Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > Boys HS Sports > Wrestling

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-30-19, 11:00 AM
Blast82.5 Blast82.5 is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 11-30-11
Posts: 522
Blast82.5 is on a distinguished road
LucMurphy You make very good points, and I agree that it would be tragic to take away pretty much the only sports opportunity for smaller male athletes.

One of my kids didn't fit the "Club" profile in 8th or 9th grades. But he was improving quickly each year, and having meaningful competition was one key to that. He was average varsity 106 in 9th, 106 SP in 10th, and eventually won a SC and wrestled in college. Would he and all the others like him have progressed if the lightest class Varsity were 110 or 113? Are those small guys just "not welcome" anymore? You have to be either "All-star / Club" level or participate in 3-man pools at crappy JV tourneys? Nothing in between? Terrible choices ...

All that said, it's clear that forfeits are a problem. I'm OK with moving to 13 classes, and I certainly prefer that the lightest class remains 106 (or less), which means rearranging the classes ... fewer up to 125, and certainly fewer above 180.

However, I can see the logic in raising the lightest class for Varsity (while keeping it for Frosh / JV), based on the argument that it's largely populated with freshmen, and no other sport reserves a spot for freshmen on Varsity. That would affect relatively few "excellent" small freshmen wrestlers ... who would have to make a difficult choice about where to compete.

I agree that the holdback thing would likely increase.

And I agree that the deepest talent is national tourneys skews light ... sometimes it's in the middle, but it is NEVER in the upper weights.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-30-19, 01:58 PM
wlpdrpat wlpdrpat is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 12-05-17
Posts: 302
wlpdrpat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast82.5 View Post
LucMurphy You make very good points, and I agree that it would be tragic to take away pretty much the only sports opportunity for smaller male athletes.



One of my kids didn't fit the "Club" profile in 8th or 9th grades. But he was improving quickly each year, and having meaningful competition was one key to that. He was average varsity 106 in 9th, 106 SP in 10th, and eventually won a SC and wrestled in college. Would he and all the others like him have progressed if the lightest class Varsity were 110 or 113? Are those small guys just "not welcome" anymore? You have to be either "All-star / Club" level or participate in 3-man pools at crappy JV tourneys? Nothing in between? Terrible choices ...



All that said, it's clear that forfeits are a problem. I'm OK with moving to 13 classes, and I certainly prefer that the lightest class remains 106 (or less), which means rearranging the classes ... fewer up to 125, and certainly fewer above 180.



However, I can see the logic in raising the lightest class for Varsity (while keeping it for Frosh / JV), based on the argument that it's largely populated with freshmen, and no other sport reserves a spot for freshmen on Varsity. That would affect relatively few "excellent" small freshmen wrestlers ... who would have to make a difficult choice about where to compete.



I agree that the holdback thing would likely increase.



And I agree that the deepest talent is national tourneys skews light ... sometimes it's in the middle, but it is NEVER in the upper weights.
I would argue there is less participation in the upper weights because there are so few weight classes with huge gaps: 182, 195, 220 and 285. That is 17, 25 and 60lb gaps vs the 7-10lb gaps for the majority of weight classes. If there were more weight classes on the upper end you would have more big guys wrestling and create better wrestlers by having more competition in the room. Who is the 285 supposed to workout with??? Who is the 220 supposed to workout with???

You don't see any 106s working out with 160s or 132s or 126s but it's expected for 182 and 195 to work with the 220 and 285.

If you had 180, 190, 200, 215, 230, 250, 285 it would provide appropriate sizes for good workout in the heavy weights. You could start at 110 and go every 10lbs and then you would have an appropriate spread.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-30-19, 02:15 PM
tantal tantal is offline
All District
 
Join Date: 01-01-15
Posts: 151
tantal is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast82.5 View Post
LucMurphy You make very good points, and I agree that it would be tragic to take away pretty much the only sports opportunity for smaller male athletes.

One of my kids didn't fit the "Club" profile in 8th or 9th grades. But he was improving quickly each year, and having meaningful competition was one key to that. He was average varsity 106 in 9th, 106 SP in 10th, and eventually won a SC and wrestled in college. Would he and all the others like him have progressed if the lightest class Varsity were 110 or 113? Are those small guys just "not welcome" anymore? You have to be either "All-star / Club" level or participate in 3-man pools at crappy JV tourneys? Nothing in between? Terrible choices ...

All that said, it's clear that forfeits are a problem. I'm OK with moving to 13 classes, and I certainly prefer that the lightest class remains 106 (or less), which means rearranging the classes ... fewer up to 125, and certainly fewer above 180.

However, I can see the logic in raising the lightest class for Varsity (while keeping it for Frosh / JV), based on the argument that it's largely populated with freshmen, and no other sport reserves a spot for freshmen on Varsity. That would affect relatively few "excellent" small freshmen wrestlers ... who would have to make a difficult choice about where to compete.

I agree that the holdback thing would likely increase.

And I agree that the deepest talent is national tourneys skews light ... sometimes it's in the middle, but it is NEVER in the upper weights.
So you're still arguing for less opportunity. Why relegate the little guys to JV/Freshman? Why does it matter that they are mostly freshman? Do they not work hard and deserve a shot at the state tournament? I also don't think we need fewer above 180. Again, why? Because you don't think they're as good as the 126 pounders so they are less deserving? This is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't think that eliminating opportunity is beneficial to anyone. I'm surprised at how many people here support this.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-30-19, 06:18 PM
Abdullah Abdullah is online now
Varsity
 
Join Date: 05-14-19
Posts: 50
Abdullah is on a distinguished road
I have said before, I will say again. No reason for man to weigh less than 55 kilos once teenage. No excuse for fully grown man to weigh less than 60 kilos.

Must make more weight classes that allow true athletes to be in sport. Remove two light classes and add between heavyweight plus one more middle weight class.

I say same for international classes. Remove 57 kilo and add one more between 74 and 86 kilos.

Alhamdulillah
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-30-19, 10:32 PM
UsedToBe103 UsedToBe103 is offline
All District
 
Join Date: 06-24-16
Posts: 130
UsedToBe103 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdullah View Post
I have said before, I will say again. No reason for man to weigh less than 55 kilos once teenage. No excuse for fully grown man to weigh less than 60 kilos.

Must make more weight classes that allow true athletes to be in sport. Remove two light classes and add between heavyweight plus one more middle weight class.

I say same for international classes. Remove 57 kilo and add one more between 74 and 86 kilos.

Alhamdulillah
I agree that it's rare for someone to be that light, but I wouldn't say that there's "no reason" or "no excuse." You say "No reason for man to weigh less than 55 kilos once teenage." Perhaps you meant late teens, because teenage technically includes thirteen year olds, some of which are barely 80 pounds.

Agreed, it's rare for grown men to weigh less than 60 kilos - most 57 kg wrestlers have to cut to make it - but some guys simply are short and have skinny frames. It doesn't mean that there's "no excuse" for it. I once coached a college freshman who couldn't seem to get above 118. When I lined up for weigh-ins at an open my freshman year of college there were a few guys that weighed less than 120. Max Nowry, Greco National Team Member at 55 kg, is a grown man who has a walk-around weight less than 60 kg. My father weighed in for a college powerlifting competition back in the '70s wearing all his clothes and still made 105 - he also did gymnastics, karate, and tennis, so I think he would have qualified as a "true athlete" as you say.

Those are just some examples off the top of my head. I'm all for adding more middle weight classes, but to say that there's "no reason" or "no excuse" for someone to be light, when genetics that they have no control over plays a big role in that, is silly.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-31-19, 07:39 AM
Blast82.5 Blast82.5 is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 11-30-11
Posts: 522
Blast82.5 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantal View Post
So you're still arguing for less opportunity. Why relegate the little guys to JV/Freshman? Why does it matter that they are mostly freshman? Do they not work hard and deserve a shot at the state tournament? I also don't think we need fewer above 180. Again, why? Because you don't think they're as good as the 126 pounders so they are less deserving? This is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't think that eliminating opportunity is beneficial to anyone. I'm surprised at how many people here support this.
Hey, I'm not saying that freshmen don't work hard, of course they do! So do freshmen football and baseball and basketball and soccer and ... Yet there are not spots specifically reserved for them on the Varsity. I'm only saying that, in the CONTEXT of a discussion about trying to eliminate forfeits in wrestling, where many of said forfeits occur at the lightest weights (and at the heaviest weights) I understand this line of thought.

I first stated that I'd rather the lightest class NOT be cut / raised.

I suppose one's position depends on whether one thinks lots of forfeits are really a problem ... and, if the solution involves reducing the number of weight classes, whether that solution is worse than the original problem.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-31-19, 08:36 AM
jmog jmog is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 05-11-12
Posts: 3,487
jmog is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlpdrpat View Post
I would argue there is less participation in the upper weights because there are so few weight classes with huge gaps: 182, 195, 220 and 285. That is 17, 25 and 60lb gaps vs the 7-10lb gaps for the majority of weight classes. If there were more weight classes on the upper end you would have more big guys wrestling and create better wrestlers by having more competition in the room. Who is the 285 supposed to workout with??? Who is the 220 supposed to workout with???

You don't see any 106s working out with 160s or 132s or 126s but it's expected for 182 and 195 to work with the 220 and 285.

If you had 180, 190, 200, 215, 230, 250, 285 it would provide appropriate sizes for good workout in the heavy weights. You could start at 110 and go every 10lbs and then you would have an appropriate spread.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Your argument for direct pound differences on who works out with who doesn't make sense. You need to go with % differences.

For instance, the biggest difference is 220 to 285, which is almost 30% difference for the smaller guy. A 106 pounder+30% is 138 lber. While uncommon, there would be at times a 106 pounder would work with someone in the 130s.

At times my kid who was 130ish last season would work with the 160, 170, and as high as 182 pounder in a rotation workout. Like I said, it wasn't common but it would happen say once a week or so.

I am sure on larger teams (St. Eds, Brecks, Elyria, etc) that this is less common because of how many kids they have, but I can assure you, for smaller schools it happens quite often. There is a standing rule when such "matchups" happen in the room "the bigger guy better know how to 'land', it is their responsibility to make sure the smaller guy doesn't get hurt". Hasn't been a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-31-19, 02:39 PM
wlpdrpat wlpdrpat is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 12-05-17
Posts: 302
wlpdrpat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
Your argument for direct pound differences on who works out with who doesn't make sense. You need to go with % differences.

For instance, the biggest difference is 220 to 285, which is almost 30% difference for the smaller guy. A 106 pounder+30% is 138 lber. While uncommon, there would be at times a 106 pounder would work with someone in the 130s.
You know the The Constitution of the U.S. required the "Great Compromise" to be ratified.

Light weights will always argue that it is % of body weight that is more significant and heavy weights will always argue that it is actual body weight that is more significant. Unfortunately, in the wrestling world the light weights have been in control for the last 5 decades and tend to play down the importance of the heavy weights as they are not "real" wrestlers anyway.

You can argue that I am wrong but the simple fact that there are 9 weights below 170 and 4 weights above 170 tells the entire story. The NFHS will say that they analyzed the data of wrestling participants and divided them into weight classes that represent 7% of participants. Unfortunately, they were looking at historical data that was already skewed by the existing weight classes.

If the NFHS were to look at the weights of all athletes participating in high school athletics then divide them into weight classes to represent all potential wrestlers you would very likely find that there are significantly less lower weight classes and significantly more upper weight classes. In fact, this may be the reason that there are so many forfeits because the weight classes don't properly represent the prospective athletes.

Take a look at the average size of a NCAA (1, 2 and 3) male athletes:
Height: 5'11" - 6'5"
Weight: 175-300lbs

I realize that high school wrestling is a filter for college wrestling and that college wrestling disproportionately represents the smaller weight classes with 6 weights below 170 and 4 weights above 170 (but this is closer to equal representation). College should be a filter for our National team to represent us at the worlds and Olympics and although I disagree with only having 6 weight classes at the Olympics at least they have the spread balanced with 3 weights below 170 and 3 weights above 170.

If the wrestling community would take some advice from Mahatma Gandhi and think global while acting local then they would recognize that having more weight classes in high school keeps more athletes involved in the sport and improves the filter of athletes to college. This would improve the filter in college to our National teams which would ultimately improve our nations ability to win the Olympics in both styles.

Here it is 7 weight classes below 170 and 7 weight classes above 170 for a total of 15 weight classes in high school. College 5 weight classes below 170 and 5 weight classes above 170 for a total of 11 weight classes in college.

Personally, I think 4 weight classes above and below 170 for the Olympics for a total of 9 weight classes would be more appropriate but the Olympic committee can't justify giving more weight classes to men than to women which IMHO is ridiculous.

Final note: If the weight classes properly represented the pool of potential athletes then you would see fewer forfeits because you would be able to fill the weight classes. The fact that you can't fill the weight classes should be your first clue that the weight classes don't properly represent the pool of potential athletes. Eliminating weight classes will not improve how the weight classes represent the pool of potential athletes but it will certainly eliminate opportunities for high school athletes to represent their school at the state level.

Albert Einstein (paraphrased) — "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them."
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-31-19, 03:37 PM
jmog jmog is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 05-11-12
Posts: 3,487
jmog is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlpdrpat View Post
You know the The Constitution of the U.S. required the "Great Compromise" to be ratified.

Light weights will always argue that it is % of body weight that is more significant and heavy weights will always argue that it is actual body weight that is more significant. Unfortunately, in the wrestling world the light weights have been in control for the last 5 decades and tend to play down the importance of the heavy weights as they are not "real" wrestlers anyway.

You can argue that I am wrong but the simple fact that there are 9 weights below 170 and 4 weights above 170 tells the entire story. The NFHS will say that they analyzed the data of wrestling participants and divided them into weight classes that represent 7% of participants. Unfortunately, they were looking at historical data that was already skewed by the existing weight classes.

If the NFHS were to look at the weights of all athletes participating in high school athletics then divide them into weight classes to represent all potential wrestlers you would very likely find that there are significantly less lower weight classes and significantly more upper weight classes. In fact, this may be the reason that there are so many forfeits because the weight classes don't properly represent the prospective athletes.

Take a look at the average size of a NCAA (1, 2 and 3) male athletes:
Height: 5'11" - 6'5"
Weight: 175-300lbs

I realize that high school wrestling is a filter for college wrestling and that college wrestling disproportionately represents the smaller weight classes with 6 weights below 170 and 4 weights above 170 (but this is closer to equal representation). College should be a filter for our National team to represent us at the worlds and Olympics and although I disagree with only having 6 weight classes at the Olympics at least they have the spread balanced with 3 weights below 170 and 3 weights above 170.

If the wrestling community would take some advice from Mahatma Gandhi and think global while acting local then they would recognize that having more weight classes in high school keeps more athletes involved in the sport and improves the filter of athletes to college. This would improve the filter in college to our National teams which would ultimately improve our nations ability to win the Olympics in both styles.

Here it is 7 weight classes below 170 and 7 weight classes above 170 for a total of 15 weight classes in high school. College 5 weight classes below 170 and 5 weight classes above 170 for a total of 11 weight classes in college.

Personally, I think 4 weight classes above and below 170 for the Olympics for a total of 9 weight classes would be more appropriate but the Olympic committee can't justify giving more weight classes to men than to women which IMHO is ridiculous.

Final note: If the weight classes properly represented the pool of potential athletes then you would see fewer forfeits because you would be able to fill the weight classes. The fact that you can't fill the weight classes should be your first clue that the weight classes don't properly represent the pool of potential athletes. Eliminating weight classes will not improve how the weight classes represent the pool of potential athletes but it will certainly eliminate opportunities for high school athletes to represent their school at the state level.

Albert Einstein (paraphrased) — "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them."
1. People use percent not because they are light weights, but because they understand biomechanics, math, statistics, and science. People that use straight pounds do so to make themselves feel better/bigger/stronger.

2. The NFHS used actual statistics and science while you are using "average college athletes" that somehow inludes 6'5" and 300 pounds...that is NOT average, there are truly only offensive linemen and down tackles in college football that are that size. No male volleyball player, ice hockey, basketball, baseball, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, etc are 6'5" 300 pounds. I am sorry, but even in NCAAs athletes that size are outliers. We "SEE" them more because of how televised football is, but seriously name someone outside of football lineman in a normal NCAA Men's sport that is that size. You can't be serious including that size in "average". To be fair, maybe you meant the RANGE OF SIZES or male athletes in NCAA which would fit closer to your data, but definitely not average (if it was range i would say the upper numbers are close but the bottom ones need to be lower when including sports like wrestling, golf, tennis, etc).

3. The AVERAGE height/weight for a HS boy is 5'6" and 130 pounds. That is factual information by the CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. I am not sure where your 170 lb number comes from but the average high school boy (ages 14-18) AVERAGE is 130 lbs.



The above chart backs my numbers up, average 14 year old is 125 lbs, average 18 year old is 155 lbs. Based on distribution quin-tiles (more kids bunched up between 100 and the average than above the average) is probably how the "average" is 130. I would even be more willing to go with around 140 according to this chart, but that is STILL no where near 170.

Since right now the "break point" in wrestling is 148 pounds (halfway between 145/152 since even number of classes). That is actually skewed toward your 170 rather than the actual average. I am sure that is skewed because yes, athletes are typically larger/light weights/etc than kids who don't which is how the NFHS's 7% from historical data landed us where we are.

170 is probably the average high school football player size in Ohio, it is NOT the average athlete. If you believe this you should check out other sports like golf, baseball, etc. Kid from my local HS that is going to D1 college baseball probably isn't 130 lb soaking wet, but has a great bat (led the area in HRs).
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-01-19, 01:53 AM
wlpdrpat wlpdrpat is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 12-05-17
Posts: 302
wlpdrpat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
1. People use percent not because they are light weights, but because they understand biomechanics, math, statistics, and science. People that use straight pounds do so to make themselves feel better/bigger/stronger.
Funny...Mark Twain once said, "Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person." I have a better than average handle on biomechanics, math, statistics, and science given that I scored in the top 0.5% on national board exams and have 15+ yrs experience instructing post graduate CE courses in biomechanics. That being said; I'll try to go easy.

I have a younger son that is much bigger and stronger than his older brother. However, the older brother likes to point out that on a percentage of body weight he is still significantly stronger. Mediating them can be a bit challenging but I regularly point out that they should be comparing themselves to others that are of equal age and size as a reference point for where they are rather than picking on each others weaknesses.

Bringing us back to the "Great Compromise" where the larger states wanted land mass to be the basis of representation and smaller states wanted population to be used. Fortunately, our founding fathers had the foresight to create a bicameral congress to provide balanced representation for both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
2. The NFHS used actual statistics and science while you are using "average college athletes" that somehow inludes 6'5" and 300 pounds...that is NOT average, there are truly only offensive linemen and down tackles in college football that are that size. No male volleyball player, ice hockey, basketball, baseball, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, etc are 6'5" 300 pounds. I am sorry, but even in NCAAs athletes that size are outliers. We "SEE" them more because of how televised football is, but seriously name someone outside of football lineman in a normal NCAA Men's sport that is that size. You can't be serious including that size in "average". To be fair, maybe you meant the RANGE OF SIZES or male athletes in NCAA which would fit closer to your data, but definitely not average (if it was range i would say the upper numbers are close but the bottom ones need to be lower when including sports like wrestling, golf, tennis, etc).
That was a range provided by a recruiting statistics site. Remember that NCAA athletes are not average - they are the cream of the crop of high school athletes. 6'5" may seem rare in the high school athletes but it is rather common among NCAA athletes in volleyball, track, swimming, wrestling, basketball and football. 300lbs may also seem rare but there are plenty of footballers and HWT wrestlers as well as field throwers (discus, shot, hammer) and the occasional basketballer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
3. The AVERAGE height/weight for a HS boy is 5'6" and 130 pounds. That is factual information by the CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. I am not sure where your 170 lb number comes from but the average high school boy (ages 14-18) AVERAGE is 130 lbs.
You know they say that you should always verify your source of data before using it. Unfortunately, the data and graph you used is dated 2000 and believe it or not the data has changed since then. The occurrence of obesity has more than doubled since 2000.

That being said I wasn't discussing the average high school boy. I was discussing the average high school boy athlete and for the purpose of clarity I intended to say average senior high school boy athlete. Given that we are discussing the creation of a varsity lineup of weight classes and the NFHS also has created weight classes for freshman and junior varsity why would the weight data of all underclassmen be included in the varsity lineup (regardless of how many are actually participating in the varsity lineup)?

So, using the data you provided from 2000 the average high school senior weighed 155. By excluding non-athletes and extrapolating from the available data that shows athletes weigh more than non-athletes the average easily bumps to 163. Then using the available data that indicates the average weight for 18yo has increased by 3.5lbs per decade for the last 4 decades (1960-2000) we can add another 7lbs to arrive at an average weight of 170lbs.

https://www.livescience.com/49-decad...er-fatter.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
Since right now the "break point" in wrestling is 148 pounds (halfway between 145/152 since even number of classes). That is actually skewed toward your 170 rather than the actual average. I am sure that is skewed because yes, athletes are typically larger/light weights/etc than kids who don't which is how the NFHS's 7% from historical data landed us where we are.
You are right that the NFHS used historical data to arrive where we are now and that simply needs to be adjusted to properly represent the current data. The break point should be 170 with 7 weights above and below then the problem related to forfeits is solved by having the weight classes properly represent the pool of available athletes. Am I the only one that finds it funny that the NFHS using participation data and dividing it into equal 7% parts arrived at the same weight classes for the mid-range (126, 132, 138, 145)? The statistical probability of that occurring is extraordinarily low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmog View Post
170 is probably the average high school football player size in Ohio, it is NOT the average athlete. If you believe this you should check out other sports like golf, baseball, etc. Kid from my local HS that is going to D1 college baseball probably isn't 130 lb soaking wet, but has a great bat (led the area in HRs).
170 is the average high school senior athlete size. This may not be true in your school but it is true. Don't just look at the data which supports your position. Be sure to look at all of the available data and I am confident that you will arrive at the same conclusion that the average high school senior boy athlete is 170 and that should be the "break point" in wrestling to properly represent the current pool of athletes.

Your baseball player is a serious outlier if he actually weighs 130. The recruiting range for baseball has 150 as the low end for D3. Most of the athletes on our baseball team are in the above average range (185-220lb) but we also have a couple outliers.

http://www.athleticscholarships.com/...ng-guidelines/
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-01-19, 12:13 PM
Sweep Sweep is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 12-16-05
Posts: 615
Sweep is on a distinguished road
You want to see a MASSIVE amount of forfeits? Put 7 weight classes above 170. That is idiotic.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-01-19, 01:01 PM
jmog jmog is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 05-11-12
Posts: 3,487
jmog is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweep View Post
You want to see a MASSIVE amount of forfeits? Put 7 weight classes above 170. That is idiotic.
Had 2 or 3 people PM me that exact same thing after this “discussion”.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-02-19, 12:11 PM
wlpdrpat wlpdrpat is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 12-05-17
Posts: 302
wlpdrpat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast82.5 View Post
The absolute worst wrestling is performed in the top two classes.
You mean guys like Braxton Amos, AJ Ferrari, Mason Parris, Kyle Snyder, Adam Coon, Gable Stevens, etc, etc.

Maybe the reason your heavyweights suck is that you don't know how to coach heavyweights. Or maybe you just don't like big guys.

There are many that would express the same type of sentiment about watching lightweigts wrestle.

The reality is that everyone has their own personal feelings about wrestling and they tend to favor one of the 3: lightweights, midweights or heavyweights.

Thus the reason I regularly bring up the Great Compromise. If we don't ensure that all 3 are properly represented then 2 of the 3 will be descriminated against.

As coaches the focus should be on finding, developing and grooming a full team of wrestlers. Unfortunately, personal preferences are felt by your athletes. If you don't have many lightweights or heavyweights maybe your personality is attracting midweights and repelling all others. Try getting a lightweight and heavyweight coach to work with and attract those athletes.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-03-19, 11:45 AM
Blast82.5 Blast82.5 is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 11-30-11
Posts: 522
Blast82.5 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlpdrpat View Post
You mean guys like Braxton Amos, AJ Ferrari, Mason Parris, Kyle Snyder, Adam Coon, Gable Stevens, etc, etc.

Maybe the reason your heavyweights suck is that you don't know how to coach heavyweights. Or maybe you just don't like big guys.

There are many that would express the same type of sentiment about watching lightweigts wrestle.

The reality is that everyone has their own personal feelings about wrestling and they tend to favor one of the 3: lightweights, midweights or heavyweights.

Thus the reason I regularly bring up the Great Compromise. If we don't ensure that all 3 are properly represented then 2 of the 3 will be descriminated against.

As coaches the focus should be on finding, developing and grooming a full team of wrestlers. Unfortunately, personal preferences are felt by your athletes. If you don't have many lightweights or heavyweights maybe your personality is attracting midweights and repelling all others. Try getting a lightweight and heavyweight coach to work with and attract those athletes.
Wow, you felt so strongly about this that you had to post it twice. Good work.

I'm not a coach, so my terribly personality is not getting in the way of any wrestler, of any size or experience level, achieving their best.

I suppose I should have prefaced my statement with "IMO," since it is just my opinion. I stand by my opinion that very little of the best wrestling is done at the highest several classes in MS or HS, and at HWT in College and Senior level.

Have you seriously watched 195, 220 and Hwt in HS? I try to be objective, and I just cannot say that there is the same broad set of "wrestling skills" executed (or frequently attempted) at those weights. Pointing out a few notable exceptions does not change that.

I agree that a wide range of sizes should be represented. But I also feel that the sports of freestyle and folkstyle wrestling are best executed by guys who are not particularly large. I don't think this is much different than saying that horse-racing is best executed by guys who are very small, and basketball is best executed by guys who are quite tall.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-03-19, 01:50 PM
ProV1 ProV1 is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 02-14-15
Posts: 1,353
ProV1 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast82.5 View Post
Wow, you felt so strongly about this that you had to post it twice. Good work.

I'm not a coach, so my terribly personality is not getting in the way of any wrestler, of any size or experience level, achieving their best.

I suppose I should have prefaced my statement with "IMO," since it is just my opinion. I stand by my opinion that very little of the best wrestling is done at the highest several classes in MS or HS, and at HWT in College and Senior level.

Have you seriously watched 195, 220 and Hwt in HS? I try to be objective, and I just cannot say that there is the same broad set of "wrestling skills" executed (or frequently attempted) at those weights. Pointing out a few notable exceptions does not change that.

I agree that a wide range of sizes should be represented. But I also feel that the sports of freestyle and folkstyle wrestling are best executed by guys who are not particularly large. I don't think this is much different than saying that horse-racing is best executed by guys who are very small, and basketball is best executed by guys who are quite tall.
I don’t think it is a question of better or worse but different. Kind of like the baseball player who slaps singles, steals bases, and scores runs vs the power hitter with big dinger numbers and RBI’s. The big guys must use a different set of skills but that does not make them better or worse than a smaller guy.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-03-19, 02:17 PM
wlpdrpat wlpdrpat is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 12-05-17
Posts: 302
wlpdrpat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast82.5 View Post
Wow, you felt so strongly about this that you had to post it twice. Good work.

I'm not a coach, so my terribly personality is not getting in the way of any wrestler, of any size or experience level, achieving their best.

I suppose I should have prefaced my statement with "IMO," since it is just my opinion. I stand by my opinion that very little of the best wrestling is done at the highest several classes in MS or HS, and at HWT in College and Senior level.

Have you seriously watched 195, 220 and Hwt in HS? I try to be objective, and I just cannot say that there is the same broad set of "wrestling skills" executed (or frequently attempted) at those weights. Pointing out a few notable exceptions does not change that.

I agree that a wide range of sizes should be represented. But I also feel that the sports of freestyle and folkstyle wrestling are best executed by guys who are not particularly large. I don't think this is much different than saying that horse-racing is best executed by guys who are very small, and basketball is best executed by guys who are quite tall.
Thank you for pointing out the double post...that was a browser glitch - certainly not intentional. I have removed the duplicate.

Stating that you personally prefer watching the light weight wrestlers is one thing but stating IMO very little of the best wrestling happens in the HWT classes certainly fails the "PC" meter today.

As has already been stated very eloquently by ProV1 is that it is a different style of wrestling in the heavy vs light weights.

Some people actually enjoy watching Nascar or Soccer while I would rather watch paint dry.

I will give you this - if you are watching a state or national level competitor wrestling against a sectional placer/district qualifier level - it really doesn't matter the weight class it is going to be a slaughter.

When watching two high level guys compete it is much more likely to be exciting in the lower weight classes as the number of moves that can be utilized is more diverse. In the upper weights there are limits on certain types of moves due to strength and flexibility restrictions. E.g. you won't see many upper weights doing funk roll defenses to leg shots.

I enjoy both ends in large part because I understand what it takes at both ends to be high level.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-05-19, 06:32 PM
Matstain Matstain is offline
Freshman
 
Join Date: 03-29-17
Location: You Can't See Me
Posts: 16
Matstain is on a distinguished road
Why not just eliminate or limit dual meets if you can't fill a team. Solves forfeits, tiebreakers and blowouts. Tournaments are way more exciting! 106 is often the most exciting finals match in any tournament. Way better for the sport!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-05-19, 06:52 PM
Jim Behrens Jim Behrens is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 01-18-11
Posts: 766
Jim Behrens is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matstain View Post
Why not just eliminate or limit dual meets if you can't fill a team. Solves forfeits, tiebreakers and blowouts. Tournaments are way more exciting! 106 is often the most exciting finals match in any tournament. Way better for the sport!
Troll much?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-05-19, 07:09 PM
Crab Ride Crab Ride is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 03-28-17
Posts: 366
Crab Ride is on a distinguished road
Get a grip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Behrens View Post
Troll much?
How was his comment trolling.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-05-19, 10:50 PM
Matstain Matstain is offline
Freshman
 
Join Date: 03-29-17
Location: You Can't See Me
Posts: 16
Matstain is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Behrens View Post
Troll much?
Not really... unless i misinterpreted your meaning. I usually just fish from shore.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-06-19, 10:24 AM
LucMurphy134 LucMurphy134 is offline
All District
 
Join Date: 12-01-14
Posts: 137
LucMurphy134 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Behrens View Post
Troll much?
I don't care what the topic is, but it's pretty much par for the course on this board that once a thread gets to page 3, almost always the conversation, deteriorates into 7th grade name calling and insults. Maybe it is too much to expect from this forum to try and form arguments, debate them, and offer possible solutions?

I believe that all problems are solvable and most in many different ways, and obviously I realize that that nobody in any position of power is going to consult us yahoos on the Yappi board to help inform decisions effecting changes to the sport. That said, I this is an important topic and if I may suggest that a good place to start is to define what is the problem that we are trying to solve here?

• Reducing forfeits?
• Increasing competitive balance?
• Increasing overall participation?
• Discouraging weight cutting? Something else?

Personally, I’m against cutting weight classes, because I see it as taking away opportunities for kids and in my experience once you give something away, it's almost impossible to get it back. I'd love to hear a good argument against contesting less weights for duals and more for tournaments? And/Or the idea that larger enrollment schools contest more weights in duals, and smaller schools – less (i.e.- D1- 14 weights, D3- 10), OR is there a different way to look at scoring of duals? Do forfeits need to necessarily be 6 points (equal to a of a pin)?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-06-19, 01:07 PM
Skyhawks90 Skyhawks90 is offline
Junior Varsity
 
Join Date: 09-26-16
Posts: 33
Skyhawks90 is on a distinguished road
if forfeits cost a team >6 points - teams would work more diligently to fill a full roster. It's a shame that a wrestler that has the courage to step on the mat and gets pinned equals the same points as the team that doesn't even bring anyone for that weight.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-06-19, 01:37 PM
Blast82.5 Blast82.5 is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 11-30-11
Posts: 522
Blast82.5 is on a distinguished road
I think the problem that was originally being addressed was forfeits, in the context of dual meets ... trying to make dual meets more competitive, more exciting, and not a forfeit-fest.

If we take that as the "problem," then reducing the number of weights (and opportunities), AT LEAST FOR DUAL MEETS, will help solve the problem.

IF there is some decision that there should be fewer weights for duals, then I like the idea of keeping all the weights for tourneys. I also like the idea of more weights for larger schools and fewer for smaller schools. I know, I know, why should guys at small schools have fewer opportunities ... or why should 106's not get to wrestle duals ...

Eventually it gets down to, Do you believe there is a problem with so many forfeits in duals? If so, what is the "least bad" way to deal with that? What should be done differently?

If you don't think forfeits are an issue, then doing nothing is a valid position.

BTW, saying "Schools with forfeits should work harder to fill the lineup" is not a solution. That is doing nothing different. Aren't teams trying to fill lineups right now? No?

I fundamentally don't agree with having forfeits be worth more than falls. IMO, a team that puts (say) 10 guys on the mat and wins 9 matches should win the dual, not lose because they gave up a million points for their forfeits. If they had capable guys, they would have put them out there. The instances that I see teams forfeit -- when they have a body to throw on the mat -- are situations where they are trying to avoid obvious humiliation. We don't need more developing freshmen getting toyed with so that the home team stud's friends can laugh at him, in order to save a couple team points. (rant over.)
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-06-19, 05:23 PM
roughedge roughedge is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 01-09-14
Posts: 800
roughedge is on a distinguished road
I was listening to PAPower Radio feed other day coming from work and one of the guys mentioned on show he is pushing for PA to add 99lbs weight class and then allow 8th graders to compete in high school division like New York and that would help fill in 99, 106, and 113 weight classes. That was 1st time I heard that solution and I liked that being that both my kids started at 106 and 113.
Now that doesn't fix the smaller division numbers but could help and maybe for D2 and D3 you look at reducing weights for duals for those division.

they also mentioned having some smaller tournaments allow 2 kids per team per weight class as well as allowing 2 kids per weight class for sectionals. They was trying to find ways to expand the number of kids wrestling. That was just some ideas they mentioned that might help the sport grow by giving more opportunities and not taking them away.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-06-19, 08:12 PM
wlpdrpat wlpdrpat is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 12-05-17
Posts: 302
wlpdrpat is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by roughedge View Post
I was listening to PAPower Radio feed other day coming from work and one of the guys mentioned on show he is pushing for PA to add 99lbs weight class and then allow 8th graders to compete in high school division like New York and that would help fill in 99, 106, and 113 weight classes. That was 1st time I heard that solution and I liked that being that both my kids started at 106 and 113.
Now that doesn't fix the smaller division numbers but could help and maybe for D2 and D3 you look at reducing weights for duals for those division.

they also mentioned having some smaller tournaments allow 2 kids per team per weight class as well as allowing 2 kids per weight class for sectionals. They was trying to find ways to expand the number of kids wrestling. That was just some ideas they mentioned that might help the sport grow by giving more opportunities and not taking them away.
I like the idea of allowing 8th grade wrestlers to work with the high school. I know when I was in school we had our own 8th grade season and then if we wanted to we could finish the season with the high school. I believe they allow 8th grade to wrestle high school in Indiana and Kentucky. Obviously, not all 8th grade wrestlers are ready for varsity but allowing them to workout with the high school will definitely get them more prepared for high school competition.

Top 2 from a school being allowed to compete in the sectionals also makes a lot of sense. Rather than forcing a wrestling to move up or down a weight class why not allow them to compete. This would definitely improve the sectional brackets as most are sitting at 8-10 rather than 16. It may cause a few weights to have more than 16 but I think that would be preferred to having such low numbers at sectionals and would then provide a true top 4 going to districts. Imagine being the JV guy behind the district/state champ where you could have easily been a district qualifier...why should they be sitting at home or forced to change weight class when the sectionals are so empty.

Those are a couple of good ideas that will help to develop the sport rather than taking away from it.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-06-19, 08:55 PM
DoubleBoots DoubleBoots is offline
Freshman
 
Join Date: 08-05-18
Posts: 18
DoubleBoots is on a distinguished road
Keeping the lower weights and allowing 7th and 8th graders is done elsewhere and makes total sense to me:
1) JH wrestling is a mess--club kids get elite coaching and partners and the school kids do not. The gap widens and creates mismatches. People complain about the rise of club wrestling--but if good JH kids could practice with and wrestle HS kids and have access to HS coaching then that would help.
2) JH kids that do not have a spot just wrestle on the JV team like everyone else that does not have a spot.
3) Trouble filling lightweight spots goes away completely.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-07-19, 08:04 AM
LucMurphy134 LucMurphy134 is offline
All District
 
Join Date: 12-01-14
Posts: 137
LucMurphy134 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleBoots View Post
Keeping the lower weights and allowing 7th and 8th graders is done elsewhere and makes total sense to me:
1) JH wrestling is a mess--club kids get elite coaching and partners and the school kids do not. The gap widens and creates mismatches. People complain about the rise of club wrestling--but if good JH kids could practice with and wrestle HS kids and have access to HS coaching then that would help.
2) JH kids that do not have a spot just wrestle on the JV team like everyone else that does not have a spot.
3) Trouble filling lightweight spots goes away completely.
For what it's worth, NY allows 7th & 8th graders to participate in all varsity sports, not just wrestling. I think this originally was put in place to serve the small enrollment schools upstate where they just don’t have the numbers to field both MS & HS teams. You won't see many 8th graders on varsity in sports like football, baseball, & basketball, but in individual sports, or in where sports where size isn't a factor (Wrestling, Gymnastics, Cross-Country, etc.) Jr High kids are given the chance to compete if they pass a physical maturity test. While it's allowed, it's not common. Typically 7th & 8th graders that do compete on the Varsity (or even JV) are only the elite and exceptional kids and many of the best kids from NY over the years like Troy Nickerson, Jessie Jantzen, Dake, Gregor Gillespie, Yanni, Jacori Teemer, Rasheed, JP O'Connor, Piccincinni, etc. were all placing in the state @ 96, & 103 in 7th & 8th grade. I'm not suggesting this would necessarily fly in Ohio, but it works in NY. It fills line ups (reduces forfeits), I would guess likely reduces holdbacks, and it fills the gap that the clubs are serving by giving elite kids better coaching, partners and competition, while allowing MS programs to be geared toward developing novices. Another consideration, many 8th graders today say at the OAC level (holdback or not), have 8-9 years of high level training and hundreds even thousands of matches under their belt by the time they hit 8th grade. These kids are more than ready and skilled enough to contribute to a HS team, which was maybe not the case in the late 80’s early 90’s.

Last edited by LucMurphy134; 06-07-19 at 08:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-07-19, 08:42 AM
galewrestling galewrestling is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 03-05-07
Posts: 251
galewrestling is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast82.5 View Post
Hey, I'm not saying that freshmen don't work hard, of course they do! So do freshmen football and baseball and basketball and soccer and ... Yet there are not spots specifically reserved for them on the Varsity. I'm only saying that, in the CONTEXT of a discussion about trying to eliminate forfeits in wrestling, where many of said forfeits occur at the lightest weights (and at the heaviest weights) I understand this line of thought.

I first stated that I'd rather the lightest class NOT be cut / raised.

I suppose one's position depends on whether one thinks lots of forfeits are really a problem ... and, if the solution involves reducing the number of weight classes, whether that solution is worse than the original problem.
But freshman/smaller kids in those sports at least have an opportunity to be varsity. Your argument is less about freshman and more about smaller kids. If you are a phenom or really good freshman, you will probably be varsity in many sports. I have seen many small freshman make the soccer team, baseball team, etc because they were really good. But it seems like some people here want to eliminate smaller kids from wrestling. Those smaller kids eventually grow to be bigger kids, so the more you take away opportunity from younger/smaller kids the fewer kids you will have wrestling. I think this will lead the sport down the drain that much faster.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposed Weight Class Reduction by PIAA to the NFHS chidy Wrestling 51 05-26-19 09:39 AM
OHSAA Member Schools Pass All 24 Referendum Items - Change to Competitive Balance Yappi Football 0 05-17-19 01:38 PM
How about no more weight classes? (kinda) InterestedObserver Wrestling 10 12-05-18 12:31 AM
Climate change will shrink economy and kill thousands BlueJayFan Debate Forum 48 11-27-18 04:28 PM
Reducing the number of weights classes? cbb75fire Wrestling 125 01-25-18 09:04 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz