TrojanPride Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 All I am saying is that we have a responsibility to make sure there is a weight class for almost every boy that is in HS. This is all there is to it. You need a weight class where almost everyone can compete. Now we all understand that weights are distributed in a bell-shaped curve. If you want an equal number of wrestlers in each weight class, then you have to make the classes near the ends of the curve wider. The question at hand is at what point is this unfair to the smaller wrestlers. Can a 95 lb kids compete with 106 lb kids? In my opinion they definitely can. That's only 12% of their body weight more. While that may sound like a lot to you, consider that we are already asking 216 pounders to compete with kids weighing 32% more than their body weight. It seems the heavyweights are the one's who are being ignored. I support the new weight classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's true that we can often manipulate numbers. However, in this case, I think the numbers are useful. The years of research show that if we adjust the weights to the proposal mentioned at the beginning of this thread, we will INCLUDE more wrestlers because more wrestlers fall in these weights. Why does the smallest guy get favoritism over all the larger kids that don't have the same opportunities? Right now, there are FAR more forfeits nationally at 103 than any other weight and the research shows we will give the most possible opportunities for participation by making an adjustment. Why would we not do this? Whether we change or whether we keep the weights the same, we're cutting some opportunities somewhere. It's not a matter of neglecting the little guy. It's simply this: Why would we leave it the same and continue to cut more opportunities than if we changed? Would you agree that the next highest number of forfeits occurs at 112 nationally? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here but if the NFHS is truly concerned about getting the most kids the most opportunities in our sport they really need to do away with 103 and 112 altogether and go with a weight class starting at 120 or so and ending at 190. Doesn't the NFHS proposal kind of get rid of a mid range weight class and add something towards the higher end? How is that making the sport better by adding another weight class for guys that have difficulty executing wrestling moves as they're intended? I know this is based on "years of research" but help me here. Is every proposal put forth by the NFHS supported by everyone on this board? If not, why? I would imagine that everything they propose is backed by years and years of research and that is all that is required to make a proposal good, at least that is what I'm reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv2112 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Would you agree that the next highest number of forfeits occurs at 112 nationally? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here but if the NFHS is truly concerned about getting the most kids the most opportunities in our sport they really need to do away with 103 and 112 altogether and go with a weight class starting at 120 or so and ending at 190. Doesn't the NFHS proposal kind of get rid of a mid range weight class and add something towards the higher end? How is that making the sport better by adding another weight class for guys that have difficulty executing wrestling moves as they're intended? I know this is based on "years of research" but help me here. Is every proposal put forth by the NFHS supported by everyone on this board? If not, why? I would imagine that everything they propose is backed by years and years of research and that is all that is required to make a proposal good, at least that is what I'm reading. I had not put much thought into the upper weights, but now that you forced that upon me, the change at the upper weights does not really reflect my limited personal observations. I don't really see that this new weight class scheme will eliminate forfeits at 285 and it could actually increase them by making the next lowest weight class more reachable for guys that would consider cutting a little weight. A question I would pose to an NFHS person would be "Are the data sets used based upon actual weights of wrestlers or actual weights of the the general student population?" Also, questions for those interested . . . Do you think raising the 103 up will result in some kids leaving the sport? Do you think the changes to the upper weights will retain more kids in the sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv2112 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I would love two *exemption* weight classes in wrestling: a 103 lbs. and Unlimited (285+). Both these weights would be forfeit exempt in a dual meet if a team failed to have a contestant. They also would be exempted from team scoring in a tournament. NFHS would never, ever go for this, although. You are right, that probably wouldn't work. What about JV only weight classes? Could that be done? Not everyone follows NFHS guidelines. New York still has a 98 lb class, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Would you agree that the next highest number of forfeits occurs at 112 nationally? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here but if the NFHS is truly concerned about getting the most kids the most opportunities in our sport they really need to do away with 103 and 112 altogether and go with a weight class starting at 120 or so and ending at 190. Doesn't the NFHS proposal kind of get rid of a mid range weight class and add something towards the higher end? How is that making the sport better by adding another weight class for guys that have difficulty executing wrestling moves as they're intended? I know this is based on "years of research" but help me here. Is every proposal put forth by the NFHS supported by everyone on this board? If not, why? I would imagine that everything they propose is backed by years and years of research and that is all that is required to make a proposal good, at least that is what I'm reading. To be clear, the data was collected by taking every wrestler's weight in the entire country during the preseason fat fold tests. Then, weights were adjusted downward based on where each wrestler would be allowed to cut weight to get to under the weight control program. Finally, weights were distributed evenly into 14 groups so that the most possible kids could potentially participate. In other words, 1oldwrestler, you're thinking of things too literally. No weight classes are being thrown out or kept. No weight classes were considered at all. Rather, all wrestlers were weighed, and then all wrestlers were distributed as evenly as possible across 14 divisions. Finally, the bottom 2 or 3 newly created weight classes were adjusted downward slightly so as not to have as drastic of changes as the data suggested there should be. In the end, it has nothing to do with which particular weights need to be thrown out--it's all about creating 14 classes where the most possible kids can participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 To be clear, the data was collected by taking every wrestler's weight in the entire country during the preseason fat fold tests. Then, weights were adjusted downward based on where each wrestler would be allowed to cut weight to get to under the weight control program. Finally, weights were distributed evenly into 14 groups so that the most possible kids could potentially participate. In other words, 1oldwrestler, you're thinking of things too literally. No weight classes are being thrown out or kept. No weight classes were considered at all. Rather, all wrestlers were weighed, and then all wrestlers were distributed as evenly as possible across 14 divisions. Finally, the bottom 2 or 3 newly created weight classes were adjusted downward slightly so as not to have as drastic of changes as the data suggested there should be. In the end, it has nothing to do with which particular weights need to be thrown out--it's all about creating 14 classes where the most possible kids can participate. I understand and yes I'm being too literal (just ask my kids) and I realize they aren't "doing away with" any weight classes but trying to evenly distribute but making more options available at the higher end really has me baffled. What would be the problem with going to 15 weight classes? I understand that it will make the small schools upset because they have a problem filling the 14 we have now but, as I've seen on other threads, that would really reduce criteria being used to determine the outcomes of duals in the event of 7/7 ties. As I've said, I do have a bias here as I have a 75 pound 13 year old (and he has a fall birthday if you can believe that) so I'd just as soon see the weights left alone but such is progress I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstemv81 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I accept maligned's point about evenly distributing the weights across 14 classes with little regard to the actual weights. But the practical effect of the proposed change is that 135 and 140 are combined into 138, while 189 is split into 182 and 195. Dropping a middle weight to gain an upper weight. I'm surprised that there are that many 190 lb. guys walking the halls compared to 140. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I accept maligned's point about evenly distributing the weights across 14 classes with little regard to the actual weights. But the practical effect of the proposed change is that 135 and 140 are combined into 138, while 189 is split into 182 and 195. Dropping a middle weight to gain an upper weight. I'm surprised that there are that many 190 lb. guys walking the halls compared to 140. Again, it's not as simple as, "take one here so we can add one here." It's more like all weights are bumped up slightly like this: 103 becomes 106, 112 becomes 113, 119 becomes 120, 125 becomes 126, 130 becomes 132, 135 becomes 138, 140 becomes 145, 145 becomes 152, 152 becomes 160, 160 becomes 170, 171 becomes 182, 189 becomes 195, 215 becomes 220, and 285 stays the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstemv81 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I understand completely, the changes are ever so slight at the lower end. The differences become much more noticeable as 145 becomes 152 and 152 becomes 160. Somewhere along the way one weight disappeared down the rabbit hole. Taking this year's Castle team as an example, with the state champ Welch brothers at 152 and 160. Assuming they aren't happy to bump up to 160 and 170(!) and stay put, that means that somewhere in between 135, 140 and 145 there are going to be some vicious challenge matches to hold on to a varsity spot. #*@&!! Then, if Castle's 189 bumped up to 195 they'd have to find another decent kid to fill the brand new spot at 182, or if their 189 dropped to 182, they'd have to find somebody for the new 195. I'm not sure the bell curve concept works out so great for smaller schools - they would have problems at the top end of this curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Careful, the nfhs has years and years of research and stats backing them up. This weight change proposal cannot be challenged. Regardless of who is disenfranchised by this proposal, it is good for the sport for sure. though wouldnt it be funny if the change caused more problems than it fixed? But thats crazy talk because of the years of stats that have been collected regarding this issue and the obvious logic that stems from stats and research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv2112 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Careful, the nfhs has years and years of research and stats backing them up. This weight change proposal cannot be challenged. Regardless of who is disenfranchised by this proposal, it is good for the sport for sure. though wouldnt it be funny if the change caused more problems than it fixed? But thats crazy talk because of the years of stats that have been collected regarding this issue and the obvious logic that stems from stats and research. Should they contact an astrologer? Look for some sign from a random selection of small animal bones and tea leaves? How do you propose the weight class distribution be reviewed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer91 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 im goin with kfc! wish they woulda had those weight classes this yr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Should they contact an astrologer? Look for some sign from a random selection of small animal bones and tea leaves? How do you propose the weight class distribution be reviewed? Id leave the weights where they are. Blasphemous I know as I am suggestung the nfhs proposal be ignored. I think ill change my screen name to heretic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What weight classes will New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa be using? They are clearly the top states for HS wrestling and I am just curious on the way they are heading on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrecoCoach Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What weight classes will New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa be using? They are clearly the top states for HS wrestling and I am just curious on the way they are heading on this. If the National Federation votes to change to these weight classes, then probably all states will implement them at the same time. Individual states can make minor changes, though. When 215 was first added, not all states had it at first. Also New York has recently had 98 pounds, but I don't know if they still do. USAWrestling would probably change its weight classes to align with these, as well. Not guaranteed, but likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv2112 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Id leave the weights where they are. Blasphemous I know as I am suggestung the nfhs proposal be ignored. I think ill change my screen name to heretic. No change was what was chosen last year. It could still be the choice this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 No change was what was chosen last year. It could still be the choice this time. No change tied with Choice B last year (out of A, B, C) in the voting. So the National Federation decided to not change anything and try again with Choice B this year. So now we have the old Choice B or no change to pick between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBjj171 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I like the thought of having another weight class at the higher weights. We had linemen from our football team filling 152-hwt (me included). I dropped 35 pounds my senior year to wrestle 160.wasn't exactly healthy. You cut the weight gap of 18lbs from 171-189 and the 26lb jump to 215 and you'll have exciting matches because you won't have linemen and linebackers not cutting as much and finding a more natural weight to keep muscle and speed. It's the same as having a jump from 112 to 128 (13% of their body mass) with no intermediate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyshred Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 When again is the NFHS decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 alot of good points here, from both sides of the fence......in the end, the changes that are being proposed, in my opinion, won't make all that great of an impact on who wrestles and who doesn't, who is good and who isn't and ultimately, who the state champs are......the kids who are really into wrestling and put the time into it, are the ones who will have the most success, in most cases.......great discussion of everyones thoughts going on here...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaiah11 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Hey why cant we let 8th graders participate with high school, wouldn't this increase the numbers in the lower weight classes. I know there are other states that do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeinandout Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I think having 182, 195, and 220 is crazy. Take a look at our 215 champ and runner-up. Reese weighs 190 and Cooper weighs 189. Many would say they are 182 pounders. Being undersized at the higher weights didn't hurt them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I think having 182, 195, and 220 is crazy. Take a look at our 215 champ and runner-up. Reese weighs 190 and Cooper weighs 189. Many would say they are 182 pounders. Being undersized at the higher weights didn't hurt them at all. I don't think that's a good example, especially in Reece's case. His team had a kid at 189 that I don't think he could beat out. If anything, the fact that one school has 2 of the top 5 kids in the state in the same upper weight class is as good of an argument for having more weight classes for the bigger guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeinandout Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I don't think that's a good example, especially in Reece's case. His team had a kid at 189 that I don't think he could beat out. If anything, the fact that one school has 2 of the top 5 kids in the state in the same upper weight class is as good of an argument for having more weight classes for the bigger guys. My point is why add more weight classes up top when 189 pounders do quite well at 215(probably do better than they would have at 189). Your argument isn't a very good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 ok....lets really mess it up now......how about doing like the ufc did back when they first started?.......no weight classes......best man wins no matter what you weigh......i seem to recall a 180 pounder whipping some BIG BOYS......lol......that was crazy......everyone thought those big guys couldn't be beat by someone smaller like royce gracie......man did he show us all something.......size isn't everything......quite obviously this could never be done at our high school level (and i'm not suggesting we do), but if it did, who would come out on top?......oh yeah , we're gonna make the rear naked choke legal now too......lol.....gotta give the little guys something to equalize the size diff......lol.....i don't think any of the 103's could ever take a heavyweight but i bet there are some 152's and 160's that could........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts