casualwrestlingfan Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Wouldn't it be easier to use the first tiebreaker as # of matches won? Then a double forfeit tie use the current tiebreakers. There is a large gap between HWT and 220. Why not have a 250 lbs class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BClark Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 If you wanted an odd number of weight classes, wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate 106? Don't like 1/3 of teams forfeit that weight class? Not saying I want to take a weight class away. Just not sure adding a 250 lb class would be the way to go. If anything, add one back to the middle weight classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoberlin Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 250? Why would not put back in a middle weight class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800lbs Gorilla Mama Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Wouldn't it be easier to use the first tiebreaker as # of matches won? Then a double forfeit tie use the current tiebreakers. There is a large gap between HWT and 220. Why not have a 250 lbs class? Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Add back the middle weight and keep the 182lbs weight, most teams don't have extra big guys especially one over 250lbs. 106 113 120 125 130 135 140 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 Coach McCormick, RAJR and IU89 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleb Spires Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Add back the middle weight and keep the 182lbs weight, most teams don't have extra big guys especially one over 250lbs. 106 113 120 125 130 135 140 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualwrestlingfan Posted August 5, 2016 Author Share Posted August 5, 2016 Add back the middle weight and keep the 182lbs weight, most teams don't have extra big guys especially one over 250lbs. 106 113 120 125 130 135 140 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 I wouldn't be opposed to that, but aren't the trends showing future kids will be heavier? That's why I proposed 250 besides it is halfway between the other 2 with the biggest discrepancy. I'd be for 17 weight classes, but that's not realistic when 14 is hard to reach for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Alan Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 I wouldn't be opposed to that, but aren't the trends showing future kids will be heavier? That's why I proposed 250 besides it is halfway between the other 2 with the biggest discrepancy. I'd be for 17 weight classes, but that's not realistic when 14 is hard to reach for some. If you go with a heavier weight, it'd be best to get one somewhere between 170 and 220, then move 220 up ten or 15 pounds. Maybe like 160, 170, 181, 192, 205, 230, 285. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 I wouldn't be opposed to that, but aren't the trends showing future kids will be heavier? That's why I proposed 250 besides it is halfway between the other 2 with the biggest discrepancy. I'd be for 17 weight classes, but that's not realistic when 14 is hard to reach for some. The trend is kids are bigger, I think a lot can be attributed to more males start school later. However, adding a weight as heavy as 250 would do the same as adding 98lbs. Each end of the weight classes show more forfeits and obviously less participation than the middle. the 132-138-145 range shows the least amount of forfeits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualwrestlingfan Posted August 5, 2016 Author Share Posted August 5, 2016 The trend is kids are bigger, I think a lot can be attributed to more males start school later. However, adding a weight as heavy as 250 would do the same as adding 98lbs. Each end of the weight classes show more forfeits and obviously less participation than the middle. the 132-138-145 range shows the least amount of forfeits. Yeah, I'd say 132 to 160 would probably be my estimate of the majority of teams' rooms. With all the media coverage about bigger, faster, stronger athletes and obesity being a stronger trend, will those weights shift up in 15 or so years? I'll have to find my list when I jotted down classes for 15 + classes. I definitely changes some classes through trying to spread out the classes so that they were incremental throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleB Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 #HatinBigs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 (edited) #HatinBigs It's ok, I can appreciate the balance and strength skills of the large man. Edited August 6, 2016 by MattM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts