<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Toughest weights....

November 13 2003 at 9:04 PM
No score for this post
  (no login)

I am just wondering what everyone would say the toughest weight classes were.... Like by ranking them 1 through 14....The toughest weight class being the #1 and the weakest as #14... As you see things now...

My thoughts....

1. 189 LBS.
2. 125 LBS.
3. 119 LBS.
4. 140 LBS.
5. 145 LBS.
6. 130 LBS.
7. 135 LBS.
8. 103 LBS.
9. 160 LBS.
10. 112 LBS.
11. 152 LBS.
12. 171 LBS.
13. 215 LBS.
14. 275 LBS.

Just my thoughts... Things may change after everyone gets certified.... What are you thoughts?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Anonymous
(no login)

160

No score for this post
November 13 2003, 9:20 PM 

I would put 160 higher than #9. If Wenger, Troye, Pedigo, Giddings, and Bauer all end up there it will be really tough.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: 160

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 6:52 AM 

really tuff? out of those 5, 4 of the them qualified and 2 placed. 4 qualifiers at a weight does not make it tuff, especially when 1 of those (bauer) is jumping that much weight. good order lock

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

You have

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 3:04 PM 

two 2nd place winners. 160 should be ranked about 5 or 5

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Toughest weights....

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 10:11 AM 

275 is harder than 215. please explain how you came up with fat boys order

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Ancient1
(no login)

?????????

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 3:08 PM 

Lock:

How can you put 103 above 112 when every single state qualifier at 103 from last season is projected to be at 112 this year ?

What weight classes are you projecting Simon Fowler and Vince Colletti to be at ?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

lets get real Lock

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 3:10 PM 

103 ranked higher than 160. Not a chance. All freshmen and sophmores. Think about it Lock. Unbleiveable. 103 should be 11th or 12th.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

How many place winners at

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 3:12 PM 

103? None. Randal P. from Oregon will have a hard time qualifying.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
John Peterson
(no login)

Lock is'nt far off

No score for this post
November 14 2003, 8:17 PM 

The Lock does quite abit of researching and scouting.160 is a tuff weight class take Troye and Wenger out how many medals from last year are their?Remember this is all going on last years finishes.103 is'nt a proven weight class from last years high school finishes because the guys have grown,so this is based last years 8th grade-IKWF-IESA.And at this weight 103 it is loaded with talented small guys.Macaffrey 2nd at nationals,Lawton 3 IKWF medals.Clark 2 time state champ IESA,Peterson 2 IKWF medals,Andrukaitis 2 IKWF medals.Alber 4 IKWF medals and state champ,Rush 2 IKWF Medals,Mathieu 1 IKWF(?)Warpecha IESA coming from Sandwich only a plus Don't know his stats.Last year alone this weight class produced 2 state champs and 3 runner ups.Lock is going on the talent in the weight classes alone and has done a fine job.P.S. you must be at 160.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Toughest weights....
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index