Wednesday, November 18, 2009


While modern wrestlers don't exactly wear a shirt, the singlet does cover much of the upper body like a tank top shirt would. Now, I'm not opposed to the singlet, per se, but why shouldn't wrestlers be permitted a completely topless uniform?

Historically, wrestlers competed shirtless in trunks or tights:

Modern-day UFC fighters, who use a lot of wrestling techniques, compete shirtless, usually in special shorts or trunks designed for the sport.

Submission wrestling or grappling competitors in the North American Grappling Association (NAGA) are permitted a variety of uniform options, with or without a shirt or rash guard, frequently wearing shorts or trunks. These events are open to competitors of all ages.

So, why shouldn't wrestlers in high school, college, and the Olympics be permitted a topless uniform option, such as trunks or shorts, as an alternative to the singlet? It couldn't hurt to give the competitors a little more freedom, and it might even encourage participation by guys who don't like the singlet.


  1. definately there should be a choice.

  2. There shouldn't be a need for a uniform. Bare chest and a pair of shorts is enough. Women much prefer to watch a bout with men stripped to the waist.

  3. agree w you. How can I post a video for you

  4. With modern fabric technology, the functional justification for a singlet does not hold up (except for maybe a few heavyweight builds). Meanwhile, the cons outweigh the pros of the singlet - it is a style whose time as the mandated uniform has passed.

  5. 2008 is the year I met my best friend, and brother in law too. Also the summer I first took my shirt off in front of him, only because he refused to wear a shirt all week