2010 Individual Wrestling State Finals - 140 lbs Weight Class

[cposey49]

That's my headgear hahaha rockin the swirl!

[demarcusdaddyd]

this is illinois rite???

[Boomgoesthedynamites]

@demarcusdaddyd no Indiana

[fiibs345]

ecw u need to learn how to spell retard

[ecw1221]

im in 140 best weight class out there cuz its comfortable and u got half speed half strengh and so its like a 50 50. i liked this match they look consentrated and fisicaly ready for this match they both did a good job

[nedopking]

@ecw1221 yea i really like 140 lb weight class.

[CarlosStephenPR]

They look so strong

[zeroordye1]

135 to 152 are the toughest weight class out there i think... they got strength speed and skill.

[nedopking]

@zeroordye1 140 is so much easier than the other ones though. 135 is really hard, 145 is really hard, 152 is pretty hard. 140 is not that hard compared to them.

[totaljking12]

@nedopking That's an impossible distinction to make because the difficulty of a weight class is determined by an individual persons skill. The only generalization you can make concerning weight classes is that light guys have less strength and more technique, heavy guys have more strength and less technique, and middle weight (140, 145, 135 etc.) is a median between the two.

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 yeah saying smaller guys have more technique is completely wrong. its a wrestler to wrestler variation. Cael Sanderson, 197lbs, was one of the most technical wrestlers of all time.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider Of course there's wrestler to wrestler variation, that's why I said it's a "generalization". You can point out examples of individual wrestlers that don't fit the norm either way (smaller or bigger) as I've described it. It's not an absolute as you've interpreted it.

Another way I could have phrased it was "Typically.....".

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 well either way you are wrong. That is a terrible generalization and isnt typical at all. Size has nothing to do with strength or technique. Typically smaller wrestlers are faster, thats it. The only real generalization is that bigger wrestlers are bigger and smaller wrestlers are smaller. you must not watch much wrestling to make that comment.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider Saying bigger wrestlers are bigger and smaller wrestlers are smaller isn't a generalization. That's just a fact. Typically smaller wrestlers are much faster and tend to use more technique than strength. Larger wrestlers are typically slower tend to use more strength than technique. You really don't need to watch much wrestling to know this and you can click any video in the suggestions bar to your right for reference.

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 once again completely false. Technique has nothing to do with size. it has to do with how much a wrestler has drilled and practiced. look at Andrew Howe. You just seem to want to justify your point even though it is completely wrong. You are generally right about the speed but not exactly, but you are completely wrong about technique.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider You keep pointing out individuals. That's not the point.

"It has to do with how much a wrestler has drilled and practiced"

Typically wrestlers drill and practice. And, typically, a smaller wrestler who drills and practices has better technique than a bigger wrestler who drills and practices. Therefore technique typically has to do with size.

You keep focusing on specific examples to justify your point even though we're not about individuals. We're talking about the big picture.

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 and obviously if i keep pointing out individuals that contributes to the big picture. you are completely wrong sorry. Size has NOTHING to do with technique.there that my point. I wrestled for 15 years, in all levels from middle school to D-I college to National Team trials and i have never seen anything to support your point. Wrestlers who work on technique have good technique period. size doesnt matter. the other guy on here disagreed with you too because your wrong.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider Let's face it: Nothing you're going to say is going to convince me from what I think, and nothing I say to you will convince you otherwise either. We're both trying to justify points. If we continue this, the person that "wins" is just the one that feels like arguing longer (the last person to leave a comment). We can both point fingers and call each other wrong, but it won't amount to anything.

Bottomline: Let's agree to disagree. I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine.

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 i dont respect your opinion at all because its completely wrong. you havent given one example to illustrate your point..ive given several. And the fact that nothing can sway you from your point is the definition of ignorance. i could be swayed in the face of evidence, that of which you dont have. you can believe what you want but that doesnt make it right. you are completely wrong. your generalization might apply to 6 year olds but not trained wrestlers..sorry but your wrong

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider Respecting an opinion doesn't mean believing it.

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 it hard to respect something you know is false. especially when the person who believes it claims that nothing can change their opinion. their is nothing to respect there sorry.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider So you don't respect other people's religions either?

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 im not getting into a religious debate on a wrestling video. sorry to disappoint you. maybe you should find a better way to spend your time.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider It's not a religious debate

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 yeah you must be a troll who would even use a debate about wrestling to start a religious fights. get a life. I will debate your obvious lack of knowledge in wrestling but im not talking religion through this forum.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider It's just a simple analogy. In order to have a "debate" about anything, including wrestling, you have to respect your oponents opinion. Its actually pretty related to what were talking about. If you don't you're just pointing fingers and looking like a child (just don't do what you're doing now).

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 im not pointing any fingers. you are just wrong plain and simple. There are certain things in this world called facts..and you are saying something that is contrary to fact. therefore you are wrong. and no you dont have to respect someons opinion to debate them at all. But this isnt a debate since you have provided no evidence...only repeated your same incorrect statement over and over.

[totaljking12]

@grahamgrider Your first two sentences contradict. And you you never really answered my analogy. Your argument is fact.. according to you (a.k.a an opinion). I'm sorry if you don't understand these basic terminologies that are discussed in any 2nd grade English class.

[grahamgrider]

@totaljking12 no its not an opinion. the facts of wrestling is that the more you drill the better technique you get plain and simple. Look at collegiate wrestling. The big guys are just as technical as the little guys. this is a fact. i am sorry if your opinion is wrong but it is. and im not pointing fingers. i discussing facts that any knowledgeable wrestler knows. so i guess that means you arent a knowledgeable wrestler

[thejonasbrtherssuck]

@grahamgrider i read through the argument you guys had he's totally right. if you look at any group of wrestlers in any skill level the fatties are typically slower and less agile than the smaller guys. as he said bfore just look at any of the videos in the suggestions bar to the right. he was talking in general so it's pretty much impossible to list "evidence" like your talking about. what kind of evidence can you give for that? listing an individual name doesn't speak for all wrestlers lol.

[grahamgrider]

@thejonasbrtherssuck we werent arguing about speed and agility, if we were then i would agree that most of the bigger wrestlers are slower. he was saying that bigger wrestlers have less technique which is not the case. Technique is not weight specific, it is based upon how much you drill. at the upper levels of wrestling you see the heavy wrestlers demonstrate just as much technique as the smaller wrestlers.

[thejonasbrtherssuck]

@grahamgrider you say bigger wrestlers usually have less speed and agility. doesn't greater speed and agility allow for greater technique? it was a given that wreslters drill in the argument u had. i read the whole thing. i quote: "Typically wrestlers drill and practice. And, typically, a smaller wrestler who drills and practices has better technique than a bigger wrestler who drills and practices. Therefore technique typically has to do with size."

[grahamgrider]

@thejonasbrtherssuck wow. no speed has nothing to do with technique. that is the beautiful thing about wrestling. Good technique defeats strength and speed. speed has nothing to do with technique and size has nothing to do with technique. technique is determined by he effort put into drilling. and no that quote you had was not accurate. once again look at college and international wrestling. the big wrestlers are just as technical as the smaller wrestlers. technique is independent of size.

[VSOCCER99]

lol hey Kelsey ! (: i thought you werent going to watch this . lol THATS MY COUSIN ! AHH EVEN THO HE LOST .!

[VSOCCER99]

THATS MY COUSIN! : ) love ya bud : D