Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

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

Central District Sectional Selection

Home ▸ Archive ▸ High School Wrestling ▸ Central District Sectional Selection
B

bump_and_run

Senior Member

321 posts
Jan 30, 2013 7:42 AM
cruiser_96;1377306 wrote:I'm thinking we should remove a weight class from 126 to 160 and put a weight class at either 100 or go with a 212, and bump 220 up to 230. That's sounds like a great idea.
if you're going to go, go large

98, 120, 140, 158, 164, 168, 174, 180, 184, 188, 192, 196, 200, 350
Jan 30, 2013 7:42am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Jan 30, 2013 8:02 AM
I'm loving you more and more every day, bump_and_run!

For me, the craziest part of the whole weight class change from a few years back was that the moment they came out, every coach across the country thought the same thing. ...but not one person making the decisions thought about it!?!?!?!
Jan 30, 2013 8:02am
C

Cthelites

Senior Member

1,951 posts
Jan 30, 2013 8:50 AM
Im glad I can see the sarcasm font. Wow u had me going there for a moment cruiser.
Jan 30, 2013 8:50am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Jan 30, 2013 9:00 AM
Cthelites;1377350 wrote:Im glad I can see the sarcasm font. Wow u had me going there for a moment cruiser.
Well done.

ps: 23 days left... what will YOU be doing to BE BETTER!?!?!?!?! Can't wait, coach!
Jan 30, 2013 9:00am
I

It is what it is

Senior Member

998 posts
Jan 30, 2013 10:01 AM
bump_and_run;1377310 wrote:if you're going to go, go large

98, 120, 140, 158, 164, 168, 174, 180, 184, 188, 192, 196, 200, 350
200 to 350...WOW!

I'd like to see 103, 112, 119, 126, 135, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 215, 250, 285
Jan 30, 2013 10:01am
C

Cthelites

Senior Member

1,951 posts
Jan 30, 2013 10:55 AM
It is what it is;1377389 wrote:200 to 350...WOW!

I'd like to see 103, 112, 119, 126, 135, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 215, 250, 285
u want to eliminate another weight between 30_40?????
And add another fatman weight??
Most of those upper weight matches are brutal enough on the eyes and u want to add to it. Wowwwwww!
Bring back the old weights!
Jan 30, 2013 10:55am
D

Dust_E_Roads

Senior Member

752 posts
Jan 30, 2013 10:58 AM
It is what it is;1377389 wrote:200 to 350...WOW!

I'd like to see 103, 112, 119, 126, 135, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 215, 250, 285
I don't disagree, but you're going to get a lot of blow back from all the folks log jammed between 130 to 150.

I will say that while this new weight schedule would be more fair to the bigger guys (reducing 40 to 60 pound differentials), you would see a ton of byes in those classes until the sport evolves. It will evolve, but many are impatient, seeing the high number of byes at 182 and 195 as proof that OHSAA skrewed up.
Jan 30, 2013 10:58am
B

bump_and_run

Senior Member

321 posts
Jan 30, 2013 11:10 AM
for reals

102, 110, 118, 124, 130, 136, 142, 149, 157, 165, 177, 190, 210, 285
Jan 30, 2013 11:10am
G

GregHines

Member

60 posts
Jan 30, 2013 12:35 PM
104.5, 112.75, 120, 127, 134.5, 141, 149.75, 162, 173, 184.5, 199, 214, 230, 285

Wasn't this all discussed and debated, both pre and post change, a couple of years ago? It is like taxes and regulations - we have no say, so just live with it. The only difference is we have no way of voting the decision makers out of power
Jan 30, 2013 12:35pm
B

bump_and_run

Senior Member

321 posts
Jan 30, 2013 12:43 PM
GregHines;1377529 wrote:104.5, 112.75, 120, 127, 134.5, 141, 149.75, 162, 173, 184.5, 199, 214, 230, 285

Wasn't this all discussed and debated, both pre and post change, a couple of years ago? It is like taxes and regulations - we have no say, so just live with it. The only difference is we have no way of voting the decision makers out of power
if i stopped commenting about things on which i have no say, i would never have another conversation with my wife ever
Jan 30, 2013 12:43pm
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Jan 30, 2013 12:46 PM
GregHines: You assume those making these decisions aren't smarter than us! These are the best money can buy. They are the know-alls. What they say is best for us. Long live NFHS!!!!!!!!

or...

Jan 30, 2013 12:46pm
G

GregHines

Member

60 posts
Jan 30, 2013 1:41 PM
Cruiser, I like.
Jan 30, 2013 1:41pm
Half Full Nelson's avatar

Half Full Nelson

Member

57 posts
Jan 31, 2013 9:24 AM
I actually think the weight classes as hey currently stand are just fine. It's better than when I was in HS when, if you weighed 110 lbs and wanted to drop a weight you had to cut 7 pounds (which, believe it or not, is a lot when you only weigh 110.) 106's sure look a lot bigger than 103's, at least from what I remember, so it' probably hurts the 95lb freshmen, but how many of those are there? Plus, it's a big improvement from 189 to HWT. The addition of 195 and 220 is a much better distribution for the upper weights. And, how many 230 lb HS kids are there who, honestly, don't have 10 lbs to lose. If you weigh 240, you're not giving up much to other HWTs, unless you're facing the rare kid who cuts weight to make 285. If anything, they could go....195...215...240...HWT....but not sure which weight you'd cut down below to make up for it.

BTW...is there something about the new weight classes that's led to 120 being ridiculously stacked this year? Or, is is just 120's "year?"
Jan 31, 2013 9:24am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Jan 31, 2013 9:30 AM
Every year, there seems to be a weight class or two that are deeper than any other. (On the flip side, there are usually a couple of weight classes that are... ... ... we'll say "thin" with talent. Bereft might work too!)

Point of note: I do believe it was 120 last year that went 1-8 at the Schott, with the one win being a forfeit.
Jan 31, 2013 9:30am
B

bump_and_run

Senior Member

321 posts
Jan 31, 2013 9:37 AM
cruiser_96;1378217 wrote:Every year, there seems to be a weight class or two that are deeper than any other. (On the flip side, there are usually a couple of weight classes that are... ... ... we'll say "thin" with talent. Bereft might work too!)

Point of note: I do believe it was 120 last year that went 1-8 at the Schott, with the one win being a forfeit.
and 106 did quite well last year, iirc. funny how that works.
Jan 31, 2013 9:37am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Jan 31, 2013 9:51 AM
Here's hoping 106 and 120 do NOT reverse roles! I'd like to a) get the the Schott, and b) earn a win (or four) while there!!!
Jan 31, 2013 9:51am
coachchuck's avatar

coachchuck

Senior Member

113 posts
Jan 31, 2013 10:03 AM
one of the best feeling you can have as a coach
Jan 31, 2013 10:03am
I

It is what it is

Senior Member

998 posts
Jan 31, 2013 11:46 AM
Cthelites;1377416 wrote:u want to eliminate another weight between 30_40?????
And add another fatman weight??
Most of those upper weight matches are brutal enough on the eyes and u want to add to it. Wowwwwww!
Bring back the old weights!
As a bigger individual, I take exception to the "fatman" classification, lol! But, seriously, I think a 225-230 Hwt (having already cut down) is at a disadvantage to a 260-265+ Hwt. I love the lower weights too and would be in favor of having 15 weight classes in order not to cut one of the lower weights. JMO ;)
Jan 31, 2013 11:46am
G

GregHines

Member

60 posts
Jan 31, 2013 9:03 PM
I agree with 15 weight classes - makes it tough for smaller schools and programs. So you get back to the question (there is another post for it): Is wrestling a team or individual sport?
Jan 31, 2013 9:03pm
R

rassler

Senior Member

159 posts
Feb 1, 2013 12:00 AM
It is what it is;1378423 wrote:As a bigger individual, I take exception to the "fatman" classification, lol! But, seriously, I think a 225-230 Hwt (having already cut down) is at a disadvantage to a 260-265+ Hwt. I love the lower weights too and would be in favor of having 15 weight classes in order not to cut one of the lower weights. JMO ;)
It is LESS of a disadvanatage than a 90 pound freshman wrestling 106. As Lites has posted I am not sure if even the most rabid fans can take having to act like another heavier weight is even remotely interesting.

260-230=30 lb difference or 13% of his body weight.
106-90= 16 lb difference or 18% of his body weight.
Feb 1, 2013 12:00am
M

Maverick15

Junior Member

20 posts
Feb 1, 2013 12:23 AM
This is just being brutally honest, but smaller and middle weights are more exciting to watch and contain the more of the majority of the wrestlers. Also you see way more less experienced guys having success in the upper weights than in the lower weights. Just a fact. I think taking away and depleting the smaller weights is hurting the sport of wrestling. No offense to the big guys. Not saying we should get rid of them either, but no need to add to them and dilute what is already shallow talent.
Feb 1, 2013 12:23am
D

Dad4Sports

Senior Member

1,779 posts
Feb 1, 2013 7:12 AM
Maverick15;1379023 wrote: but no need to add to them and dilute what is already shallow talent.
Too late.....already been done.
Feb 1, 2013 7:12am
S

SDDad

Member

63 posts
Feb 1, 2013 10:01 PM
USMCdevil2005;1375824 wrote:Already working on it my man! Should be all the way done ready to post in the next few days.

Hey Devil, any update on this?
Feb 1, 2013 10:01pm
B

bump_and_run

Senior Member

321 posts
Feb 4, 2013 2:18 PM
SDDad;1379720 wrote:Hey Devil, any update on this?
lol... still waiting!!
Feb 4, 2013 2:18pm
D

Dust_E_Roads

Senior Member

752 posts
Feb 4, 2013 2:34 PM
rassler;1379016 wrote:
260-230=30 lb difference or 13% of his body weight.
106-90= 16 lb difference or 18% of his body weight.
A.) It is really 285 to 220, not 260 to 230. (not sure why you pared it inside the actual range, unless it was to distort the issue perhaps?!?)

B.) Where are all of these 90 pound kids who wrestle 106? I haven't seen one all year?
Feb 4, 2013 2:34pm