Page 1 of 9 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 74

Thread: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

  1. #1

    Default Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    Has anyone else heard of this?

    Option A:
    110,119,125,131,136,141,146,152,159,167,177,192,21 6,285

    Option B:
    106,113,120,126,132,138,145,152,160,170,182,195,22 0,285

    Option C:
    107,115,122,128,134,140,146,152,159,167,177,192,21 6,285

  2. #2
    Round of 12 The Janitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Riverside California
    Posts
    221

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    i like option C It Gives alot of smaller 112 Wrestlers the abillity to drop to 107 and they can compete better and it makes alot of weight cuts easier like going 135 to 122 is easyer than to 119
    Mental toughness is to physical as four is to one.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    In Oklahoma, it seems more and more 103, 112, and 119 are mostly freshmen. The big(older) guys seem tobe declining. I feel that there is a need for 245+/- and move HWT to atleast 325. There was a time when wrestling was all inclusive.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    Option B is the closest to our current one, it's a subtle change but...

  5. #5
    Round of 12 The Janitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Riverside California
    Posts
    221

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    They should move heavyweights to 226-350 and make 215s to 225s that would make it alot better for our heavy weight hes 235 lbs 6'3 and he doesnt want to drop 20 lbs
    Mental toughness is to physical as four is to one.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    I like option "D"...leave it the hell alone.

    There are way more forfeits at 215 and HWT than there are at 103. I've signed the petition and wrote the PIAA on the matter to support leaving it the way that it is.

  7. #7
    NCAA Champ WhippetGrappler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Moved to Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    1,281

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Badcat View Post
    I like option "D"...leave it alone.

    There are way more forfeits at 215 and HWT than there are at 103. I've signed the petition and wrote the PIAA on the matter to support leaving it the way that it is.

    I agree 100%.
    BRUTUS BUCKEYE WILL TAKE YOU DOWN...

  8. #8

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Badcat View Post
    I like option "D"...leave it the hell alone.

    There are way more forfeits at 215 and HWT than there are at 103.

    Guy didn't mean to offend you. Thought this was a national forum, however if you had less freshman filling the void then I'd bet there would many more forfeits. In Oklahoma, I'd rather see more opportunity for the upper classmen. The Jr. High is already set aside for the freshman. Is there a problem with a 103lber giving up 6-7lbs(+/-7%) to compete? Giving up 10-20% is the norm for a large number of those who choose to compete above 170 and around 7% for the 160lber.

  9. #9
    Olympic Champ therick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    2,052

    Default Re: Proposed High School Weights for 2010-2011

    If I had to choose, I'd probably go with B.

    I think the lowest weight should be raised, but I don't think it should be by too much. Just as I thought the increase from 98 to 103 was fair, I think raising it to 106 or 107 is okay, but 110 would be too high. If a kid is good enough, he shouldn't be too concerned about those 3lbs. If those 3lbs are a big problem, then he was either not strong enough to really contend on a varsity squad, or not good enough technically. Either way, he should be honing his skills at the freshman or jv level and eating and lifting to get bigger.

    I also like the upper weights of 170, 182, 195 and 220. The spacing is better and the gaps are better on a percentage of body weight basis. I also like the elimination of the complete log jam of 5lb weights in the middle, but there are still 7 weights between 120 and 160 as there should be.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •