Medically speaking, allowing wrestlers to cut to 7% is the bottom line! Coachtwink is right, anything after that will be affecting proper body function, ie. liver and kidney function. If any of you have actually seen someone with exact, calculated 7% body fat you would agree.

As a technicality, you're wrong. The NCAA has it set at 5%. So having less than 7 isn't deadly. Having less than 5 is dangerous.

Mr. Gibson:

Quit being an arse. Neither coachtwink or SEKcoach stated that having a body fat content less than seven percent would be "deadly".

You stated in a previous post on this topic "I'm not trying be a jerk", however I must disagree.

You are deliberately being just that.

It is easy to understand how and why the athletic director came to the decision regarding renewal of the coaching contract.

Gibby:
Do you hear what your saying. Do you really want our teenage athletes to reach the edge of danger. I know I don't. These are merely precautions to safeguard their health. Because one day they will appreciate good liver and kidney function even if they don't now. Personally, I think time would be better spent becoming the best wrestler you can be and not seeing how much weight you can cut.
P.S. Gibby and RichardSalyer need to just go ahead and take it outside.lol

Um, no Richard - reread the post. I'm not being the arse you claim me to be, but clarifying.

Oh, by the way, still waiting on the e-mail. Glad to see your so involved to point a finger at me and say I'm wrong and insinuate I'm a bad guy, but when I ask for clarification in a private e-mail - no reply.

SEK, I understand the concern, but there's a lot of difference between 5 and 7%, depending on the body type and size of the athlete. That's all I was pointing out.

I do think that professional athletes with professional, well educated(in nutrition and weight training)can by training effectively and following a stringent nutritional program obtain a safe, lower subcutaneous body fat percentaqe. Athletes, such as, professional body builders and triatheletes/marathon runners are quite likely to have a body fat percentage of 3-5%. These are professionals, not high school students.

True,

But a point that I brought up in a prior post was that there will be athletes (particularly from X-Country) that will come in under the percentage.

If we give them a waiver, then the rule is pointless as everyone will be able to drop below the recommendation. The problem becomes that the rule is nothing more than lip service.

Richard:
Very unprofessional. Gibby is one of the more intelligent posters on this forum. His opinions often mixed with satire are ones I always enjoy reading. To say anything about him personally is out of line.

I will be very suprised if there are more than 5 or 6 kids in the entire state that come in under 7% body fat as 7% body fat is very low for a high school athlete. I personally don't think these kids should be given a waiver to lose more weight, as they don't have any "good" weight to lose!

I would disagree with your definition of intelligent then. Besides, Gibby when confronted with facts or differences of opinion is the one who starts name calling. He invites abuse, to ignore it would be impolite. Gibby has shown that he simply has an axe to grind with any person or body of authority.

Sorry twink,

I was unclear. I didn't mean a waver for more weight loss, but a waver that they are okay. Losing more weight at 5% body fat is not smart.

I tend to believe there are more than 5 or 6 athletes out there with less than 7%. Is it in the 100's, heck no, but we do need to take this into consideration.

We are not in NHSF complicance anyway? What is to say KSHSAA doesn't opt-out? Shoulder to Shoulder weigh-ins will work if coaches and admistration police the wrestlers. Hydration tested on a normal person can and has failed so with such variables maybe we should go back to the balance scales? Eventually, those that have bent the system will figure it out. Shoulder to shoulder, Grand State, what the hell that's logic!

Sorry for the length. Grab a coke and sit a while.....

Sportsfan states:

�Maybe that is why we wrestle folkstyle during the school year. Why should the KSHSAA be concerned anymore about FS/GR than they are about surfing? Neither happen on their watch or concern their constituents ie. the schools.�

Which would be a great idea, but as he/she knows (or should know) this is not the case. In order to not be concerned about something would mean you did not waste your time in creating a rule to govern it by. It�s like blowing your nose. No laws on how to do it, so we don�t concern ourselves with it. However, rules are in place for FS/GR, rules of which in my opinion are restrictive. This would mean that they ARE concerned. So much that they create rules for their constituents, i.e., the schools.

Later Sportsfan states:

�I believe that's called winning. Where and when has KSHSAA lost a court ruling? They haven't quit, they just win every time and usually for good reason.�

To which I replied:

�If you consider being removed from voting in the national adoption of rules as winning, yes we've won. What a great message to send to our kids.� I�m still curious as to how many states actually don�t have voting rights for wrestling. I have yet to receive any minutes.

Then Sportsfan quips:

�So you would be willing to go to the polls if you only had the choice of one party/candidate? If so, you would love living in some of these third world countries.�

Showing true intelligence, Sportsfan either didn�t realize we do have such choices within our ballots. Judges are one. Bond issues another. In small towns, the mayor may run unapposed. Same true for city/county council. America, under this person�s astute knowledge, is a third world country.

Nice civics lesson (yawn).

Again�..

�Another question, didn't USAW choose to NOT follow all of the new FILA rules this year? If so, does that make USAW or FILA wrong?�

That�s like saying the UN has control of America. Many countries have their own version of wrestling. FILA is an international body. Hence the UN comparison.

Because I did not answer this question (sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. I didn�t know you really didn�t know the makeup of the organization) in a timely fashion, I do answer it later:

�Also, has the KWCA been pushing for more coaching time? If not, why? I don't hear coaches complaining since the summer time ban was lifted. But maybe I'm only exposed to the reasonable ones.�

I get this:

I would hope so! After all, that is the sport they coach. Thank you for finally answering the question.
I say we go with what the majority of what KWCA agree is the priority.
I'm not a member of KWCA or a coach and the coaches I tend to find the most "knowledgeable" are the ones who haven't been fired from a teaching/coaching position for poor performance.

Of course this person knows exactly my history and once realizes that the really don�t know much about me, KSHSAA, KWCA, or anything for that matter, posts something they (again) know nothing about. In fact, if it weren�t for my candor and sincerity, sportsfan wouldn�t even know this much.

And I�m curious, as it�s been explained to me KWCA doesn�t include all coaches (strictly voluntary) and since this individual is not a member of said group, how can the individual know what is discussed in the annual meeting. As most groups will do, there are a variety of issues brought to the table and only two or three are moved forward for various reasons. Does the fact that KWCA hasn�t moved toward championing the cause mean they don�t agree? No.

Finally, as sportsfan has eloquently stated in tnt�s defense of me:

�I would disagree with your definition of intelligent then. Besides, Gibby when confronted with facts or differences of opinion is the one who starts name calling. He invites abuse, to ignore it would be impolite. Gibby has shown that he simply has an axe to grind with any person or body of authority.�

Where to begin�

First off, facts were never supplied by you. Informative analysis was never provided by you. In fact, nothing was really ever provided by you. Well, unless you want to include the quote from the KSHSAA mission statement, which by the way I had already done before the post.

Things I have brought to the discussion:

1. The weight number is arbitrary and the tools used have high degrees of variance. I think this is very important in the discussion.
2. The 1.5%, in conjunction with the 10% weight reduction can be achieve and is designed to have wrestlers lose weight responsibly. I along with many of us out there have done it the wrong way and the plan is designed to reduce those errors we made as participants and the leverage required against zealous parents that think Tommy losing 10 lbs in two days is just fine.
3. The hydration test, though gross, is not too demanding. It will further give us leverages as Tommy is losing weight irresponsibly.
4. With full adoption of the National policy, the argument against shoulder to shoulder weigh-ins become less. As Mr. Bowden has stated in various meetings through the course of time, we don�t want kids walking the halls all day hungry. The plan will ensure that statement by limiting the days before a meet that a kid skips lunch. (I did it as well as others).
5. By becoming voting members of the organization, we can be in the room as voting takes place and can take a proactive measure to limit the numerous nuances by being a leader in the causes that will come forward throughout time. Can do it by sitting on the bench.
6. In the list of litigation, as I�ve explained, if there is a better plan out there, it should be adopted. Granted, no one has ever died in Kansas, in the event someone does � we�re sitting ducks. Even if cost was a concern, and let�s say its $1000 dollars, if something were to happen, would a jury of our peers be willing to agree with us in our statement of �we didn�t adopt the national plan because we couldn�t come up with $1000 dollars?�

Well there�s six things right off the top of my head. Sportsfan, I encourage academic debate. What is it that you brought to the table of discussion again?

Of course the rules have little to do with FS/GR, but rather are intended to promote kids to stay involved in their high school activities.

I don't consider being removed from voting on national rules losing much like you don't consider not following FILA rules wrong. Some rules work for Kansas/USAW and others don't. Trying to make FILA out to be some political animal that NWCA isn't, is absurd. If you had spent much time reading instead of running your mouth you would find as many coaches nationally that have a distaste for the NWCA as you do FILA.

As I pointed out, which went over your head, having but one choice up or down with the result causing you to lose your voting rights is no choice at all.


And so do many states!

Don't worry about being timely. I know it takes some people longer than others to formulate their opinions and answers. I'm sure this hatred you have for authority wasn't formed in a day.

I don't need to know "exactly" your history but something you might learn one of these days is, it really doesn't matter if you were fired for imcompentence or insubordination. To an employer they are one in the same.


No, as I explained, just the majority. Which is the group I agree with. There is your civic lesson for the day.


I suppose we all should accept your OPINION as fact but I refuse to do so!

This one bothers me the most. For someone who has trouble staying employed as a coach I don't think you should be moonlighting in the legal profession. I would leave that to paid attorneys which I'm sure the KSHSAA has at their beckoning.

Nothing but reason, along with a good deal of respect for those actually working in the field of high school athletics like members of the KWCA and KSHSAA.

So, again, I ask - what is it that you just brought to the table? I guess if you call parotting everything you think you know as "bringing it," well I guess it's the best you can do.

As far as having trouble being employed as a coach - glad you know so much about me. Haven't even really adventured out in the job market to coach again. Of course, you knew that didn't you. Thought about it, but then thought otherwise.

So tell me, you know so much about me, should I be concerned? Is there some sort of stalker law I need to look up?