to win 5 World/Olympic titles ... that seems harsh.
Best PSU Wrestler Ever Poll
- Thread starter mcpat
- Start date
Ok I will apologize up front for this next one... I can't help myself... I obviously need professional help.
So I took a stab at using a rating system where points awarded by category scale with how close they are to the top value:
1. I took differnce between the top and bottom values to establish the range. For example lets say there were three values of 3, 4 and 5. The range would be 5-3= 2.
2. I then subtracted the bottom value from each value and compared that to the range and multipled by 100 (simply to make the numbers easier to understand). In this example the top value of 5 would be 5-3=2 and then take this number, 2, and divide by the range (2) getting 1. Take the 1 and multiply by 100 and you get 100 points. The second value would be 4-3=1, (1/2)*100= 50 and the bottom value would be 3-3=0, (0/2)*100=0.
3. This way the top scorer in every category gets 100 points and the bottom scorer gets 0 points.
4. However, as you eliminate wrestlers it changes the range and the calculations should be done again after eliminating the bottom score.
5. I did not weigh any of the criteria. In other words each category was worth the same to the overall score.
First round:
Although Ruth had the top wining % (and recieved 100 points for it) he was at the bottom of the other 3 categories which caused him to have the lowest score for the round. Interestingly enough the 3 groups I mentioned before when I just used the average rank show up again (Ruth/Lee, Retherford/Nickal, Nolf/Taylor).
On to round 2:
Here Lee's compartive weakness (only when comparing current group) in both wins and pins causes his elimination.
Round 3 (now it starts to get interesting):
Here Nolf drops to the bottom in wins but his strength in the other 3 categories causes him to have the most points in the round. As ridiculous as it sounds Zane comes up short this round.
Round 4:
Down to Taylor and Nolf as Bo bows out. Just looking at the results Nolf is ahead in 2 categories and Taylor is ahead in 2 so...it is a tie using this methodology.
Bottom line is that there were a lot of assumptions when you do any models. If you change the assumptions you will change the answer. For example, you could agrue that Ruth's level of competition was much greater than anyone else on this list therefore a pin by him is more impressive than anyone else and I really could not argue it. However, on the plus side, each wrestler had over 100 matches so individual data is probably fairly accurate as an indicator of thier true dominance against thier individual competition.
So if you made it to the end of this post thank you and you might need as much help as I do...
So I took a stab at using a rating system where points awarded by category scale with how close they are to the top value:
1. I took differnce between the top and bottom values to establish the range. For example lets say there were three values of 3, 4 and 5. The range would be 5-3= 2.
2. I then subtracted the bottom value from each value and compared that to the range and multipled by 100 (simply to make the numbers easier to understand). In this example the top value of 5 would be 5-3=2 and then take this number, 2, and divide by the range (2) getting 1. Take the 1 and multiply by 100 and you get 100 points. The second value would be 4-3=1, (1/2)*100= 50 and the bottom value would be 3-3=0, (0/2)*100=0.
3. This way the top scorer in every category gets 100 points and the bottom scorer gets 0 points.
4. However, as you eliminate wrestlers it changes the range and the calculations should be done again after eliminating the bottom score.
5. I did not weigh any of the criteria. In other words each category was worth the same to the overall score.
First round:
| Nolf | Retherford | Nickal | Taylor | Ruth | S. Lee | |
| Win Points | 91.01 | 95.50 | 92.59 | 99.21 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| Bonus Points | 93.93 | 8.52 | 17.93 | 100 | 0 | 54.52 |
| Pin Points | 100 | 47.31 | 88 | 33.12 | 0 | 3.37 |
| Pin + TF Points | 100 | 32.96 | 31 | 85.25 | 0 | 71.24 |
| Total Points | 384.94 | 184.29 | 229.52 | 317.58 | 100 | 129.13 |
Although Ruth had the top wining % (and recieved 100 points for it) he was at the bottom of the other 3 categories which caused him to have the lowest score for the round. Interestingly enough the 3 groups I mentioned before when I just used the average rank show up again (Ruth/Lee, Retherford/Nickal, Nolf/Taylor).
On to round 2:
| Nolf | Retherford | Nickal | Taylor | S. Lee | |
| Win Points | 91.73 | 96.27 | 93.33 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| Bonus Points | 93.36 | 0.00 | 10.28 | 100.00 | 50.28 |
| Pin Points | 100.00 | 45.47 | 87.58 | 30.78 | 0.00 |
| Pin + TF Points | 100.00 | 2.82 | 0.00 | 78.64 | 58.29 |
| Total Points | 385.09 | 144.55 | 191.19 | 309.42 | 108.57 |
Here Lee's compartive weakness (only when comparing current group) in both wins and pins causes his elimination.
Round 3 (now it starts to get interesting):
| Nolf | Retherford | Nickal | Taylor | |
| Win Points | 0.00 | 54.84 | 19.35 | 100.00 |
| Bonus Points | 93.36 | 0.00 | 10.28 | 100.00 |
| Pin Points | 100.00 | 21.22 | 82.05 | 0.00 |
| Pin + TF Points | 100.00 | 2.82 | 0.00 | 78.64 |
| Total Points | 293.36 | 78.87 | 111.69 | 278.64 |
Here Nolf drops to the bottom in wins but his strength in the other 3 categories causes him to have the most points in the round. As ridiculous as it sounds Zane comes up short this round.
Round 4:
| Nolf | Nickal | Taylor | |
| Win Points | 0.00 | 19.35 | 100.00 |
| Bonus Points | 92.60 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| Pin Points | 100.00 | 82.05 | 0.00 |
| Pin + TF Points | 100.00 | 0.00 | 78.64 |
| Total Points | 292.60 | 101.41 | 278.64 |
Down to Taylor and Nolf as Bo bows out. Just looking at the results Nolf is ahead in 2 categories and Taylor is ahead in 2 so...it is a tie using this methodology.
Bottom line is that there were a lot of assumptions when you do any models. If you change the assumptions you will change the answer. For example, you could agrue that Ruth's level of competition was much greater than anyone else on this list therefore a pin by him is more impressive than anyone else and I really could not argue it. However, on the plus side, each wrestler had over 100 matches so individual data is probably fairly accurate as an indicator of thier true dominance against thier individual competition.
So if you made it to the end of this post thank you and you might need as much help as I do...
It’s interesting how many times Nolf ends up at the top in these different analyses.
Last edited:
With Nolf one of his 3 losses was a medical forfeit. I know it counts but it it really shouldn’t. If it didn’t he would move to the front or close to it in win percentage as well. I understand that he does have the loss so we can’t just remove it but no one thinks he would have actually lost that match. To me Nolf is the greatest PSU wrestler and one of the best ever. We have been so spoiled with all of these guys though
Too many numbers,too much Russells Reserve, someone remind me to look tomorrow
Similar threads
