bharmon01 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 was it because there was no wrestler or the wrestler that advanced failed to make weight? I don't know because i don't follow this that well. if there was no wrestler at at all how many times has this happened? Like I said before, i you don't have a 103 you can't move someone up, but you can move a kid under 189, 215 or hwt up. That doesn't mean that there are more kids at 195, 215 or hwt, just that some people didn't have a 103. You can always move up an under weight kid in the upper weights. That's the flaw in the data. How many of these kids we move up are not really big kids? I want the big kids to wrestle, just don't cut out the majority of kids who wrestle and this is the only sport they compete at. There are a lot of good kids wrestling JV this year that could have been wrestling varsity this year that are left out just like 1995. This is my argument. We are hurting the most important kids in the sport of wrestling. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but after 31 plus years as a coach I think I'm right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 There were only 3 wrestlers in the sectional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bharmon01 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 how many sectionals only had 3 103 last year? I don't know. Is that a reason to cut the teams (kids) that did? Like I said before - if you don't have a 103 then you can't move someone up, but if you have a kid who weights 189+ you can move him up. Does this mean there are more kids at the upper weights? I don't think so. I think most teams are heavy in the middle weights, the new weight classes hurt them. I want the little kids, middle kids and heavy kids to wrestle. Just don't cut the grass root wrestling kids out. They are the backbone of our sport. The great thing about wrestling was every kid no matter his size had a chance to compete. The new weight classes cut out the majority of our kids. It has always been hard to get the big kid out because of football. Take care of our grass root wrestling kids is all I'm saying. If we need another big kid weight add it, even if we may have to forfeit it. I'm at a small 5A football school and have always had to fight to get the big kid out. If we have to forfeit or move kids up to fill the upper weights so be it, but don't cut the middle weight kid out. If we have to go to 15 weight classes to support the big kids then do it, even if we don't have those kids. Just remember most of our kids who wrestle, and only wrestle fall in the middle weights. The new weights don't favor the majority of kids wrestling in Indiana in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 There were only 3 wrestlers in the sectional. I know that at HSE we have 3 varsity level kids that have been squeezed out. In fact 1 of them filled in at 138 for the Hamilton county tournament and placed 1st. I am beyond the light weight heavy weight debate. But we need to put back in a middle weight ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 There have been forfeits at the regional level at least twice in the past few years. Where and what weight or weights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I know that at HSE we have 3 varsity level kids that have been squeezed out. In fact 1 of them filled in at 138 for the Hamilton county tournament and placed 1st. I am beyond the light weight heavy weight debate. But we need to put back in a middle weight ! Yeah, this has been my point for the past 3 months, since I dug deeper into the off-season vs. in-season data. At big schools like HSE, there are now on average the same number of backups at the middle weights as there are at the upper weights. But varsity-quality kids are getting squeezed out while one extra 3-sport, less-skilled athlete is getting a spot higher up. We will see our forfeit numbers at the end of the season reflect that we're having less forfeits--but at what cost? At the cost of some high-quality middle weights wrestling JV. At the cost of some very good middle weights not making state when they otherwise would have. At the expense of having lower quality kids on varsity. And at the expense of having weaker competition at the state finals in several weight classes in the upper weights in comparison to the quality we're accustomed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Where and what weight or weights? 103lbs Southridge in 2009 Also in 2009, Calumet only had four wrestlers I am fairly certain it happened in 2008 or 2010, just trying to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 103lbs Southridge in 2009 Also in 2009, Calumet only had four wrestlers I am fairly certain it happened in 2008 or 2010, just trying to find it. [/quote I have a simple question for you sense you oboviously don,t like 106. At a good quality tournament. Does 106 have at least the quality of a finals as 195 , 220, and hvy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I agree with Y2 on the lighter weights. I have been coaching for four years at a small school and for us quality and depth for light weights is easily the most difficult thing to find. These are also the weights where most of the forfiets come from. As a matter of fact until this season we have never had a lowest weight kid get a non forfeit win at the lowest weight. This year we have a first year kid, who is a frosh, who is around .500 for us with many acctual wins. this fact wouls not lead me to feel that 106 is a weight that is loaded with kids who have wrestled their entire lives, but instead its a weight that many teams have trouble filling, and have to work hard just to find a kid who is small enough to compete at that weight. As far as adding an extra big guy class, if it is so bad for wrestling then shouldn't one of these classes have weaker competition in it? I mean if we are taking oppurtunities away from middle weights and giving them to less worthy big guys one of the weights up top, or even all of them would have weaker kids moving on further in the tournament, which weights would you guys consider to have weaker competition because of the changes? I do also agree that at this time 32, 38, and 45 are loaded because of the fact that the weights were combined, butover time won't these kids find ways to still have a competitive chance, it may mean they work harder in the weight room, or they cut more weight but they still have a chance. If you go from 171 to 189 there are a lot of quality big guys that get left out with no realistic weight to go to up or down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwrestler Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I agree with Y2 on the lighter weights. I have been coaching for four years at a small school and for us quality and depth for light weights is easily the most difficult thing to find. These are also the weights where most of the forfiets come from. As a matter of fact until this season we have never had a lowest weight kid get a non forfeit win at the lowest weight. This year we have a first year kid, who is a frosh, who is around .500 for us with many acctual wins. this fact wouls not lead me to feel that 106 is a weight that is loaded with kids who have wrestled their entire lives, but instead its a weight that many teams have trouble filling, and have to work hard just to find a kid who is small enough to compete at that weight. As far as adding an extra big guy class, if it is so bad for wrestling then shouldn't one of these classes have weaker competition in it? I mean if we are taking oppurtunities away from middle weights and giving them to less worthy big guys one of the weights up top, or even all of them would have weaker kids moving on further in the tournament, which weights would you guys consider to have weaker competition because of the changes? I do also agree that at this time 32, 38, and 45 are loaded because of the fact that the weights were combined, butover time won't these kids find ways to still have a competitive chance, it may mean they work harder in the weight room, or they cut more weight but they still have a chance. If you go from 171 to 189 there are a lot of quality big guys that get left out with no realistic weight to go to up or down. The majority of the wrestling at 182, 195, 220 and 285 is god awful. There is little to no actual technique; either the wrestler who can muscle the other kid into falling down and rolling over wins or, in a heavyweight's case, the one who can stall his way to a 0-0 triple OT victory does. Why do you think an athletic kid can come in and place at state with very little actual wrestling experience? Because for the most part, the wrestlers at those weights don't actually know how to wrestle. Whether the lowest weight is 103 or 106 is irrelevant at this point, because wrestler at the middle weights, where there is the most skill and the largest number of kids, are being squeezed out of the varsity lineup. Change the weights back and keep the lowest weight at 106, if that's the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The majority of the wrestling at 182, 195, 220 and 285 is god awful. There is little to no actual technique; either the wrestler who can muscle the other kid into falling down and rolling over wins or, in a heavyweight's case, the one who can stall his way to a 0-0 triple OT victory does. Why do you think an athletic kid can come in and place at state with very little actual wrestling experience? Because for the most part, the wrestlers at those weights don't actually know how to wrestle. Whether the lowest weight is 103 or 106 is irrelevant at this point, because wrestler at the middle weights, where there is the most skill and the largest number of kids, are being squeezed out of the varsity lineup. Change the weights back and keep the lowest weight at 106, if that's the issue. I would consider it a different skill set as opposed to poor wrestling. If the wrestlers in the lighter to middle weights are so much more skillful then why are underclassmen able to compete so well at these weights? Are Tyler Willis, Tanner Lynde, and Mitch Sliga just strong guys that can only out muscle their opponents? The wreslters in the upper weights are skillful as well and shouldn't have oppurtunities taken away from them either. I don't disagree that taking away a middle class made those weights tougher, but it also opened up a lot of chances for the upper weights as well. We have had some skillful kids in those weighs, and as a coach I would say they were just as skilled as wrestlers as our good middle weights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwrestler Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I would consider it a different skill set as opposed to poor wrestling. Let's just make a list of a few basic wrestling skills that apply from 106-285 Neutral: double leg, high crotch, single leg, penetration on your shots, headlock Top: half nelson, cradle, running the wings, arm bars, running the legs Bottom: stand up, sit out, switch, granby Now, put the average lightweight and the average heavyweight in a room together and have them drill these moves, and I guarantee you the lightweight outperforms the heavy in every single category except maybe the headlock and the half. Look at the quality of wrestling at Conseco when considering that basic list of skills (which every state-caliber wrestler should have) and it becomes obvious the heavyweights are actually much worse wrestlers than the lightweights. Can you even name me any "skills" heavyweights have that lightweights don't, besides pushing and shoving a guy to the ground and roling him over? If the wrestlers in the lighter to middle weights are so much more skillful then why are underclassmen able to compete so well at these weights? Because there are very few upperclassmen at these weights to start with. It makes sense that a weight that is mostly filled by underclassmen is dominated by underclassmen... and here is what I feel a lot of people fail to understand: JUST BECAUSE A KID IS A SENIOR DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A BETTER WRESTLER THAN A FRESHMAN. Wrestling skill is not based on age, and on average, the freshmen that fill the 106 lb weight class are better wrestlers than the seniors that fill 195, 220 and 285. Are Tyler Willis, Tanner Lynde, and Mitch Sliga just strong guys that can only out muscle their opponents? Like I said before, there are a few exceptions to the rule, and you just mentioned three of them. Obviously there are a few skilled wrestlers in those weight classes, but overall, the majority of their competition is weak. If we're talking about specific individuals, which is worse, a freshman, who's probably been wrestling since he could walk and has won numerous national titles, winning 106 last year, or a second year wrestler stalling his way to a title at heavyweight that same year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 FYI Freshman Gabe Estice Wins the Ben Davis 16 this weekend by fall. Gabe is a great kid and a stud. He weighs about 170 and still won easy. You guys make your conclusions from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 On a bright note. We will see some awesome matches in the middle weights at state this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Hawaiian Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Not sure this applies to the topic, but 12 out of the 16 first-round matches at the Al Smith were forfeits... in the 113 lbs weight class. The Spartan Classic had far more forfeits at 106lbs than the 220lbs and Hwt's as I remenber and that's a bit of a surprise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The Spartan Classic had far more forfeits at 106lbs than the 220lbs and Hwt's as I remenber and that's a bit of a surprise.... Why are you guys so stuck on the light weight, Heavy weight thing. For the record my son wrestles 106. Moving 103 to 106 made very little difference. This is a Heavy weight middle weight issue. Is it worth squeezing out a middle weight to add a heavy. If I had to choose I would say no. But I am also in favor of adding a 15th weight class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I do also agree that at this time 32, 38, and 45 are loaded because of the fact that the weights were combined, butover time won't these kids find ways to still have a competitive chance, it may mean they work harder in the weight room, or they cut more weight but they still have a chance. What? Cut more weight? Gain more weight? Sorry but I don' t agree with this. At first I was against the weight change because of the light weight getting hosed now I am against it because of the middle weights also. 138 and 145 are a grind this year. Honestly did hormones in milk really change things so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 But I am also in favor of adding a 15th weight class. We live in a state where there is an average of two forfeits per team. That means teams have enough issues with fielding 14 wrestlers, having to field 15 wrestlers won't help anyone but the top schools in the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MemorialTigerPa Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 We live in a state where there is an average of two forfeits per team. That means teams have enough issues with fielding 14 wrestlers, having to field 15 wrestlers won't help anyone but the top schools in the state. I agree with you that there are issues with teams fielding 14 wrestlers, But by adding a 15 wrestler there should be a very small percentage of teams the would not be able field another middle weight wrestler, So how would this make the top schools any stonger than they are now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The top teams will be able to a) fill the spot easier and fill the spot with a higher quality kid easier. Thus it will increase the distance between the to teams add the next tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerwrestler Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The one major skill set I enjoy watching is the "POWER" and agility some of the big guys posess. While I do enjoy watching the quickness and technique of the lighter weight wrestlers, I really enjoy watching the athleticism of some of the heavier weight wrestlers. There is no doubt that the styles of wrestling differ from the smaller guys to the bigger guys. Some on here seem to have their own idea of what skills define "A wrestler." I, on the other hand, can appreciate the differences all different weight kids bring to the match. Now I certainly don't enjoy watching the big heavywieghts stall through a match either, but ultimately the successful ones develop a strategy that suits their abilities and I can appreciate that part of the sport. I certainly don't want to see someone miss an opportunity to wrestle, and would have preferred the NFHS simply add another upper weight class. I'm at a small 2A school and we FF 106, and 160 and have to bump to get the 126lb and 195lbs classes covered. Just wanted to throw my $.02 in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I agree with you that there are issues with teams fielding 14 wrestlers, But by adding a 15 wrestler there should be a very small percentage of teams the would not be able field another middle weight wrestler, So how would this make the top schools any stonger than they are now? Remember, Wrestling is no longer a team sport. This issue is only about finding a spread of weight classes that best represents the individual wrestlers as a whole. It is not about forfeits or team anymore. If the ISHAA brings back team state. We can then revisit the team side of this issue. Until then it makes no difference if smaller school have to forfeit a weight or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'll never understand the notion of lower weight wrestlers being more "skilled" than upper weight wrestlers. A wrestler being quicker or more versatile with their technique, doesn't necessarily translate to that wrestler being more skilled. Comparing a 106 to a 145 to a 285 lber is like comparing a running back to a lineman to a linebacker. All weights require different skillsets, just like different positions in football require different skillsets (and other sports for that matter). I don't think you're going to see a right guard blowing through a hole like Adrian Peterson does anytime soon. Does that mean being a lineman is less skilled than a running back? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwrestler Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'll never understand the notion of lower weight wrestlers being more "skilled" than upper weight wrestlers. A wrestler being quicker or more versatile with their technique, doesn't necessarily translate to that wrestler being more skilled. Comparing a 106 to a 145 to a 285 lber is like comparing a running back to a lineman to a linebacker. All weights require different skillsets, just like different positions in football require different skillsets (and other sports for that matter). I don't think you're going to see a right guard blowing through a hole like Adrian Peterson does anytime soon. Does that mean being a lineman is less skilled than a running back? I don't think so. Weak analogy. Football players play completely different positions on the field. Of course a right guard can't run like Adrian Peterson, because his job is to block while Peterson's is to run the ball. They're not performing remotely the same functions as part of the team. All wrestlers go out on the mat with exactly the same goal, to take their opponent down, turn him, or escape from or reverse him if it comes to that. And they all have the same techniques at their disposal to reach that goal. Like I said before, the basic set of skills that all wrestlers should have, regardless of the "power" of the upperweights or the "quickness" of the lower weights, is the same for everyone. And those skills are seriously lacking in the upperweights compared to the lower and middle weights, on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Weak analogy. Football players play completely different positions on the field. Of course a right guard can't run like Adrian Peterson, because his job is to block while Peterson's is to run the ball. They're not performing remotely the same functions as part of the team. All wrestlers go out on the mat with exactly the same goal, to take their opponent down, turn him, or escape from or reverse him if it comes to that. And they all have the same techniques at their disposal to reach that goal. Like I said before, the basic set of skills that all wrestlers should have, regardless of the "power" of the upperweights or the "quickness" of the lower weights, is the same for everyone. And those skills are seriously lacking in the upperweights compared to the lower and middle weights, on average. Football players play different positions on the field just like wrestlers wrestle different weight classes on the mat. I'm sorry, I don't buy the "skills" being lesser for the big guys. Of course the bigger the guys are, the less nimble they'll be compared to the lightweights. But at the same time, the bigger they are, the more powerful and stronger their skillsets become vs. them same lightweights. I guess it's just what you prefer to see in your wrestling as a fan. Fans will tend to lean towards to the quicker, speedier skillset as being superior vs. the power/strength skillset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts