103, to have or not have?

[KarlHungus]

I really do think we need at least one more weight class between 215 and 285, that's a huge range. There are great kids at the low end of that trying to fight against a 60-70 pound advantage. I just don't see that many 103 forfeits I guess.

 

34% of the schools that Y2 had sectional info for did not fill the class at sectionals last year.

 

Whenever I've been a part of a team without a 103 the coaches went around the school and found one, and I've never been around a big school.

 

 

If the coach had to scour the school to find one (been there, done that) does that kid really deserve a varsity spot over a 2nd or 3rd year back up?

[AJ]

I think this has already been answered by the post that said a weight class of 110 would largely combine these two classes and dramatically reduce the number of FFs.

 

I disagree.  110 weight class would do nothing to curb the 112 ff's.  It may curb some of the 103 ff's, but it would also have many wrestlers giving up a lot of weight. 

[KarlHungus]

I'm guessing it would have more eating 3 meals a day.

[AJ]

I'm guessing it would have more eating 3 meals a day.

 

Some of them would need 5-6 meals a day to get to 110! 

 

I think I might be jeolous! 

To be able to eat 5 meals a day and not gain much weight!!!

[Y2CJ41]

AJ,

At what point do you think there needs to be a change with the lowest weight class?  If 50% of the teams forfeited 103, 60%, 75%, 100%?  I'm just curious as to what your would determine a threshold for which you deem there being a need for change.

[KarlHungus]

I think this has already been answered by the post that said a weight class of 110 would largely combine these two classes and dramatically reduce the number of FFs.

 

I disagree.  110 weight class would do nothing to curb the 112 ff's.  It may curb some of the 103 ff's, but it would also have many wrestlers giving up a lot of weight. 

 

There would be no more 112.  It would most likely be 110 and 118.  The total number of FFs would definate be reduced in the lightest 2 classes.

[Boot]

I was at a JV 9th and 10th grade tournament this weekend and with 6 or 7 teams there were 5 103s. This means of these schools, they had enough 2nd or 3rd string guys to send down their young ones to that tournament. It's obvious some areas and some teams have a hard time getting 103s, nobody is disputing that.

 

I disagree that if you have to recruit they don't deserve it. Some kids just never would consider wrestling and end up good. I was on a team where we had to recruit a 103 and he made it to semistate that year. Part of coaching is recognizing abilities and recruiting those who wouldn't otherwise come out.

[KarlHungus]

I was at a JV 9th and 10th grade tournament this weekend and with 6 or 7 teams there were 5 103s. This means of these schools, they had enough 2nd or 3rd string guys to send down their young ones to that tournament. It's obvious some areas and some teams have a hard time getting 103s, nobody is disputing that.

 

I guess that is the difference, you base your opinion on what you see in your area.  I have based mine on data collected from over 250 schools from last years sectional entries.

 

I disagree that if you have to recruit they don't deserve it. Some kids just never would consider wrestling and end up good. I was on a team where we had to recruit a 103 and he made it to semistate that year. Part of coaching is recognizing abilities and recruiting those who wouldn't otherwise come out.

 

I have coached 103s that have gone .500 and only actually won a handful of matches.  I asked if a kid that has never wrestled before and was recruited from the hallways deserves a varsity spot OVER a 2nd or 3rd year kid who has put time in the room but just can't break into a line-up.

 

 

[Y2CJ41]

So if Karl and I have $1 million, everyone has to have $1 million, right?  That is a really weak analogy.

 

Maybe last year was an anomaly, as I haven't seen as many forfeits this year as last.  Of course its early in the season too.  I will try to put together the same statistics this year during the state tournament and see if things changed much.

[AJ]

AJ,

At what point do you think there needs to be a change with the lowest weight class?  If 50% of the teams forfeited 103, 60%, 75%, 100%?  I'm just curious as to what your would determine a threshold for which you deem there being a need for change.

 

I think there has to be a trend, and in my personal definition a trend is 5 years.  If the numbers stay this low for a period of time, 5 seasons, then I would have no issue with changing the weight classes.  After the period of time, I would deem any weight with a ff rate of 25% average during the measurd time period should be examined, and most likely changed.

 

This discussion has been based on limited data in my opinion, although the data is good and accurate, it does not show any historical evidence to the number of ff's at 103 or 112.  I know the information is out there, and NO i do not want you to look it up, but I prefer to wait and see if the 103 problem is just an eb and flow of sorts.

 

 

[Y2CJ41]

On another board we were discussing this same issue and Pat Tocci with the NWCA stated a couple things.  First, the NWCA and NFHS were looking into a possible weight realignment.  Secondly in terms of forfeits he gave these two statistics.

1. On an average, 103 accounts for 15-16% of the forfeits and 112 about 11-12%.

That is NOT saying 15-16% of the matches at 103lbs are forfeits, but that of all the forfeits 15-16% of them are at 103lbs.  The average in a perfect world would be 7.14%.  It also means that 1/4 of the forfeits are within two weight classes. 

2. The majority of the forfeits are at 103, 112, 171, and 189.

 

This is compiled from data that I do not have my hands on.

[Boot]

As I said before, there are up and down years. This year I've seen more forfeits in the 171-215 range than usual. I'm not saying that 103 and 112 have huge numbers of people, but they definitely seem to have enough people and enough skill to keep them.

 

I'll ask again, is the IHSAA seriously considering getting rid of 103?

[Y2CJ41]

Its not the IHSAA's call, they abide by the NFHS and their weight classes.  I know that they are honestly looking at the issue.  I know this for two reasons, first Pat Tocci at the NWCA has stated it and this year our head coach received documentation from the IHSAA via NFHS to record at which weights we forfeit during the season.  The IHSAA sent this out to 32 schools of all sizes. 

[Boot]

I would really like to see some 5 or 10 year trends. The data won't lie, and that's about the only unbiased way to do it.

 

A little off topic, but Y2 what's the likelihood of adding a weight or 2 between 215 and 285, you have your finger closer to the pulse than I do.

[MatChick76]

I like having the lower weight.  There are several wrestlers who are "smaller" that, when entering high school, have a shot at wrestling varisty at 103 or 112.  I do like the idea of adjusting the weight to say 105 or 106, because after the 2 lb. allowance you're looking at a 107-108 range, which is really a "healthy" weight for a smaller wrestler.  I know when my uncle was wrestling the weight class was 98lbs., so obviously the weight classes are adjusted periodically to account for health trends. 

 

Y2, in an earlier post you made mention that this information was sent out to all the schools...Is this the ff breakdown that was sent out?  Also, in that breakdown were they asking for the schools to provide feedback about the 103 weight class?

[Y2CJ41]

I don't have the data to do a 5-10 year trend, but I can look at the increased number of freshmen and sophomores that are qualifying for semi-state and state at the lower weight classes and see that there are less and less kids in those weights overall.  Also, I believe that the new weight management system has played a big role in the number of forfeits at the lower weight classes.  As I stated earlier, a kid that weighs 110lbs will have to have 13% body fat in order to legally compete at 103lbs.  Not many 110lb teenagers have that much body fat.

 

That is probably zero to less than zero chance that we add another weight class, no matter where it is.  By adding another weight, no matter where it is, puts a great strain on schools that struggle to fill 14 weight classes already.  While I want increased participation in the sport, right now we are at our maximum number of weight classes and adding more weights would hurt small school competitiveness.

 

There has been talk of decreasing the number of weight classes to 12 or 13, but I disagree with it and would rather try changing the weight classes around to combat the forfeit epidemic rather than cutting weight classes.  If changing the weights around does not decrease the number of total forfeits, I believe we should decrease the number of weight classes.

[Y2CJ41]

Y2, in an earlier post you made mention that this information was sent out to all the schools...Is this the ff breakdown that was sent out?  Also, in that breakdown were they asking for the schools to provide feedback about the 103 weight class?

This information was only sent to around 32 schools in the state(I believe).  It was not all of the schools, but a good sampling of big, medium and small sized schools.

 

It was basically a summary of what weight classes your team forfeited during the season and how many times you forfeited it compared to how many dual meets you wrestled.

[AJ]

Is changing the weights something the IHSAA can do or must it be ok'd by the NFHS?

[Y2CJ41]

The IHSAA could do it, but 99.9% of the time they follow the NFHS's rules and regulations.

[MatChick76]

Thanks for the info Y2.  I agree that I'd like to see us keep the 14 classes we have now, and if the only way to do that is to reorganize the weight classes then I think we should try to do it.  The fat test definitely makes things more difficult in terms of wrestlers actually eligible to cut to some of those lower weights.

 

[Y2CJ41]

Thanks for the info Y2.  I agree that I'd like to see us keep the 14 classes we have now, and if the only way to do that is to reorganize the weight classes then I think we should try to do it.  The fat test definitely makes things more difficult in terms of wrestlers actually eligible to cut to some of those lower weights.

 

 

The fat test is an obstacle, but at the same time it is great for the sport.  Too many times, when I was in high school kids cut way too much weight(including myself).  I wish I would have had something that said I should go a weight class higher.

[Boot]

Great information, I'm starting to get the full picture. I always wonder if the increase in freshman and sophomores is because of increased skill or fewer upper classman. I would think a combination of the 2. Is the body fat really requiring 13%? I'm not a head coach so I don't have to worry about it, but wow. When I was 103 I was at 1%, and I'm still only at 4% just naturally. What exceptions are there for people who just can't get that much fat? I look at a lot of 103s and don't see much fat on them.

[Y2CJ41]

Here is the gist of the body fat regulations

 

If a wrestler is under 7% body fat, the weight they weigh in at for the test is the lowest they can wrestle.  They also will have to get a doctor's note to say they are a healthy person at that body fat.

For instance, if a wrestler weighed 128.5 and was 6.5% BF they would be going 130lbs

 

If a wrestler is over 7% body fat they will calculate the lowest weight of the wrestler at the current weight and BF and determine how much they would weigh at 7% body fat.

For instance a wrestler weighs 140lbs for the body fat test and is 10% body fat.

140lbs * 10% = 14lbs of fat

140lbs - 14lbs = 126lbs at a fat free weight

126 * 1.07(body at 7% body fat) = 134.82lbs which would mean he could go 135lbs

 

Indiana does have a special rule where with parental permission a wrestler over 7% body fat can lose an extra 2% of their weight.  So if a wrestler is over 7% body fat and their lowest weight they could go is 126.1lbs, they could get parental permission to go down to 125lbs.

 

 

I hope that helps you understand.

[MatChick76]

I agree with you that the fat test is helpful to the sport.  My brother cut weight (w/in the guidelines) one year. He barely made it under the body fat % rules.  It was only one year where he really cut, but that year was horrible, he looked anorexic, and although he wasn't worried, I worried about his health.  It all turned out fine (I guess he knew his body better than I did), but w/out it you could end up with wrestlers with serious health issues. 

[Boot]

Thanks Y2, they started that the year after I graduated, so I never had to worry. Now that I'm back in it I'm learning all the new rules. Do they tell kids they have to gain if they're below? How often do they recheck?