I was looking at what the kids weighed in at on track wrestling an i seen keshawn deshazer weighed in at 52.4. Is this a mistake on track wrestlings part? Cause there is no way he weighed in at that weight. He looked big in the 58lb bracket

I totally agree and would like to know the answer myself...before the speculations start and we know they will. Not that it mattered for my son's bracket, we weren't in it but he looked big even for 58#.

I was hoping for details on what the weight-management secret they'd stumbled onto that they'd share with the rest of us wanting to be able to also realize similar miraculous results.

Park City: 61.00
Sub-District: 57.80
District: 57.10
State: 52.40

Wow. That's incredible for a kid at that weight.

I'm thinking South Beach Diet.

If this is some new program or approach, I'm thinking given this is America, where free enterprise reins (for the immediate moment anyway), I'd market whatever they've come up with.

Wow. Incredible results.

He wrestled 58 lbs, so obviously the weight of 52.4 is a mistake. Don't worry, he made weight. No "allowances" were given.

What happened IMO is the person that weighed him has very poor penmanship, like me, and his 7 looked like a 2.

I would much more concerned if it said 62.4 and he wrestled 58 but i guess i don't see the problem.

the problem was there was a scale that was off. we had a kid weigh before we left 1.5 under. he had nothing during the trip. showed up there and was .1 over. another kid was .5 under when we left got there and was 6.4 under on the same scale. another kid left .8 under weighed on scale next to the one inquestion and was 1 lb under(bathroom on arrival). there was a scale that was or should be in questioned if weights seemed questionalbe for some.

"obviously a mistake".

Yeah, that's it. Definitely. I doubt anybody thought or thinks there was an "allowance" given for the kid who identified themself as the kid in question here.

It IS OBVIOUSLY a mistake.

What are you trying to say?

I was trying to subdue the "suspicion" that someone had brought up, that something was amiss with Kesean's weighin.

And based on the lack of posts, up until yours, everyone felt comfortable with that. Why do you want to stir the pot?

Exactly.

You discovered that it was "obviously a mistake". Thank goodness. Now we know the reason. We can rest assured that you, with facts to back up your assumption have declared this "obviously a mistake". Thanks for clearing it up. That's what I'm trying to say.

And if we took a poll on how many were "comfortable" with your deeming this "obviously a mistake", how'd you suppose that would turn out?

For me, your deeming this issue "obviously a mistake" is good enough for me. Because I know that in order for you to have deemed as you have, you personally, or somebody you know and completely trust, physically saw this kid weigh in and know that this kid was one in the same as listed on the card and that the weight was good. So, I'm satisfied. Completely.

Thanks for clearing it up.

So in other words, a lighter "look a like" to Kesean, got his weigh in card, did the skin check, weighed in, got the markings on his arms, then they went back to the hotel where the REAL Kesean duplicated the markings on the arm, and the "look a like" Kesean was put back in his box to hide until the next tourney?

Come on.

No I wasn't there when Kesean weighed, but I witnessed my son going to a 3rd scale to find a scale that was 1/10th lighter. I don't know how many scales there were, maybe 5?, but the 3 my son weighed on didn't have anyone working them that was willing to give a tenth of a pound. Of course it wasn't expected that they would, I am just saying............

I believe we have a classic case of someone blaming a loss on "he was so much bigger than me!!"

When you hand key 1476 weigh-in cards, a 2 can look a lot like a seven. Data entry worked hard on getting the exact weight posted. Maybe we should just put the weight class in next season. It would save a lot of time.

With the slight deviation in scale readings, and the fact that the kids have to weigh in with their singlets on, I am sure a tenth of a pound is making weight. A number of years back, had my son take off his boxers and he went from .2 over to making weight. Singlets probably average .4 or .5 on a scale. I realize it is not possible for these kids to weigh in buck naked, but being .1 or .2 (or more) over in singlets and underwear does not mean they are not at weight (buck naked). I think that there should be an allowance for these articles of clothing (have someone throw 100 singlets and undershorts on a scale and take an average weight).

Why should there be an allowance for the weight of the singlet? Competitors are forced to presently weigh-in with a competition singlet because that is the NFHS rules, and USAWKS specifically mentions this rule in the Kids Modifications.

It should be noted however that USAWKS does allow the director of sanctioned regular season tournaments to have weight allowances at their discretion, HOWEVER the kids modifications in Rule 4 addressing qualifying tournaments which would of course include the State tournament says "There shall be no weight allowances given."

So the only way you are going to get your idea accepted is for it to be presented before the State body meeting, voted upon and passed by that same body.

On the practical side, I think the idea is silly, as every weight class is then essentially bumped up by .2 of a pound or whatever i.e 46 lbs becomes 46.2 pounds and so on. What is the point of listing a weight class as 46 if in fact that is not what the scale is going to read.

A better idea would be to enter your child in a weight class they will have no issues with making weight when the time comes. Squabbling over a couple 10ths of a pound is really not worth the State bodies time or effort.

One more thing, with all the weigh ins on Friday nights (don't get me wrong, we have often gone to them when they are close by), don't be surprised when a wrestler steps on the mat Saturday morning looking 3-7 pounds heavier than the weight class, because many of them probably are. With this being said, telling a wrestler they are not at weight because they are .1 or .2 over in their singlet and undershorts is somewhat absurd. I understand that this is the rule, and I am all for following rules, but maybe this rule needs to be amended (weight allowance for the singlet and undershorts).

Wrestlers aren't required to weigh in undershorts, only a competition singlet. Amazingly 99.5% of all the competitors seem to make weight under the current rules, but you want to modify them just to placate the very few who can't seem to make that .1 of a pound? As I already said, competitors should be placing themselves in a position of inclusion (aka bump up a weight) rather than exclusion (aka trying to cut down).

Sorry you didn't understand what I was saying. When they weigh the newborn at the hospital, they don't weigh the newborn in a diaper, let alone a singlet. When I wrestled high school, lots of guys hitting the scales in their birthday suits.

My son has wrestled for nine years and has never missed making weight. If you missed another thread from earlier in the week, and I am guessing that you did, he could have wrestled the State tournament series at 95 this year but we (more me than him) chose to wrestle at 100 rather than cutting down knowing that his odds of making State dropped off dramatically considering the competition in his bracket at Districts. My point was, weighing with even a "competition singlet" on will have you weighing a little more than weighing buck naked (therefore, not your true weight).

As a matter of fact I do understand what you are saying, and it would seem that it is you who doesn't understand. I too wrestled at a time when you could weigh in buck naked if you needed too. The point here is that the rule has CHANGED, and therefore everyone is expected to weigh in in a unified way i.e with their singlet on.

Thus wrestler A weighing in with their singlet on and being right on the scale or .1 under has made weight, those weighing in at .1 over with the singlet have NOT in fact made weight. The NFHS has set a rule defining what making weight actually is, and USAW at present chooses to follow this rule as a matter of continuation.

So, as I have already said you have two options.

#1. Buy a super high tech singlet that weighs less.
#2. Address the State body at the meeting and suggest the rule change.

I think you'll find that the interest in changing this rule requiring a majority vote at the State body wouldn't even be close, because most of the coaches and club reps are smart enough to realize that giving allowances for articles of clothes is a silly waste of time, especially when it is meant to circumvent a rule already in place by the NFHS.

I'm sure nothing like that could happen. Certainly not. And as you assured us, it "must be a mistake", because nothing like the above is possible. Thanks for clearing that up.



This in no way (in my opinion) explains any discrepancy that is being discussed here (which was present, but since you assured us all about this being a "mistake", is no longer). It does speak to, however, the unfortunate circumstance that the scales weren't (apparently) certified/accurate (it would seem). How in the world any state in the country (except for California of course) would hold a state tournament without 100% certified scales, is beyond this insensitive sob.



Not in my case, I assure you. My kid is nowhere near this kids age/weight-class.

Matside weighins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or photo I.D. along with a USA card. They do this (photo ID) in kids football before games.