So you obviously didn't read my post clearly Scooter. It is not just 19 out of 64 that were "very good". Those 19 mentioned are just the ones who were freshmen that year. That does not include all the upper classmen from that year like Windham, Witten, Dryden, Kmiec, Goepfert, Skillman, Dean, Hodges, Cole, Torres, Pfannenstiel, Nemer, Lies, etc. And I didn't just say those 19 were "very good", they were very very good, really good, they were good enough to be a state champion or runner-up in their career. There were a lot of "very good" wrestlers at that weight that year that were not mentioned because the were just medalists and not 1st or 2nd.

Also, I hear what you are saying but still don't agree. Once again, most of those guys that are at 106 would have gone to 103 but just didn't have to. Those guys didn't have to cut as much weight and work as hard to make weight so it is not tougher by that measuring stick for sure.

Again, your statement was "it is amazing how much tougher 106 is than 103 was" and that is flat out wrong. Now, if you would have said something along the lines of, "you would expect that 106 would usally be deeper and perhaps tougher because more kids could make the weight and more kids could stay at the weight longer, etc.", than I could have accepted that. But you made a very "paint your self in a corner, draw a line in the sand, blanket type statement" that is very inaccurate. Again, by saying that, you are saying the kids I listed didn't have it as tough and they did. I am sure their coaches and especially their parents would disagree with you and resent that statement. Guys like badbo, AAA, shudog, X, etc. know what it was like and the level that those guys competed at and the weekly battles. They had it just as tough if not tougher. They beat on each other and beat each other up, and on top of that, they had to work harder to make 103 which is tougher and made them tougher. I could easily say that "106 is not as tough because the kids are not as tough because they didn't have to work as hard to make the weight". They didn't have to be as disciplined. They didn't have to be as dedicated. They didn't have to make as many sacrifices. They didn't have as much invested. They wouldn't have been as hungry for the payout, etc. etc. etc. I agree that there are x number of kids that spent an extra year at the weight which may have made it deeper, but not necessarily tougher. But I also claim that list is much smaller than you think.

I am not saying the list provided was the best representation possible of the point I was trying make. I just challenged anyone to submit one as good or better because I would be interested to see it. A group of kids at the same weight in the same year that were the same age that were either a champ or runner-up. If there is a better list provided, than I will bow down to it because it would be sick awesome. But that is a separate issue.

You are calling for a different list than I asked for. One that lists kids that would not have gone to the smallest weight if it had been 103 instead of 106. Fair enough, I would like to see it. It will be small I state because again, the majority of those guys that go to 106 would have gone to 103 if that was their option, they just would have had to work harder to make the weight. They would have been inherently tougher and would have become even tougher because of that and that made the weight tougher.

We could spin it either way I guess Scooter but for now, how about you provide the list since you are the slanderer in this case. First, verify that Terrill, Cokeley, Henes, Howell and DeShazer would not have gone to 103, and then find some others to add to it, because right now, your list is a lot shorter than mine.

But have a great day!