Ray Brinzer

This is a paper I wrote for WIN Magazine in 1996, just after I’d left college. Every now and then someone will ask me about it, so it seems to have made some impression, and may be of interest to some even now. Aside from being dated, the style seems awkward to me now… but I think that things you wrote nearly a decade ago never seem quite as bad to others as they do to you, so I won’t worry about it.

One of the things I love best about wrestling is that it remains unsolved.

Look at sports as problems for a moment, and competitive styles as suggested solutions. In how many sports has a definite answer failed to emerge? All top swimmers, for instance, swim just like all other top swimmers, differing only in the subtleties which will decide a race. Much the same can be said of most sports: the approach is decided, and success or failure rests in the execution.

In wrestling, the field is wide open. Pat Smith and Royce Alger are both reckoned great collegiate-style wrestlers, though they have as little in common as Nadia Comaneci and Mike Tyson. There seem to be few necessary conditions for greatness in wrestling; we’ve had many great wrestlers who were weak, or slow, or bad technicians, or in poor shape, et cetera. Of course I don’t believe we’ve had any who were weak and slow and bad technicians and in poor shape… people bring very different talents, personalities and approaches to the table, and are measured with all the severity of nature – mollified a little by the fickleness of the referee.

Read more »