For the vocal minority repeat posters demanding cutting weight classes and specifically the smaller guys I saw this tidbit on Twitter:
7 out of the 10 Final X (World Team) Winners started HS at either 103# or 106#---Gilman, Yianni, Gross, Taylor, Dake, Zillmer (yes the HWT that beat Gwiz), and Burroughs.
So some of the best wrestlers in the USA, started out as small kids.
I don't think any of them would have been great if the weight was raised to 108 or 109.
The depth of talent at 106, 113, and 120 this year was insane.
Cutting the weight classes because alot of teams can't get out a 106 will only hurt wrestling in the long run, this I promise you.
Quote from: asdf on June 09, 2022, 10:17:19 AM
For the vocal minority repeat posters demanding cutting weight classes and specifically the smaller guys I saw this tidbit on Twitter:
7 out of the 10 Final X (World Team) Winners started HS at either 103# or 106#---Gilman, Yianni, Gross, Taylor, Dake, Zillmer (yes the HWT that beat Gwiz), and Burroughs.
So some of the best wrestlers in the USA, started out as small kids.
I would guess all of the 10 team members wrestled 103 or heck maybe 75 at one point of their careers.
I believe in keeping all weight classes for this various reason that is stated.
Zillmer is an interesting cases. Finished up high school at 130 I believe. Then took a year off and started college at 157 and moved up during college and now Isa beast 230ish HWT!
By the way zillmer has Wisconsin connections also. His dad graduated in a northwestern town in Wisconsin.
Fun fact on hat nugget ;D
Kyle Dake wrestled 96 as a freshman. Zillmer and Taylor were 103 as sophomores.
It makes absolutely no sense to make the argument for lower weight classes based on wrestlers who ended up being world class wrestlers having once wrestled those weight classes. Those wrestlers would have been just fine wrestling up at 113 or even 120, they would still be what they are today. It's not about any wrestler who was a freshman state champ at 106, or ended up being a state champ later after having wrestled 106 as a freshman. The argument for the lower weight classes should be made based on the light weights who aren't the hammers. The 100 pound freshman who may not even be a .500 wrestler much less going to be a state champ, that couldn't handle wrestling a 113 pounder hammer, or even just a solid wrestler, cutting from 120. The wrestler that would walk away because they were sick of giving up that much weight and strength. The wrestlers who the sport impacts in ways many don't see because they never stand atop the podium at a big holiday tournament, register 100 varsity wins, or make a trip to state. THOSE are the wrestlers that should be used to justify keeping the lower weight classes.
Quote from: Ghetto on June 10, 2022, 12:40:29 PM
I don't think any of them would have been great if the weight was raised to 108 or 109.
Probably would have rode the bench their first season, if they stayed out.
Quote from: ChargerDad on June 12, 2022, 08:41:51 AM
It makes absolutely no sense to make the argument for lower weight classes based on wrestlers who ended up being world class wrestlers having once wrestled those weight classes. Those wrestlers would have been just fine wrestling up at 113 or even 120, they would still be what they are today. It's not about any wrestler who was a freshman state champ at 106, or ended up being a state champ later after having wrestled 106 as a freshman. The argument for the lower weight classes should be made based on the light weights who aren't the hammers. The 100 pound freshman who may not even be a .500 wrestler much less going to be a state champ, that couldn't handle wrestling a 113 pounder hammer, or even just a solid wrestler, cutting from 120. The wrestler that would walk away because they were sick of giving up that much weight and strength. The wrestlers who the sport impacts in ways many don't see because they never stand atop the podium at a big holiday tournament, register 100 varsity wins, or make a trip to state. THOSE are the wrestlers that should be used to justify keeping the lower weight classes.
Totally agree. And that's an argument for kids not being forced into the varsity level when they don't belong there. We fill the lineup for our own goals much of the time. I am guilty of it for sure.
And to be clear, I am for adjusting the weights to the kids we have. We are far too rigid on weights. They should be fluid on a (three? five?) year basis. Are kids the same size that they were in the 90s? The 70s? Why do we insist on keeping weights from so far back in the day?
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
Yes please!
Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
Zillmer won fargo as a 84 pound cader so should we have a 84 pound class in high school.
I bet gable.steveson wrestled at 106 at some point also.
I don't believe in cutting any weight classes at all. Every weight has some serious studs in that class.
I was just stating my approval of the idea. There are several states that have 15 weights, usually with a 95, 98, or 100 pound weight class. If I am not mistaken, I believe Montana has a 95 pound class.
Quote from: Ghetto on June 16, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
Quote from: MNbadger on June 19, 2022, 08:32:53 PM
I was just stating my approval of the idea. There are several states that have 15 weights, usually with a 95, 98, or 100 pound weight class. If I am not mistaken, I believe Montana has a 95 pound class.Quote from: Ghetto on June 16, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
Montana's lowest weight class is 103 pounds, and at their most recent tournament, they didn't have complete brackets at 103 pounds in the top 2 divisions. I'm not advocating removing weight classes as I don't think the reduction in weight classes will have the impact on forfeits many assume it will, but a state that can't fill a bracket in a weight class at state probably isn't the best example to use.
So they must have dropped that lower class.
Does it matter that some brackets in their tournament are not full?
Quote from: ChargerDad on June 20, 2022, 08:07:45 AM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 19, 2022, 08:32:53 PM
I was just stating my approval of the idea. There are several states that have 15 weights, usually with a 95, 98, or 100 pound weight class. If I am not mistaken, I believe Montana has a 95 pound class.Quote from: Ghetto on June 16, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
Montana's lowest weight class is 103 pounds, and at their most recent tournament, they didn't have complete brackets at 103 pounds in the top 2 divisions. I'm not advocating removing weight classes as I don't think the reduction in weight classes will have the impact on forfeits many assume it will, but a state that can't fill a bracket in a weight class at state probably isn't the best example to use.
I think it's hard to advocate for a weight class that can't even be filled at the state tournament. It seems on this issue most people are either advocating reducing weight classes because of forfeits without understanding how the reduction would actually impact forfeits, OR they are advocating weight classes without regard to the number of contestants
Quote from: MNbadger on June 20, 2022, 09:58:11 AM
So they must have dropped that lower class.
Does it matter that some brackets in their tournament are not full? Quote from: ChargerDad on June 20, 2022, 08:07:45 AM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 19, 2022, 08:32:53 PM
I was just stating my approval of the idea. There are several states that have 15 weights, usually with a 95, 98, or 100 pound weight class. If I am not mistaken, I believe Montana has a 95 pound class.Quote from: Ghetto on June 16, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
Montana's lowest weight class is 103 pounds, and at their most recent tournament, they didn't have complete brackets at 103 pounds in the top 2 divisions. I'm not advocating removing weight classes as I don't think the reduction in weight classes will have the impact on forfeits many assume it will, but a state that can't fill a bracket in a weight class at state probably isn't the best example to use.
Quote from: Ghetto on June 16, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
There were actuallly quite a few really good 100lbers in the state. I think I knew of at least 50 of them. I was half joking about adding the weight class though... unless ppl would support it.
I understand why ppl want to cut a weight, but it will not help in my opinion... The top 16 at 106 in each division were very talented, as well as 113, 120, 182, 195, 220... I mean you had state champs going at it 113, Some great studs at 120, etc.. fun to see... it will still be fun to see if you reduce weights tho, no skin off my back.
Quote from: Redeemer on June 20, 2022, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: Ghetto on June 16, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: MNbadger on June 13, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
Yes please!Quote from: Redeemer on June 13, 2022, 08:09:25 PM
I agree. Let's bring back a 100 lb weight class for those phenomenal 100lbers we have out there wrestling light for 106.
I think your sarcasm detection device is broken.
Looking through the JR Dual results I can't find a single JR that wrestled 100 they were all Cadets!! Not sure 100 pounds would be a good Idea? a lot of teams struggle to fill 106, according to the NFHS 106 and 113 are the two most FF weights followed by 195.