Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Guillotine Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

If you join our community, you'll be able to use many member-only features such as posting messages, customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and fewer ads.

Email forum@theguillotine.com to find out how to get an account.

If you're already a member please log in:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 27
Eliminating weights for 2018/19; Is there any truth to this?
Topic Started: Feb 8 2018, 02:05 PM (50,458 Views)
kodonald
Member Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
Today when Kodonald was spending his usual hour or so in the bathroom at work, he thought he read somewhere that there is a proposal to possibly eliminate 106 and 195 next year? This seems worthy of discussion. However maybe it's just an outhouse rumor......Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mac099
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  * ]
I have from a reliable source that there is in fact voting going on or that already happened that there is a motion to eliminate 1, 2 or possibly 3 weights for next season.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WrestleMe
Member Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Class A
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gopherfan149
Member Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Said this before, but it would be better coming from Kodonald

115, then 10 college weights 125, 133, 141, 149, 157, 165, 174, 184, 197, 285

11 weights, natural tie breaker.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NoQuit
No Avatar
Wrestling Fan
[ *  *  * ]
Eliminating 106 would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Wrestling has always been a sport in which a smaller individual was afforded an opportunity to compete on a level playing field and as such is a draw to a much higher proportion of smaller guys than other sports. Eliminating this opportunity by raising the lightest weight class would essentially prohibit the opportunity for many to compete until perhaps their junior or senior year.

Out of 30 ranked kids between A, AA and AAA at 106 pounds only 4 kids are not in at least 9th grade.
Edited by NoQuit, Feb 8 2018, 02:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1Move2TheNext
No Avatar
Old School
[ *  *  *  * ]
13 weights (natural tie breaker). Get rid of one at the top. Keep it simple... Same thru 170, then 185, 205, & 285. Most teams are struggling to find big guys, let alone quality big guys. Yes, there are great big guys in HS wrestling, just not enough of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mac099
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  * ]
1Move2TheNext
Feb 8 2018, 02:37 PM
13 weights (natural tie breaker). Get rid of one at the top. Keep it simple... Same thru 170, then 185, 205, & 285. Most teams are struggling to find big guys, let alone quality big guys. Yes, there are great big guys in HS wrestling, just not enough of them.
Or maybe we go back to how it used to be. Put more weights where we know a bulk of the student-athletes will be at. We should put the weights back to how they used to be 10 years ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lloyd Christmas
Member Avatar
Fanatic
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
1Move2TheNext
Feb 8 2018, 02:37 PM
13 weights (natural tie breaker). Get rid of one at the top. Keep it simple... Same thru 170, then 185, 205, & 285. Most teams are struggling to find big guys, let alone quality big guys. Yes, there are great big guys in HS wrestling, just not enough of them.
I agree with these weights and like the natural tie breaker.

Eliminating 106, would be a mistake. That is one weight our team has always had plenty of backups.

This year we have 38 wrestlers, 11 of them have weighed 106, at one point this season.

On the flip side, we’ve never had more than four total kids for the 220/285 classes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wish-I-had-good-knees
Member Avatar
Fanatic
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
From a reliable source my brother's section rep said that the weight reduction will be for regular season only and possibly postseason team events and geared mainly towards out state programs. From my understanding they are cutting out 106 and 195 or 220. I am a class A fan but i think the section reps screwed the pooch big time on this topic. Everyone wanted a solution now. I understand the growing problem with schools that have low numbers. But to push something through for the sake of pushing it through is just stupid. Our state will never go against the national federation which in my opinion sucks. They were talking for team duels only running the reduced number of weights but for individual tournaments going the full 14. Our rep said they are/were talking of reduced weights for team sections and state as a possibility which bothers me. The teams that make it to state generally have well established programs and fill their lineup. Why punish the deep teams that do a good job of filling a balanced line up.
Edited by wish-I-had-good-knees, Feb 8 2018, 03:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WrestleMe
Member Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Historically, MN has gone against the National more than almost any other state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mndak
No Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lloyd Christmas
Feb 8 2018, 03:05 PM
1Move2TheNext
Feb 8 2018, 02:37 PM
13 weights (natural tie breaker). Get rid of one at the top. Keep it simple... Same thru 170, then 185, 205, & 285. Most teams are struggling to find big guys, let alone quality big guys. Yes, there are great big guys in HS wrestling, just not enough of them.
I agree with these weights and like the natural tie breaker.

Eliminating 106, would be a mistake. That is one weight our team has always had plenty of backups.

This year we have 38 wrestlers, 11 of them have weighed 106, at one point this season.

On the flip side, we’ve never had more than four total kids for the 220/285 classes.
Drop a weight at top. Keep 106 and I am not against the current structure because back in the day there was alot of unhealthy weight cutting in the middle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wrestler724
Member Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
So to fix this issue, we will take away opportunities for kids to compete? I agree that forfeits suck, but there has to be a better way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gopherfan149
Member Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wrestler724
Feb 8 2018, 04:38 PM
So to fix this issue, we will take away opportunities for kids to compete? I agree that forfeits suck, but there has to be a better way.
We are all ears. The state needs about 2000 more 7-12 wrestlers to fix it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
olympicrollforthestick
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
This topic was discussed about a month ago in a Podcast on the StarTrib High School Hub Home Page. Their opinion, based on comments from Coaches, was that 2 weights were being targeted. 220 lbs. was referenced several times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gator-Roll
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
Takeout 195 and 220 make it 205 but leave the light weights alone
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hwy10connection
No Avatar
Fanatic
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Said it for years, 10 college weights and add 2 at the bottom for a total of 12 weights classes. 106 is actually 108 after Christmas any ways. Plus ad the 2 pounds per day at the state tournament and the weight is 110.

So go 110, 118 and than college weights and get rid of the growth allowance after Christmas.
Edited by hwy10connection, Feb 8 2018, 06:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
upnorthwrestler
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
hwy10connection
Feb 8 2018, 06:31 PM
Said it for years, 10 college weights and add 2 at the bottom for a total of 12 weights classes. 106 is actually 108 after Christmas any ways. Plus ad the 2 pounds per day at the state tournament and the weight is 110.

So go 110, 118 and than college weights and get rid of the growth allowance after Christmas.
I don't mind this idea, but maybe make 13 weights and add in 100. There are plenty of kids weighing in under 100 and it would be nice if they had a lower weight to compete at.
Edited by upnorthwrestler, Feb 8 2018, 07:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
true future
Member Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
upnorthwrestler
Feb 8 2018, 07:29 PM
hwy10connection
Feb 8 2018, 06:31 PM
Said it for years, 10 college weights and add 2 at the bottom for a total of 12 weights classes. 106 is actually 108 after Christmas any ways. Plus ad the 2 pounds per day at the state tournament and the weight is 110.

So go 110, 118 and than college weights and get rid of the growth allowance after Christmas.
I don't mind this idea, but maybe make 13 weights and add in 100. There are plenty of kids weighing in under 100 and it would be nice if they had a lower weight to compete at.
100 is too small for varsity. Most of these kids would be eligible for 9th grade league which has 100 and also 94.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
J Nalan
Member Avatar
Member #17, 619
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The NFHS, the national rule making group, is also looking at reducing weights nationwide for next season.

Also, I've refereed 33 dual meets so far this season and I believe there were at least 2 forfeits in 31 of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taz
No Avatar
Fanatic
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Wrestler724
Feb 8 2018, 04:38 PM
So to fix this issue, we will take away opportunities for kids to compete? I agree that forfeits suck, but there has to be a better way.
What's wrong with wrestling jv?

Can't stand the "taking away opportunities argument"

Maybe it would drive them to improve to make varsity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happydance23
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cutting weight classes is not the way to grow the sport....cutting 195 will drive more football players out of the sport. I hope this is just all talk
Edited by Happydance23, Feb 8 2018, 09:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ung519
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mn will follow the NFHS, which will probably get rid of 106 since most states don't allow 7th and 8th grade wrestlers. Also, dream team doesn't wrestle 106.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DWB79
No Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Happydance23
Feb 8 2018, 09:34 PM
Cutting weight classes is not the way to grow the sport....cutting 195 will drive more football players out of the sport. I hope this is just all talk
Such a tired argument. "cutting a spot is not a great way to grow the sport".

WAKE UP people. Look all over the state, numerous programs are co-op'ing.....many teams that co-op can't even fill all the weights. It is quite obvious that there are probably 2-3 weights that are tough for teams to fill and they are probably 195, 220, 106, 285...(some combo of them).

106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 165, 180, 195, 285 (max)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
headgear
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
Is this a for sure thing for next ur that they are cutting a 1-3 wts? Or will it happen in 2yrs when they do the section ,enrollment stuff ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happydance23
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
DWB79
Feb 8 2018, 11:15 PM
Happydance23
Feb 8 2018, 09:34 PM
Cutting weight classes is not the way to grow the sport....cutting 195 will drive more football players out of the sport. I hope this is just all talk
Such a tired argument. "cutting a spot is not a great way to grow the sport".

WAKE UP people. Look all over the state, numerous programs are co-op'ing.....many teams that co-op can't even fill all the weights. It is quite obvious that there are probably 2-3 weights that are tough for teams to fill and they are probably 195, 220, 106, 285...(some combo of them).

106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 165, 180, 195, 285 (max)
So you think football players will want to come out when you either have to be 182 or wrestle guys 40# more than you? Then lets do something as rediculous and cut 106 so the only sport the little guys have is even harder for those to compete. Please.....do us all a favor and at the stste tournament you tell us which 195 and 106 guys dont belong there.....its a stupid way of trying to help the sport. It will also not be a step in the right direction but another step in our sport killing itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Rock
Member Avatar
Fantastic
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Happydance23
Feb 9 2018, 06:09 AM
DWB79
Feb 8 2018, 11:15 PM
Happydance23
Feb 8 2018, 09:34 PM
Cutting weight classes is not the way to grow the sport....cutting 195 will drive more football players out of the sport. I hope this is just all talk
Such a tired argument. "cutting a spot is not a great way to grow the sport".

WAKE UP people. Look all over the state, numerous programs are co-op'ing.....many teams that co-op can't even fill all the weights. It is quite obvious that there are probably 2-3 weights that are tough for teams to fill and they are probably 195, 220, 106, 285...(some combo of them).

106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 165, 180, 195, 285 (max)
So you think football players will want to come out when you either have to be 182 or wrestle guys 40# more than you? Then lets do something as rediculous and cut 106 so the only sport the little guys have is even harder for those to compete. Please.....do us all a favor and at the stste tournament you tell us which 195 and 106 guys dont belong there.....its a stupid way of trying to help the sport. It will also not be a step in the right direction but another step in our sport killing itself.
Why don't add another tackle and linebacker spot to give more kids an opportunity to play football.
Why is it that college wrestling has 10 wrestlers?
I'm all for cutting a couple of weights as long as it's done at the national level.
I get it that every parent wants their kid to wrestle on the varsity but the bottom line is not every kid should be wrestling varsity. Strengthen the varsity and the jv programs.
Also do parents and spectators complain about 9 man football?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happydance23
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Rock
Feb 9 2018, 07:10 AM
Happydance23
Feb 9 2018, 06:09 AM
DWB79
Feb 8 2018, 11:15 PM
Happydance23
Feb 8 2018, 09:34 PM
Cutting weight classes is not the way to grow the sport....cutting 195 will drive more football players out of the sport. I hope this is just all talk
Such a tired argument. "cutting a spot is not a great way to grow the sport".

WAKE UP people. Look all over the state, numerous programs are co-op'ing.....many teams that co-op can't even fill all the weights. It is quite obvious that there are probably 2-3 weights that are tough for teams to fill and they are probably 195, 220, 106, 285...(some combo of them).

106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 165, 180, 195, 285 (max)
So you think football players will want to come out when you either have to be 182 or wrestle guys 40# more than you? Then lets do something as rediculous and cut 106 so the only sport the little guys have is even harder for those to compete. Please.....do us all a favor and at the stste tournament you tell us which 195 and 106 guys dont belong there.....its a stupid way of trying to help the sport. It will also not be a step in the right direction but another step in our sport killing itself.
Why don't add another tackle and linebacker spot to give more kids an opportunity to play football.
Why is it that college wrestling has 10 wrestlers?
I'm all for cutting a couple of weights as long as it's done at the national level.
I get it that every parent wants their kid to wrestle on the varsity but the bottom line is not every kid should be wrestling varsity. Strengthen the varsity and the jv programs.
Also do parents and spectators complain about 9 man football?
You cant compare football and wrestling.....wrestling because of weight catagories makes it a whole different game. By cutting weight classes you either forcing kids to cut more, making them wrestle a weight that their opponents can be 20 plus pounds more than them or just telling them you dont want them in our sport.....neither of the 3 will help grow our sport.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gator-Roll
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
1Move2TheNext
Feb 8 2018, 02:37 PM
13 weights (natural tie breaker). Get rid of one at the top. Keep it simple... Same thru 170, then 185, 205, & 285. Most teams are struggling to find big guys, let alone quality big guys. Yes, there are great big guys in HS wrestling, just not enough of them.
Best idea so far
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WrestlingOfficial
No Avatar
Super Fan
[ *  *  *  * ]
What problem are we trying to solve?

I have heard it is because there are too many FF's. I see a lot of matches during the year and very if any FF at 106.

Is it because they are middle school kids wrestling 106? I would be willing to be that less than 40% of the 106 lb kids are middle school at least on varsity. Christmas tournament had 31 kids at 106 with 14 of them being middle school. At the ROR 13 of the 41 kids were middle school. And these are 2 of the toughest tournaments in the country so if you are middle school and in this tournament you must be pretty tough.

Is it because we think the 106 kids are inferior wrestlers? Not trying to upset anyone but 106 is far more superior than a lot of the upper weights as far as talent goes. I watch a lot of matches and can see it.

So what problem trying to solve by cutting 106?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ozzieman22
No Avatar
Newbie
[ * ]
Numbers aside, I think we can all agree that 106lb wrestlers/matches are much more skilled than the 195lb/220lb wrestlers/matches, certainly not in every case, but I would argue the larger majority. I'd much rather watch a couple of 106lber's battle it out and actually perform wrestling moves at a high level than a couple of football fill-ins at the upper weights to sit their and role around and eventually gas out. That certainly does not represent every upper weight class, but a large percentage

The 106lb weight class is not only much more representative of how we want to teach our youth wrestlers not only how to wrestle/compete, but highlights what's good about the sport of wrestling. The skill level at the lighter weights and particularly 106lb and below is off the charts in the state of MN.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · High School · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 27