Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 In general almost all kids at a small school play multiple sports. 13 of our 14 starters played football last year, yes even our 103lber. The other starter played soccer. In 2009, we had 12 of 14 starters in multiple sports, the two starters that did not play another sport combined for an 8-43 record on the season In 2008, we had 13 of 14 starters in multiple sports, the one starter that did not play another sport only won one real match In 2007, we had 13 of 13 starters in multiple sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdanteague Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Spring and summer wrestling is the key. Do what you want in the fall, but to be real good, the heck with a spring sport, get to the open mats and the weekend tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Haha you guys are really funny. Y2 you can not use individual examples to prove anything. Your team does not show the state as a whole. What percent of the state would have to play multiple sports for your to say it was fair? Also if it is so unfair why does every single wieght class from 135 to 285 have someone ranked in the top 3 that plays multiple sports. There are guys at each of these wieghts that only wrestle year round how come they are not at the top of the podium each year. Someone from Bellmont posted on here that all but 2 of there varsity wrestlers were multi sport atheletes. Do you hear them complaining? Also Yorktown, Castle, Indianapolis Cathedral, and Mishawaka all have multiple state ranked two sport athelets. Thats just a few I was thinking off the top of my head. Thats not to mention not everyone uses this board. I am sure there are some high ranked 140 and below guys who play multiple sports that have not been mentioned. Just because you don't win don't mean its not fair. Lets get back to the list and try and fill in the rest of the spots maybe 50 % of the ranked kids will show that this is a bogus excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecomets Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Just so I don't have to read hundreds of post what is the bogus excuse. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 So surveying 90 out of 280 ranked kids is scientific, wow. You know there are 4000+ wrestlers in the state, right? How about the kids that are single sport athletes, how many are there? Also, how many of these multi-sport athletes go to a small school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Just so I don't have to read hundreds of post what is the bogus excuse. :'( One argument for class wrestling is the prevailing thought that small schools will generally have more 2 and especially 3 sport athletes. This would curtail the amount of freestyle wrestling that those kids could do. Duck thinks that by compiling a list of multi sport ranked kids he is somehow debunking that argument. An interesting list, yes, but does not address the the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Duck thinks that by compiling a list of multi sport ranked kids he is somehow debunking that argument. He may not be debunking the argument, but he is providing a very interesting counter point to one of the main arguments used by some pro-class wrestling supporters. His data is not complete so I do not think it is fair to criticize it, but he is on to something very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 I just did a quick analysis of the rankings 62 out of 280 ranked kids are from small schools. Tell me why this is again, I am curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 He may not be debunking the argument, but he is providing a very interesting counter point to one of the main arguments used by some pro-class wrestling supporters. His data is not complete so I do not think it is fair to criticize it, but he is on to something very interesting. How many of the kids are single sport athletes? There are over 4000 high school wrestlers in the state, a survey of 90 doesn't do much good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecomets Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 SORRY, but so I don't have to read hundred of post Posted by: AJ He may not be debunking the argument, but he is providing a very interesting counter point to one of the main arguments used by some pro-class wrestling supporters. What is the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 SORRY, but so I don't have to read hundred of post Posted by: AJ He may not be debunking the argument, but he is providing a very interesting counter point to one of the main arguments used by some pro-class wrestling supporters. What is the argument? The argument is that small schools have more multi-sport athletes, therefore they cannot garner as many state qualifiers/placers/champions as big schools because the kids are participating in multiple sports instead of just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Y2 you implied in several post that big schools have a distinct advantage in the individual state tournement because there wrestlers do not wrestle in multiple sports. So who should I have polled the worst wrestlers on each team? That makes no sense at all. I polled the best because thats who you said were not playing multiple sports. As far as your other questions go there are 6 #1 seeds and 6#2 seeds. Of these only 2 are from smaller schools. That should help prove that multisport atheletes are not hindered from achieving great things in wrestling. Karl Hungus you bring up an intersting point, but it doesn't really help your arguement. Several of the wrestlers from big schools on the list played spring sports as well. Also everyone knows that football weights and preperation for season are a year round thing. People from all size schools have to find time to wrestle in off season meets. If you guys will not admit this is a flat out lie and a bad arguement after being presented facts why should we as wrestling fans take what you say to heart? Just a question form 1 concerned fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Y2 you implied in several post that big schools have a distinct advantage in the individual state tournement because there wrestlers do not wrestle in multiple sports. So who should I have polled the worst wrestlers on each team? That makes no sense at all. I polled the best because thats who you said were not playing multiple sports. As far as your other questions go there are 6 #1 seeds and 6#2 seeds. Of these only 2 are from smaller schools. That should help disprove that multisport atheletes are not hindered from achieving great things in wrestling. Karl Hungus you bring up an intersting point, but it doesn't really help your arguement. Several of the wrestlers from big schools on the list played spring sports as well. Also everyone knows that football weights and preperation for season are a year round thing. People from all size schools have to find time to wrestle in off season meets. If you guys will not admit this is a flat out lie and a bad arguement after being presented facts why should we as wrestling fans take what you say to heart? Just a question form 1 concerned fan. If my worst wrestlers would wrestle year round and skip the football and baseball seasons, they would be better wrestlers. The same with any team's worst kids. Since when are these seedings for state? Am I missing something, I usually am on top of things like that. You have been presented many facts, but disregard them all the time. What about the fact that 75% of the state qualifiers are from big schools? What about the fact that no small school is represented at team state this year? You tend to pick some "facts" that aren't very factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Y2 I am not going to go at this arguement as a whole right now. For now I just want a simple concession that this excuse is not valid. As far as the statement of your worst wrestler being better if he wrestled year round, thats probably true. That being said just because you play mutiple sports doesn't mean you can not wrestle in the offseason. the arguement you gave was : small schools have more multi-sport athletes, therefore they cannot garner as many state qualifiers/placers/champions as big schools because the kids are participating in multiple sports instead of just one. The survey I have posted has shown that big and small schools have to deal with multisport atheletes. If you do not agree with that I think that your it is pointless to try and see your side of the arguement. When you become so close minded that you refuse to listen to fact it hurts your cause. So will you at least concede to the fact that wrestlers who play multiple sports can compete at the highest levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 He may not be debunking the argument, but he is providing a very interesting counter point to one of the main arguments used by some pro-class wrestling supporters. His data is not complete so I do not think it is fair to criticize it, but he is on to something very interesting. We must not be on the same page if you think that the list is a counter point. My argument would be that small schools have more 2 and ESPECIALLY 3 sport athletes and therefore are less likely to be able to compete with large schools that would have fewer 2 and ESPECIALLY 3 sport kids. Compiling a list of ranked kids who play another sport does not address the issue. Who is from big schools? who is from small schools? Who does a sport in the spring? AJ you say it is incomplete and therefore not fair to criticize? That doesn't make any sense. If you do an incomplete job at anything you open yourself to criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Y2 I am not going to go at this arguement as a whole right now. For now I just want a simple concession that this excuse is not valid. As far as the statement of your worst wrestler being better if he wrestled year round, thats probably true. Probably, no it is 100% true. That being said just because you play mutiple sports doesn't mean you can not wrestle in the offseason. the arguement you gave was : small schools have more multi-sport athletes, therefore they cannot garner as many state qualifiers/placers/champions as big schools because the kids are participating in multiple sports instead of just one. I still hold by it. Your "survey" includes almost 80% big school kids, not really a fair survey is it? Your survey also includes about 7% of the wrestlers in the state. Not enough to convince me. The survey I have posted has shown that big and small schools have to deal with multisport atheletes. If you do not agree with that I think that your it is pointless to try and see your side of the arguement. When you become so close minded that you refuse to listen to fact it hurts your cause. So will you at least concede to the fact that wrestlers who play multiple sports can compete at the highest levels. Your "survey" shows that good athletes make good wrestlers. I would suspect about 80% of these kids on your list are all-conference at the very least in their sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Ok I have to go a little slower for some people. Y2 your quote: small schools have more multi-sport athletes, therefore they cannot garner as many state qualifiers/placers/champions as big schools because the kids are participating in multiple sports instead of just one I still hold by it. Your "survey" includes almost 80% big school kids, not really a fair survey is it? Your survey also includes about 7% of the wrestlers in the state. Not enough to convince me. So when you said state placers who did I survey. The closest thing I have right now is state ranked. The arguement is that you can not produce upper level guys because wrestlers do multiple sports. My survey shows that many of the highest level wrestlers in Indiana play multiple sports. I am not trying to disprove that small schools have atheletes that do multiple sports, I am trying to prove that many of the elete wrestlers in the state play multiple sports. Thus your arguement is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 AJ you say it is incomplete and therefore not fair to criticize? That doesn't make any sense. If you do an incomplete job at anything you open yourself to criticism. If he has stated that he is continuing the research into the matter than it is unfair to criticize early research data because it is incomplete and early. However, if the data and research are final and/or the researcher decides to quit his data collecting then you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Ok I have to go a little slower for some people. Y2 your quote: small schools have more multi-sport athletes, therefore they cannot garner as many state qualifiers/placers/champions as big schools because the kids are participating in multiple sports instead of just one I still hold by it. Your "survey" includes almost 80% big school kids, not really a fair survey is it? Your survey also includes about 7% of the wrestlers in the state. Not enough to convince me. So when you said state placers who did I survey. The closest thing I have right now is state ranked. The arguement is that you can not produce upper level guys because wrestlers do multiple sports. My survey shows that many of the highest level wrestlers in Indiana play multiple sports. I am not trying to disprove that small schools have atheletes that do multiple sports, I am trying to prove that many of the elete wrestlers in the state play multiple sports. Thus your arguement is false. Just because many elite wrestlers play a fall sport does nothing to invalidate the argument that small schools are going to have more multi sport athletes. That is the argument. The list doesn't address the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 My Statement As far as the statement of your worst wrestler being better if he wrestled year round, thats probably true. Y2s statement Probably, no it is 100% true. Your absolutly right it is 100% true that if you wrestle in the offseason you will come back a better wrestle the next season. It is also 100% true that if you lift weights with the football team, or run cross country, or condition with track or soccer you will be a better wrestler. My own opinion is if a guy plays another sport he can gain just as much as meeting twice a week for an hour of mat time. It all comes down to how much total work the people put into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Ok I have to go a little slower for some people. Y2 your quote: small schools have more multi-sport athletes, therefore they cannot garner as many state qualifiers/placers/champions as big schools because the kids are participating in multiple sports instead of just one I still hold by it. Your "survey" includes almost 80% big school kids, not really a fair survey is it? Your survey also includes about 7% of the wrestlers in the state. Not enough to convince me. So when you said state placers who did I survey. The closest thing I have right now is state ranked. The arguement is that you can not produce upper level guys because wrestlers do multiple sports. My survey shows that many of the highest level wrestlers in Indiana play multiple sports. I am not trying to disprove that small schools have atheletes that do multiple sports, I am trying to prove that many of the elete wrestlers in the state play multiple sports. Thus your arguement is false. 25% is not many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 My Statement As far as the statement of your worst wrestler being better if he wrestled year round, thats probably true. Y2s statement Probably, no it is 100% true. Your absolutly right it is 100% true that if you wrestle in the offseason you will come back a better wrestle the next season. It is also 100% true that if you lift weights with the football team, or run cross country, or condition with track or soccer you will be a better wrestler. My own opinion is if a guy plays another sport he can gain just as much as meeting twice a week for an hour of mat time. It all comes down to how much total work the people put into it. The pink is false, it is not a fact, just your opinion. I tend to believe as others do that if I want my kid to become a better wrestler he needs to be on the mats in the spring, not on the track or baseball field or golf course. I like how you state its true, but then say its your opinion.... make up your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I will try one more time Karls coment Just because many elite wrestlers play a fall sport does nothing to invalidate the argument that small schools are going to have more multi sport athletes. That is the argument. The list doesn't address the argument The arguement states that the big schools have an advantage to get people to state because they do not have as many multisport atheletes. The study shows that many of the big schools top guys are multisport atheletes. Thus being a multisport athelete is not relavant in the discussion. Why is this so hard to grasp. You guys are wrong and anyone looking at this post can see it. Keep it up though its just making my cause look better. Y2 you are right 25% is not that many but this study is also not complete not everyone uses your website. With that being said we have still have 6 of 14 1st ranked, and 6 of 14 2nd ranked individuls in the state. For that to be coincedence would be a very statistically improbable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 So 12 of 28 wrestlers in the whole state and you consider this "argument" invalid.... WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duck_and_run Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 my quote It is also 100% true that if you lift weights with the football team, or run cross country, or condition with track or soccer you will be a better wrestler. My own opinion is if a guy plays another sport he can gain just as much as meeting twice a week for an hour of mat time. It all comes down to how much total work the people put into it. Y2 quote The pink is false, it is not a fact, just your opinion. I tend to believe as others do that if I want my kid to become a better wrestler he needs to be on the mats in the spring, not on the track or baseball field or golf course. I like how you state its true, but then say its your opinion.... make up your mind. I had no clue that lifting weights and running don't make you a better wrestler. I will send the memo out to the coaches so they no not to run or lift this offseason. A nice way of sarcastically saying bad point. Kudos to you for making this arguement easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts