Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 48

Thread: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

  1. #10

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    Those were varsity rankings, so its definitely an issue (having HS kids at those weight classes.)

    However, I think that having more weights in the middle classes (i.e. 152, 157, 164, 171.. or similar) would simply ruin the competition level even more.

    I know when I was in HS there were already only 2-3 guys at each weight capable of winning a title in the most middle weight classes, if you add more, it will basically eliminate any guessing as to who would win it and really just give heavier young kids a better chance at 4+ state titles (as opposed to it currently favoring kids who are smaller.)

    In Ohio, its a completely different story. Ohio is much deeper than Minnesota is and could probably support such a change.

  2. #11

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    Where would Zach Sanders, Mike Thorn, Jayson Ness etc be without those lighter weight classes?
    "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they speak."

  3. #12

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    There are fewer forfeits in Minnesota because of the use of junior high age wrestlers. I understand this happens in other states as well. In my state this is not allowed making it harder to fill some lower weights. However I am not in favor of eliminating a smaller weight. I think a weight should be eliminated, but it should be in the middle. I coach at a smaller school and it is difficult to fill 14 weight classes. With this being said I have been able to do so consistently , but it is because we have a wrestling tradition here. The weight classes in the middle are to close together. A wrestler can move from one class to another in one workout with the 5 pound breaks. I say remove a class but take it out of the middle and space the rest of the middle weights out more. In my state there is a growing movement to go to 13 or even 12 classes. Many of the state coaches do not support 14 weights but the heads of the state athletic associations do. But these are not the guys trying to fill 14 weight classes and be competitive for a living. I know that since the beginning of 14 weight classes the quality of wrestling has definitely dropped in Oklahoma. I do not see how this cqan be good for the sport. Adding more competitors just to add them? Whatever happened to earning your spot? Many may not agree with me and that is each person's right this is just my 2 cents.

  4. #13
    Olympic Champ therick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Columbus, Ohio

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    Whatever happened to earning your spot?

    I couldn't agree more with this statement. I read people on here saying that eliminating a weight class is bad because it takes away an opportunity from a kid and it'll turn kids off from the sport.
    In sports like Basketball, and Baseball, the teams have cuts and only about half of the kids on the team ever see action in a game, but I don't see their popularity going away.

    Teams like St Edward have enough kids to field at least 4 full teams. The green team or Varsity B team wins plenty of varsity tournaments all over the state, which means there are some kids good enough to place at the state tournament who never get the chance. And yet, that doesn't cause kids to stop wanting to go there, even if they could start at Holy Name, or St Ignatius, or Padua, or even Walsh. Nothing in wrestling comes easy and neither should a starting spot on the varsity squad.

    I mentioned this before, with respect to the weight classes and where to remove one. I agree that the 5 pound breaks 5 straight weight classes is nuts. Why not use the college weights and add two or three below 125?

  5. #14

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    something like: 106, 114, 120, 127, 136, 145, 154, 163, 171, 182, 195, HWT

    Would keep kids from cutting to the next lower weight to dodge people (i.e 145 to 140 would be much easier than 145 to 136.)

  6. #15

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    I like having 14 weight classes and having the lower weights because it gives more kids a chance to compete. We in the wrestling community pride ourselves in allowing kids of all sorts of weights to compete. So, I don't really think we should drop the number of weight classes.

    As for modifying the weight classes, I noticed a few things when I got into coaching high school kids, after being out of high school for 10 years and only coaching little kids for 3 years. I noticed that high school kids are bigger than I remember them being when I was in school. There are more 215, 230, 250 pounders than there used to be. There seem to be fewer lighter weights and fewer 130s and 140s. I couldn't believe how hard it was to find an in-shape 162, 171 pounder in a 2,000 student high school. The only kids who wanted to wrestle were 250 pounds or heavier. Last year, I had to keep 5 kids from wrestling in duel meets because they couldn't make 285!

    I think that we need to keep 14 or 13 weight classes, but maybe we should add some heavier classes. But, I am a little guy (119) and I would hate to lose these weights. We were pretty successful at the lighter weights and our 103, 112, 119, and 125 group in high school was known as the Mighty Mites (a group of which I am proud to have been a member).

  7. #16

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    I wrestled in a small town in Iowa 27-30 years ago and we had to forfeit 98 lbs. two of those four years. Maybe go back to the old weight classes, only eliminate 98 (105, 112, 119, 126, 132, 138, 145, 155, 167, 185, 215, UNL). Another idea I've heard is the old college weight classes but start with 112 and add a heavyweight class over 215 (112, 118, 126, 134, 142, 150, 158, 167, 177, 190, HWT(215), UNL). If you don't want eighth graders wrestling, that would probably eliminate them. I've always thought the five pound differences in the middle weights is ridiculous. Eliminate one or two of those and space 'em out by 6-8 pounds. Just my opinion for what it's worth. I didn't read through all the posts, so I'm sure I've been redundant.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    What is the objection to the 103 lb weight class? In FL it is very competitive.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Is this why MN coaches are trying to cut a weight class?

    I would like to see 103 bumped to 108-110lbs, 112 to 115lbs and maybe 119 to 120lbs and everything else the same.

    I received 25 out of 32 sectional(first round of the state tournament) brackets this year in Indiana and decided to see where the most forfeits were. It was quite a bit more at 103 and 112. Note that Indiana does NOT allow middle school kids on the varsity team and in my opinion middle school kids should NEVER participate in varsity athletics.

    My question is how many 8th graders start in Minnesota in basketball or football or any other sport? The reason there are more forfeits at the upper weights in Minnesota is they allow the 7th and 8th graders to wrestle. In states that they do not allow them to wrestle there are numerous forfeits at the lower weight classes.

    Here is the data I compiled
    I will smash your face into a car windshield and then take your mother, Dorothy Mantooth, out to a nice seafood dinner and never call her again!

    Tell me about it, this morning, I woke up and I shit a squirrel, but what I can't get is the damn thing is still alive. So now, I've got a shit covered squirrel running around my office and I don't know what to name it.

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