With all of this talk about to gap from 197-285

[BruceyB]

I just wanted to highlight a lovely post from our friend @bnwtwg. I don't know how to quote someone from a separate thread, so I just c&p'd his post. I don't expect anyone to read this other than he, himself. But if nothing else, I wanted his comments to get the attention they deserve.

"How many of you on this board have made the decision as a high level wrestler in the modern era including testings to either cut 30 pounds and be ragged, or stay where you are and hope your quickness overcomes the sheer strength advantage, or decide to bulk so hard that you are stiff as a board? I'll raise my hand. A better example of a MUCH more accomplished wrestler would be Jacob Warner. Or Michael Beard. Or Jacob Kasper. Or Kollin Moore. Et cetera et cetera.

My guess is none of you hit 200 until you paid the dad tax with an extra cheeseburger and another beer. I was there by the middle of my sophomore year with a six pack that I maintained until I was 37. I was a better wrestler than football player and I love the sport, so did I make a mistake by going B1G in the wrong sport? A guy I lost to at HS state went pro in the NFL for a few years riding pine and I took me probably 12-15 years before my salary out-earned his fresh out of college paycheck.

So yeah, I think I have an idea. Was I Kyle Snyder or Anthony Cassar? Hell no. They are the outliers, not reality. And last I checked, reality is this sport is withering on the male side directly due to NIL and football in that order, and the average American male is larger than ever. So my non-anecdotal evidence also confirms this butthurt bunch of previously skinny guys sucking in their gut to hunch over the keyboard should get over it and face the raw numbers.

103 is a weak weight full of underclassmen and undersized seniors. That's how I feel about your username."

First of all @bnwtwg, is this post supposed to be some kind of humble brag about how you were over 200 pounds with a six pack until you were 37, and that you wrestled at a B1G school?

You start your post by belittling everyone's opinions because we ourselves may not have had the dilemma of choosing to go up or down a weight as someone stuck between 197 and 285. However, I have made a cut of ~13% bodyweight just the same as 227-197 is. No, it was not fun, and, yes, it was in the modern era of testing. I was in good shape before the cut, and it did shrink my body over time. Regardless of your natural size, many of us, I am sure, have pulled more weight than we probably should have/would have desired in our time in the sport.

You then go on to list names of guys who are all AAs and have achieved a high level of success in the most difficult level of folkstyle wrestling, so I'm not sure how they help your point. You would have been better off naming blue chip recruits that failed to have success in college because they were true tweeners. 

You move to the second paragraph and once again insult everyone on this forum by assuming that not of us were 200 pounds before you, essentially say, we became old fat slobs. Nice touch.

And the third paragraph is where you really go wrong. You talk about how male wrestling numbers are dwindling due to NIL and football. Let us look at this. "Boys participation had the highest growth rate of all the major boys sports (+12.5%) and is now at the highest level since 1978 (US Wrestling Federation, 2024)." So actually, male participation is flourishing, not dwindling at all.

But maybe I misunderstood and you meant male participation is dwindling in college wrestling? Wrestling for many years has had one of, if not the lowest percentages of high school athletes that go on to continue the sport in college. Is this because wrestlers have no interest in competing in college? No, it is because there are very few wrestling opportunities in college in comparison to high school participation. Well, given that there are more high school athletes participating in the sport now than since 1978, that would make college wrestling opportunities more coveted than ever. So if one athlete decides to go play football, does the coach just leave an empty spot on the roster, or does the next best option get the opportunity to wrestle in college? Surely the latter, so with that logic, you couldn't have meant less guys overall are competing in college due to NIL and Football. 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since the two previous possibilities couldn't possibly have been what you meant. You're brighter than that. You must mean that the college level is losing elite level athletes by the enticing money of NIL through pursuit of football or other sports. Which athletes are wrestling losing here? 125s? Couldn't be. 149 pounders? Doubtful. Surely, the majority of the elite athletes that are being drawn away from the wrestling mats are the very guys you're arguing for, the specimens such as yourself that are 200+ pounds and shredded. The average male may indeed be larger than ever, but I would strongly question how much the size of the average wrestler has changed in the last 20 years. The truth is, the majority of elite athletes that are more than 200 pounds simply don't prioritize wrestling as their number one sport. And as you said, the number of those who pursue wrestling can only have further withered with the financial incentives of NIL in other sports. So it seems we are losing 197/285 wrestlers, resulting in fewer and fewer athletes that find themselves in a predicament such as yourself, because they are likely on the football field.

You then go on to use your personal anecdote as if it speaks to the raw numbers. You fail to realize that while you may have been a tweener, the raw numbers would say that there simply are not that many wrestlers that are unable to follow a diet plan and compete well at 197, or get large enough to be competitive at 285. If you watered down the 2 weight classes that are undoubtedly suffering the most, as you claim, from football and NIL, you would greatly diminish the overall talent of the two weights by splitting them further. Many, many undersized heavyweights have seen a lot of success at the weight despite the size difference. It's really when you have the freaks like Gable, Parris, Kerkvliet, etc. where the size seems insurmountable, but they are few and far between.

And you finish your anecdotal paragraph with a completely unnecessary insult to everyone on this board by referring to us as, "previously skinny guys sucking in their gut to hunch over the keyboard." Maybe if instead of being aggressive and disrespectful to everyone on this forum, you politely explained your experience with the weight I would feel more sympathy towards you. You could have just said that you were in fact once a tweener and that you felt the cut to 197 would leave you lacking energy/strength, and that you felt overpowered when wrestling with full sized heavyweights, and how you would have enjoyed your college wrestling experience much more if you were able to compete at a weight where you felt more comfortable. There was never any need to cut into everyone else to prove your point. You chose to be disrespectful and belittling when it was completely unnecessary. 

And then comes your final statement. This entire thread had nothing to do with 103 pounders, but you decided to include an insult to the weight class because.. what? @1032004 once wrestled that weight? I don't think anyone here would argue that 103 is anywhere near the toughest weight, but instead as you pointed out, it is indeed designed so that underclassmen have a weight class to participate in when they are smaller or develop later in their teens. Your comment was just a mean spirited and disrespectful statement towards someone for wrestling at what you feel is an "inferior" weight class, as if that has anything to do with the validity of his argument.

You talk about 103 being a weak weight class when 220 and 285 spots in high school are, more often than not, filled by football players that have been convinced to come out for wrestling. My sophomore year of high school our heavyweight won states despite never having wrestled prior to 8th grade, and never attending a single practice that was not our public junior high and high school after school practices. They may be underclassmen, but I'd be willing to bet the house that the average 103 state champ has been wrestling longer than the average 220/285.

And my very last and final point of contest is this. The heavyweight that won state that I mentioned in the previous paragraph.. yeah, he went on to play football in college rather than wrestle, no NIL incentives necessary, as they didn't exist. However, the guy he beat in the state finals indeed went on to wrestle in college, much like the wrestler you lost to at states that went on to pursue football rather than wrestle. So that is two anecdotes that we have experienced just between yourself and I where the lesser wrestler went on to wrestle in college. It seems reasonable to assume many of the best athletes at the heavier weights opt to pursue other sports after high school, leaving lesser athletes to fill the spots they left vacant.

All this, and I am actually very much in favor of shifting 174-285. I believe that college wrestling is supposed to be a sport that is inclusive to athletes between 125-285 pounds. Despite the fact that 197 and 285 lose the most athletes to other sports, I am supportive of shifting the weights so that tweeners can more easily go down to 210-220 (whatever the weight might be). Many of us have sucked a lot of weight for various reasons, and I don't think that even the few true tweeners should have to either cut 30 pounds or try to stack on as much muscle as possible to be competitive on the mat, even if those two option often end up with a lot of success.

Sincerely,

"A previously skinny guy"

 

 

[Husker_Du]

the argument that '106 is a weak weight' is absolutely stupid.

they are annually the best wrestlers in the country. the most promising prospects. the list of star wrestlers (in college or international) has more guys that were 106's at one point than any other single weight. From Spencer Lee to David Taylor.

those that poo-poo on it are usually guys that were 152 as freshmen and are bitter b/c they didn't place at the state tournament and lighter guys did.

106 is invaluable for the the development of this country's best. 

[1032004]

Yeah other than the insults, I was most confused by the comments about upperweight wrestlers being enticed by NIL opportunities to play football.  How exactly would making more upperweight classes in wrestling change this?  It’s also not all that different than in the past, since with 85 scholarships and many more schools offering football scholarships, it has always been far easier to get a football scholarship than a wrestling scholarship.

[Husker_Du]

190/195, 215/220 and 285 in high school effing suck. i mean, it's terrible. 

but go off about how Braxton Amos and Kyle Snyder and Christian Carroll are tweeners. 

[BloodRound]

28 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

From Spencer Lee to David Taylor.

It's always remarkable to think that guys like Taylor or Zahid Valencia started their careers at 106, as they are absolutely monstrous in size now.

[BruceyB]

4 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

190/195, 215/220 and 285 in high school effing suck. i mean, it's terrible. 

but go off about how Braxton Amos and Kyle Snyder and Christian Carroll are tweeners. 

And then water down that talent by all of those who choose another sport for college athletics.. I loved the kid, but I coached a 220 that ended up being a 2x state champion.. as an 8th grader, he literally couldn't do a somersault during warmups. He wound up a 2x NCAA qualifier at heavyweight in D1 wrestling. But like you said, people want to cherry pick the few guys that are tweeners as a justification for a new weight class.

[The Kid]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

190/195, 215/220 and 285 in high school effing suck. i mean, it's terrible. 

but go off about how Braxton Amos and Kyle Snyder and Christian Carroll are tweeners. 

 Really?  103 kinda sucks with two guys grabbing each other's ankles and rolling around for 6 minutes between 9th graders.

 

1 hour ago, BloodRound said:

It's always remarkable to think that guys like Taylor or Zahid Valencia started their careers at 106, as they are absolutely monstrous in size now.

The were little kids. That's the point. 

Edited Thursday at 03:04 PM by The Kid

[Husker_Du]

wtf are you talking about?

the 106's that lose two matches from placing are vastly more skilled than half the (upperclassmen) placers from 170-285.

say you don't know ball without saying it. 

[666]

I am not overly impressed with the ultra lightweight kids. I have a lot more respect for a guy winning  multiple state titles if he's not wrestling 8 graders, 9 graders, and sophomores.  It stands to reason why, those kids are 2 or 3 years younger than the guys winning titles in upper weights and have 2 to 3 years less wrestling development.  If a Fr or a Soph wins the state title at, say, 157 pounds though, I'm impressed because he's beating guys who are mostly older than him. If a Fr or Soph wins state at even higher weights I'm even MORE impressed because they are competing against kids who are more physically mature than they are in all likelihood.  That's not to say that great wrestlers didn't pass through those very light  weights as they matured, which explains guys like Valencia or Lee wrestling those weights in HS. 

Regarding tweeners, they don't usually pan out all that well. There are exceptions of course, but most 220 pounders are going to struggle at HWT in college. 190 pounders are a completely different animal. 190 is a much stronger weight class than 220 in HS, in my opinion. 

[BruceyB]

37 minutes ago, The Kid said:

 Really?  103 kinda sucks with two guys grabbing each other's ankles and rolling around for 6 minutes between 9th graders.

 

The were little kids. That's the point. 

Yes, the 285s that push each other until one falls on their back and is instantly pinned is much higher level wrestling..

But because they were seniors instead of freshmen that means it's a hard weight class..

[666]

8 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

 

But because they were seniors instead of freshmen that means it's a hard weight class..

It's literally the difference between a boy and a man. On the other hand the heavies usually do suck. 

[BruceyB]

13 minutes ago, 666 said:

If a Fr or Soph wins state at even higher weights I'm even MORE impressed because they are competing against kids who are more physically mature than they are in all likelihood.

This is such a basic take. Kids develop at different ages. The fact that a 4 timer might have started at 106 doesn't mean he is any less skilled than someone who came in as a freshman at 160.. they were just smaller in their mid teens.. it has nothing to do with trajectory. Sure, it's more impressive for a freshman to win a state title at 140 than 103, but it also says more about where they are maturity and developmentally than their actual wrestling ability. There have been countless wrestlers who were "phenoms" that peaked early in high school due to their early development. Then those that matured later surpassed them once they caught up physically. Judging a high schooler's trajectory is much more than which weight they are wrestling as a freshman/sophomore.

[BruceyB]

Just now, 666 said:

It's literally the difference between a boy and a man. On the other hand the heavies usually do suck. 

If your point is that teenagers who develop earlier can beat a more skilled but less mature individual, you have me beat. But by the time they both reach college and become "men" who wins? The less skilled man or the late blooming man with superior wrestling ability?

[666]

Just now, BruceyB said:

This is such a basic take. Kids develop at different ages. The fact that a 4 timer might have started at 106 doesn't mean he is any less skilled than someone who came in as a freshman at 160.. they were just smaller in their mid teens.. it has nothing to do with trajectory. Sure, it's more impressive for a freshman to win a state title at 140 than 103, but it also says more about where they are maturity and developmentally than their actual wrestling ability. There have been countless wrestlers who were "phenoms" that peaked early in high school due to their early development. Then those that matured later surpassed them once they caught up physically. Judging a high schooler's trajectory is much more than which weight they are wrestling as a freshman/sophomore.

That doesn't really contradict what I stated though. 8th graders-sophomores DO usually have at least a couple years less wrestling under their belts and less physical maturity than older kids. It's not just a maturity thing, it's a technique thing. Technique improves over time. When I watch those really light kids wrestle I see a lot of so-called "Jr High" moves, and there's a reason for that: they are Jr High aged. Fr and Sophomores have less time under their belts. I suppose it doesn't really make as much difference today, when kids have 300 bouts of experience by the time they hit HS, as it did back in my day where a guy might only have 150 matches under his belt by the time he graduated. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but I'm not talking about freakishly talented guys like Yianni or Gable Steveson, I'm talking about regular guys who have to work their way up. 

[666]

3 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

If your point is that teenagers who develop earlier can beat a more skilled but less mature individual, you have me beat. But by the time they both reach college and become "men" who wins? The less skilled man or the late blooming man with superior wrestling ability?

That's not my point, although it's a true statement. Lots of times less talented wrestlers beat more talented guys just because they are stronger, faster, or maybe even meaner. I think that maybe you may be looking at my comments about the lightweight guys in the wrong perspective. I'm not saying all lightweight kids suck. I'm just saying they are younger and they generally have poorer technique than the kids with more experience under their belt, which makes logical sense. Of course all great wrestlers were 101 pounders at one time or another. For me it was 6th grade (not that I was particularly great, but I was that weight in 6th grade). For Spencer Lee it was 10th.  For Gable Steveson it was probably 4th grade. But I digress.

 

Regarding your question, I'll pick the late bloomer with superior technique every time. There are reasons guys might be late bloomers. Maybe a guy had a terrible HS coach but he thrives in a college wrestling room under superior coaching. I don't know who was Stephen Neal's coach in HS, but Neal finishing 4th at NCAAs as a FR when he only placed 4th at the HS level the year before shows how much coaching can improve a guy (as long as that guy has the minimum physical skills).  The late bloomers that have the best potential are the guys who are superb athletes who were undercoached. Give those guys some decent coaching and bam, instant contender. 

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

wtf are you talking about?

the 106's that lose two matches from placing are vastly more skilled than half the (upperclassmen) placers from 170-285.

say you don't know ball without saying it. 

100%...There is a legendary wrestler who never won PIAA at the lower weights.  Jumped to 160 senior year.  Won it.  Then went on to win 3 national titles in D1.  Lower weight guys are just better wrestlers.  

[Konquest]

4 hours ago, BloodRound said:

It's always remarkable to think that guys like Taylor or Zahid Valencia started their careers at 106, as they are absolutely monstrous in size now.

When David Taylor and J'Den Cox were opponents at 86kg, Taylor started HS at about 90 lbs, and Cox started HS wrestling at 215.  Interesting Trivia.

[666]

45 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

100%...There is a legendary wrestler who never won PIAA at the lower weights.  Jumped to 160 senior year.  Won it.  Then went on to win 3 national titles in D1.  Lower weight guys are just better wrestlers.  

Who are you talking about? 

[PortaJohn]

Just now, 666 said:

Who are you talking about? 

Greg Jones

[666]

13 minutes ago, Konquest said:

When David Taylor and J'Den Cox were opponents at 86kg, Taylor started HS at about 90 lbs, and Cox started HS wrestling at 215.  Interesting Trivia.

That's insane. Taylor is literally twice as big as he was in HS!

[1032004]

1 hour ago, 666 said:

That doesn't really contradict what I stated though. 8th graders-sophomores DO usually have at least a couple years less wrestling under their belts and less physical maturity than older kids. It's not just a maturity thing, it's a technique thing. Technique improves over time. When I watch those really light kids wrestle I see a lot of so-called "Jr High" moves, and there's a reason for that: they are Jr High aged. Fr and Sophomores have less time under their belts. I suppose it doesn't really make as much difference today, when kids have 300 bouts of experience by the time they hit HS, as it did back in my day where a guy might only have 150 matches under his belt by the time he graduated. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but I'm not talking about freakishly talented guys like Yianni or Gable Steveson, I'm talking about regular guys who have to work their way up. 

Obviously there are plenty of novice 106 pounders that were pulled out of the hallways, but on the whole they tend to be much more experienced and better technical wrestlers than 220’s/heavyweights.  @BruceyB pretty much summed up what my response would have been:

2 hours ago, BruceyB said:

Yes, the 285s that push each other until one falls on their back and is instantly pinned is much higher level wrestling..

But because they were seniors instead of freshmen that means it's a hard weight class..

 

[bnwtwg]

8 hours ago, BruceyB said:

is this post supposed to be some kind of humble brag about how you were over 200 pounds with a six pack until you were 37, and that you wrestled at a B1G school

Yes.

[BruceyB]

6 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Yes.

I'm just waiting for your counterpoints. I'd love it if you could share with the rest of us the "raw numbers" of the athletes that you speak for.

[Wrestleknownothing]

29 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Yes.

I met a two-time NCAA champ who said six-packs were over-rated. He won both titles without one. So my humble brag is that I have always been just like a two-time NCAA champ.

[BruceyB]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I met a two-time NCAA champ who said six-packs were over-rated. He won both titles without one. So my humble brag is that I have always been just like a two-time NCAA champ.

Many who need to humble brag do so out of a feeling of inferiority. I would go on but I'm losing my breath as I suck in my gut typing this response.