Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
1oldwrestler

Wt Change for 2010/11

Recommended Posts

Age does not equal experience or skill level, nor does size/weight.

 

If age does not matter why at state are most state qualifiers seniors then juniors then sophomores and finally freshmen?

 

What I was trying to point out is that because a wrestler is a junior or senior does not mean that they necessarily have more years of wrestling experience then a freshman or a sophomore.

 

Wrestling skills and abilities should be the emphasis not age. How is a senior with 2 or 4 years of experience more deserving of a varsity spot then a wrestler who had wrestled for 10 years? Are they more deserving simply by age? If age is the qualifier and not wrestling skills I think that says something bad about where our sport is going IMO.

 

To answer your question more directly the weight classes are set up on what is basically a bell curve based on average sizes. Because it is a bell curve a larger majority of older wrestlers will fit into the most weight categories vs. fewer younger wrestlers.

 

The problem with the new weight classes IMO is that the age groups chosen as a baseline are older then what they should be. I believe these new weight groups are based on size averages for wrestlers ages 15-19. I think the average age of a freshman is 14 and the average age of a senior is 18. Males tend to continue growing into their early 20's By choosing a year older in size the weights become skewed to larger/older kids while at the same time discriminating against the smaller sized wrestlers who as I stated before are often the kids who have wrestled the longest and thus often have the more years of wrestling experience and skills.

 

Further, what about the future? If we start cutting out the opportunities for the smaller wrestlers at the high school level where do those lightweights come from to participate at the college and olympic levels of wrestling?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep wanting to point out a few freshmen that are good.  I'm glad there are young kids that are great wrestlers, but if you can't see the light in that juniors and seniors are generally the better wrestlers then I really can't go any further.  My team this year will be stock full of about 8 seniors, guess what, that means we will have a good team.  A couple years ago it was the exact opposite and while we had a good season it is nothing like we are expecting this year.  I surely hope our kids are better wrestlers as seniors than they were as freshmen. 

 

The kids that you keep pointing out that are great wrestlers as freshmen will not be hurt by a weight class change.  Good wrestlers are good wrestlers no matter the weight class.  I have never heard a kid state that he was a good wrestler because of the weight class and not conditioning, technique, heart, etc.   

 

As far as the Olympic level that you are so worried about, have you forgotten where we get the 66kg+ wrestlers?  Yes, they start out at higher weights and some even have to take lumps as freshmen and sophomores until they mature and become great wrestlers.  Why can't that happen at the lower weights?  Why is it alright for my 130lbs freshman who is a very good wrestler be forced to ride the pine while a classmate of his is drug off the street and gets a varsity letter because of his SIZE and not his ability?

 

The 15-19 year old range you talk about is something that can be argued to death.  In Indiana the youngest kids will be 14.25 years old to 14.46 years old from the beginning of the season to the end of the season.  If you figure the average kid to be in the middle that means they start out the season at 14.75 years old and end it at 14.96 years old.  So saying kids are 15 years old during the wrestling season is right in line with the age restrictions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Age does not equal experience or skill level, nor does size/weight.

 

If age does not matter why at state are most state qualifiers seniors then juniors then sophomores and finally freshmen?

 

There you go again bringing facts into the debate. I'm curious as to the age stats of 103 and 112 only at state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More facts...

896 semi-state qualifiers this year

65 or 7.25% freshmen

168 or 18.75% sophomores

271 or 30.25% juniors

392 or 43.75% seniors

 

Of the 65 freshmen, 29 were at 103lbs and 9 were at 112lbs.

 

Taking out 103lbs and 112lbs the numbers are:

768 semi-state qualifiers

27 or 3.5% freshmen

117 or 15.23% sophomores

244 or 31.77% juniors

380 or 49.47% seniors

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More facts...

896 semi-state qualifiers this year

65 or 7.25% freshmen

168 or 18.75% sophomores

271 or 30.25% juniors

392 or 43.75% seniors

 

Of the 65 freshmen, 29 were at 103lbs and 9 were at 112lbs.

 

Taking out 103lbs and 112lbs the numbers are:

768 semi-state qualifiers

27 or 3.5% freshmen

117 or 15.23% sophomores

244 or 31.77% juniors

380 or 49.47% seniors

 

 

 

So, even removing the 103 & 112 weight classes there are still nearly 20% of the wrestlers making state as underclassmen. Not to bad for kids who should be being overwhelmed completely from what seems to be bantered around by some about how much better older wrestlers are said to be in wrestling.

 

I don't know how it could be measured but I would like to know how many wrestlers as upperclassmen are starters with less then 4 years of wrestling experience and what weights they wrestle. My guess would be that overwhelmingly the top 2 weight classes are overwhelmingly filled with wrestlers with a very limited amount of wrestling experience.

 

Instead of age as a measuring stick I would rather see us looking at ways to increase the number of opportunities for experienced & long term dedicated wrestlers.

 

Stats I have seen at a national level suggest the the upper 2 weight classes have roughly the same number of forfeits as the lower 2 weight classes. I don't support getting rid of those upper classes either.

 

I will never understand the logic of how wrestling is helped by decreasing the possible number of participants. I want to grow wrestling participation, not limit it. I want to see wrestling continue to be the one sport that a true athlete no matter what size big or small can compete.

 

Increasing the skill of the wrestlers should be the goal not limiting participation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More facts...

896 semi-state qualifiers this year

65 or 7.25% freshmen

168 or 18.75% sophomores

271 or 30.25% juniors

392 or 43.75% seniors

 

Of the 65 freshmen, 29 were at 103lbs and 9 were at 112lbs.

 

Taking out 103lbs and 112lbs the numbers are:

768 semi-state qualifiers

27 or 3.5% freshmen

117 or 15.23% sophomores

244 or 31.77% juniors

380 or 49.47% seniors

 

 

 

So, even removing the 103 & 112 weight classes there are still nearly 20% of the wrestlers making state as underclassmen. Not to bad for kids who should be being overwhelmed completely from what seems to be bantered around by some about how much better older wrestlers are said to be in wrestling.

 

I don't know how it could be measured but I would like to know how many wrestlers as upperclassmen are starters with less then 4 years of wrestling experience and what weights they wrestle. My guess would be that overwhelmingly the top 2 weight classes are overwhelmingly filled with wrestlers with a very limited amount of wrestling experience.

 

Instead of age as a measuring stick I would rather see us looking at ways to increase the number of opportunities for experienced & long term dedicated wrestlers.

 

Stats I have seen at a national level suggest the the upper 2 weight classes have roughly the same number of forfeits as the lower 2 weight classes. I don't support getting rid of those upper classes either.

 

I will never understand the logic of how wrestling is helped by decreasing the possible number of participants. I want to grow wrestling participation, not limit it. I want to see wrestling continue to be the one sport that a true athlete no matter what size big or small can compete.

 

Increasing the skill of the wrestlers should be the goal not limiting participation.

 

The new weight classes in the middle might just offset the number of lost opportunities that you "perceive".  You suggest that because there is no 103 that those kids will not wrestle at all.  I think that is faulty logic.  More weight classes in the middle might just keep some kids in the sport thus increasing overall participation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep wanting to point out a few freshmen that are good.  I'm glad there are young kids that are great wrestlers, but if you can't see the light in that juniors and seniors are generally the better wrestlers then I really can't go any further.  My team this year will be stock full of about 8 seniors, guess what, that means we will have a good team.  A couple years ago it was the exact opposite and while we had a good season it is nothing like we are expecting this year.  I surely hope our kids are better wrestlers as seniors than they were as freshmen. 

 

The kids that you keep pointing out that are great wrestlers as freshmen will not be hurt by a weight class change.  Good wrestlers are good wrestlers no matter the weight class.  I have never heard a kid state that he was a good wrestler because of the weight class and not conditioning, technique, heart, etc.   

 

As far as the Olympic level that you are so worried about, have you forgotten where we get the 66kg+ wrestlers?  Yes, ate place winnerthey start out at higher weights and some even have to take lumps as freshmen and sophomores until they mature and become great wrestlers.  Why can't that happen at the lower weights?  Why is it alright for my 130lbs freshman who is a very good wrestler be forced to ride the pine while a classmate of his is drug off the street and gets a varsity letter because of his SIZE and not his ability?

 

The 15-19 year old range you talk about is something that can be argued to death.  In Indiana the youngest kids will be 14.25 years old to 14.46 years old from the beginning of the season to the end of the season.  If you figure the average kid to be in the middle that means they start out the season at 14.75 years old and end it at 14.96 years old.  So saying kids are 15 years old during the wrestling season is right in line with the age restrictions. 

 

I agree alot with your points especially if it eliminates more forfeits, that is only good for the sport. All I have ever said is  103 lb weight class to me is exciting to watch who cares if they are mostly underclassmen. If I remember correctly

at either 189 or 215 STATE  last year there were no returning state place winners so which is worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree alot with your points especially if it eliminates more forfeits, that is only good for the sport. All I have ever said is  103 lb weight class to me is exciting to watch who cares if they are mostly underclassmen. If I remember correctly

at either 189 or 215 STATE  last year there were no returning state place winners so which is worse?

No returning state placewinners means the weight class was senior dominated the year before.  It is harder for a freshman-junior to qualify and place at weights that are 152lbs+. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree alot with your points especially if it eliminates more forfeits, that is only good for the sport. All I have ever said is  103 lb weight class to me is exciting to watch who cares if they are mostly underclassmen. If I remember correctly

at either 189 or 215 STATE  last year there were no returning state place winners so which is worse?

No returning state placewinners means the weight class was senior dominated the year before.  It is harder for a freshman-junior to qualify and place at weights that are 152lbs+. 

While that might be true, it also could be that alot of the heavier weights begin later. I wish there was a way

of figuring that out. Wrestling is an outlet because of the lighter  weight classes that's why I started when I was 5 and continued on into college because I was smaller. Now, I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying I would be willing to bet that alot of the lighter weights probably begin a little earlier. That being said I am all for the change to 106 based on forfeits alone not on age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 - This is the last time I'm going to say this - I don't care if Freshman wrestle! It makes a nice story if they make varsity. What i don't like is a weight class that is so deprived of competitors any tiny kid off the street can show up and be successful. (Again I know that there are good wrestlers there..and this does not apply to all.)

 

*And yes, for the 200th time, 103 is too small, and 106 is not enough of a change. It should start at 112. Not to eliminate Freshman, or because i have a phobia of tiny kids, but for the 10 reasons i have listed in these posts over the years.

 

*While I'm at it, the top weight class should be 250lbs not 285, as there simply are no kids (Maybe one or two exceptions every now and then) who fall above 250 and have any discernable talent. And if there are, they can cut weight like everyone else, and get their butt below 250. Its not fair for a kid who weights 230 to have to wrestle someone with 55lbs on them; If i wanted to watch two big dudes just shove each other around and see who happens to fall on top (Which is 90% of heavyweight matches..yeah i said it) then i would go watch some Sumo Wrestling.

 

Take that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got board and I'm in the middle but i decided to do some research of my own and found some interexting facts

Since 2000 103 state champs and the years later

 

2000 John Sheets 9th next 3 years 3rd, 3rd, 3rd

2001 Aaron Clark 12

2002 Nick Hartman 12

2003 Fernando Martinez 11 nexted year 3rd

2004 Jon Lloyd 11 nexted year SQ

2005 Erik Galka 9 next 3 years SQ, 1st, 2nd

2006 Josh Harper 9 next 3 years 1st,1st,4th*didn't wrestle 3rd place match

2007 Camden Eppert 10 next 2 year 2nd, 1st

2008 Ethan Raley 9 next year SQ

 

based on state champs i don't see it being "week" every year 2 sr 2 jr so far i think 4 4time SQ 2 multitime state champs

 

I also found 2 cases that say 112 isn't that week... in 2007 mcmurry finished 7th at 112 but the next 2 years won state at 135 and 152... also Mitchel Richie went SQ,5th,SQ in his first 3 years at 112 and finished 2nd at 135 this year

 

I do think that 103 should be moved up to 106 to decrease ff plus I bet half if not more of the 103s start off around 106

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis is weak. Just because they were successful at 103 and then were able to compete at 112 or 119 when they were older doesn't mean anything. The seniors listed in there were from a time that has long passed us, thus the proposed change. 

 

*Also, all you continue to do on this board is pick out the exceptions, not the trend. I pointed out that there are some very talented wrestlers at 103 (Probably the guys who are state champions listed above!) However, overall that weight class is weak for the myriad of reasons i listed.

 

* This would be like saying that Colorado wrestling is the best in the country because Henry C. hails from there right now.  Then the wildcat would disagree, and you would reply that Henry C. has a gold medal in the Olympics and he is from Colorado thus Colorado wrestling has to be the best. (Analogies are a great way to make my points!...and no i don't want your analogy!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:o I am done with this discussion . I think when anyone says" that any kid of the street off the street can be competitive" is completley wrong, because this sport takes hard work(year around work). I think any decision they make will work out just fine, I just don't don't understand some people's reasoning. This is not about age wrestling or size. If eliminates ff's. Great!!! The only thing I hope is that Indiana never goes to a class system. I live and help coach in Michigan and I have the hardest time following  and understanding there class system. It's just not the same. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll break this down better for you.

 

In the past 9 years(2000-2008) there have been 48 state champions that were non-seniors.

 

Of the 47 this is how they fared the next year.

31 repeated as champs

3 were 2nd the next year

7 were 3rd place the next year

1 was 4th place

1 was 7th place

3 were state qualifiers

1 Did not wrestle(Wesley English)

 

The only weight class were a champ failed to place the next year was.... 103lbs, and it happened three times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll break this down better for you.

 

In the past 9 years(2000-2008) there have been 48 state champions that were non-seniors.

 

Of the 48 this is how they fared the next year.

31 repeated as champs

3 were 2nd the next year

7 were 3rd place the next year

1 was 4th place

1 was 7th place

3 were state qualifiers

1 Did not wrestle(Wesley English)

1 I could not find(Jeremy Van Alstyne)

 

The only weight class were a champ failed to place the next year was.... 103lbs, and it happened three times!

That's the way it goes! There is still should be no reason to discredit a kid because of size, let alone a state champion at any weight class. That is too bad, because like I said before there is alot more wrestling going on in the

lighter weight classes than there is  higher  football/wrestling weight classes that nobody is mentiong. I would much rather be 103lb state champ than upper weight class winner anyday. You always got time to grow :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is moving the weight class up 4 lbs seen as discrediting?

I don't think it does all. If anything it will probably make it even  better. I always said all along I'm and neither

for against the move. I am just really shocked at all the hating on how it is now, on past champions and what they did after and so on. I will always enjoy the lighter weight classes regardless and everyone has there own opionions. I still remember being in 7th grade and watching Ellis beat seniors at 98lbs. Now, I know things have changed alot, but to not  give any credit because somebody won state at 103lbs. and maybe only placed a couple of other times is ridiculous. That is really  hating. IT IS BETTER TO BE THAN TO BE A NEVER HAVE BEEN  THAT is all I'M SAYING.  ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm good with 106 as a starting weight since it is not a tremendous jump.   But if the starting weight was set above 108 I believe that would be a big diservice to several very talented light weights.  If the starting weight class was above that mark I would also hope most state organizations would have the forsight to add an additional low weight class to JV.  That would allow those lighter wrestlers to compete against others their size until they have a chance to grow.  I was a 94lb freshman eating like crazy so I could be within 10 lbs of  106 (year they switched weights).  While size isn't everthing I can also understand at the lowest weights giving up 10 or move pounds a very hard thing to do no matter what your skill level is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is moving the weight class up 4 lbs seen as discrediting?

I don't think it does all. If anything it will probably make it even  better. I always said all along I'm and neither

for against the move. I am just really shocked at all the hating on how it is now, on past champions and what they did after and so on. I will always enjoy the lighter weight classes regardless and everyone has there own opionions. I still remember being in 7th grade and watching Ellis beat seniors at 98lbs. Now, I know things have changed alot, but to not  give any credit because somebody won state at 103lbs. and maybe only placed a couple of other times is ridiculous. That is really  hating. IT IS BETTER TO BE THAN TO BE A NEVER HAVE BEEN  THAT is all I'M SAYING.  ;D

So stating facts is hating?  I am a big "hater" then.  When I add 1+1 and get 2, I'm a hater on that number 4 aren't I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the starting weight class was above that mark I would also hope most state organizations would have the forsight to add an additional low weight class to JV.  That would allow those lighter wrestlers to compete against others their size until they have a chance to grow.  

 

 

I believe that is one item that they plan to include, or were at least discussing at the National Rules level.  Something along the lines of a State can adopt a lower Weight Class for competition below the Varsity level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is moving the weight class up 4 lbs seen as discrediting?

I don't think it does all. If anything it will probably make it even  better. I always said all along I'm and neither

for against the move. I am just really shocked at all the hating on how it is now, on past champions and what they did after and so on. I will always enjoy the lighter weight classes regardless and everyone has there own opionions. I still remember being in 7th grade and watching Ellis beat seniors at 98lbs. Now, I know things have changed alot, but to not  give any credit because somebody won state at 103lbs. and maybe only placed a couple of other times is ridiculous. That is really  hating. IT IS BETTER TO BE THAN TO BE A NEVER HAVE BEEN  THAT is all I'M SAYING.   ;D

So stating facts is hating?  I am a big "hater" then.  When I add 1+1 and get 2, I'm a hater on that number 4 aren't I?

That's not what I am saying!  You have alot of facts to back up on  how you feel ,and that is fine. I simply stating that a little more credit ought to be given no matter what. I'm just really  suprised I should say on how some discredit this weight class all together and I am not talking about you.  I think there are alot more wrestlers who carry on their careers on into college and further because they were lighter weights, then those who  wrestle because they like it at the heavier weights and then choose football as there number 1 in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y2, that is an interesting stat.

I don't understand why people completly dismiss the stats, and immediately try to start putting words in our mouths. I'm pretty sure they don't even read what is written half the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is talking about it moving to 106 when its not clear yet what it will be, but if it goes 106 then won't it really be 108 after the raise it after the holidays anyway!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y2, that is an interesting stat.

I don't understand why people completly dismiss the stats, and immediately try to start putting words in our mouths. I'm pretty sure they don't even read what is written half the time.

 

 

Like I said earlier, I really do not care since the movie is only to 106 and actually think this is not a real big deal.  However, any person who has any skill at logic or math can make data say whatev er they want it to say.  It is in the way the data is presented and talked about.  Facts are facts to tose who believe them and stats tell the story of the person who is speaking.  The data on this is proving both sides of the argument, just like data always does.

 

The wheels on the bus go round and round..........

 

 

I do agree with Wildcat that 285 is a problem.  All the arguments against 103 also apply to 285, with a few modifications of course.  The 250 lb. class is a great idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like I said earlier, I really do not care since the movie is only to 106 and actually think this is not a real big deal.  However, any person who has any skill at logic or math can make data say whatev er they want it to say.  It is in the way the data is presented and talked about.  Facts are facts to tose who believe them and stats tell the story of the person who is speaking.  The data on this is proving both sides of the argument, just like data always does.

 

The wheels on the bus go round and round..........

 

 

I do agree with Wildcat that 285 is a problem.  All the arguments against 103 also apply to 285, with a few modifications of course.  The 250 lb. class is a great idea.

 

 

What data on the other side?  When data and logic go up against personal feelings, I tend to support data and logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.