Usually these type of posts get people going. My response will put most to sleep. Sorry.

Cokeley, in formal logic your argument is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. For example, If A, then B. B exists, therefore A must exist. It is, by definition, an invalid argument.

I did not overlook the 8 ambulances. They just don't prove anything. What were the nature of the injuries? Were they from an illegal move? Did they all result from a trauma from striking the mat? Is it because this is a competitive tourney with mostly high level wrestlers. Was there a mis-match that usually does not occur with A,B,C, and D brackets. Is it because the easy 0:15 pins of weaker kids aren't as common? You would have to compare all like factors and actually look at the reasons the ambulances were used. You are right, most "Mom and Pop" tourneys don't have such injuries.

Connecting ambulances simply has no bearing in my mind.

Now if you can show me 8 examples of throws or trauma related injuries from hitting a proven hard, cold mat with everything else remaining the same, I will reconsider my position.