Here's the thing about his results. He has been perfect at (1) beating the kids he should beat, (2) losing to the kids he really should lose to, and (3) getting some wins over some kids that he should kinda lose to.Those "some wins" prior to Sunday were 2 wins over the same guy who himself is now only #16. I don't see any way that ranking was possible based on the results. But after Sunday looks like it was a good prediction!

I do agree with some of the comments that the algorithm could likely be improved by not putting as much weight on results from 3+ years ago (for example, still having Desanto ahead of RBY). I also think NCAA tournament matches should have more weight (for example, still having Kemerer ahead of Starocci).

Obviously there is not much "usefulness" to ANY rankings, but in the conversation of rankings as a whole, having a set of rankings available that have literally no subjectivity is pretty cool. So I don't see the issue with making suggestions...obviously they don't have to take them. I would also say having the rankings be "more accurate" would be helpful considering how awesome the rest of the site is...then for example if you are already looking at the common opponents in a dual comparison there may not be as much need to flip back to Intermat or whatever to check out the rankings.

Based on the algorithm,

1 doesn't help much

2 doesn't hurt much

3 helps quite a bit

His two wins over Surtin, one over Smith at 34 and Witcraft at 60, all came when he was between 69th and 83rd. So, according to the math, those wins helped a lot more than other wins.

Also, I think another thing people fail to realize is the math is based on ELO score, not rank. So, as a 125 with 1200 ELO points, beating #33 with 1381 ELO points is dramatically different than the math at 133, where #33 has 1475 points.

The ELO points are also important because a bunch of kids can be bunched together, with only 5 or 10 points separating three or four wrestlers.