Kansas Wrestling
Posted By: Chief Renegade 6A Returning SQ's - 08/07/08 01:34 PM
Derby - 8
Lawrence - 8
Goddard - 7
Olathe North - 7
Olathe South - 7
Blue Valley West - 7
Wichita Heights - 6
Junction City - 6
Wichita NW - 6
Blue Valley NW - 6
Shawnee Mission East - 5
Shawnee Mission West - 5
Maize - 5
Manhattan - 4
Garden City - 4
Campus - 4
Leavenworth - 4
Dodge City - 4
Shawnee Mission NW - 4
Blue Valley - 4
Blue Valley North - 3
Wichita North - 3
Olathe East - 3
Shawnee Mission South - 2
Washburn Rural - 2
Lawrence Free State - 2
Shawnee Mission North - 2
Wichita South - 2
Wichita East - 2
Wichita SE - 1
Topeka - 1
Olathe NW - 1

Posted By: ike Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/07/08 02:34 PM
Any predictions for Team champs? Wichita Heights?
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/07/08 02:45 PM
Goddard, Derby and Wichita Heights in the top 3 (no particular order).
Posted By: Wes Park Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/07/08 04:04 PM
4 for bv
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/07/08 05:49 PM
Got you Wes! Welcome back.

Posted By: mzwrestlingfan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/08/08 03:55 PM
maize may win it this yr with a strong returning linup and some old faces in the maize red. the coxs from andale r makin the switch to maize so with trent, cody beasley a returning state placer and some strong senior leadership from amaro, zinabu, fulbright i think this may be the yr for maize
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/08/08 04:00 PM
Cody Beasley is at Maize now?
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/08/08 04:05 PM
Goddard:

Elliott
Houlden
Means
Caldwell
Houlden
Beard
Hicks

Maize:

Witten
Zinabu
Beasley
Cox
Fulbright
Ford
Posted By: mzwrestlingfan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/08/08 04:09 PM
yes he is and so is little cox who won kids state 2 years ago

maize:
lock (9)
witten(10)
cox(9)
zinabu(12)
amaro(12)
beasley(10)
ford(11)
fulbright(12)
Posted By: sum876 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/09/08 06:21 AM
lets put this together...

maizes 103 vs derby 103... predictions

112.... and so on...

it should be close in this dual,, and state

beasly will be going 125

locke 103

cox 112


who will derbys 103 112 and 119 pounders be?


thanks,
Posted By: sum876 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/09/08 06:23 AM
also lock 3x state champion 5x state finalist

cox 1x state champion

beasly 1x state champion 3x state finalits
Posted By: Koalakilla21 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/11/08 02:30 AM
BV should be dominate this year in 6A
Posted By: 24/7 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/11/08 02:35 PM
Locke will be a big 103 if he can get there. I would doubt he can. He was large for 100 last year. He will do well whereever he is at.

24/7
Posted By: sum876 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/11/08 09:51 PM
locke is weighing 110 right now so im sure he will go 103
Posted By: sum876 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/11/08 09:52 PM
locke placed 2nd at kids state this year.. at the 100 weight class
Posted By: Jason McComb Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/12/08 12:09 PM
Derby Prediction for weights
(I’m sure that I’m missing many tough kids, Derby is very deep in talent)

103 Brady H or Collin S
112 Roger W
119
125 Travis R
130 Skyler M
135 Cody S
140 Bradley L
145 Zack K
152
160
171 Tre C
189 Alex F
215 Cole C or New Kid (I can’t remember his name)
Hwt Kyle W

All of these names are just guesses. Please Derby crew; don’t hold it against me if I forgot somebody. I just did it real quick to put something out there. I also didn’t know what everybody was planning on wrestling at. Good thing about being so deep is if somebody messes up or gets hurt there is another tough wrestler waiting for a shot.

Past Records for a few of these kids are. All are multiple time state placers! Brady H won a state title last year, Roger W has multiple state titles, Cody S I believe has 3 state titles and Skyler M has 4 state titles and 5 state finals.

Good Luck to all Derby Wrestlers!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: spartanhwtcoach Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/12/08 05:30 PM
Just some breaking info. Tre Humphrey will not be attending kansas school this year he has moved to St. Louis.
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/12/08 05:35 PM
That's why I had SMS with only 2 returning SQ's. His Dad posted that last week. We'll miss Tre!
Posted By: Svo69 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/12/08 09:03 PM
Great post chief. In your opinion, where does Wichita Northwest factor into the mix... specifically, why did Wichita Heights (each has 6 returning state qualifiers) get the not over Wichita Northwest. Please note that this post is not intended as a critism. I'm just curious why Wichita Heights got the nod. Care to respond?
Posted By: Jason McComb Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/12/08 10:40 PM
Svo69

I'm aware that I'm not the Chief but I still may help with this answer. Wichita Heights has 4 wrestlers that not only have a great chance of being in the finals but have a good chance of getting 50% pins. Dapper, Kendric, Chase are three dominate wrestlers that pick up big tournament points with pins. Northwest may beat Wichita Heights in a dual but not in a big tournament.

my opinion.
Posted By: sum876 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/13/08 11:08 AM
roger windham weighs 104 right now.... as i hear from rumors .. i also taked too him the other day... so i would switch brady heincker and roger windham around... cole carpenter is going for 189..... shawn marlatt will be 160 (if he can make that weight) and your right... all state champs...
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/13/08 01:20 PM
Originally Posted By: Svo69
Great post chief. In your opinion, where does Wichita Northwest factor into the mix... specifically, why did Wichita Heights (each has 6 returning state qualifiers) get the not over Wichita Northwest. Please note that this post is not intended as a critism. I'm just curious why Wichita Heights got the nod. Care to respond?


As Jason responded, Wichita Heights should have 3 finalists and quite possibly 3 Champions again. In my list to start the post, I don't have the teams ranked in any order other than qualifiers. Having said that, WNW will be plenty tough. They should have 2 finalists and possibly 2 champions. I also expect Gaither and Page to place. Both of those teams will finish top 10 and I expect Heights will be top 3.
Posted By: bigosteve Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/13/08 02:30 PM
I have recently heard there is a very good chance that Heights will have a surprise high profile transfer wrestler in their line up at the start of the school year. Anyone else heard this? The wrestler I am speaking of is a former state champion that is pretty good friends with a number of wrestlers at Heights. Don't know for sure, but I have heard the talk about it. This will certainly change the projections of WH if this happens.
Posted By: Jason McComb Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/13/08 04:38 PM
I also heard along time ago that Nathan F. might now go to Wichita Heights. They also have some tough freshmen coming in U. Deshazer & Matt Reed.
Posted By: Svo69 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/13/08 07:13 PM
Chief:

Despite the fact that Wichita Northwest's Trey Page is a great wrestler (and even greater kid), I believe that its doubtful that he'll find a spot on the Northwest team this year as he likely can't make weight at 189 lbs (he continually struggled to make weight last year and has grown since) and Caylor and Heithouse (both defending state champions at 215 lbs & heavyweight respectively) look pretty solid for those weights. My "guess" is that Trey will concentrate on football.
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/14/08 09:37 AM
Originally Posted By: Svo69
Chief:

Despite the fact that Wichita Northwest's Trey Page is a great wrestler (and even greater kid), I believe that its doubtful that he'll find a spot on the Northwest team this year as he likely can't make weight at 189 lbs (he continually struggled to make weight last year and has grown since) and Caylor and Heithouse (both defending state champions at 215 lbs & heavyweight respectively) look pretty solid for those weights. My "guess" is that Trey will concentrate on football.


This would be an unfortunate loss for Wichita Northwest and for Trey Page. He is definitely a high quality varsity wrestler and should be competing for a state placing finish next year. This is a problem that sometimes occurs in high school and college wrestling due to less opportunity for heavier wrestlers due to fewer weight classes at these weights. A possible alternative would be a system like the NAIA has where it lets schools take more than one wrestler in a weight class to its national tournament. I have heard that the NAIA schools are limited to the total number of wrestlers that they can take to the tournament to a number like ten. I believe the national college club wrestling system also allows for more than one wrestler per weight at its tournaments. I think Page and Caylor both competed at 215 in the Kansas Kids tournament series at the end of last year's high school season.

This problem does not develop in sports like high school track & field since each school can qualify more than one athlete per event. Page, Caylor and Heithaus if they were discus throwers could all have the opportunity to place at State in the same year. It is very unfortunate that football players like Page sometimes need to lose a lot of weight to find a spot on the varsity wrestling team. Some of them do make the decision not to wrestle. They decide to lift weights, gain weight and increase strength for football instead. I believe it is the reason that football coaches are not more supportive of their players coming out for wrestling. Many of these football coaches really are not interested in their players losing weight during their football off seasons.
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/14/08 12:27 PM
The 2008 NAIA tournament entry sheet stated that each team could enter a total of 12 wrestlers for the ten college weight classes but no more than 2 per weight class. That would be similar to a high school system of allowing each team to enter 16 for the 14 weight classes with no more than 2 wrestlers per weight class.
Posted By: Falcon Grappler Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/14/08 05:04 PM
I don't believe allowing two guys at a weight is a proper solution to the problem. In my opinion, lets drop a middle weight and add 235 or 240 and allow for more of those kids to show up. If I really had my way, I would just drop 103 period for the fact that the majority of kids entering high school and attending high school have to still make a big cut to make 103. Kids are bigger now as their diets make them bigger.

Drop 103 Add 235

Also: If I have a suprise high profile move in coming will someone please let me know! I work at this school daily and have heard no such news!!!! I'll take one if one of them happens to move into my area though wink tounge in cheek!!!!!
Posted By: 24/7 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/14/08 05:33 PM
HWT is no more full that 103 now. If you want to add 235 fine, but not at the expense of the smaller kids.

24/7
Posted By: shawnbudke Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/14/08 06:45 PM
OK, now I have to get on my "small man" soap box so please bear with me.....

1. Wrestling is one of the very few sports left for kids of all shapes and sizes. Especially for smaller kids. Cutting a lower weight class just further decreases the number of kids that can participate. Even if we don't have full weight classes at the lower weights, it still provides an opportunity for those of us who aren't blessed with average to above average size genetics.

2. I understand about the need potentially for an additional heavier weight but the bottomline is that a lot of the kids that size are on a course where they will ultimately have to make a choice between football and wrestling. I agree 100% with 24/7. Cutting a weight class limits potential participation in a sport that already has limited numbers.

Here's an idea of how they do it in Montana for the big schools....

Each high school can enter up to 2 full teams into the state qualifying tournaments. There are 2 divisional qualifying tournaments. The top 8 from each weight class qualifies for state the following week. At the state tournament the team points count just the same for every wrestler that qualifies.

At first, I didn't like this but having coached in that system for a few years I realized there were a lot of advantages to it. Here are the advantages from my perspective...

1. The true team champion is determined by who has the best overall program. The best programs end up qualifying 20-25 kids and thus usually score a lot more points at the state tournament.
As a coach, it requires you to build depth in your wrestling room.

2. It is a great advantage for the kids. If you have 2 studs at a weight you don't have to force one to wrestle up or down a weight. There has been times when one school has had 2 wrestlers in the championship. This is a good thing for the kids because the get to become state placers without having to cut weight just to try and fit into the line up or not get a chance because they can't make the weight.

3. This proces also promotes the total team concept among the wrestlers. Kids get more interested in helping their "back ups" vice just trying to make varsity.

4. It actually increases participation and the number of kids in the wrestling room. For example, if you have a group of state qualifiers or really good wrestlers, kids that aren't that good still come out for wrestling because they know they still have a chance.

I think these are very positive for a sport that has trouble increasing its number of participants in high school and college.

BLUF: We need to look at ways to increase the participation in the sport of wrestling, not limit opportunities.

Shawn Budke
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/14/08 10:45 PM
Shawn, I like that Montana system. It would seem like the second squad of wrestlers could use the varsity experience during the season before the state qualifying tournaments start. Do they use the two squad system at all in other tournaments during the year before the state qualifying series begins?
Posted By: smokeycabin Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 12:31 AM
I am not sure this belongs on this thread. But you can not get do away with the lighter weights. They are natural development years. Some kids are just late bloomers. My high school weights
98 (5 foot), 105, 126, 138 (5'11") AND college 167 all 4 years.


Rowlands, a four-time All-American at Ohio State, is no stranger to the process of gaining weight. In fact, it has been a never ending task for the former Buckeye since first taking to the mats.
This story sponsored by:

Russ Hellickson's Ohio State Wrestling Camps

Tommy Rowlands

“I was behind on the growth curve when I entered high school,” laughed Rowlands, an Ohio state and national high school champion. “I started out my freshman year at 5-7, 140 pounds and finished my senior year at 6-3, 205 pounds. I just didn't stop growing. It was good for me in many ways because I had to focus on the technical side of wrestling. It was a long time before I could rely on the physical aspect.”




Courtesy: OhioStateBuckeyes.com



Tommy Rowlands
Wrestling
Assistant Coach
Alma Mater: Ohio State (2005)



________________________________________
Courtesy: OhioStateBuckeyes.com
Release: 06/29/2007

Tommy Rowlands has begun his second season as a full-time assistant coach for Ohio State. The 2002 and 2004 NCAA heavyweight champion, Rowlands offers expertise that allowed him to conclude his career as the most decorated wrestler in OSU history. He is just the second Buckeye to win two national titles and the first to earn All-America honors four times.
Rowlands splits his time between coaching Buckeye wrestling and training as a 2008 Beijing Olympic hopeful. Recently, Rowlands earned a spot on the U.S. World Freestyle Team that competed in the World Championships in September and finished fifth at 264.5 pounds. During the summer, he also won a silver medal at the Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, (264.5 pounds) to go along with several other medals he has earned in national and international competition since he graduated from Ohio State in 2005 with a business degree.
The Hilliard, Ohio, native is the all-time leader at Ohio State in career wins (164), career team points (702.0) and career takedowns (705). His career record of 164-14 (.921) ranks fourth all-time in winning percentage at OSU, while his 44 wins in 2004 and 43 triumphs in 2001 rank fourth and fifth, respectively, all-time in a single season.
Rowlands and his wife, Elizabeth, reside in Hilliard, Ohio, and have a daughter, Ellie. Elizabeth completed her undergraduate studies and soccer career at Kentucky in 2004 and was a two-time all-conference performer and is the record holder at UK with 36 career assists and ranks third all-time in goals and points.

Rowlands, a four-time All-American at Ohio State, is no stranger to the process of gaining weight. In fact, it has been a never ending task for the former Buckeye since first taking to the mats.
Posted By: Ghostrider Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 06:37 AM
I would count on Junction City doing some serious damage this year in wrestling. They will have plenty of State Qualifiers returning and two Super Coaches leading that team for another year to look forward too.
Posted By: shawnbudke Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 12:04 PM
Vince,

I ended up liking the MT system a lot also. I just think it does a lot to promote the sport and increase participation. No they do not use it for any of the other tournaments before state. At a lot of the tournaments they will let you bring a JV (second) team but the second team is counted as another team for team points. Another thing they do, if they don't have enough teams, is they will invite teams to bring their best #2 wrestlers at certain weights. They will then form that into a separate team.

Sean,

Now you are giving me a real complex! I was way under the normal growth chart for height and weight. The problem is the only place I seem to be catching up is on the weight side. Missed the train for the catching up on the height! HA!

You are absolutely right, we have to keep the smaller weights.

Shawn Budke
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 12:30 PM
Smokeycabin:

Just to clarify things, I am not advocating doing away with the lighter weights just adjusting them upward slightly. I do think you could adjust the lowest weight class upward a bit say to the 106 or 108 area and I agree with Mike Church that would be a good thing. I realize that it would hurt competitively a little some smaller wrestlers 100 or less because it would bring a few more wrestlers into the lightest weight class. But I also agree with Mike Church that this lightest weight class is a very difficult one to fill for many teams and that it is year end and year out dominated by freshmen and sophomores. Even at 108 it would still be dominated by freshmen and sophomores. I think there is a lot of unhealthy weight cutting that happens for growing kids to make this 103 at a lot of schools.

24/7, I don't think the Senior Metro Classic last year could even fill the 103 weight class but it had two heavyweight matches. There are plenty of heavier juniors and seniors in high schools if we could start getting the football coaches to encourage them to wrestle. I don't feel a varsity sport should be dominated by freshmen and sophomores. There would be nothing wrong with some of these lighter freshmen wrestling JV a year or two. I did not wrestle in high school. I played football and participated in track & field. Those sports were dominated annually by juniors and seniors and I believe that they still are. I think that is the way most sports should be and that freshmen varsity athletes should be the exception and not the rule.

Smokey, actually this high school growth spurt that you gave examples of with yourself going from 5 foot 98 pounds as a freshmen to 5' 11" 138 as a senior (I suspect your senior natural weight was over 150 what did you play football at?) and Tommy Rowlands growth of 5-7 140 as a freshmen to 6'3" 205 are prime examples in my opinion as to why high school wrestling should be have more opportunities for juniors and seniors who grow to these heavier weights. Remember how many quality junior and seniors we saw two years ago at Aquinas who had grown to heavier weight classes over 160 that could not find a spot on that talent rich team due to the lack of heavier weight classes? I think Aquinas that year easily could have had around 18 or more state qualifiers if Kansas had a system like Montana's where you could take two squads to the State tournament qualifying series.

I just hate to see these upper classmen lose the opportunity to wrestle varsity as juniors and seniors due to their natural growth and the lack of opportunity in the heavier weight classes over 160.

I would like to see weight classes adjusted to something like 108, 114, 120, 126, 133, 140, 148, 157, 167, 178, 190, 205, 225 and 275.
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 12:37 PM
Shawn Budke,

I do think if we could implement a system like the Montana system that there would be less reason to adjust the weight classes because it would automatically create more opportunity and that is what it should be all about.

I still do have some concerns about the weight cutting that goes on at many schools to make 103 and the trouble that even growing freshmen having during the year of maintaining that weight.
Posted By: moeder Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 01:22 PM



Originally Posted By: Husker Fan
Shawn Budke,


I still do have some concerns about the weight cutting that goes on at many schools to make 103 and the trouble that even growing freshmen having during the year of maintaining that weight.


Great Point(s) Vince, we all know there is NO WEIGHT CUTTING at any other weights other than 103 to be concerned about, and that ONLY FRESHMEN grow during the year (which is apparently the only grade level you feel wrestles 103).
Posted By: moeder Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 01:37 PM
Place Wrestler Year School Record - 4A Last Year:
1st Kenneth Ornelas 11 Chanute 39- 2
2nd Darin Stroot 12 Andale 31- 5
3rd Taylor Moeder 9 Colby 34- 4
4th Zach Cook 10 Smoky Valley 35- 4
5th Cass Steele 09 Meriden-Jefferson West 27- 5
6th Luke Cole 11 Abilene 32- 8

1st - Junior
2nd - Senior
4th - Sophmore
6th - Junior


Place Wrestler Year School Record 5A Last Year:
1st Blaine Smith SO Salina South High School 21- 2
2nd Dylan Penka 9 Wichita-Carroll 33- 4
3rd Adrian Salas SO Liberal High School 31- 9
4th Caleb Seaton 9 Bonner Springs 38- 4
5th Hunter Garrett 10 Seaman High School 26- 12
6th Robert Arzola 11 Kansas City-Turner 13- 15

1st - Sophmore
3rd - Sophmore
5th - Sophmore
6th - Junior

Place Wrestler Year School Record 6A Last Year:
1st Isaac Ruiz 10 Junction City 29- 6
2nd Jeff Vesta 11 Manhattan 37- 1
3rd Roger Windham 11 Derby 29- 8
4th Brijin McCullough 10 Wichita-South 22- 10
5th Tre Humphrey 9 Shawnee Mission South 36- 4
6th Jason Harper 09 Wichita-Haysville-Campus 18- 9

1st - Sophmore
2nd - Junior
3rd - Junior
4th - Sophmore

Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 04:17 PM
Tim:

You and I will not change each other's minds on this. I also looked at the state qualifiers in the classes you mentioned 6A, 5A and 4A. I felt what I saw supported my statement that 103 is dominated by freshmen and sophomores. I saw that the state qualifiers were predominantly freshmen and sophomores in 103 last year 13 in 6A, 14 in 5A, and 13 in 4A. I guess it is my football background, but to me that is not a normal high school varsity sport situation.

All those 103 placers you listed are excellent wrestlers and very deserving of their state placing accomplishments. I congratulate them. I do believe they would probably have all placed still if 103 was bumped up slightly to 106 or 108.

Maybe I am not looking at this correctly, I do know there are lighter kids under 100 pounds. I do not want to see them lose opportunity. I do want to see increased wrestling opportunity for all high school wrestlers including the heavier juniors and seniors. If Kansas could implement a system like Montana's that Shawn Budke described it would offer more opportunity for all wrestlers and there would be less reason to adjust the current weight classes.
Posted By: rjohnson Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 04:36 PM
No one wants to see any of the lighter kids loose out. But if you look at the weight between each Bracket. From 103 to 160 the weight difference is single digit numbers. And if you look at 126 to 152 there are 6 brackets within that range with a total of 27 pounds seperation, the same pound difference from 189 to 215. So I guess we fathers with the sons in the heavier brackets look at it as why don't we add a bracket ot (2) in the heavier weights to maybe get some mat time for the bigger boys.
Posted By: 24/7 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 04:46 PM
Vince, then stick to your support of Shawn's suggestion and drop your idea of moving the minimum to 108. Many of us are very tired of your constant agenda to get more heavy weight opportunities when those weights are not even full now. True 103 is not full either, but there are as many 103's as there are heavy's wreslting. And probably more that stick with it.

Where your statements fall apart is that football is a sport for big kids, as they move higher in competition it's for even bigger kids. Wrestling is a sport that even at the higest level there is a opportunity for every size. According to your logic should we take out 121 lbs at the Olympics, because it is normally wrestled by younger wrestlers not fully developed? There is no place for 121 lb footbalh players at the highest levels, but the beauty of wrestling is a 5'2 wrestler at 121 pounds can wrestle in the olympics. Go Spencer Mango!

RJohnson if heavy was full and then I would agree we need more weights up above, but 285 is no more full than 103. It's 12% weight difference at 215 and a 9% at 112. That is pretty comparible.

Where do you think does 121 pounders came from anyway????

24/7
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 05:25 PM
24/7,

I definitely do not want to see 121 dropped in international wrestling and I agree that is a very good reason for lighter weight classes in high school.

The differential between 215 and 189 is actually 13.76%. The differential between 215 and 285 is 32.56%. The percentage differentials after 103 and 112 are much lower from about 3.5% to 6%. I also truly believe that there would be more heavier football players wrestling if there were more opportunities for them. This conversation started up on this topic because it was pointed out that one team may lose a very good wrestler next year due to being faced with 2 state champions in 215 and 285 at his school and that he might just concentrate on football instead. I probably should not have brought it up on this topic. I apologize.
Posted By: rjohnson Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 07:14 PM
24/7

I think we all have been around enough wrestling that we have all been at a tournament that had open spots, and teams without a full roster. So is every weight 100% full?

It's not that anyone is trying to eliminate the smaller weights, they are only suggesting widing the opportunities for the bigger boys. And yes we all know of kids who drop out because someone on the team is a little better and they don't want to wrestle JV their Junior or Senior years (This happens at ALL weights)and I applaud the ones who remain on the team to support others. I ask you is that fair. And by aswering yes, do you agree that all High School Sports should be limited to only the top person at any given position: Football only the starting 22 positions be able to compete, Basketball only the top 5, and in track you can only let your #1 person be the one that is eligible to compete at a Track Meet? I know thats far fetched, but this is how a kid who has the talent to be a State Placer must feel if he happens to be on the same team as two #1 placers and his inability to stay small is being punished because of the larger seperation at the bigger weights.

Going into Regionals / State it sounds good to open the door for 2 kids at the same weight allowing those kids who might place 2nd at State but is on the same team as the #1 kid.
Posted By: shawnbudke Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 08:02 PM
rjohnson,

I don't think 24/7 is against adding an additional weight class in the heavier weights. His point is (and I agree) is do not do it at the expense of either eliminating a lower weight or raising the minimum weight above 103 lbs. My interpretation of what he was saying is that some who were making the argument for a heavier weight class were using data, positions, etc that apply just the same as the lowest weight classes.

I personally get nervous, touchy and sometimes downright right mad when I hear of raising the smallest weights. That comes from my own personal bias because I was very small in high school. I was fortunate that we had a 98 lbs class (only weighed 89 lbs as a freshman). If you look at most of the sports offered in high school they favor, promote, etc kids that are big or at least average in size. Wrestling is one of the few sports that allows those of us on the below average size scale to particpate and try to earn college scholarships. I know that is why I get a little more emotional about this type of subject.

I would love to see us implement a system like MT does for its largest schools. IMO it is the best compromise that gives the most kids an opportunity and that is what this is all about.

Shawn Budke
Posted By: moeder Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 08:09 PM
Vince : I dont have a problem with the thought of a weight between 215 and 285. (235 or 240) My problem is the disrespect that you have in the past directed at the smaller wrestlers, and that you continously suggest getting rid of their weight bracket all together. (At least now you are suggesting an increase in the lowest weight instead of completely removing it.)
My other issue with your posts is you constantly use both football and upperclassman as your guage.
This is NOT FOOTBALL. Wrestling is unique in its structure and I oppose trying to mold it to the mindset of the football attitude. (re: Bigger is better, sit on the bench until you're an upperclassman, etc..) Thats a crock, IMO.
I would propose to you to research the success that our smaller wrestlers have had OUTSIDE of your comfort zone in Kansas and outside of the Kansas wrestling season. If you are in favor of Kansas continuing to get recognized for their quality of wrestling I would strongly suggest you rethink your size and age platform. Just think how far back you would put Kansas if you were to deter kids like Slyter, Furches, Vesta, Ruiz, Ornelas, Stroot, Windham, Penka, Moeder - and this years freshmen like Pursel, Locke, Seybold, Kriss from going out initially because they were too small to even have a chance to try out and no hope of making the team! The national tournaments like Cadet and Junior duals start with smaller weights than our High School division does. There is a purpose for that and if you step back and think that out you would understand there is a reason for it.
I'll give you another reason that it is imperative to have the smaller wrestler alive and well in Kansas. There will be a higher percentage of them dedicate themselves to wrestling, and if they are good enough, they will continue on to another level. They are not going to use wrestling as a "side-sport" during the football offseason. They are going to continue working their wrestling skills year round. We have had some of our quality "big guys" sign wrestling letters recently and that excites me. I will say however, I think they are the exception and not the rule. The greatest percentage of Kansas wrestlers that will move on to the College arena will have started in the smaller ranks.
Posted By: sum876 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/15/08 10:31 PM
in m oppinion the top small freshmans should be...

Bo Pursel-103
Chase locke-103
Colby watters-112
U. Deshazer-112 or 119?
Brady Heincker-103 or 112?
Hunter Stalford-103
Aaron Seybold-103
Timmy Prescott-112
Zack Vesta- 103


these are just my guesses..

any one care too differ?
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/16/08 12:48 AM
Tim:

I really wish I had not opened this can of worms. The post that mentioned that a young high quality wrestler might decide not to wrestle next year due to his not wanting to cut weight to 189 and the roadblocks on his team with state champions at 215 and 285 prompted me to take this topic off target. I have seen this young man wrestle and he is way too good of a wrestler to be not wrestling varsity next year. It brought back some similar bad memories from my son's high school team two years ago. I intended to get off of this topic completely and I will, but now I feel you just made a completely unfair and untrue statement about me with that post with this quote:

Quote:
Vince : I dont have a problem with the thought of a weight between 215 and 285. (235 or 240) My problem is the disrespect that you have in the past directed at the smaller wrestlers, and that you continously suggest getting rid of their weight bracket all together. (At least now you are suggesting an increase in the lowest weight instead of completely removing it.)


Please direct me to the all of these posts where I am continously suggesting to get rid of the 103 weight bracket and not just adjust it upward slightly. I am not sure that I have ever suggested anything other than moving it up at the most 5 pounds. I have made a lot of posts in my time on the forum so you should easily be able to get on to my profile to view my posts and find them if I have continously been suggesting that we drop 103 completely and start at 112. I may have done so but I don't think so. I can direct you to a post I made over a year ago where I suggested that 103 be just adjusted slightly upward to either 106 or 108. My main thought especially over the last year has been that if the only way to get more opportunities for heavier wrestlers was to keep the weight classes limited to 14 that the best way to achieve it would be to adjust more the middle weights by increasing all the five pound weight differentials upward a little. My suggestion on a little upward move on 103 to 106 or 108 has more to do with concern that some coaches might feel too much pressure to encourage young athletes to drop too much weight to get to 103. Yes, you were correct in an earlier post on this topic that freshmen and other ages are growing at other weights too but statisically the freshmen are not required to fill the higher weights at the varsity level as much as they are at 103 so not as many freshmen get pressure to lose weight as they do in varsity 103.

If I have shown such disrespect for 103 wrestlers I apologize to them and you as a parent. I think a lot of the 103 wrestlers are some of the best wrestlers in Kansas. The list you gave of last year's state placers is a good example of that as are the other past 103 wrestlers that you mentioned in your last post. I really do believe that all those wrestlers would have also been great at a 106 or 108 weight class. I love it that wrestling gives more opportunity for lighter athletes than a sport like football. I have always encouraged my son to wrestle instead of playing my high school sport football. Since the first grade he has wrestled 11 years and only played football three years. He is not playing football this year as a senior and is totally concentrating on wrestling. I have been an advocate though of more opportunities in wrestling for the athletes over 160 pounds. I believe it would be good for wrestling if there were more opportunities for these heavier athletes.
Posted By: tbau Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/16/08 01:34 AM
we don't need to adjust the weight classes especially the lighter weights because wrestling is about the only sport the smaller kids can compete at. They are too small for football and basketball. As for the kid that can't make varsity, sorry thats life, maybe he needs to work harder and improve his wrestling skills to compete against the other two kids. kids over 160lbs have ample opportunities to compete at the high school level. Most of the heavier weights are hard to fill anyway. My son is a 165lb sophmore and if he doesn't make varsity I will tell him to work harder to get there. It just seems that husker fan is an advocate for only the bigger kids.
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/16/08 02:17 AM
Originally Posted By: tbau
we don't need to adjust the weight classes especially the lighter weights because wrestling is about the only sport the smaller kids can compete at. They are too small for football and basketball. As for the kid that can't make varsity, sorry thats life, maybe he needs to work harder and improve his wrestling skills to compete against the other two kids. kids over 160lbs have ample opportunities to compete at the high school level. Most of the heavier weights are hard to fill anyway. My son is a 165lb sophmore and if he doesn't make varsity I will tell him to work harder to get there. It just seems that husker fan is an advocate for only the bigger kids.


tbau, I don't know you but I value your opinion of me. I feel that is another completely unfair statement to make that I am just an advocate for bigger kids. I have given my time and resources to wrestling causes that benefit all weight classes and I truly admire wrestlers in all the weight classes. I will continue to do so because I believe in this sport and the opportunities it gives to kids of all sizes. I just want to see a little more opportunity for heavier athletes both in high school and college wrestling. I would like to see more opportunities for wrestlers of all sizes that is why I have given of my time and resources to try and promote more college wrestling programs. I do this and intend to continue to do so and yet there are very few weight classes for heavier wrestlers in college. It goes from 197 to 285. I don't understand why I have to get personal attacks directed on me just because I am a strong advocate for heavier wrestlers.

Also you have seemed to have changed your stance rather suddenly with this new just tough it up and beat out these two state champions in your weight class opinion from this quote that you just made in June of this year in another topic:

Quote:
We don't need to reduce weight classes if anything we need to add one between 215 and 285.


Seriously do you really think it is a good situation that you may have a wrestler who could wrestle at just about any other school in Wichita at 215 or 285 and seriously compete for a state placing position but might be preventing from wrestling varsity at his own school because the defending state champions at 215 and 285 are at his school?

At least don't you think that a change to the Montana system of allowing each school to take two squads to the State qualifying series might be a good alternative to address such a situation? I think that could help wrestlers at all weight classes not just heavier weight classes.
Posted By: tbau Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/16/08 03:18 AM
The Montana system would be fine and even adding another weight class between 215 and 285 would be okay. You are the one advocating eliminating the 103lb class or increasiny the weight. It's too bad this kid can't make varsity at his school but should the state make a special weight class to accomidate him? Is it a good situation? No but it happens just like I'm sure their have been 2 103 pounders at the same school who could of been state placers over the years. Yes you do seem to only advocate increased oppurtunities for the bigger kids.
Posted By: Cokeley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/16/08 03:33 AM
Vince,

Not all kids can be on varsity, the best person at the weight is on the team. Should we start asking for 12 man football teams because there are more than eleven good kids? High school is, for most teens, the last formal education they will receive before going off into the real world. If a young man goes to IBM to interview for a job but misses the cut would you tell them that they need to have more jobs for qualified employees? Disappointment is part of life. Just like Tom said they have to learn to work harder or prepare differently. Not getting what you want gives you experience. We are not adequately preparing our youth by making it easier to get something that should be a reward. In the past 40 years we have gone to four state tournaments, given out more awards (from four to six), invited 16 wrestlers to state instead of 8, and now you think we should have two varsity teams when many teams can't fill one? There are lots of athletic opportunities for the bigger kids. Lots more than there are for the small guys. I am confident the weight classes and population distribution have been closely tied to the percentage differences and weight class set up. To me these changes would be SUPER difficult to gain approval. Lets figure out how to fill all of the weights we have now. Fill all of our JV and Freshmen teams too.

In closing, it is OKAY that a good/great wrestler may not make varsity. He will learn and grow from his diappointment and experience.

I agree with your stance to advocate more weight classes but I think the majority reading and posting feel that there are bigger problems that need to be addressed before we get to that.
Posted By: Husker Fan Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/16/08 10:56 AM
Will,

I am going to respond to you in a private message. I have to take myself off this topic and posting on topics for now.
Posted By: Svo69 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/21/08 10:14 PM
Interesting post. As an aside, not only will Wichita Northwest likely be without the services of Trey Page, who, I assume (and this is totally an "assumption, on my part and I truly hope that I'm wrong) "can not" as opposed to "will not", make weight to compete at 189 lbs, but Northwest will (as I understand it) also, not have the pleasure of having Jeff Poe (another outstanding wrestler - and equally great kid - and, I should mention, another previously "ranked" 6-A Wreslter) on their wrestling squad, as he, as well, has increased his weight to in excess of 189 lbs. That's the way it goes. As I see it, Will's right. Each team Presents competes with their best at a given weight and the chips fall where they may. It's just unfortunate that the chips fell that way for Wichita Northwest this year. I labor under no delusion that many other teams have experienced similar problems, throughout the years.
Posted By: new2wrestling Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/22/08 08:39 PM
No decision has been made about Trey and his weight. We are going to get through football and see what happens. Thank you to those of you that think Trey is a quality wrestler. He loves the sport, but we will have to wait and see what happens after football.
Posted By: "bumble" beasley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/25/08 04:33 PM
Originally Posted By: KSdriver
lets put this together...

maizes 103 vs derby 103... predictions

112.... and so on...

it should be close in this dual,, and state

beasly will be going 125

locke 103

cox 112


who will derbys 103 112 and 119 pounders be?


thanks,
Posted By: "bumble" beasley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/25/08 04:40 PM
Maize | Derby

103 Locke vs Windham
112 Zinabu vs Heinicker
119 Amaro vs Reinhart?
125 Beasley vs McCombs?
130 Cox? vs Shavlik?

correct me if im wrong
Posted By: Cokeley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/25/08 04:44 PM
Shavlik WILL NOT make 130. He likes Honey Buns way too much! JMO smile
Posted By: doug747 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/25/08 08:10 PM
Let's determine the number of weight classes each year based on who we think is getting hosed. If a good kid can't make varsity, let's create a weight class for him until: 1-he graduates, or 2-he can make varsity. We don't want any kids becoming discouraged by these bumps in the road that life provides. Let's level all the bumps out for them.

Doug
Posted By: Svo69 Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/25/08 09:00 PM
New2Wrestling:

I sure hope that you are right. I'd love to see Trey out there again. At 189 lbs ... he'd be a force to reckon with!
Posted By: "bumble" beasley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/25/08 09:43 PM
ha, nice one.
do you think he can make 135?
and who will be at 135?
Posted By: shawnbudke Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/26/08 12:12 PM
Hey guys,

Just want to clear something up about the Montana system of using the varsity and jv to qualify for state.....

The reason MT does that for their AA schools (same as 6A in KS) is because they only have 13 AA schools. So in order to have full 16 man brackets at the state tournament, that is the system they implemented. Way back in the OLD days (when I was there) we had 16 AA teams and we only took varsity wrestlers to the state tournament.

Having said that, when I first saw the system I was skeptical of it. I thought the same things about going overboard to let everyone qualify, etc. Once I saw it in action, I changed my opinion, mainly because I saw how it helped in a lot of cases on reducing the weight cutting. For example, if a team had 2 of the top kids in the state at one weight, they would wrestle one up a weight for the majority of the season. At state they would put both wrestlers at the same weight. This really helped the kid that was one of the top 2 wrestlers in the state in that he could still place at the state tournament, yet he didn't have to wrestle up a weight or try to really cut to make the next lower weight.

Shawn Budke
Posted By: Cokeley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/26/08 02:53 PM
Unless Cody switches to Swiss Cake Rolls I think he will be wrestling 135 but I wouldn't be surprised to see him at 140. All fun aside, he will be super tough no matter what weight he wrestles and I would consider him a contender for the top spot on the podium.
Posted By: Jason McComb Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 08/27/08 09:23 AM
Will-
Sorry I should of responded to your funny "Hunny Buns" comment on this thread. My fault, keep up the good work. I respond on the Derby Line up thread. Have a Great Day!!!
Posted By: "bumble" beasley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/04/08 02:05 PM
Change that, Beasley is at Campus
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/04/08 02:08 PM
Originally Posted By: codybeasley
Change that, Beasley is at Campus


Wrong Cody, Cody. Shavlik is from Derby.
Posted By: "bumble" beasley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/04/08 02:37 PM
I'm talking about me,
Cody Beasley is at Campus ha
Posted By: Chief Renegade Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/04/08 03:14 PM
That is funny. On your own post you claimed Maize. Did you just switch back?
Posted By: "bumble" beasley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/05/08 06:38 PM
yeah i switched back
Posted By: bighead Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/11/08 02:41 AM
Originally Posted By: Falcon Grappler
I don't believe allowing two guys at a weight is a proper solution to the problem. In my opinion, lets drop a middle weight and add 235 or 240 and allow for more of those kids to show up. If I really had my way, I would just drop 103 period for the fact that the majority of kids entering high school and attending high school have to still make a big cut to make 103. Kids are bigger now as their diets make them bigger.

Drop 103 Add 235

Also: If I have a suprise high profile move in coming will someone please let me know! I work at this school daily and have heard no such news!!!! I'll take one if one of them happens to move into my area though wink tounge in cheek!!!!!


You want more slower paced, out of shape, pummling, unimpressive wrestling? Im sorry but I lose interest after 189. Ive also noticed most people have hit the parking lot by 171. I can name some very talented 103 KS wrestlers... Roberson, Maynes(100lbs), Bunch, and possibly a few of your kids. A whole bunch of 4xrs started their hs careers at 103. Remember that these KIDS are 14-18 years old. There was thought and reason put into the weight classifications. Im sorry but 215+ pound high schoolers bore me!
Posted By: Cokeley Re: 6A Returning SQ's - 09/11/08 12:44 PM
12 of the 22 four time Kansas Class State Champs won their first championship at 105 or less (98, 103, and 105) so lets leave that alone. It is the only REAL atheletic opportunity for the small freshman or sophomore.
© Wrestling Talk Forums