NFHS member is informally looking for opinions on weight classes

[AJ]

Option A:

110,119,125,131,136,141,146,152,159,167,177,192,216,285

 

Option B:

106,113,120,126,132,138,145,152,160,170,182,195,220,285

 

Option C:

107,115,122,128,134,140,146,152,159,167,177,192,216,285

 

Option D:

No changes to current weight classes

 

The NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee will be meeting in April. The decision on the weight classes is on the agenda. The decision will be difficult. Many people say they would like to see changes made in the weight classes. However, when you start trying to actually come up with 14 weights (we agreed in principle to keep the number of weight classes the same) that everyone can agree upon is nearly impossible. I WOULD like to hear from the members of the IndianaMat community what your thoughts are on the four proposals (keeping the current weights is an option in addition to the three proposals). Please give your reasons for your support of the various options.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave Cloud

Member, NFHS Rules Committee

[infowrestling]

AJ,

 

Does Mr. Cloud want us to voice our opinions through this thread, or is there an email address that we should send our opinions to? 

[Dave Cloud]

Community Members,

 

I think it would benefit everyone to have the toughts posted for all to read. However, if you have specific questions, a more lenghty response, or a desire for more privacy please feel free to contact me at my school e-mail address:

 

dcloud@smadison.k12.in.us

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[infowrestling]

Dave,  if a change was made would it apply to the 2010-2011 season, or would it be the following?

[Dave Cloud]

Also, I need to point out, this is not the NFHS officially requesting this input. I am seeking the information for my own benefit for when we enter discussions and voting at the meeting. I feel the more I hear from the Indiana wrestling community the more informed a decision I can make.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[SlickRodz]

I would like to see a change. The upper weight classes have an extremely large jump from class to class. 171 to 189 (18lbs) and 189 to 215 (26lbs) is too much. All of the changes allow for an additional class to close these gaps. I would prefer the option that starts at 106lbs. This is less drastic for the lower weights.

[Dave Cloud]

If the NFHS votes to change the weight classes the earliest it would be done is for the 2011-2012 season.

[MattM]

I again believe B to be the best option.  

 

It increase 103 slightly but without making a huge jump.  This will help fill that weight class more but will not hurt some of the smaller member of the wrestling community.

 

It keeps a good even gap between the middle weight which we need since that is where most of the wrestling community is weight wise.

 

It distributes the upper weights better and add less of a gap at the end. This benifits the bigger guys who already are spaced much father appart than that rest.

[HCCOACH]

Dave,

 

I would like to see the weight  classes stay the same. No change.

 

 

Nick Petrov

 

Hanover Central Wrestling

[tspray1]

No change.

 

Would like to see Nick stay the same too

[cbarnett]

I'm for "D"... no change, but if we changed I would go with Option B.

[Kurt Boyer]

Dave,

 

You know me........Ive never been much for change regardless the subject.

 

So, my first choice would be "D".........no change.

 

However, if the NFHS decides to change the wt classes, and I had to choose,  I would go with option "B". The positives seem to be it keeps the first wt class lower (106) and the 13th wt class higher (220) than the others. My only criticism of the current wt classes is the middle wt classes (125-145)  only being 5lbs apart.

 

KBoyer

[edb41]

Ask me next year when my younger son is in 8th grade.  ;D

[GCAC]

If the above listed choices are the only options, I vote for B. (no change).  The other 3 options all have the weight classes moving upward. 160 has been the 10th weight. It would now be the 9th weight, moving weights upward. We do not need to take a weight class away from the middle, where  the best wrestling and most of the best athletes are , and add an upper weight where a large share of the kids are less athletic, and in many cases, fat and overweight to begin with. 

 

I have coached for three decades, and we have always had between 40% and 50% of our roster between 119 and 160. Any of the new options would eliminate an opportunity for half of our roster to wrestle varsity.

 

I believe an ideal solution would be to leave the weights the same with two exceptions: Move 103 to 106 and add a 15th weight class at 180. This would allow more sophomores and juniors a chance to wrestle at the lowest weight, and eliminate the large gap between 171 and 189. This would also have the added benefit of eliminating most ties in dual meets.

 

As for the gap between 215 and 285, let's remember, not all heavyweights weigh 285.  If the large gap is a safety issue, then let's  cut the limit down to 265.  Ninety-nine % of 16 or 17 year old kids who weigh 285 have sufficient body fat to easily cut 20 pounds.  This might improve the quality of wrestling at heavyweight, and would certainly be healthier for the kid, not having to carry around an extra 20 pounds of fat.  If a middle weight can cut 10-15 pounds,  then a heavyweight can easily cut 20 and still be 12-15 % body fat.

[fearless fly]

Option D

[meto]

If the above listed choices are the only options, I vote for B. (no change).  The other 3 options all have the weight classes moving upward. 160 has been the 10th weight. It would now be the 9th weight, moving weights upward. We do not need to take a weight class away from the middle, where  the best wrestling and most of the best athletes are , and add an upper weight where a large share of the kids are less athletic, and in many cases, fat and overweight to begin with. 

 

I have coached for three decades, and we have always had between 40% and 50% of our roster between 119 and 160. Any of the new options would eliminate an opportunity for half of our roster to wrestle varsity.

 

I believe an ideal solution would be to leave the weights the same with two exceptions: Move 103 to 106 and add a 15th weight class at 180. This would allow more sophomores and juniors a chance to wrestle at the lowest weight, and eliminate the large gap between 171 and 189. This would also have the added benefit of eliminating most ties in dual meets.

 

As for the gap between 215 and 285, let's remember, not all heavyweights weigh 285.  If the large gap is a safety issue, then let's  cut the limit down to 265.  Ninety-nine % of 16 or 17 year old kids who weigh 285 have sufficient body fat to easily cut 20 pounds.  This might improve the quality of wrestling at heavyweight, and would certainly be healthier for the kid, not having to carry around an extra 20 pounds of fat.  If a middle weight can cut 10-15 pounds,  then a heavyweight can easily cut 20 and still be 12-15 % body fat.

i like this one

 

[Coach Brown]

 

Personally, I would like to see them stay the same. However, option  B is the best suited for our program. This past season we filled every weight class with the exception of 103 due to the fact that the kid that was going to wrestle 103 never got eligble to wrestle we has several kids between 135-145. I think that the change is going to happen in the 2011-2012 season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave Cloud]

Please keep it coming. Again, I want to hear your reasons for your preference. If you just say which option you prefer it doesn't add much to the discussion. When we get to this issue at the committee meeting, it will come down to who has the most persuasive argument.

 

Thanks for giving me your thoughts!

 

Dave

[hammer]

Option A:

110,119,125,131,136,141,146,152,159,167,177,192,216,285

 

Option B:

106,113,120,126,132,138,145,152,160,170,182,195,220,285

 

Option C:

107,115,122,128,134,140,146,152,159,167,177,192,216,285

 

Option D:

No changes to current weight classes

 

The NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee will be meeting in April. The decision on the weight classes is on the agenda. The decision will be difficult. Many people say they would like to see changes made in the weight classes. However, when you start trying to actually come up with 14 weights (we agreed in principle to keep the number of weight classes the same) that everyone can agree upon is nearly impossible. I WOULD like to hear from the members of the IndianaMat community what your thoughts are on the four proposals (keeping the current weights is an option in addition to the three proposals). Please give your reasons for your support of the various options.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave Cloud

Member, NFHS Rules Committee

 

I can see positives in all of the 3 options, but I would lean toward choosing B, because it is the only option with a weight class in the 180s and the 190s, which I think you can find a lot of athletes at all sizes of schools to fill those weights.  Moving up 103 will help the class be filled more often.  It will also encourage smaller kids to allow their bodies to grow, rather than stunt their growth potential to stay lighter.  There are also good reasons for having a weight class lighter than 215, but heavier than 189.  189s that wrestle in college tend to be 184s, not 197s.  It would be good to have a weight class closer to 197 in HS to help prepare kids around that size for a college weight. 

[2x state qualifier]

I can see positives in all of the 3 options, but I would lean toward choosing B, because it is the only option with a weight class in the 180s and the 190s, which I think you can find a lot of athletes at all sizes of schools to fill those weights.  Moving up 103 will help the class be filled more often.  It will also encourage smaller kids to allow their bodies to grow, rather than stunt their growth potential to stay lighter.  There are also good reasons for having a weight class lighter than 215, but heavier than 189.  189s that wrestle in college tend to be 184s, not 197s.  It would be good to have a weight class closer to 197 in HS to help prepare kids around that size for a college weight. 

 

Option B is much more suitable due to 103's having anywhere from 1/3 to 3/5 their matches forfeits in the season this would reduce that by a large portion. Also I agree with what Hammer says about college 197 the goal of high school is perparing for college right? So why not build there for helping that fact. With suck large gaps between 171-189 alot of really good guys get out muscled by 189 pounders because they cant make 171 but arent big enough for 189

e.g weighing 178-180 to big but to small.

Plan B is best suited for High School wrestling right now and for later on

[Matchu Rat-tat-tay]

A or B!!

 

So i can wrestle 138 or 141 for next year. Won't have to cut as much weight muahahaha.  ;D

 

But then again....i might end up cutting to 134 or 136.....   :'(

 

HAHA

[Coach Hartman]

Dave,

 

My worry is that we are going to take away opportunities for the smaller kids.  I realize that kids are getting bigger these days but we are truly one of the only sports left that a small kid can compete in.  Big kids dominate in Football, Basketball, Baseball and even Swimming and Soccer -anymore kids have to be bigger.  I hate for us to get rid of a weight class under 140 when the basis of this sport for many of us was that we were the small kid that needed the sport of wrestling.  I forfeited 103 at sectionals, but I have an 8th grader who could be pretty good and weighs 79 pounds. 

I know we won't get 15 weights but I really hate seeing us lose a weight class below 140.

 

I vote "D" keep it the same.

 

Al Hartman

South Bend Clay

[fire77]

I like Plan A. At that weight there should be alot less forfeits. At 103 only 4 % of the wrestlers ( in another Thread) were seniors which leads ME to believe the weight made it very hard to reach in a healthy manner.  IMO a high school sport should not by design eliminate participants just because they are 4 years older. I dont know how many seniors that were 103 as freshman could make 106, 107, or 110 but I believe it would be close to 10 %- 12 % which would be more in line with other weight classes in the other thread.

[Jim Wadkins / Calumet]

Dave,

 

Historically, we have always had a much tougher time fielding "Big Guys" ( 171-285 ) at Calumet. I know things tend to run in cycles over time, but we have always been sparse down low and up high with a logjam in the middle weights. We feel real comfortable with the weights the way they are right now (#D). If I insert this year's squad into these new weights, one of my two best kids (SQ @ 130) has to bump up a weight in order for me to get all of my seniors in the lineup and I end up having two "soft" weights at 160-170. Skewing things toward the middle weights seems to be the best idea to me. I also like to keep the little guys involved...we are the only place where some of them ever get a chance to shine. Leave the weights the same as they were!!

 

Jim Wadkins

[NickS]

Dave,

 

I posted some numbers in another thread, but I figured they would definitely benefit this discussion.  I tabulated them, by hand, from the sectional brackets posted on this website (http://www.indianamat.com/2010-ihsaa-wrestling-sectional-brackets/2010/01/).  So I'll leave it up to you to decide how much emphasis to put on them.

 

This is the particpation % for all the weight classes at sectionals for Indiana...  For example, 103 was being filled at 72.6% for sectionals.  Which means, it was forfeited by 27.4% of all schools in Indiana.  Over one-quarter of Indiana teams couldn't even field at 103 lber.

 

[table]

103

[table]

72.6%[/table]

112

[table]

77.7%[/table]

119

[table]

84.2%[/table]

125

[table]

82.3%[/table]

130

[table]

86.8%[/table]

135

[table]

90.3%[/table]

140

[table]

91.3%[/table]

145

[table]

92.3%[/table]

152

[table]

88.7%[/table]

160

[table]

89.4%[/table]

171

[table]

91.3%[/table]

189

[table]

89.0%[/table]

215

[table]

86.8%[/table]

285

[table]

87.4%[/table][/table]

 

These next set of numbers shows the grade average for each weight class...  I wasn't able to account for everyone, because not every sectional bracket had the grade for the wrestler in it.  So using 103 as an example again, I was able to account for 197 grades for that weight class.  Of those 197, 55.8% of them were freshmen, 28.4% were sophomores, 11.7% were juniors, and only 4.1% were seniors.

 

[table]

Weight Class

[table]

Grades Accounted For

9th

10th

11th

12th

[/table]

103

[table]

197[/table]

[table]

55.8%28.4%11.7%4.1%[/table]

112

[table]

208[/table]

[table]

38.0%35.1%19.2%7.7%[/table]

119

[table]

224[/table]

[table]

29.5%29.5%21.9%19.2%[/table]

125

[table]

222[/table]

[table]

23.0%30.2%24.3%22.5%[/table]

130

[table]

236[/table]

[table]

24.2%25.4%25.4%25.0%[/table]

135

[table]

239[/table]

[table]

18.0%23.4%31.8%26.8%[/table]

140

[table]

248[/table]

[table]

14.9%25.8%27.8%31.5%[/table]

145

[table]

249[/table]

[table]

12.9%25.3%27.7%34.1%[/table]

152

[table]

241[/table]

[table]

10.0%27.0%34.0%29.0%[/table]

160

[table]

239[/table]

[table]

15.5%18.0%29.7%36.8%[/table]

171

[table]

244[/table]

[table]

12.3%20.9%29.1%37.7%[/table]

189

[table]

244[/table]

[table]

13.9%15.2%30.3%40.6%[/table]

215

[table]

235[/table]

[table]

8.9%20.4%36.6%34.0%[/table]

285

[table]

234[/table]

[table]

9.0%21.8%32.5%36.8%[/table]

[/table]

 

For what it's worth, I originally put these numbers together to show the disparity between 103 (and 112 to a lesser degree) to the rest of the weight classes.

 

Now, getting to the debate on which weight class option to choose...  Just to be let it known, first off.  My choice was basically derived off of what I saw from the first 4 or 5 weight classes in each option.  The reason why is because each of the middle and upper weights are being filled at around 90%.  With the data that I tabulated, it appears that none of the options would really have a negative effect on the participation rates for those wrestlers, in my opinion.

 

I eliminate Option D (no change) as a choice because I feel 103 has to be tinkered with somehow.  Judging from the numbers above, not only is it being forfeited at a high rate, it's also being filled with underclassmen mostly.  Which indicates to me that it's a "fill in" or "plug in" weight class, with many schools having very little depth behind the varsity wrestler.

 

Option A is interesting, because it looks like your basically combining together 103 and 112.  I feel this is too extreme of a move though, because there are still enough wrestlers out there for 2 lower weight classes.  Furthermore, I feel the gap between 110 and 119 is too big.  So I eliminate Option A.

 

So it boils down to either Option B or C...

 

In option B, for the first 4 weight classes, outside of 103 going to 106, there really isn't much change compared to the current lower weights.  Basically all your going to see is wrestlers going from 103 to 106.  You'll have your 112 tweeners choosing between 106 and 113.  Then, you'll have your 119 lbers go to 120 and 125 lbers go to 126.  You're going to see an increase in participation at 106, but a decrease at 113.  So it's a wash really, in my mind.

 

What I like about Option C is that you bump up the lightweight to 107.  I believe anyone that can wrestle 103, can wrestle 107.  You'll then, have your 112 tweeners choosing between 107 and 115.  Then you'll have your 119 tweeners choosing between 115 and 122, and the same for the 125 tweeners between 122 and 128.  After that, the numbers above, suggest that the middle and upper weight classes will work themselves out.

 

So I'm going with Option C as my pick!!!