aoberlin Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 It sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyshred Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 He took his lumps as a Freshman and Sophomore wrestling 182 and 195 respectively wrestling older, stronger kids yet still pulled off 20+ wins both years and 19 pins last year. Are you trying to run kids like that off. Maybe the reason a regional qualifier pulled off all those wins and pins is that the competition is weak? Nobody wants to run kids off to basketball, but this topic is about how people feel about the weight class changes. Most , not ALL seem to think it was bad for the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyshred Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 If the new weights are "watered down" can you provide an example of an undeserving state champ or qualifier from the last few years? Yeah look at the qualifiers from 170 thru 195. Are they ALL actually State worthy? I would say about 16 of them would not of made it to state without the new weight classes! Obviously they are State worthy cause these are the new weight classes. But I have never been a fan of the action at 215 and Hvy, now watching 170 thru Hvy gives me the same bored cant wait till its over feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv2112 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Everything was spelled correctly, maybe had a grammatical error. But as long as you think everyone is ignorant cause they don't believe exactly what you do then I guess you are the chosen one for the sport. . . . so you agree that your comment was "ignorant, childish, immature" but you wanted to clarify that the spelling was good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Here are the forfeit totals at sectional for the past three years https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At9kk8BWi5ZUdFVpd09mUU12S2ozTW1JSmRxYUMxa2c&usp=sharing I am curious to see if the bigger weights will keep trending downward in terms of forfeits. I would still say we need 3-5 years worth of data for it to be relevant. I think if we go by percentage of forfeits we should get rid of 106 and 113 and add some more up top. This will do nothing but help our sport and who cares about the little guys anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 To those who say that upper weight wrestling is also technical, I definitely agree. It can be very technical. My whole point in posting all the data a couple years ago is that their is a glut of kids who spend the most time on the sport in the middle weights. It has been shown through research in music, science, computer programming, sports...everything...that more time spent on a skill develops that skill. You can't tell me that the weights in Indiana that have 90% off-season participation for the top 50 kids aren't filled with more skilled kids than the weights that are 50% off-season participation for the top 50 kids. I used to buy into the argument that distribution of the total participation numbers nationwide should be the only determining factor for weight classes; but I just don't feel that way anymore at all. There is way more to the story. FYI, to the people taking pot-shots at people suggesting the weights should go back to how they were: I was always a 2 or 3-sport guy. But I, like everyone else, saw big improvements in my skills when I did a full off-season of tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronschoolcraft Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Everything was spelled correctly, maybe had a grammatical error. But as long as you think everyone is ignorant cause they don't believe exactly what you do then I guess you are the chosen one for the sport. Let me be of assistance: "too hard" not "to hard". I didn't say you were ignorant -- I can't speak to that. I said your comment was ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 The classes are what they are. For the whiny argument about "lifers" vs. "warm bodies", consider this. My son has been wrestling since he was 4 years old Pee Wee 50. He is now a Junior in HS weighing about 210 lbs., is 6'5" tall. He is a very technical wrestler. He took his lumps as a Freshman and Sophomore wrestling 182 and 195 respectively wrestling older, stronger kids yet still pulled off 20+ wins both years and 19 pins last year. Are you trying to run kids like that off to basketball (which he's pretty good at, by the way)? He's worked as hard as any of those so called "lifers" at the lower weights and loves the sport, yet you argue he's a warm body. Your generalizations are very ignorant and self serving. We were grateful for the change in weight classes or he would have been at 189 freshman year instead of 182 and at 215 last year instead of 195. He has no excess weight to cut and has been growing like a weed. I guess the one argument above is probably the root -- some of you guys can't do anything else and want the sport to yourselves. Instead of crying and complaining, make the best of what your dealt and get on with life. Yeah, I know where the error was in the sentence. How was my comment anymore ignorant than your first comment? You basically said if people had a problem with these weight classes they were ignorant. How was my first comment of saying I was against taking a middle weight out and adding an upper weight self serving? If I wanted the sport to myself and wanted to cry and complain, it would be over something more important, not over what the set weight classes are. Weight classes change, rules change, everything changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I don't see anyone crying or complaining. Glad your son got a participation ribbon cause a weight class was made for him so he wouldn't have to wrestle someone to hard. really ? asinine comment...and from a moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 really ? asinine comment...and from a moderator Did I use profanity, or verbally attack anyone? Didn't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Did I use profanity, or verbally attack anyone? Didn't think so... said it was asinine, not profane or threatening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carseller0822 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Here are the forfeit totals at sectional for the past three years https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At9kk8BWi5ZUdFVpd09mUU12S2ozTW1JSmRxYUMxa2c&usp=sharing I am curious to see if the bigger weights will keep trending downward in terms of forfeits. I would still say we need 3-5 years worth of data for it to be relevant. I don't know where you got that but thank you for sharing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 i can see the points on both sides of the argument but the personal ones shouldnt factor in. i like the data sheet y2 linked up and at first glance it looks like alot of forfeits so we need to break it down. 113 had the most at 77 so good starting point...divide by 3 to get 26 forfeits per yr avg. and divide that by 33(total number of sectionals)...roughly 3/4 of a forfeit per sectional at 113...doesnt seem like alot to me. y2, do you have access for each yr to see the trending ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki27 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 You're just looking at 2013 click on weight class totals to see all years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 ah ha...i see it now. so roughly 2.4 ff at 113 per sectional in 2013...thats still not alot of ffs imo. thank you Loki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indylutheranwc Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 i have to say i have read all of the comments on the heavier weight class and how the kids are not as good as the lighter weights. I think its sad i wrestled the lowest weights when i wrestled i worked hard to do well and the heavier weights worked just as hard the good thing about wrestling is that you compete against kids your weight and i think we should add weight classes in the middle and upper weights so you dont have kids that are in the middle of a weight class that he has to go upand wrestle someone who cut down to a weight or drop alot of weight to compete but to ever say the upper weights are boring or not as good as the lower weights are just wrong they work hard and shouldnt be put down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleB Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 It's a much more bigger picture. By trying to eliminate heavier weights, the lighter weights are taking out years of frustration from the bigger guys stealing their food and their girls. Us stud big guys were always an enigma to the anorexic, sickly looking light weights. It's just not fair that we are superior wrestlers, get to eat, and pull in the ladies. This goes much deeper than participation numbers, it's genocide of "fattys" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I dream of a world that one day embraces fat people and doesn't ostracize them. The little guys are always trying to hurt the fat kids in any way possible, it just isn't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts