Throughout the years, I've always heard that it is a fairly common practice for elite wrestlers in the state of Kansas, in any given class, to do their very best to ensure that they do not have to compete with a steller rival, who could possibly/probably "beat them" (or certainly pose a serious challenge to them) in competing for a coveted state title, at any given weight; thus, I've been told that many wrestlers go to great lengths to adjust their competitive weights to specifically avoid these obvious challenges.

It only makes sense ... I mean, if you placed yourself in Romero Cotton's weight bracket this past year, the odds were pretty good you were likely to compete for no less than a silver medal.

With this said:

1. Am I correct in my assumption?

2. Are there many wrestling competitors out there who, during the approaching season, will legitmately compete for a state title, who need to avoid certain competitors to enhance their prospects to achieve a state title.

I recognize that its probably to early to make this kinda call, but I've "heard tell", that alot (if not most) elite wrestlers (or their parents and/or coaches) seriously having the ability to compete for a state title, have these discussions long before the season begins (and competitive weights determined) and have a sort of a gentleman's agreement (if you will), to avoid one another in their quest for a state championship.

If, in fact, wrestlers (or their supporters) actually have these discussions, it makes perfect sense to me. I'm not suggesting anything negative. For example, this past year, why would Scott Elliot have chosen to compete with Romero Cotton for a state title? (mind you ... not that Scott Elliot chose not to compete with Romero Cotton for a state title) but if he didn't have to, why would he?

to be the best you have to beat the best...........intesestinal fortitude......

Without being too offensive...WHAT IS YOUR POINT! Are you encouraging, discouraging, or just stirring the pot.

I have also had and heard of kids going certain weights to try and beat a great wrestler, yes what is your point?

Coach Peterman

we used to move up or down weight clases just so we could wrestle the best,how can you justify dodging the best guys to try and be state champ.....whats up with that????????

i think you see this more with regional assignments. For example, my senior year I had the choice between a regional weight class that produced the top three state placers, or a regional weight class that brought home the 3rd and 4th place medals. For the average wrestler, this is an easy choice. In the long run, state champ is state champ and anything less is still not the best, even if you are the best in the not so good weight class, you are still the champ.

Let's be realistic for a minute, now that a few of us have had their Louden Swain moment (and if you don't understand that reference, you need to get off this Forum!). Once Regionals are posted each year, coaches look at their line-up, look at who's where in each weight in the Regional, and then decide from there the best way to position their team.

Wrestling is an individual sport, but we are also members of a team. The more guys from your team that go, the better your chance of winning State (sort of stands to reason, doesn't it?). If you, as a coach, have a kid at say, 160, with a 25-8 record and his losses are twice each to four other guys in the Regional, what are you going to do? Leave him there so he can spend the rest of his life saying "I am proud to say I never made it to State but I wrestled four studs!" Yeah right.

A smart coach looks at 171 and sees this same kid could bump up a weight and win the Regional. You can't win State without beating the best, but you also can't do it from the balcony. Why do you think coaches spend two hours at a seeding meeting (or four hours if Effingham is there) the night before Regionals? If the object was only to wrestle the best, there wouldn't be seeding meetings. But we sit there and argue at the meetings to help our kids find the path of least resistance to State. That's our job.

Don't get me wrong; I've had kids bump up a weight just to take on a certain kid. Of course, that was in a tournament or dual in December or January, which isn't anywhere nearly as important as Regionals. Actually, doing that then helps us as coaches when we get to the Regional meeting. If we won that match, it helps with the seeding; if we didn't, at least then we have a "quality loss" that's up a weight.

Beating the best is everyone's dream, there's no catagory in the history books for "beating the best"; only State champ, State placewinner and State qualifier.

I coached an athlete who wrestled on the Oklahoma State team and I think John Smith had a great way of explaining what state medals meant to his program. Coach Smith would have everyone in the room raise their hand if they were a four time state champ, then three, then two, then one. After that he asked how many people placed at state and never won it. He then raised his voice and said, none of that matters here, I don't care what you placed. You are all starting over here. I think this is a great story. To be the best you need to wrestle the best. Most of the elite wrestlers want the better competition because they plan on moving to the next level of competition. I know this is a lame example but watch Vision Quest. Each wrestler will choose his ultimate path but the best usually want the toughest road.

bdonn:

That is a great story, and no illustration that uses VisionQuest is lame.

But not every kid is going to OSU. Nine of 10 kids' careers end when they walk out of the arena at State. For the elite, yes, it matters a great deal; we as coaches have to be concerned with more than elite. We also have to look at the kid to who will carry with himself with pride for the rest of his life the title of state champion, state placewinner and state qualifier. Or even, letterman.

Maybeimamazed:

In my opinion it's hard to agrue with the logic of your statements. It makes perfect sense.

It also seems to me that during the course of the regular season, that it is not altogether uncommon/unusual, for some of our better wrestlers to purposely avoid a steller opponent, perhpaps to preserve an undefeated record, or maybe to allow for better seeding at regionals. Any comments?

In our league there is plenty of "bumping" of wrestlers in duels, moving away a guy they will see at regionals if they already have one win over the opponent. Plus not a whole lot of people keep track of duel records anyway, so the score is superficial compared to what is at stake with each individual wrestler.

You aren't going to some of the same duels I and others are. We take our duel records/wins/losses very seriously. The bumping is first and foremost a means by which to win the duel for most of the coaches I watch.

I would like to add a disclaimer of sorts to this thread, because I'm well aware that there are many elete wrestlers out there who regularly take on all comers, and perhaps, more than a few wrestlers out there who, during the course of a season, eagerly bump up or down a weight class to take on a steller opponent - just to compete and see how they stack-up against another elete wrestler, or likely state champion.

This past year, I recall that Joe Bach, bumped up to go against Atticus Disney. A couple of years ago, I remember Aldon Isenberg, bumped up (or down, I forget which)to take on Mitch Arnold. I didn't get to see the Bach/Disney match-up, but I did watch the Isenberg/Arnold match-up, and to this day, it stands as one of (if not) the best wrestling match I have ever seen.

It strikes me however, that a willingness of many elite wrestlers (or their coaches) to unnecessarily compete against a steller opponent during the course of the regular season is simply not the norm (this is not to say that it ever was the norm).

I can easily appreciate the fact that there are many valid, tactical reasons for avoiding any such unnecessary match-ups, and my remarks are not intended to cast aspersions upon the competitive instincts of our Kansas wrestlers, nor their coaches.

sportsfan, you and i obviously have different views on duals. here is my take:

Duals are for mat time, and experience. If i do coach, I will get as many of my wrestlers on the mat as possible, even if it means going into unfavorable matchups. My team will understand that we are there to win individual matches, and if we do that, then we win dual. I would also not take any unnecessary opens, who wants to win a dual by default? If we lose the dual by 30 points, but I believe we have become more prepared for state by doing so, my goal will have been achieved.

Part of this view comes from wrestling on a small team where we could not fill up all of the weights and subsequently lost most duals. Now if we had a full team and winning duals was a little more achievable, then maybe I would see things differently.

Here's the way I look at duals — on both sides of the issue!

The last year I was at Immaculata, we had four decent kids, a couple more that were .500 or better and a couple more who won their share. Then I had a couple of freshmen that were green — for more than just their singlet!

We didn't have a good dual record, but we usually only covered 10 weights. But what our measuring stick was who won the most actual matches. In that respect, instead of 3-8-1 in duals we were 8-4 (Lansing, Tongie, SFT and Atchison were the only "real" losses). Insofar as I was concerned, they were wins. And on the other hand, I coached meets in which we won by 15 and got three forfeits; on the mat we didn't win, but it still counts.

Actually one of my favorite dual "wins" as a coach was that year. We were at Mill Valley for a double dual. We beat Perry-Lecompton in the first match, then tied Mill Valley 42-42 when my heavyweight got a fall in the last match. We had seven pins and they had three pins and four forfeits. It was the year before they used tie-breaker criteria to decide the winner in duals, and under it we would have won. So even though officially it was tie, as far as we were concerned we won.

Svo, Joe did not wrestle Atticus. While he would have, the score was too close, and team points couldn't be chanced, as an open (at 215) would have made a reasonably assumed victory a loss, for the team.

Bach:

Thanks for the correction. Sorry for my mistake. For some reason, I was under the impression that earlier this past season Joe Bach bumped up and lost a close match to Disney.

During this past season, Was there another great 215 wrestler, who bumped up to face Disney and lost by a slim margin (if you know)?

Bach:

Was it Jake Kober from Sante Fe Trail who bumped up and faced Atticus early on in the season? Again ... sorry for my earlier remarks. I'll be more careful next time.

On Dec. 20th, Kober bumped up to wrestle Atticus and lost 1-0. A great dual!

SHAWNEE HEIGHTS 33, SANTA FE TRAIL 32

103 — Kimrc, SH, win by forfeit.
112 — Punches, SFT, dec. Martinez, SH, 8-5.
119 — Gentry, SH, pinned, Brown, SFT, 1:32.
125 — Burkdoll, SFT, pinned Hilderman, SH, 0:53.
130 — Hill, SFT, pinned Poff, SH, 1:24.
135 — Weaver, SFT, maj. dec. Richabaugh, SH, 14-5.
140 — Rasmussen, SFT, maj. dec. Colovich, SH, 13-1.
145 — Willis, SH, pinned Carothers, SFT, 1:24.
152 — Brontingham, SH, dec. Cook, SFT, 2-0.
160 — Thurber, SH, dec. Anno, SFT, 7-6.
171 — Elliot, SFT, pinned Flannogan, SH, 3:06.
189 — Ewing, SFT, dec. Ceaser, SH, 9-8.
215 — Calovich, SH, pinned Donely, SFT, 1:26.
275 — Disney, SH, dec. Kober, SFT, 1-0.

Thanks Chief!