Jump to content

McycleRider

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    McycleRider reacted to fightingsioux in New York to get rid of 99lb weight class   
    New forum member here, I apologize for replying to such an old thread but this is a subject near and dear to my heart.
    I was a small, scrawny, kind of lost HS freshman on Long Island way back in 1961. Bullied. An older neighborhood kid was a wrestler and took pity, encouraged me to go out for the team.
    I could have stepped on the scale in full uniform including shoes (and I believe I did!) and made 95 ( I think that was the lowest weight then). Wrestled 95 again as a sophomore, 103 as a junior, 112 as a senior. Was successful, had an identity, had teammates around to watch my back,  no longer bullied.
    Wound up wrestling in college, Division 2 then Big Ten, 115 as a freshman, 123 as a sophomore, 132 as a junior and senior. Wrestled tournaments around the country for 10 years, coached HS for over 25 years. I'm a small, thin, fit old dude now! :-)
    Wrestling became one of the most important things in my life and literally changed my life. I don't think that would have happened unless there was a place where I could fit in.
     
  2. Like
    McycleRider got a reaction from Ching in New York to get rid of 99lb weight class   
    My son wrestles 88 Cadet (16U). My son wrestled 88 at the USAW Cadet Duals last week in Spokane, as well as a number of other really talented cadets; Cadet (16U) weight classes include 88, 94, and 100 pounds. It's not like these kids chose to be small or cut more weight than any of the other wrestlers, they just have small parents. In my experience, most of the wrestlers that compete against my son have mothers and/or sisters who are cheerleaders/gymnasts; likewise, my wife was a talented gymnast and cheerleader. Why make particularly talented, athletic, and hard-working wrestlers (e.g., like my son) miss out on opportunities to represent their schools/states because they are small?
    Cutting out the bottom weight classes encourages holdbacks. I also saw some comments in this thread downing holdbacks, but what would you expect to happen when you cut the lower weight classes out of the lineup? Are the affected smaller wrestlers supposed to no longer take their sport seriously? In regards to keeping the lower grades out of the lower HS weight classes, just limit HS to 4 years.
    The popularity/numbers argument would kill girls' wrestling altogether.  It's only tangentially related, but it strikes me as odd that the sport is so eager to open the door for an extreme minority of gals to the wrestling room, while simultaneously ousting a longstanding group of smaller guys that have been here since day one.
    I created an account just to throw my 2 cents in on this thread. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my thoughts. Please keep in mind that my comments are only meant to remind everyone that lightweight wrestlers are severely impacted by elimination of lower weight classes. Turning a longstanding group of wrestlers away is not promoting the sport.
  3. Like
    McycleRider reacted to Ray Brinzer in New York to get rid of 99lb weight class   
    I'm going to lay out my perspective on this.  Naturally, no one else needs to accept it, but I think it has a lot of utility.
    When I was a kid (this would be around 3rd and 4th grade), I used to look at the wall charts to see who was in my weight.  I developed a good sense of who everyone was, and could tell how tough my weight was.  I would go down the chart, and think, "He's good.  He sucks.  He's okay.  He's really good; if I make it to the semis, I'll probably have him.  He's okay..."
    After a few years, I found myself going down charts and thinking, "He sucks.  He sucks.  He sucks.  He sucks..."  At a certain point, I realized:  "These guys don't all suck.  I think I've gotten good."
    Most people start off with a fixed frame of reference.  The people who become sufficiently good at something tend to grow beyond it.
    "Garbage" is a pejorative term.  It's like "lard-ass".  Now, you can define your terms however you like, but if you call someone "lard-ass" and don't expect him to be offended, you're pretty foolish.  Saying, "Well, look, it's not my fault... here's what the term means, and here's how it applies to you" is either disingenuous or clueless.
    Likewise, the average middle school wrestler is average.  If you want to say "garbage" covers that, you can, but I don't think it's a good idea.
    The gap between the best middle school wrestlers and the average ones is indeed large.  As we get better at the sport, that gap will inevitably get larger.  That's not a good reason to term the average ones (or even the beginners) "garbage".
    Likewise, the gap between good college wrestlers and the best middle school wrestlers is large... and should be, else what have the college wrestlers been doing with their time?  That's not a good reason to term the best middle school wrestlers "garbage" either.
    If a good coach takes an average wrestler and works with him for awhile, he becomes a good wrestler.  How do you describe this?  "Well, you were garbage before, but now you're not?"  Again, you can define your terms however you like, but not all definitions are equally useful.  Talking like this isn't productive.
    Regarding most wrestlers at any given level with scorn is, in my view, stupid... and that's what this amounts to.
  4. Like
    McycleRider got a reaction from ConnorsDad in New York to get rid of 99lb weight class   
    My son wrestles 88 Cadet (16U). My son wrestled 88 at the USAW Cadet Duals last week in Spokane, as well as a number of other really talented cadets; Cadet (16U) weight classes include 88, 94, and 100 pounds. It's not like these kids chose to be small or cut more weight than any of the other wrestlers, they just have small parents. In my experience, most of the wrestlers that compete against my son have mothers and/or sisters who are cheerleaders/gymnasts; likewise, my wife was a talented gymnast and cheerleader. Why make particularly talented, athletic, and hard-working wrestlers (e.g., like my son) miss out on opportunities to represent their schools/states because they are small?
    Cutting out the bottom weight classes encourages holdbacks. I also saw some comments in this thread downing holdbacks, but what would you expect to happen when you cut the lower weight classes out of the lineup? Are the affected smaller wrestlers supposed to no longer take their sport seriously? In regards to keeping the lower grades out of the lower HS weight classes, just limit HS to 4 years.
    The popularity/numbers argument would kill girls' wrestling altogether.  It's only tangentially related, but it strikes me as odd that the sport is so eager to open the door for an extreme minority of gals to the wrestling room, while simultaneously ousting a longstanding group of smaller guys that have been here since day one.
    I created an account just to throw my 2 cents in on this thread. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my thoughts. Please keep in mind that my comments are only meant to remind everyone that lightweight wrestlers are severely impacted by elimination of lower weight classes. Turning a longstanding group of wrestlers away is not promoting the sport.
  5. Thanks
    McycleRider reacted to Zebra in Fewer PA weight classes   
    No I get the point and it is the exact same nonsensical point they have been using for 30 years. This is high school for crying out loud not college. High schools are publicly funded (al most all of them are so done bring in the private school nonsense) and are there to support the public at large, including athletics. Sure you can't go from extreme to extreme but doing something that immediately eliminates that large of a percentage of the student population is just flat out wrong. There is no other argument.  
×
×
  • Create New...