If by several you mean 14, then yes, you are correct.

There's always HGH shots.???

Oh Boy Oh Boy, lots of great comments for me to respond to. Thanks for the goodies.
Looks like I will be busy this weekend, I can't wait.
Have a great day and a great weekend! I will!

Wow, I guess I was a lot more busy than I thought I would be, so busy I didn't have time to address the responses to my comment. I do know that's no way to treat the interested parties who responded. I certainly wasn't trying to ignore anyone. Sorry for the delay. Everyone deserves a reply of course, and some of the responses actually demand one.

I see the biggest issue being between 197 and HWT!!!!!

Just put either 100 or 102 back. Not every team can fill the roster no matter what you do. The recruiters can't even fill them up.

My son was fortunate that he was able to go 103 and be a little on the big side. He didn't gain more than 55 lbs from the age of 6 to his 8th grade year. Luckily, that normal growth thing in young men came knocking at the right time and he was ready to go as a freshman. I have seen other great wrestlers that had to wait another year or two beyond that to make their presence known.

Just a local problem, I guess, but we were 4 deep at 106 at the beginning of this season. I realize there are teams that can't fill lower weights, but we can't fill upper weights with upper class men, so........... Who wins? There will never be a perfect answer, I get that, but 10% of our team this year was at 106. Only one of the three is cutting any to make weight. Two were lucky to make triple digits on the scale. We are looking at two coming in next year that are both under 95 currently. Looking like we are sitting 3 from varsity opportunities again next year too. They don't win!

At least with fed, they were kind enough to leave the 100 class for HS.

No disrespect intended. My profile is my name. I apologize for "not standing behind my comments".
Terry Kiser
kisert@bartonccc.edu

It comes and goes Triple A. My new job is more time consuming and it is difficult for me to be as consistent as I was in the past.
Hm, it just came again.

Sorry you got offended Prieto. Its not about you or your son though. Its about a comment made that "106 was much tougher than 103". The comment was not only inappropriate and disrespectful but it was also inaccurate. My son had it just as tough at 103 as anyone did at 106 if not tougher. When that derogatory comment was made about 103 I don't remember you jumping to chastise the person that made that comment so don't be trying to chastise me for defending 103. Yes of course I know your son wrestles at 106 because I now dang good and well who you are. You'd think differently if your kid was at 103 instead of 106. If you don't think I know, then you obviously don't know who I am. Because if you did you would know that I do know. I lived it as a wrestler, a parent and a coach. The other guy spun the 103 vs 106 thing one way and I just spun it another. Surely you should have seen that at some level I was being sarcastic with the comments that apparently offended you. The point is that 103 was just as tough when my son wrestled at the weight as any 106 was and I provided a list that proves that by my assessment. I challenge anyone to dispute the sick validity of the list I provided. But hey Prieto since you chimmed in, then you can tell me this. Your son is one of the top 106 pounders in the state for sure. If the weight was 103 instead of 106 would your kid go 103 or would he go 112? Be careful how you answer as you might be proving my point. If your kid would have had to go to 103 to be at that smallest weight, then you would know what my son had to go through to cut the last 3 pounds. You would know how hard he had to work and how "tough" that made him, physically and mentally. I believe he became stronger because of that. I now how hard your son works Prieto, that's why he's so good. But that doesn't make 106 tougher.

Yes Jeremy, you are exactly right. Coach Prieto apparently did misunderstand me. I certainly wasn't trying to dis 106, it was more about defending 103. But yes, that is exactly what I was saying and that this year if the weight was 103 instead of 106 it would be just as tough. Those guys would just have to work harder to make the weight. Would it make them "tougher"? Maybe, kinda, I believe. But the weight would be as tough. But I know for sure that 103 in 2009 was as tough as any 106 year. Man, once again, look at the lists I provided in my responses. Can you say wow!

Good comment but no incorrect. Just about any kid that would go to 106 (the smallest weight) would go to 103 (the smallest weight). I get the theory that more weight to the smallest weight would draw more kids but it is not accurate. It would effect a very small percent and that percent that it would effect would not necessarily make a difference and certainly not make it tougher. Those particular few kids might not even be that good. Once again, see previous posts and lists. And show me a top 106 pounder that would not have gone 103 if it was the weight instead. Bet you can't provide many if any top quality kids.

And we weren't talking about 98 and 105. We were talking about 103 vs 106. Either weight is basically a combo of 98 and 105 though.

And no, they wouldn't be weaker unless they didn't do it right and if they were kids that didn't do it right, they wouldn't be that good anyway. My kid was a huge 103 pounder. If the weight was 106 he would have gladly gone that weight but it wasn't, it was 103. He didn't go "I will go 112 instead because 103 is just too much. Now if it was 106 I would do it." No, he just cut three more pounds. He was never weaker. He was in phenomenal shape. He didn't make 103 by depriving himself of nutrients, etc. He made the weight by busting his ass. I am sure he was tougher. So were all the guys on the list I provided. Perhaps everyone should look at that list again.

Well, I am glad to hear that but it really doesn't make me feel better because to me that one is a no brainer. How could you not agree? But that's obviously a different issue that maybe I shouldn't have brought up. I kind of hijacked the thread when I threw that out. But yes, it bugs the hell out of me that this decision was made. How could anyone in touch with reality think that was a good idea. But again, thanks for agreeing on that and for expressing that you agree with me. I know you got a rep and everything.

Maybe they didn't see the mat because they weren't that good, not because they were too big. The best freshmen make the team no matter what weight they are at. And like I said, the guys on the list I provided could have made the team as freshmen no matter what weight they would have been at. They were that good. I didn't just provide you a list of any ol 103 pounders. The were all studs. All multiple kids placers or champs and all HS champs or runnerups.

And I didn't say 106 was too big, that is someone elses issue. I said 106 now isn't "much tougher" than 103 was then maybe not any tougher at all.

Your issue is a separate issue that I am not concerned with right now. I am concerned about the idea that 106 now is much tougher than 103 was which is inaccurate. And your comment that the competition is less deep is misrepresenting. I can see where it might be "less deep" but not "less tough". Its quality that counts, not quantity. I think you should look at the lists again that I provided. Its sick awesome tough.