Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

No objections to the new weight classes?? Really???

Home ▸ Archive ▸ High School Wrestling ▸ No objections to the new weight classes?? Really???
C

CoachB63

Member

66 posts
Sep 21, 2011 12:46 AM
My new packet got here recently and right there on the front page, "the majority of states favored a change"?
were the "states" coaches? Not sure on that one, just curious? Anyone else wondering how this will effect
new freshmen coming up? Kids that may have been interested in the sport but now will be sized out? Might
just be me but I'm not sure on bumping up the starting weight to 106. Would be interested to see if I'm just
crazy or if there are other "nuts" like me out there.
Sep 21, 2011 12:46am
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Sep 21, 2011 4:35 AM
What weight kid do you think may be sized out, really small Freshman?
Sep 21, 2011 4:35am
1_beast's avatar

1_beast

Senior Member

5,642 posts
Sep 21, 2011 7:56 AM
already discussed and beat with a big stick....4 months ago when it was anounced....
Sep 21, 2011 7:56am
112in84's avatar

112in84

Senior Member

565 posts
Sep 21, 2011 9:12 AM
said_aouita;905214 wrote:What weight kid do you think may be sized out, really small Freshman?
YES, THE 95-100 pound freshman
Sep 21, 2011 9:12am
C

CoachTim

Member

85 posts
Sep 21, 2011 9:30 AM
CoachB63;905184 wrote:My new packet got here recently and right there on the front page, "the majority of states favored a change"?
were the "states" coaches? Not sure on that one, just curious? Anyone else wondering how this will effect
new freshmen coming up? Kids that may have been interested in the sport but now will be sized out? Might
just be me but I'm not sure on bumping up the starting weight to 106. Would be interested to see if I'm just
crazy or if there are other "nuts" like me out there.
Yea this horse has been getting beat for a while.
Look at who publishes the packet. Anyone who reads that will think, "I guess everyone loves the new weights and i'm the only one who it doesn't work out for."


And it does size out my senior who just broke 100lb this summer. He's up to 101 I think he said last week. At 103 (105/106 at tournament time) he's a SQ, at 106(108/109 at tournament time) he's a DQ because he'll still weigh 101.
Sep 21, 2011 9:30am
U

Underrated

Senior Member

156 posts
Sep 21, 2011 9:51 AM
Come on guys. Time to move on. This ship has sailed.
Sep 21, 2011 9:51am
K

ksig489

Senior Member

943 posts
Sep 21, 2011 12:36 PM
3 pounds is not a big deal...not matter what weight class it is.
Sep 21, 2011 12:36pm
C

Coach Geisz

Member

80 posts
Sep 21, 2011 9:56 PM
Nothing wrong with the new weights. The data from the past five years years doesn't lie, the changes were needed.
Sep 21, 2011 9:56pm
C

CoachB63

Member

66 posts
Sep 22, 2011 12:22 AM
Guess I was sleeping when you guys were beating the crap out of that poor horse, LOL, Nuf said, lol
Sep 22, 2011 12:22am
wraith51's avatar

wraith51

Senior Member

386 posts
Sep 22, 2011 9:41 AM
I'm fine with the weightclass changes, my preliminary numbers I don't have enough for a full roster but they seem to fit better in the new weights than the old. But the point of the post is what CoachB brought up in the first post is who and how they surveyed the coaches in the states to say "hey, these are the new weights." I was in Florida in 2010 when we got our survey at the state tournament. When coaches checked in at the head table they recieved a survey that needed to be turned in by the end of the day. So I was curious if all states did the same thing because I don't ever remember hearing anything from Ohio coaches doing this same thing? I wouldn't doubt if a lot of coaches just said "yeah lets change" and circled one w/o any real thought into it, or made their choice based on what would have helped them that year or thought would be good the next immediate year. Who knows? I'm just curious how it was done statewide and nationwide to say it was needed.
Sep 22, 2011 9:41am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 22, 2011 10:50 AM
Changing it to 106 wasn't the problem. That makes sense.

Getting rid of a middle weight class and adding a 3rd upper weight class is the problem because it's absolutely retarded.
Sep 22, 2011 10:50am
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Sep 22, 2011 12:53 PM
I Wear Pants;906602 wrote:Changing it to 106 wasn't the problem. That makes sense.

Getting rid of a middle weight class and adding a 3rd upper weight class is the problem...
Bingo.

I have tons of problems with the weight class changes. I'm OK with moving the introductory weight up, but I would have liked 105 and then keep everything the same up through 171. Then go 182, 195, 220, Hwt. I'm not for making any changes, but those would be less crappy. Taking out a middle weight make no sense.
Sep 22, 2011 12:53pm
1_beast's avatar

1_beast

Senior Member

5,642 posts
Sep 22, 2011 10:06 PM
I Wear Pants;906602 wrote:Changing it to 106 wasn't the problem. That makes sense.

Getting rid of a middle weight class and adding a 3rd upper weight class is the problem because it's absolutely retarded.
Bitterrunner-up;906757 wrote:Bingo.

I have tons of problems with the weight class changes. I'm OK with moving the introductory weight up, but I would have liked 105 and then keep everything the same up through 171. Then go 182, 195, 220, Hwt. I'm not for making any changes, but those would be less crappy. Taking out a middle weight make no sense.
bingo
Sep 22, 2011 10:06pm
Tobias Fünke's avatar

Tobias Fünke

formerly "sjmvsfscs08"

2,387 posts
Sep 22, 2011 10:34 PM
Apparently I've missed something. What are the weights?
Sep 22, 2011 10:34pm
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Sep 23, 2011 6:18 AM
106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220, 285.
Sep 23, 2011 6:18am
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Sep 23, 2011 6:43 AM
The new weight classes will be a benefit to schools with good numbers. The new weights hurt Graham, they've always been more stacked at the lower/mid weights then the upper.
Sep 23, 2011 6:43am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Sep 23, 2011 7:40 AM
said_aouita;907639 wrote:The new weight classes will be a benefit to schools with good numbers. The new weights hurt Graham, they've always been more stacked at the lower/mid weights then the upper.
...schools like Graham. It's not like the Falcons were a target.

Also, does anybody on here realize that this means I have to spend countless hours relabeling my tournament files!? The weight classes on my spread sheets won't change themselves, ya know!!!
Sep 23, 2011 7:40am
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Sep 23, 2011 7:47 AM
Said_aouita...I totally agree that graham has traditionally been stellar in the light and middle weights, but for this years team, I bet Evans loves being at 195 rather than 189. It gives him a weight class that's closer to his likely college weight of 197 and it also allows two great wrestlers to both win titles...assuming Gresham goes 182.
Sep 23, 2011 7:47am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Sep 23, 2011 8:16 AM
A-hem!?! <throat clearing font on>
Sep 23, 2011 8:16am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Sep 23, 2011 8:46 AM
Here are the freshmen only event weight classes:

98, 103, 112, 119, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 152, 160, 171, 189, 265.

Personally, I like this, but with some modifications for varsity.

98, 105, 112, 119, 125, 131, 137, 143, 150, 160, 171, 189, 215, 285.

I guess the problem comes when the lower weights have the lowest numbers. How do I justify keeping those weight classes if no one (statewide or nationwide) is filling them. I did consider the point concerning what small (i mean small) schools do for football... they made it 7 and 8 man football. I'm not a huge fan of catering to individuals but I'm less of a fan of beating my head against the wall in order to walk to the moon! (analogy = creating weight classes that people do not and cannot fill.)
Sep 23, 2011 8:46am
R

rassler

Senior Member

159 posts
Sep 23, 2011 9:15 AM
said_aouita;907639 wrote:The new weight classes will be a benefit to schools with good numbers. The new weights hurt Graham, they've always been more stacked at the lower/mid weights then the upper.
Don't worry JJ will adjust. He will just shorten his "State Champs Camp" by a week and create a "Big Man's Only State Champ Camp" and whaaalaaaa......Graham will have upper weights.
Sep 23, 2011 9:15am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Sep 23, 2011 10:51 AM
Columbus Dispatch Crossword Number 1 for 9/23
Clue
Down:
1 Tower Toppers

Answer: Spires.

Just saying.
Sep 23, 2011 10:51am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 24, 2011 12:42 AM
1_beast;907442 wrote:bingo
Bitterrunner-up;906757 wrote:Bingo.

I have tons of problems with the weight class changes. I'm OK with moving the introductory weight up, but I would have liked 105 and then keep everything the same up through 171. Then go 182, 195, 220, Hwt. I'm not for making any changes, but those would be less crappy. Taking out a middle weight make no sense.
[video=youtube;7duP4d9ZziY][/video]
Sep 24, 2011 12:42am
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Sep 25, 2011 6:45 PM
rassler;907737 wrote:Don't worry JJ will adjust. He will just shorten his "State Champs Camp" by a week and create a "Big Man's Only State Champ Camp" and whaaalaaaa......Graham will have upper weights.
Maybe JJ will do a camp with Golden Cross, down near Cinci. They lost their best big man coach when zerk' left.
Sep 25, 2011 6:45pm
Tobias Fünke's avatar

Tobias Fünke

formerly "sjmvsfscs08"

2,387 posts
Sep 28, 2011 10:58 PM
I really like the changes, actually.
Sep 28, 2011 10:58pm