Ready, Northridge, Bexley tri results 12/16/15

• Dad4Sports

  Quickest tri ever at Ready tonight! Only one match went the distance...SP Caleb Brooks (Ready) bumped to 138 to face SQ Forest Belli (Northridge) taking a 9-3 decision.
  
  
  Bishop Ready 51 Johnstown Northridge 18
  
  
  106: Double FF
  113: Reeves (N) over Delgado (BR) Pin 0:59
  120: A. Halko (BR) win by FF
  126: Holley (N) win by FF
  132: Double FF
  138: Brooks (BR) over Belli (N) Dec 9-3
  145: D. Halko (BR) over Johnston (N) Pin 0:57
  152: Strout (N) win by FF
  160: Inks (BR) win by FF
  170: Siemer (BR) over Royer (N) Pin 5:01
  182: M. Stover (BR) over MacNamara (N) Pin 1:03
  195: Martinez (BR) win by FF
  220: Jansen (BR) over Willeke (N) Pin 0:59
  285: S. Stover (BR) win by FF
  
  
  
  
  Bishop Ready 54 Bexley 0
  
  
  106: Double FF
  113: Delgado (BR) win by FF
  120: A. Halko (BR) win by FF
  126: Double FF
  132: Double FF
  138: Brooks (BR) over Goldstein (B) Pin 0:49
  145: D. Halko (BR) over Binsky (B) Pin 0:35
  152: Inks (BR) over Kent (B) Pin 0:40
  160: Double FF
  170: Siemer (BR) over Keller (B) Pin 1:35
  182: M. Stover (BR) over Abel (B) Pin 1:00
  195: Jansen (BR) win by FF
  220: S. Stover (BR) win by FF
  285: Double FF
  
  
  
  
  Johnstown Northridge 48 Bexley 0
  
  
  106: Double FF
  113: Reeves (N) win by FF
  120: Double FF
  126: Holley (N) win by FF
  132: Double FF
  138: Belli (N) over Goldstein (B) Pin 0:46
  145: Johnston (N) over Binsky (B) Pin 3:04
  152: Strout (N) over Kent (B) Pin 0:36
  160: Double FF
  170: MacNamara (N) over Keller (B) Pin 0:34
  182: Royer (N) over Abel (B) Pin 1:08
  195: Double FF
  220: Willeke (N) win by FF
  285: Double FF
• Dust_E_Roads

  Easy quick night for the referees. wow!
• cruiser_96

  

  I spent time in Colorado. The eastern portion of the state was much less populated than Denver, Colorado Springs, or Pueblo. That eastern part of the state played 7 or 8 man football due to the lower population.
  
  Why not habe 11 weight classes? (Not that it would have helped here, but just asking.)
• Dust_E_Roads

  cruiser_96;1769872 wrote: Why not have 11 weight classes? (Not that it would have helped here, but just asking.)

  Because the parents of the guys who weigh between 138 and 170 already screamed bloody murder when they took away one weight class from the middle. Can you imagine if they took another one or two away?
  
  They might be OK with it if it looked like this:
  
  106
  138
  142
  146
  150
  154
  158
  162
  166
  170
  285
• 112in84

  

  Is Bob Triano still at Bexley ?
• Dust_E_Roads

  Serious question, Trackwrestling shows Bexley with a 19 man roster. How do we get from there to 9 forfeits? Skin funk? Something else?
• newbie75

  Dust_E_Roads;1769895 wrote:Serious question, Trackwrestling shows Bexley with a 19 man roster. How do we get from there to 9 forfeits? Skin funk? Something else?

  
  
  I've been on the end of having short numbers when I had a large alpha. Could be injuries or eligibility... That stinks that it was that short of a night for wrestling.
• Dad4Sports

  Dust_E_Roads;1769895 wrote:Serious question, Trackwrestling shows Bexley with a 19 man roster. How do we get from there to 9 forfeits? Skin funk? Something else?

  I'm not sure but I don't think Bexley brought their full team...don't know why though.
• It is what it is

  Looks like a city meet with all the forfeits. A lot of times, eligibility and "showing up" dictates taking 7-8 wrestlers when you have 15-20 on the roster!
• It is what it is

  Dust_E_Roads;1769878 wrote:Because the parents of the guys who weigh between 138 and 170 already screamed bloody murder when they took away one weight class from the middle. Can you imagine if they took another one or two away?
  
  They might be OK with it if it looked like this:
  
  106
  138
  142
  146
  150
  154
  158
  162
  166
  170
  285

  Might work with:
  105
  115
  125
  135
  145
  160
  170
  185
  195
  220
  285
• wraith51

  

  I like the college weights plus 1 or 2, maybe adjust those weights down by 4-5lbs and add 1 in the little guys and 1 to the big guys.
  
  125(121)
  133(129)
  141(137)
  149(145)
  157(153)
  165(161)
  174(170)
  184(180)
  197(193)
  285(285)
  Maybe add 105 at the bottom and a 225 at the top, 12 weightclasses. I'm a big guy, I like the big guy weights, especially since my team has bigger guys and no lightweights, but I also understand that majority of HS boys are in that 145-160 range (at least in my non-official observation) so adjusting some of those weights down even more may be helpful too.
  
  Honestly I don't know if there is a true right answer for what weights will be good. If you make everyone happy then you end up like jr high with 16 weightclasses and more ff's. You make less weightclasses you exclude a certain group of the population (my example excludes the little guys big time and even though I don't have any this year wrestling is a wonderful sport for those smaller guys and gals that may not get the same opportunity in other sports), and our current system takes away from more middle. Things will change from year to year, last and starting out this year, to me, seems like there are more big guys filling up the brackets (145-285) and below people struggle. 2 years ago when the weights changed the upperweights were hardly ever full but 138 and under always had people. Just my little take on personal observation.
  
  Sorry to hijack the thread, Northridge and Ready should do well as the season progresses and have some youth on both rosters.
• It is what it is

  I agree there probably is no right/good answer and you won't please everyone. I think going to 12 weight classes (whatever they may be) would be more beneficial than detrimental also! : thumbup:
• newbie75

  It is what it is, I totally agree. I think it should be 12 because let's be honest 106 is a guess on how many will be there at a tournament. Does it hurt some of the smaller guys yes but I've been at plenty of tournaments were it is one the fewest. Then maybe cut out 195/220 or merge it as one.
• wraith51

  

  newbie75;1769964 wrote:It is what it is, I totally agree. I think it should be 12 because let's be honest 106 is a guess on how many will be there at a tournament. Does it hurt some of the smaller guys yes but I've been at plenty of tournaments were it is one the fewest. Then maybe cut out 195/220 or merge it as one.

  I don't know if I would cut 106 vs adjusting it up per se. 113 has been very low this year, our first tournament there were only 3 and very similar to where we were last week. With the 195/220 I think I'd almost go back to the old weight of having 182 go back to 189, no 195 and 215 or 220. Is that a lot of weight in between, sure, but it's like that already just not as big.
• wraith51

  

  It is what it is;1769959 wrote:I agree there probably is no right/good answer and you won't please everyone. I think going to 12 weight classes (whatever they may be) would be more beneficial than detrimental also! : thumbup:

  This! I've always felt less is more, it's a lot easier motivating a group of guys when you're only forfeiting 2 weights vs 4 or 5.
• newbie75

  I agree Wraith51. For some schools not in the top tier, a few forfeits can honestly dictate the match. Adjusting 106/113 could be just as good as 195/220 area.