Repeat Performances at the 1998 and 1999

Pennsylvania State AAA Wrestling Championships

By Mike Smyser

Competition at the state championship is a mix of emerging talent eager to break into the top ranks pitted against experienced grapplers returning to the championship after a year growing hungry for the title. A quick review of previous championship results reveals that a significant number of wrestlers achieve the distinction of competing in consecutive championships. A non-senior’s final standing one year is typically improved upon the following championship often by breaking into the top four. But not all repeat performances are successful; some non-senior state champions are unable to defend their title the following year. And quite a few wrestlers on their first appearance at the championship are able to better the most experienced in their weight class. Though there is no doubt that repeating competitors are a powerful force, determining precisely how dominant a force they are requires a careful study of consecutive championship results.

This article presents a brief analysis of the non-senior wrestlers that advanced through regionals and competed in the 1998 Pennsylvania State AAA Wrestling Championship and documents their subsequent performance in the 1999 championship. Most of the results reported here are already known at least intuitively by most wrestling fans and participants. It is hoped that a detailed presentation may provide a better understanding of the achievement that competing in two consecutive state championships represents and the important contribution that returning wrestlers make in enhancing competition at the championship level. The results reported here illustrate the importance of experience in the development of talent and may provide some insight into how quickly championship talent develops which, in turn, may be useful in the design of wrestling development programs.

First, since only non-seniors can return to subsequent championships, how many non-seniors actually compete at the championship level? From Table I, the totals of columns (1) and (2) indicate that non-seniors constituted slightly over one half of the 208 member field of wrestlers competing each year: 106 in 1999 versus 108 in 1998. As expected non-seniors are more prevalent in the lighter weights: For the six lightest weight classes there were 65 non-seniors in 1999 versus 60 in 1998 and for the seven heaviest weight classes there were 41 non-seniors in 1999 versus 48 in 1998. Column (3) shows that a total of 84 or slightly over three-fourth (84/108 = 77%) of the non-senior wrestlers that competed in the 1998 championship (column (2)) returned to the 1999 championship at some weight class. Most wrestlers moved up in weight while two wrestlers actually moved down one weight class. For the six lightest weights 17 of 60 (28%) did not return while 7 of 48 (15%) did not return in the seven heaviest weight classes. Younger talent appears more likely to enter the championship at the lighter weights thus creating the opportunity for more wrestlers to return. The clash in the lighter weights between new and returning competitors, however, seems to make returning difficult. This is not meant to imply that competition in the heavier weights is not as intense as in the lighter weights. Instead there appears to be a significant difference in the makeup of the competition due probably to the manner in which teenagers naturally grow and develop. For instance, in the 1999 championship the three lightest weight classes had 25 wrestlers in the 9th and 10th grades while the three heaviest weight classes had no 9th and only one 10th grader competing.

Columns (4) and (5) of Table I display the number of non-senior wrestlers that placed 1-4. For example, at 145 lbs three non-senior wrestlers competed in the 1999 championship (column (1)) with one placing in the top four in 1999 (column (4)) while four non-seniors competed in the 1998 championship (column (2)) with two placing in the top four in 1998 (column (5)). Overall, non-seniors captured less than half of the 1-4 places in both years: 44% in 1998 and only 35% in 1999.

Even though senior competitors represent slightly less than one half of the total field of wrestlers, they capture more that one half of the 1-4 places.

As shown in the totals of columns (4) and (5) of Table I, approximately one-forth fewer top four finishers may potentially return in 2000: 18 in 1999 versus 23 in 1998. The difference in potential returning 1-4 finishers occurs entirely in the two heaviest weight classes: 0 non-seniors in 1999 versus 5 in 1998. Of the 23 non-senior wrestlers placing 1-4 in 1998 (column (5)), two did not return to the 1999 championship (both lost in regionals), five placed 5-16 in 1999, and 16 repeated as top four finishers in 1999. Thus, 70% (16/23) of the non-senior top four finishers in 1998 repeated by placing 1-4 in 1999. Repeating 1-4 is a great accomplishment especially when considering 208 wrestlers compete at the championship level each year. The competition is so intense that only 16 wrestlers were able to repeat a top four finish; six of which were 1999 champions. Clearly, repeating as the state champion is truly a tremendous achievement and deserves our highest congratulations: Four non-seniors were state champions in 1998 and two of those won the championship again in 1999; Justin Giovinco (Plymouth Whitemarsh) and Jon Trenge (Parkland). From the 1999 championship there are five non-senior state champions who may avidly defend their titles in 2000.

Table II displays the final distribution in the 1999 championship of the 84 non-senior wrestlers returning from the 1998 championship from column (3) of Table I. For example, of the 16 member field of wrestlers competing in the 145 lb class at the 1999 championship, half the field or eight wrestlers placed 1-16 at some weight class in the 1998 championship (column (4) in Table II) and of those eight returning wrestlers four placed 1-4 in 1999 (column (1)), three placed 5-8 in 1999 (column (2)), and one placed 9-16 in 1999 (column (3)). Based on the repeat performance of the 23 non-seniors that placed 1-4 in 1998 and the data displayed in Table II we can determine the 1999 performance of the 85 non-seniors that placed 5-16 in 1998 where 85 equals 108 total non-seniors from 1998 minus the 23 non-seniors that placed 1-4 in 1998: 22 did not return in 1999, 41 placed 5-16 in 1999, and 22 broke into the top four in 1999; three of which were 1999 state champions. It follows that a total of 124 wrestlers competed in the 1999 championship without competing in the 1998 championship:14 finished in the top four; four of which were state champions.

The value of experience is clearly apparent in Table II as the top four places in 1999 were dominated by returning wrestlers: 73% (38/52 where 52 equals 4 times 13 weight classes) of the wrestlers placing 1-4 in 1999 competed in the 1998 championship. The returning wrestlers captured all 1-4 places in six of thirteen weight classes. For the seven heaviest weight classes, only three wrestlers placed 1-4 in 1999 without competing in the 1998 championship. Because of the dominance of returning wrestlers in placing 1-4, the high quality of talent that returning wrestlers contribute is perhaps the major factor in the overall degree of competition at the championship level particularly in the heavier weights. It is enticing to wonder how dominant a force the 106 non-seniors from 1999 will be in 2000.

From columns (2) and (3) of Table II, the 84 returning wrestlers captured only 29% (46/156) of the 5-16 places in the 1999 championship. Of course the 5-16 place finishers contain a major pool of non-senior wrestlers that are aiming to break into the top four in 2000 and, if 1999 is a good indication, they will be back.

It is interesting to compare column (3) of Table I to column (4) of Table II which both show the same 84 wrestlers that competed in the two consecutive championships. The difference is that Table I, column (3) shows the wrestlers at their 1998 weights while Table II, column (4) shows the wrestlers at their 1999 weights. From the six lightest weight classes in 1998, 43 non-seniors returned in 1999 with 11 wrestlers moving up into the seven heaviest weight classes. The effect of teenagers natural growth on the distribution of returning wrestlers is most evident in the 140, 145 and 152 weight classes which had more returning wrestlers than the other weight classes except for the 125 and 171 weights.

Competing in the championship as a non-senior is obviously an indication of natural ability and emerging talent. Championship experience is important in building confidence as shown in the dominance of the returning wrestlers in the 1-4 places and the fact that nine state champs in 1999 wrestled in the 1998 championship. However, all is not lost for those wrestlers trying to break into the top ranks of the PA championship. Remember, four 1999 state champs did not compete in the 1998 championship. Overall, there is a large pool of talent from the 1999 championship that can return in 2000 and as always PA wrestling programs are working to produce the quality wrestlers that will break into the top ranks. So it looks like the 2000 championship is going to be another major BRAWL!!

Finally, it might be interesting to compare the results here with prior years in order to better understand how the sport has evolved in terms of the identification of natural ability and the development of wrestling talent to the championship level. In particular, were non-seniors a major part of the championship 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Answering that question should tell us a lot about how development programs and the sport of wrestling have evolved in PA.

Please mail comments and/or questions to mwsmyser@yahoo.com.

Table I

Non-Seniors Competing at the Pennsylvania State AAA Wrestling Championship

By Weight Class in Years 1999 and 1998

Table II

Final Distribution in the 1999 Championship of the Eighty-Four Non-Senior Wrestlers

That Competed in the 1998 Championship