1oldwrestler Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Just reading the replies on this thread. Maybe I'm mixing up the screen names but I thought your smart-*&@ reply to indyt regarding the number of heavier wrestlers he had last year was to a high level coach. If I'm wrong I stand mistaken. If I'm right it won't be the first time your coaching brethern have not necessarily agreed with you on a subject. Apparently you and a few others from the coaching fraternity are the voices in the wilderness as only 30% of the h.s. coaches in Indiana agreed with you about classing individual wrestling. But that 70% of coaches who don't want to class individual wrestling are all stupid, right? There, I threw a statistic out there. No one can question me now. I'm right! I'm right! Someone notify my wife! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I sure would like to see the data they are using to come up with these weight classes, because.. according to CDC data these new weight classes result in have no weight classes below the 5th percentile while having 3 weight classes above the 95th percentile. This hardly seems equitable to the small guys. I suspect what is happening is that they are using data relative to participants in wrestling and not broader population statistics. So, it is no wonder that we don't have many participants under 103... since there are no weigh classes below 103. In a decade or so, they will look at it and say, "gee, we don't have many participants below 106, lets move it up." Well, duh! If the lowest weigh class was 150, you would probably not find a lot of wrestler below 150 either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Team1Goal Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Some of these light to middle weight have a decent gap in between them. I think a few could have been better spaced out to help with weight ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I sure would like to see the data they are using to come up with these weight classes, because.. according to CDC data these new weight classes result in have no weight classes below the 5th percentile while having 3 weight classes above the 95th percentile. This hardly seems equitable to the small guys. I suspect what is happening is that they are using data relative to participants in wrestling and not broader population statistics. So, it is no wonder that we don't have many participants under 103... since there are no weigh classes below 103. In a decade or so, they will look at it and say, "gee, we don't have many participants below 106, lets move it up." Well, duh! If the lowest weigh class was 150, you would probably not find a lot of wrestler below 150 either. Stripes - there's no room at the table for equity once the stats that are supported by the loudest on this website have been invoked. Bring all the stats you want. Yours are wrong and theirs are right, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Team1Goal Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Would have liked to see a little less space between a few of the lighter middle weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Just reading the replies on this thread. Maybe I'm mixing up the screen names but I thought your smart-*&@ reply to indyt regarding the number of heavier wrestlers he had last year was to a high level coach. Your threshold to consider something a smart*ss reply must be pretty sensitive because I was just asking for clarification on who was on his team in the past. If I had Logan Cooper, Andre Richards, Sam Tasseff and Wes Bernard in my program, I would not be complaining about having too many upper weight classes. Coach T's response to the new weight classes left me confused and thats all. I'm sure Coach T appreciates you standing up and defending him though. If I'm wrong I stand mistaken. If I'm right it won't be the first time your coaching brethern have not necessarily agreed with you on a subject. Apparently you and a few others from the coaching fraternity are the voices in the wilderness as only 30% of the h.s. coaches in Indiana agreed with you about classing individual wrestling. We were voices in the wilderness 8-10 years ago. 30% is awesome. The wheels of change move slow. But that 70% of coaches who don't want to class individual wrestling are all stupid, right? There, I threw a statistic out there. No one can question me now. I'm right! I'm right! Someone notify my wife! There are a number of reasons why 70% of coaches still support the single class individual tournament. Stupidity is not one of them. I will leave you with this: 1) Many years back a few voices in the wilderness called for the bumping up of weight classes after collecting and analyzing the data and it has happened. 2) Last fall a few voices in the wilderness said that the unclassed team state had no future and voila! it came true. 3) For many, many years a few voices in the wilderness have stated that classing both the individual and team portions of the state tournament are whats best for wrestling in our state and now 30% of coaches agree. If your a gamblin' man you might want to throw your support to those voices in the wilderness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I suspect what is happening is that they are using data relative to participants in wrestling and not broader population statistics. So, it is no wonder that we don't have many participants under 103... since there are no weigh classes below 103. In a decade or so, they will look at it and say, "gee, we don't have many participants below 106, lets move it up." Well, duh! If the lowest weigh class was 150, you would probably not find a lot of wrestler below 150 either. ?The change in weight classes resulted from a three-to-four year process utilizing data from the National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA) Optimal Performance Calculator,? This data includes the alpha weights for over 200,000 wrestlers over the past 3/4 years. If 7% of those were at 103 or under I would assume there would not have been any change in weight classes. The data likely showed that 7% fell under the 106 mark and that is why that made the break there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 1) Many years back a few voices in the wilderness called for the bumping up of weight classes after collecting and analyzing the data and it has happened. 2) Last fall a few voices in the wilderness said that the unclassed team state had no future and voila! it came true. 3) For many, many years a few voices in the wilderness have stated that classing both the individual and team portions of the state tournament are whats best for wrestling in our state and now 30% of coaches agree. If your a gamblin' man you might want to throw your support to those voices in the wilderness Wow, I love how its assumed the voices in the wilderness were the cause for the 3 things listed.. A tad bit presumptious, and not data driven either. Do you have any data on what the percentage of coaches who wanted to change to class wrestling before the voices in the wilderness began speaking.. One might think that many smaller schools would have thought it was a good idea back then, just not a plausible one, so one can not say if that percentage has increased or decreased. And classing of wrestling, individual, is not whats best for sport... so i better start some other voices... Many people thought a team tournament, under its current structure, would have no future... Do those voices get to take credit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double!ace! Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Would have liked to see a little less space between a few of the lighter middle weight. Agreed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Wow, I love how its assumed the voices in the wilderness were the cause for the 3 things listed.. A tad bit presumptious, and not data driven either. AJ, my post was a facetious response to 1oldwrestler who seems to think that this message board has some sort of influence on the National Federation and the IHSAA board of directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 ?The change in weight classes resulted from a three-to-four year process utilizing data from the National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA) Optimal Performance Calculator,? This data includes the alpha weights for over 200,000 wrestlers over the past 3/4 years. If 7% of those were at 103 or under I would assume there would not have been any change in weight classes. The data likely showed that 7% fell under the 106 mark and that is why that made the break there. The point I was attempting to make is that one should not be looking at just wrestler data, but the population from which the wrestlers are taken, i.e. the entire student body. If, for sake of example, the lowest weight class is 100, you would have some small percentage of wrestlers around 100. If on the other hand, the lowest weight class is 125, and you then study the percentage of wrestlers around 100 lbs, you are going to find a lot less of them (because they don't wrestle if they are that small). Looking at a cohort of 200,000 wrestlers is wrong because it is ignoring all the non-wrestlers that otherwise might wrestle if the weight classes were different. I haven't completed my analysis of the CDC data yet, but suspect that the weights of high school age boys (sorry girls) is normally distributed with more boys in the middle range of weights than at the extremes. Which would argue for more weight classes in the middle weights and less on the extremes. This happens to be exactly the opposite direction these new weight classes are moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 The point I was attempting to make is that one should not be looking at just wrestler data, but the population from which the wrestlers are taken, i.e. the entire student body. If, for sake of example, the lowest weight class is 100, you would have some small percentage of wrestlers around 100. If on the other hand, the lowest weight class is 125, and you then study the percentage of wrestlers around 100 lbs, you are going to find a lot less of them (because they don't wrestle if they are that small). Looking at a cohort of 200,000 wrestlers is wrong because it is ignoring all the non-wrestlers that otherwise might wrestle if the weight classes were different. I haven't completed my analysis of the CDC data yet, but suspect that the weights of high school age boys (sorry girls) is normally distributed with more boys in the middle range of weights than at the extremes. Which would argue for more weight classes in the middle weights and less on the extremes. This happens to be exactly the opposite direction these new weight classes are moving. I agree with your point and am guessing that the NF is using the Weight Manangment data because it is more feasible to split up into 14 realistic weight classes. Using the CDC data might lead to 10 weight classes between 130 and 171 with two below 130 and two above. I would be interested in what you find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I think we should just let the kids choose the weight classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I think we should just let the kids choose the weight classes. No, we should just weigh people in and then block the weights together.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boot Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 No, we should just weigh people in and then block the weights together.... Better yet just have the numbers 1 through 10 and have a blind draw! I'm glad 220 and 195 are options now, but it seems strange to squish things together in the middle where it's already the most competitive. Overall I definitely think it's a move in the right direction. Will this have any bearing down the line on collegiate weight classes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I sure would like to see the data they are using to come up with these weight classes, because.. according to CDC data these new weight classes result in have no weight classes below the 5th percentile while having 3 weight classes above the 95th percentile. This hardly seems equitable to the small guys. I suspect what is happening is that they are using data relative to participants in wrestling and not broader population statistics. So, it is no wonder that we don't have many participants under 103... since there are no weigh classes below 103. In a decade or so, they will look at it and say, "gee, we don't have many participants below 106, lets move it up." Well, duh! If the lowest weigh class was 150, you would probably not find a lot of wrestler below 150 either. What year was the CDC data taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I'm sure Coach T appreciates you standing up and defending him Now that is the pot calling the kettle black. I can't count the number of times you've rushed in to defend y2 or rg when someone questions them. And yes, I hope he appreciates it as im sure he loses sleep over people questioning his posts on this site, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Now that is the pot calling the kettle black. I can't count the number of times you've rushed in to defend y2 or rg when someone questions them. And yes, I hope he appreciates it as im sure he loses sleep over people questioning his posts on this site, lol. troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 troll LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winning Ugly Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I have a 7th grader that weighs 90 lbs and a Junior that weighs 195lbs. I think the changes are good for the sport. It seems to me that the 140 lbs weight class is what is being eliminated and the 182 lbs class is really what is being added. Skill level and speed are still a big part of 182 lbs wrestlers ex. Drake Stien, Tanner Lynde etc. I don't believe we are losing skilled wrestling classes. It would be different if they added a 350 lbs class. Now that would be boring. Just my two cents. This is only personal experience but we had 7 guys wrestling off for 171 lbs and only 1 in the 103 lbs class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edb41 Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I have a 7th grader that weighs 90 lbs and a Junior that weighs 195lbs. I think the changes are good for the sport. It seems to me that the 140 lbs weight class is what is being eliminated and the 182 lbs class is really what is being added. Skill level and speed are still a big part of 182 lbs wrestlers ex. Drake Stien, Tanner Lynde etc. I don't believe we are losing skilled wrestling classes. It would be different if they added a 350 lbs class. Now that would be boring. Just my two cents. This is only personal experience but we had 7 guys wrestling off for 171 lbs and only 1 in the 103 lbs class I have an 8th grader that weighs 90 and a junior that weighs 195, I think the weight class changes sucks. I wish it were about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGoatGrappler Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 ...I don't believe we are losing skilled wrestling classes. It would be different if they added a 350 lbs class. Now that would be boring. Just my two cents.... If you understood that heavyweights wrestle different than lower classes - you might gain an appreciation for their level of wrestling. There were quite a few wrestlers who were way over 285 when I wrestled "unlimited". Some of us on this board might even remember or have seen a poster of an Olympian named Chris Taylor - some of his matches were pretty darn exciting and he was well over 400 lbs. I wonder how many kids don't even get to wrestle in high school since they weigh more than 285??? Even a kid who weighs 50 lbs. in high school could wrestle 103 (or now 106) - but if you're over 285...too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwrestler Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 It seems to me that we missed the point here. It's not about moving 103 up, it's only a 3 pound jump to 106. Really, they took away a middle weight (135), where the most exciting wrestling is, and added an upperweight (195). Great, another weight class where the majority of wrestlers have no clue what they're doing. Lynde and Stein were both 171 lbers. Last year, the 215 lb state champ could have been a 171 or 189, and the 285 lb state champ was a second year wrestler. Not to take anything away from those wrestlers, but what does that say about their competition? At least now I know I can leave Conseco with four weight classes to go instead of three... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winning Ugly Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I have an 8th grader that weighs 90 and a junior that weighs 195, I think the weight class changes sucks. I wish it were about me. My point was to give a little background about my point of view. I can see both sides. I am confused about your last comment, are you sulking? It seems to me that we missed the point here. It's not about moving 103 up, it's only a 3 pound jump to 106. Really, they took away a middle weight (135), where the most exciting wrestling is, and added an upperweight (195). Great, another weight class where the majority of wrestlers have no clue what they're doing. Lynde and Stein were both 171 lbers. Last year, the 215 lb state champ could have been a 171 or 189, and the 285 lb state champ was a second year wrestler. Not to take anything away from those wrestlers, but what does that say about their competition? At least now I know I can leave Conseco with four weight classes to go instead of three... I disagree that 195 is the class that is being added, I think its 182 lbs class and their is a high skill level there. If you left before 189 lbs at state you missed a great match. I agree about the heavy weights, two years and a state title is just criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyt Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Karl, I appreciate that you follow our team and think pretty highly of our kids but I will tell you that the upper weights, especially 189 has been one of our less competitive weights since Nate Moore's days. Year after year we have to work in the off season to convince somebody to take ownership of this weightclass. At no time was Bernard, Cooper, Tasseff and Richards on the same team together. Bernard has never went to PMHS. Cooper was the 215 state runner-up and weighed 185 this season(in fact Trey and Logan may have wrestled at 195 this year in the new system). Tasseff was a 160 lber last year at one point so he would not have fit into any of those new weights up top. In fact, it's great you mention Tasseff. He is a product of the team state as is Cooper. Tasseff never wrestled varsity in MS. He was a manager his freshman year. Last year he was 4th string at 160/171 but got in the line up due to team situations/injuries. He had no interest at all in his individual performance this year . He is involved in plays, clubs, school TV. He only wrestled for the team aspect and I can truly say that if there was no team state-he doesn't wrestle. He knew he was our best option and he did not want to let his teammates down. Cooper as well is a byproduct of team state development. He absolutely got beat up on week after week after week even up to and including his 9th grade and sophomore year. He was JV his junior year until almost January. I have no reason to fib. We have always had 60-80 kids on our team at the MS and HS yet still have trouble filling upperweights with depth at a 5A school. We are experiencing the same problem now for Disney duals and next season. Not being cocky but if we are having troubles I know others are. You can spin stats and data but the history of my room tells me all I need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts