Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 48

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

  1. #1

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

    103 pounds
    1. Eric Devos, Apple Valley (3), 8
    2. Cory Hansen, Albert Lea Area (1), 9
    3. Mitch Bengston, Saint Cloud Apollo (8), 7
    4. Justin Stevens, Mound-Westonka (6), 9
    5. Matt Luchsinger, Tartan (4), 12
    6. Kahron Nix, Coon Rapids (7), 8
    7. Austin Leibel, Saint Francis (7), 8

    112 pounds
    1. Cody Hansen, Albert Lea Area (1), 11
    2. Zach Rohr, Hastings (3), 9
    3. Ben Morgan, Forest Lake (7), 8
    4. Dakota Trom, Apple Valley (3), 8

    6 of the 11 places, 4 of 7 at 103 and 2 of 4 at 112, are eighth graders.

  2. #2

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

    most likely...that and the fact that if you are a junior or senior and wrestling at these weights that you aren't going to find a place on a Division 1 roster at 125.
    "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they speak."

  3. #3

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

    kind of depressing as i wrestled 98, 105, 112 and 119...had there been no 98 or 105 i would not have cracked the starting line-up most likely until my junior year.
    "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they speak."

  4. #4
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

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

    Many coaches, parents and others feel this weight class change would be a huge error. I think this not only does not solve the problem with teams not being able to fill all of the weight classes and have less match forfeits it hurts wrestling as a sport for smaller sized wrestlers. Here is a open letter on the subject that was posted at the Guillotine website -

    Open Letter concerning MWCA Weight Class Reduction Proposal

    January 30, 2008

    MWCA Weight Class Reduction Proposal

    Lower Half Weight Classes Upper Half Weight Classes
    Current Proposed Current Proposed
    103
    105
    145
    147
    112
    115
    152
    153
    119
    -
    160
    160
    125
    123
    171
    170
    130
    129
    189
    185
    135
    135
    215
    210
    140
    141
    285
    280

    This proposal should not be adopted at this time for the following reasons:
    This proposal makes all of the reductions from the lower half of weight classes and limits the opportunities for lighter weight student athletes. One of the best qualities of wrestling is that it is one of the few sports (and the only contact sport) which allows kids to compete against other kids without personal size being an advantage or disadvantage. The result is significant loss of opportunities where there already are very few opportunities.
    A review of the actual forfeits by Minnesota high school teams at last year’s team sections shows that the majority of forfeits come from the upper weight classes. Last year, in the Class 1A Section Team Tournaments, only 39.81% of all forfeits were from the lower half of the weight classes and 60.19% were from the upper half of the weight classes. If these new weights were in effect at last year’s Class 1A team sections, it would have potentially eliminated only 16 forfeits out of 980 matches. After the first round of team sections, these new weights would have had little or no effect on the number of forfeits. Class 2A and 3A shows the same trends. Eliminating one of the lighter weight classes and slightly changing the composition of the heavier weight classes won’t materially impact the number of forfeits. Why would the MSHSL Board of Directors adopt this proposal if the proposal has no chance of accomplishing the stated goal of substantially reducing forfeits?
    Minnesota would be dramatically out of step with the rest of the country. Currently forty-seven states support the 14 National weight classes. The other three, Montana, New York and Texas have 15 weight classes, 14 aligned with the National weight classes and one additional lower weight class. Interstate rivalries and tournaments will be significantly affected if this proposal is adopted. Out of state teams will not want to adjust their line-ups and deny an opportunity to one of their wrestlers. Entire Minnesota teams will have less competition and development without these match-ups.
    This is an opportunity issue versus a team competitiveness issue. Please understand that you are taking away opportunities from the smaller athletes if you approve this proposal. Is it really worth attempting to make certain teams more competitive if it means eliminating opportunities from other teams and individual student athletes?

    Respectfully,
    John Thorn
    Concerned Parent

    Ron Sanders
    Wabasha/Kellogg Head Coach

    Billy Pierce
    Forest Lake Head Coach

  5. #5

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

    the reason why Some people in MN Want to go down to 12 is that we have a lot of little towns that cant fill a line-up so they think that would help out the little towns

  6. #6
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

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

    Where the weight classes are being dropped does not make sense.

    The majority of forfeits come at the higher weight classes NOT smaller ones.

  7. #7

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

    I'm against it. Most former "little guys" are. I don't see what is bad about leaving things the way they are.
    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

  8. #8

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

    In Iowa, go through the past to see how many great wrestlers there were that started out freshman year at 98,103, or 105. Sebolt, Kerber, Schwabs, Reiter, Gibbons, Brands, McGinness, and others don't get a chance if you eliminate the weight class. Doesn't sound good to me.
    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

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

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

    Keep in mind that most of the proposals are only cutting the lower weight from Varsity, not from Freshman and JV competition.

    How many freshman start on the varsity basketball, baseball or football teams? What's wrong with having to get bigger and stronger in order to compete at the Varsity level?

    I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

    What would be wrong with some of the proposals I've seen that simply raise the lowest weight to 107 and readjust from there? Maybe raising the weights would stop those 7th and 8th graders from cutting to stay at 96 or lower. I don't know. I was a guy who couldn't beat the senior captain at 152 as a freshman so I went up to 160 and battled my way through a 5 man round robin to win the varsity spot while walking around at 157. So, obviously I don't have the same view as you little guys.

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
  •