Wrestling Talk Forums supported
USA Wrestling-Kansas KWCA Wrestling Talk Forums supported & maintained by USA Wrestling-Kansas USAW USA Wrestling-Kansas 
Forums Calendar Active Threads Forum Help
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: ReDPloyd] #145859 03/31/09 03:25 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
D
dean70 Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
dean70
Member
D
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
who didnt show up? Robert was there! and he was ready to wrestle!
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #145871 03/31/09 11:10 AM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
S
sportsfan02 Offline
Member
Offline
sportsfan02
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
Originally Posted By: Pelland
I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.

That is a separate issue and should not be included in this discussion. Just because we do or don't have kids in one weight group doesn't mean we should create another weight group where we have no kids. I do believe that those lower weights were covered in our study completed a few years ago.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: sportsfan02] #145942 03/31/09 07:16 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Pelland Offline
Member
Offline
Pelland
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
Originally Posted By: Pelland
I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.

That is a separate issue and should not be included in this discussion. Just because we do or don't have kids in one weight group doesn't mean we should create another weight group where we have no kids. I do believe that those lower weights were covered in our study completed a few years ago.


Your right....it is a separate issue and that's why I ended my post.

Apparently you haven't been reading this post. Who said anything about creating another weight group where we have no kids? I simply suggested creating a weight class where there were kids.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #145948 03/31/09 07:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
S
sportsfan02 Offline
Member
Offline
sportsfan02
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
Originally Posted By: Pelland
Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
Originally Posted By: Pelland
I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.

That is a separate issue and should not be included in this discussion. Just because we do or don't have kids in one weight group doesn't mean we should create another weight group where we have no kids. I do believe that those lower weights were covered in our study completed a few years ago.


Your right....it is a separate issue and that's why I ended my post.

Apparently you haven't been reading this post. Who said anything about creating another weight group where we have no kids? I simply suggested creating a weight class where there were kids.

The thread is about heavyweights or lack thereof as the title would suggest. The studies indicated the numbers in each weight class over an extended period of time. Thus why we don't have more heavier weight classes because too many were walking thru state.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: sportsfan02] #145950 03/31/09 07:51 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Pelland Offline
Member
Offline
Pelland
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
Originally Posted By: Pelland
Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
[quote=Pelland]I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.

That is a separate issue and should not be included in this discussion. Just because we do or don't have kids in one weight group doesn't mean we should create another weight group where we have no kids. I do believe that those lower weights were covered in our study completed a few years ago.


Your right....it is a separate issue and that's why I ended my post.

Apparently you haven't been reading this post. Who said anything about creating another weight group where we have no kids? I simply suggested creating a weight class where there were kids.

The thread is about heavyweights or lack thereof as the title would suggest. The studies indicated the numbers in each weight class over an extended period of time. Thus why we don't have more heavier weight classes because too many were walking thru state. [/quote]

I'm glad you finally figured that out.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #145952 03/31/09 07:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
S
sportsfan02 Offline
Member
Offline
sportsfan02
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
Originally Posted By: Pelland
Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
Originally Posted By: Pelland
[quote=sportsfan02][quote=Pelland]I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.

That is a separate issue and should not be included in this discussion. Just because we do or don't have kids in one weight group doesn't mean we should create another weight group where we have no kids. I do believe that those lower weights were covered in our study completed a few years ago.


Your right....it is a separate issue and that's why I ended my post.

Apparently you haven't been reading this post. Who said anything about creating another weight group where we have no kids? I simply suggested creating a weight class where there were kids.

Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
The thread is about heavyweights or lack thereof as the title would suggest. The studies indicated the numbers in each weight class over an extended period of time. Thus why we don't have more heavier weight classes because too many were walking thru state.


Originally Posted By: Pelland
[I'm glad you finally figured that out.

Had it all along now if you could simply explain the need to bring up the lighter weights.

Last edited by sportsfan02; 03/31/09 07:56 PM.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: sportsfan02] #145953 03/31/09 08:00 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Pelland Offline
Member
Offline
Pelland
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
To simply give these guys a little amo if they decide to try to convince the state to make a change.

Now if you can explain why you must continually try to get under peoples skin.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #145956 03/31/09 08:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
S
sportsfan02 Offline
Member
Offline
sportsfan02
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
Originally Posted By: Pelland
To simply give these guys a little amo if they decide to try to convince the state to make a change.

Now if you can explain why you must continually try to get under peoples skin.

So you do admit trying to introduce something to this thread which had nothing to do with the topic at hand? Again, just because there MAY BE no lighter weights it has nothing to do with adding heavier weights where we know there are not enough kids to justify it.
Maybe you are just thin skinned?
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: sportsfan02] #145959 03/31/09 08:30 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Pelland Offline
Member
Offline
Pelland
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Originally Posted By: sportsfan02
Originally Posted By: Pelland
To simply give these guys a little amo if they decide to try to convince the state to make a change.

Now if you can explain why you must continually try to get under peoples skin.

So you do admit trying to introduce something to this thread which had nothing to do with the topic at hand? Again, just because there MAY BE no lighter weights it has nothing to do with adding heavier weights where we know there are not enough kids to justify it.
Maybe you are just thin skinned?


LOL.....
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #145964 03/31/09 09:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
R
RichardDSalyer Offline
Member
Offline
RichardDSalyer
Member
R
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
Originally Posted By: Pelland
I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.
What we do know is the classification is Eight and Under!
District One
North Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Five (5) entries
43 lbs. – Five (5) entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) entries

South Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Six (6) entries
43 lbs. – Five (5) entries
125 lbs. – One (1) entry

District One Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Eight (8) entries
43 lbs. – Eight (8) entries
125 lbs. – Four (4) entries

District Two
North Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Two(2) entries
43 lbs. – Seven (7) entries
125 lbs. – Zero (0) entries

South Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Three (3) entries
43 lbs. – Two (2) entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) entries

District Two Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
43 lbs. – Five (5) Entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) Entries

District Three
East Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
43 lbs. – Two (2) Entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) Entries

West Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Three (3) Entries
43 lbs. – Six (6) Entries
125 lbs. – One (1) Entry

District Three Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Seven (7) Entries
43 lbs. – Six (6) Entries
125 lbs. – Four (4) Entries

District Four
North Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. - Zero (0) Entries
43 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
125 lbs. – Two (2) Entries

South Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Eight (8) Entries
43 lbs. – 3 (3) Entries
125 lbs. – Two (2) Entries

District Four Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
43 lbs. – Seven (7) Entries
125 lbs. – Four (4) Entries

State Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. - Fifteen (15) Entries
43 lbs. - Sixteen (16) Entries
125 lbs. - Fifteen (15) Entries

It will be highly unlikely the numbers will support adding an additional weight classification in the Eight and Under Division above 125 lbs.!
125 lbs. - Fifteen (15) Entries

Richard D. Salyer
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: RichardDSalyer] #145968 03/31/09 09:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 28
S
swkskidsmatrats Offline
Junior Member
Offline
swkskidsmatrats
Junior Member
S
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 28
u ever think there might be kids that would go if they had a oppurtunity!!!! this is total discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are penalizing children because of what they weigh!! then you justify it by saying there isnt enough to make a division!! that sir is total bs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i hope someone gets mad enough to contact legal representation and see what they can do!!! i think this associationis a great one but at the same time there is bs that goes on that does not make no sense what- soever!!!!!! so you are saying if tommy weighs 30 punds its alright if he goes all year to 40 lb weight thats fine!!! but if johnny goes and weighs over that he cant go and wrestle!!! thats wrong plain and simple and if you cant see the diff you sir are blind!!!! or something else!!! i am very upset because of the oppurtunity should exist for all kids light and heavy!!!! i dont have a dog in this fight but i will stand up for what i think is right!!!! i respect what everyone says on here, dont agree with it all but thats why we live in the USA,!!!! get on me i am a big boy and i can take it all you want to hand out!!!
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: swkskidsmatrats] #145970 03/31/09 10:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
R
RichardDSalyer Offline
Member
Offline
RichardDSalyer
Member
R
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,443
USAW Kansas provides far more opportunities for our youth wrestlers than USA Wrestling.

Our Eight and Under Division is comparable to the Bantam Division (Born in 2001 or 2002) offered this weekend at the ASICS USA Wrestling Folkstyle Nationals.

The weight classifications in the Bantam Division are:
40 lbs.
45 lbs.
50 lbs.
55 lbs.
60 lbs.
65 lbs.
70 lbs.
75 lbs.
75 plus (maximum of 95 lbs.)
75 plus plus (maximum of 115 lbs.)

Richard D. Salyer
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: RichardDSalyer] #145990 04/01/09 12:41 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 165
topeka
T Yeagley Offline
Member
Offline
T Yeagley
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 165
topeka
The results are incorrect for the 8u 125 5&6 place finishers. Walker Atkinson should be 5th not 6th he won in OT. Could someone please get this info to someone who can make this change? Thank you.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: RichardDSalyer] #145999 04/01/09 01:41 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Pelland Offline
Member
Offline
Pelland
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 387
Pratt
Originally Posted By: RichardDSalyer
Originally Posted By: Pelland
I would be willing to bet that there are more (heavy) 8 year olds than 40 and 43 pounders combined.
What we do know is the classification is Eight and Under!
District One
North Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Five (5) entries
43 lbs. – Five (5) entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) entries

South Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Six (6) entries
43 lbs. – Five (5) entries
125 lbs. – One (1) entry

District One Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Eight (8) entries
43 lbs. – Eight (8) entries
125 lbs. – Four (4) entries

District Two
North Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Two(2) entries
43 lbs. – Seven (7) entries
125 lbs. – Zero (0) entries

South Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Three (3) entries
43 lbs. – Two (2) entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) entries

District Two Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
43 lbs. – Five (5) Entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) Entries

District Three
East Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
43 lbs. – Two (2) Entries
125 lbs. – Three (3) Entries

West Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Three (3) Entries
43 lbs. – Six (6) Entries
125 lbs. – One (1) Entry

District Three Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Seven (7) Entries
43 lbs. – Six (6) Entries
125 lbs. – Four (4) Entries

District Four
North Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. - Zero (0) Entries
43 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
125 lbs. – Two (2) Entries

South Sub
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Eight (8) Entries
43 lbs. – 3 (3) Entries
125 lbs. – Two (2) Entries

District Four Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. – Four (4) Entries
43 lbs. – Seven (7) Entries
125 lbs. – Four (4) Entries

State Tournament
Eight and Under
40 lbs. - Fifteen (15) Entries
43 lbs. - Sixteen (16) Entries
125 lbs. - Fifteen (15) Entries

It will be highly unlikely the numbers will support adding an additional weight classification in the Eight and Under Division above 125 lbs.!
125 lbs. - Fifteen (15) Entries


c'mon now......how many of those kids are age 7+?
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #146018 04/01/09 04:25 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,143
anytown, usa
H
HEADUP Offline
Member
Offline
HEADUP
Member
H
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,143
anytown, usa
there is no rule that says your 8 and under heavy weight can't wreslte 10 and under. we did all year. all of our kids wrestle up in age divisions. have for years, it sure pays off in the end, they are better, stronger, and know how to wrestle in tough matches. the biggest problem is proving their age when some one is used to seeing them in an older division. if your kid can't make 125lbs wrestle 10 yrs olds. i promise you it will be tough at first, but will pay huge dividends in the end. this sport isn't about lawyers and loop holes, it's about blood, sweat, and tears. no lawyer will ever change that. we have the number one 8 and under 125lber in the state, if you want to exhibition contact me and we will set it up. if your kid wins he has bragging rights, hell we can go in together and get him a plaque. no match has ever been won on a talk forum or in a court room, it has to be done on the mat.

"with attitude, will, and some spirit"
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Pelland] #146020 04/01/09 04:51 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 321
Derby, KS
Hossus Offline
Member
Offline
Hossus
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 321
Derby, KS
Play the numbers, I am sure most of those light weights were prob 6U wrestling up. Happens every year in droves. Point is that there is an increased interest in having a heavier group for 8U & 10U. So that in itself demands some attention and not a blow off here on the message boards.

This should and will most likely be discussed later at meetings where things can be lined out. Problem is most of the general membership is not privy to all the data regarding membership and or other details that would help our cause. I would like to see someone in the leadership take a role in this that is both partial and has an interest in the kids who are being left behind.

Fortune assists the daring.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Hossus] #146023 04/01/09 05:04 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 321
Derby, KS
Hossus Offline
Member
Offline
Hossus
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 321
Derby, KS
Sucker Punch,

So if you not afraid to wrestle 10U are you afraid to give up a little weight to another 8U. I think there are a few 8U that would def give your wrestler a challenge. That really isn't the issue here, so your challenge is pointless. This is about not leaving kids out who do not readily conform to the current standards. It just so happens there were more than just a few this year.

If you wrestle outside of KS there isn't an issue here. But here these kids are being treated like second class citizens due to their weight. You need to look ahead and see that it could happen to one of your wrestlers and they would be left out as well. Is that what you are advocating for your wrestlers? It is one thing to be left out because you didn't wrestle well enough to go but quite another to simply be left out entirely.

Fortune assists the daring.
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Hossus] #146083 04/01/09 11:26 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
D
dean70 Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
dean70
Member
D
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
from my understanding, kids 8 and under can wrestle 10 and under. but when it comes to state qualifying tournaments(subs, disticts, and state) kids have to wrestle in their own age division. that is what i was told.except for 6 and under.they can wrestle up because there is no 6 aand under division at state. right or wrong? another thing being discussed is ending kids early and having 2 tourneys so kids get a spring break. great idea. if this happens, a super hwt division could be included at the same time. the world changes every day.our government changes laws daily.why is kansas kids seem so closed minded?
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: dean70] #146087 04/02/09 12:26 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,555
Arkansas City
Beeson Offline
Member
Offline
Beeson
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,555
Arkansas City
If there is no weight class in the age division, I would think you could wrestle up? Something to be considered.

Unnecessary Roughness is Necessary
Re: 8 and under HWT [Re: Beeson] #146095 04/02/09 01:00 AM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
S
sportsfan02 Offline
Member
Offline
sportsfan02
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,932
Kansas
Originally Posted By: Beeson
If there is no weight class in the age division, I would think you could wrestle up? Something to be considered.

We need to, as I have proposed in other threads be able to wrestle up one age group at qualifiers. This should eliminate all the whining about a lack of heavyweight classes for the one or two kids needing it.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Joe Knecht, Kyle O. Roberts, P. Pitbull's Old Dog 

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 195 guests, and 1 spider.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
bvswwrestling, CoachFitzOS, Dluce, Shawn Russell, CorbinPickerill
12302 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics36,076
Posts250,700
Members12,302
Most Online1,305
Mar 13th, 2025
Top Posters(All Time)
usawks1 8,595
smokeycabin 6,248
Aaron Sweazy 5,259
Privacy Policy · Forum Rules · Mark All Read Contact Us · Kansas Wrestling
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.2
(Release build 20190702)
PHP: 7.2.34 Page Time: 0.028s Queries: 14 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8671 MB (Peak: 1.1370 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-05-08 21:19:50 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS