Y2CJ41 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Just kidding! The NFHS is proposing new weight classes for the 2010/2011 season, sorry guys, but 103lbs looks to be moved up! http://www.mpssaa.org/assets/wintersports/wrestling/Proposed%20Wrestling%20Weight%20Class%20Options%20(2009).pdf I'm not sure yet which proposal I like the best. As much as I want the lowest weight class to be higher, I think a 7lb jump to 110lbs is too drastic right now. I think adding a weight between 171 and 189 is way long overdue. Proposal A 110, 119, 125, 131, 136, 141, 146, 152, 159, 167, 177, 192, 216, 285 Proposal B 106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220, 285 Proposal C 107, 115, 122, 128, 134, 140, 146, 152. 159, 167, 177, 192, 216, 285 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 At first glance Option B seems the best of the 3 to me. The weight class have a gradual change as they move to the upper weights. This option only slighty changes the lightest weight. It also tries to make a slightly lesser gap between HWT and the next lowest weight. Option A starts at 110 which may be at least slightly high for an opening weight class. The weight class increases are all over the place in this option. Mathmatically this may be the average weights for those they surveryed, but the weight gaps jump around very randomly. I also see the gap between HWT and the next weight class down as a huge jump that could be slightly lessoned in some way. Option C isn't to bad. It start at 107 which sounds about right for the lightest weight class. Everything else is very similar to A as wieght increases being gradual aside from the gap between HWT and the next weight class down being slightly larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I agree MattM except I don't like 116-120. I think it would be better to go 114-120...4lb gap just doesn't seem to be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Thats a Y2 typo I believe. If you look at the actual charts it 106, 113, 120. I agree a 4 pound gap would be way to low. That one reason I didn't like the crazy jumping around in option A. Though in an ideal world because of the % of weight given up I'd like to the lightest weights have less of a gap. However, I do understand that because of less competators they gap those weights farther apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macdaddy Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 What I would like to see is 1) bump up 103 to 107 2) add another weight class in the upper weights. They may have to shuffle the upper weights to accomplish this, but it would be very easy way to eliminate all the criteria. If 2 teams end up tied at the end of a dual, with 15 weight classes, someone had to win 8 matches. No other criteria necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 macdaddy, You would be correct for 99.9% of the time, but there would need to be criteria if there was a double forfeit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcatcountry97 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 hmmm... I have been posting for 3 years now that 103 must change because there is simply not enough kids, and the talent there is very shallow compared to other weight classes. I get verbally accosted for this every time. Now a poll shows 84% of people want the weights to change and 103 to go up. Jeeeez. Is it that people just like to argue with me, or are you finally seeing the light?!!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Short Jay Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 It might be more of a case of to get some you have to give some. Most agree that something needs to be done between 71 and 215 and moving 103 up to 106 or 107 would help. Hopefully more people will vote, 18 votes of all the voices on Indiana wrestling is real small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorWrestling125 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 hmmm... I have been posting for 3 years now that 103 must change because there is simply not enough kids, and the talent there is very shallow compared to other weight classes. I get verbally accosted for this every time. Now a poll shows 84% of people want the weights to change and 103 to go up. Jeeeez. Is it that people just like to argue with me, or are you finally seeing the light?!!?! Just gonna throw it out there, all choices on the poll are of a increase of 103. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share Posted August 3, 2009 Except D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorWrestling125 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Well i just over looked that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Its not that I want the change but if is going to happen I like option B the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpd096 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I agree with Fearless, I am not a huge fan of changing but if it does change, I choose "B". Re: Wildcatcountry97 You are correct about the 103lb weight class...there is no denying it, year-in, year-out, it is by far the youngest bracket at state...and across the country. Winning a state title at 103lbs is an awesome achievement but 103lbs is not typically loaded up like 112, 119, 125, and so on. (especially with upperclassmen) This, by no means, is saying that the wrestlers at 103lbs are not great wrestlers...it only points to the depth and age of higher weight classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justdo^it135 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 I agree with Macdaddy we need an extra weight class, and I think they should get rid of 285 completely. That way we could add two weight classes in between 112 and 171 where the talent is overwhelming the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearless fly Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Justdo^it135, you are funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 So, if you didn't take the time to read the .pdf, here's a summary: Proposal A: Evenly distributes kids through 14 weight classes based on pre-season, hydrated weights. Proposal B: Evenly distributes kids through 14 weight classes based on 7% body fat optimum weight. Proposal C: A synthesis of the two distributions. I'll take C...and it seems the NFHS is leaning that way based on its lengthy description and subtle sales job of Proposal C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbulldog152 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I like B the best Based on the teams that i've worked with I know this syestem could help them the most and I notice a lot of 103 are normally about 106 maybe a little more before they cut though i would love to see 220 drop 215 and add a 235 or 240 though that would hurt 285 the more i think about it... it's hard to tell but I think plan b has the best jumps and having 170 to 182 to 195 would be good too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeSnoopy Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 i like how the weight classes are now but i agree if they had to change B would definately be the best option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltfan64 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 It shouldn't change period. What we don't need is another large weight class to sit through where nothing happens for three periods. 189 through 285 has historically been the most uninspiring and boring wrestling. Even with the large number of forfeitsnat 103, this weight class creates much much better wrestling than any upper weights. This weight class most definitely doesn't lack talent. It simply has young wrestlers. Eliminating a lower weight is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awood3 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Is HWT kept at 285 just to accomodate football players? The Olympics, UFC, etc. all cut competitors off at 265. I wrestled heavyweight myself when the limit was 275, and I'm pretty sure that the guys who were at the upper limit could have made 265 with some healthy lifestyle changes. As for 103, I know that was a perfect weight class for guys like Gary Schmucker. I believe he won state as a senior in 1995 or 96, and I saw him a couple of years back. I bet he's still 110. I know he decided not to wrestle in college partly because he couldn't get over 110-112 pounds. I don't know what you do with 5 foot tall guys that have a fast metabolism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAncientElder Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 awood2, I don't know which awood you are, but you have a good argument. 1995 100 Q 10 Gary Schmucker NorthWood 37 4 1996 103 4 11 Gary Schmucker NorthWood 45 2 1997 103 1 12 Gary Schmucker NorthWood 40 1 While scanning the archives I find more than one wrestler that has not "Balloned" during high school. TheAncientElder (TAE) The Imperial Potentate and Grand Poobah of Classless wrestling in Indiana. I wear my Fez with pride. www.theancientelder.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 I went up 9lbs during my high school career, whoopdee do! I went up 30lbs during my college career! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAncientElder Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Let me compute, 103 + 9 = 112 112 + 30 = 142 I challenge you to step on ths scales and certify at 142 lbs today. TheAncientElder (TAE) The Imperial Potentate and Grand Poobah of Classless wrestling in Indiana. I wear my Fez with pride. www.theancientelder.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 You see old one, I went from 118 to 149 in college. These days I'm a couple pounds over 149. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAncientElder Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 ?You see old one, I went from 118 to 149 in college. These days I'm a couple pounds over 149.? Going strictly by weight classes that does not compute! 118 ? 3 (growth allowance) = 115. I don?t remember a 115 or a 118 lb weight class. The difference between 118 and 149 (plus a couple) is 31 lbs +. Are you a politian in training? Remember Senator ?Y2?? you are under oath. TheAncientElder (TAE) The Imperial Potentate and Grand Poobah of Classless wrestling in Indiana. I wear my Fez with pride. www.theancientelder.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts