MOWrestler
-
Posts
276 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Articles
Coach
Teams
Team History
Wrestlers
Wrestler Accomplishments
Dual Results
Individual Results
Team Rankings
Individual Rankings Master
Individual Ranking Detail
Tournament Results
Brackets
College Signings
Media
State Bracket Year Info
Team Firsts and Lasts
Family History
Schedule-Main
Schedule-Details
Team History Accomplishments
Current Year Dual Results
Current Year Tournament Results
Forums
Events
Store
Downloads
Everything posted by MOWrestler
-
Exactly, I don't think some people see the irony of this comparison. There's this criticism of these sectionals with a large majority of small schools and a corresponding pride of being superior. But its really just a negative byproduct of a single class system where big schools routinely beat up on smaller schools. And we complain, why cant those small guys just try harder and be better. And so it begins for 2018.... Hope everyone saved their responses to 'class wrestling' from the last 20 years so you can just cut and paste I'm looking forward to hearing this debated, again
-
While I don't technically disagree, playing devil's advocate, should there be more than 14 weight classes? Should college have more weight classes too?
-
I was referring to the following earlier in the post: @lewdwar's pictures of a knee/elbow sleeve is not permitted. These can be altered if the sleeve at the top and bottom is shortened. But needs to be verified by the official. This was an issue a couple of years ago, if was brought to the attention of the NFHS, they are illegal because of the sleeve. Jim Russell IHSAA Rules Interpreter
-
I presume you mean IF you did not get approval at weigh-ins. I would presume if you present any special equipment at weigh-ins and it is approved that this cannot change once matches start.
-
I'd still like to see 13-14 weight classes for HS. One option is to go down further than Raven says above. Something like: 109,117,125,133,141,149,157,165,174,184,197,220,285 Seems to me like going as low as 109 would still allow more teams to fill all of the weights.
-
Not sure, but the one below is AND it is better if you want to win...
-
While I agree with this, it is only one case within the State Tournament Series where this sort of issue happens. Granted it is an easier fix than adding wrestle-backs to Regionals or SS or Sate for that matter. Philosophically, here in IN, we try to find the 1 best wrestler at a weight. Again, doesn't mean we should not 'fix' the issues described above, but just changes things by 1 week...
-
Like- yes, but Hall of Fame? I think when you use reason and da region to describe him that's why he isn't HOF material. I don't often read this forum for 'reasonable' comments. However, I do appreciate that X-Card doesn't use #'s in his posts.
-
I was wondering the same thing. Had a kid who was injured for much of the season. SS qualifier last season, but not ticket rounder. I think he squeaked in by getting back on the math this weekend to pick up 3 more wins. He is currently 16-0 but that includes 4 FF. Before this weekend, he was 11-0 with 2 FF so that would have meant 9-0. I think this is a possible scenario.
-
I am neither for, nor against this rule. However, the rule seems to be unclear. Will the communication to coaches be as detailed as to measurements etc... (as you indicate above)? I think a kid should know before he walks on the mat that he can use the equipment he's wearing. Also, I do think that making this ruling late in the season is poor. If kids have been practicing and competing in one type of equipment all season only to have to change it now.
-
Da Rat for sure!
-
He has looked great lately. Undersized, but he really moves and works that cradle like no other.
-
Doesn't he always...
-
Maybe not the top dogs in the Big10, but it was a close dual. Sorry to see Jake lose.
-
True, but by rule the weigh-in is "allowed" just not "qualified". I think this is one of the issues as the rule is currently interpreted. Unless weigh-ins are entered into the system when they occur and must be qualified to compete OR wins in events with non-qualified weigh-ins are removed from records for seeing (a nightmare mind you) some instances like the scenario here are bound to occur.
-
This is probably more of a post-season topic when we don't have much wrestling to actually talk about, but as I just read post from SharkBit about qualified weigh-ins per the 1.5% rule it got me thinking. Has anyone actually seen a significant change in weight management practices (across the board) due to the new system? My gut feeling is NO. The same basic things are happening from a weight management standpoint. Coaches and wrestlers are just working around the system to get the "6 qualified weigh-ins" and to have their wrestler at the weight they want for the post-season. I am not blaming the rule, but frankly if cutting weight is a concern, the only way it will ever change significantly is a mat-side weigh-in. I am neither advocating this nor denouncing it. I just think it would be the only way we'd see any real changes.
-
Others feel free to refute this...but my experience has been as follows: For question 1: You were right IF you wanted both weigh-ins to be "QUALIFIED". If your kids had weighed in heavier at the MI meet that weigh-in would be qualified, but the next one would not. If you have extra weigh-ins in your schedule, a couple of non-qualified weigh-ins would not be a big deal (though I believe the intent of the rule would be to do what you did and have all qualified weigh-ins). For questions 2: It seems to me that this 'plan' would not really be in the spirit and intent of the 1.5% rule unless Little Johnny starts at 120 early in the season and makes his way down to 106. I also assume 106 is not below his minimum weight. However, your case of weighing in and then dropping 12.5 lbs in 2 weeks is a little different. All previous weigh-ins would be qualified. The one weigh in after the large cut would NOT be QUALIFIED and could not count as the scratch weigh-in. However, the system seems to re-set after every weigh-in. So after hitting 106 once, he could then keep weighing-in and the subsequent ones would be qualified. So it believe it is LEGAL by technical rule. Some other states have systems that give a minimum weight allowed each week from the alpha weigh-in. Then if you weigh in heavy, they re-adjust the minimum for each subsequent week. Unless there is a minimum weight for every week AND every weigh-in must be qualified, there will always be some wiggle room "legally". In the end it depends on the coach's and wrestler's philosophy.
-
Yes, I seen this at a youth tournament that my son participated. I was puzzled why was there a need for both. I think Fearless Fly already answered this before it was asked: I'm guessing it has to do with his second comment...
-
My understanding is that the teams will be: CMA, South Bend Riley, Gary West Side, Delphi, LaPorte, Mishawaka Marian, Southmont, Franklin Community, Penn, Hammond Baptisit. Historically this has been Penn2. It is an individual, not dual format. In the past they have seeded the wrestlers in a weight and then separated them into pools separating the 1&2 wrestler. After pool wrestling is done they cross pools w/ #1 in each pool facing off, #2v#2 etc....
-
I think anyone can clearly see this has been caused by 3 errors made by IN. 1. We don't have a classed wrestling state tournament 2. We don't have wrestle-backs in regionals, SS and State 3. We've been counting FF toward winning percentage in sectional seeding Thankfully we have fixed the 3rd issue. I predict many more AA in the near future.
-
This adds an interesting wrinkle. Based on history, Lemley beats Kasch. I think Washington comes in as a regional champ. This means a Kasch v. Washington match-up in the ticket round where they have split (Washington by SV and Kasch by decision (7 pts maybe??)). Wonder if this figures into Washington's decision on what weight to wrestle... 152 (as good as a lock to get to the bank, but then Lee waiting). 160 (harder to get to the bank, but if you do Mappes remains the man to beat). Obviously none of what happens @ Banker's Life (or before) is ever a true lock. I recall having a wrestler who was a 'lock' and got pneumonia having to pull out on Saturday and settle for 8th:(
-
Good point. Just seemed to me like Washington was on a roll. I think Oszkar is really good too. Interesting trio because it has seemed that Lemley has Kasch's number based on past results, but watching Washington in the finals this weekend he was sharp. I think this is an interesting case where 'match-ups' and styles come into play. Could certainly depend on the day...
-
Kid after taking 5th in sectionals: If only my FF's had counted in seeding I'd have made it to Regionals.
-
While I do not think he can beat Lee, Washington has a shot at the top of the podium if he decides to go 160. I think he or Lemley are the best shot for the top of the podium @ 160 from ECSS.
-
Maybe kids could also get something for a FF. In know some kids like to put pins on their jackets when they get a fall. Maybe a 'sparkle button' for FF????
