NFHS data isn't flawed--but we data heads might be looking at the wrong data.

[maligned]

I've been fully behind the new weight classes from long ago because they are based on extensive research about the average number of participants nationwide in each weight class.  Even our in-state data on forfeits at sectionals have supported the NFHS data about where higher and lower participation are.

But maybe this shouldn't be the end of the story.  All this calendar year, I've kept looking at the numbers for the big national tournaments and seeing much higher numbers in the middle weights than the upper weights.  And I've kept wondering: "What's the disconnect? Why are there high school participation numbers justifying an additional weight above 160, but all these national tournaments to suggest we should remove an upper weight?"

Well, here's my theory: The wrestlers in weight classes below 171 are much more dedicated to the sport of wrestling than their upper-weight counterparts.  Think about it.  In what other sports can 130-pound kids routinely be successful?  There aren't many. (At 5'8", 165 pounds my senior year, I was the 2nd smallest kid on our varsity baseball roster.)  Meanwhile, the bigger, stronger kids are involved in all types of other sporting activities through the year.  

Here's the scenario with our new weight classes: A good team with a full practice room has 6 kids that will wrestle 126, 132, and 138 that eat, sleep, and breathe wrestling year-round.  They can run a duck-under in their sleep.  It's the only sport they care about.  The same team has 8 kids that will wrestle 182, 195, 220, and 285.  However, 6 of these kids just make 2-and-a-half month cameo appearances in the wrestling room each season.  The moment they're eliminated from sectional, they hit the weights for football or throw the discus or bat cleanup for the baseball team.  Four of the eight kids haven't heard of a duck-under.  They're not wrestling lifers--they're merely wrestling participants.

So I ask you, who deserves to have 4 weight classes instead of 3?  The collective group of 6 dedicated 12-month wrestlers that have a much higher level of skill brought on by hours of practice?  Or the 8 warm bodies that bring up the in-season participation numbers?  

For you data junkies, here's the data in full force to back me up.  Part of it is from late summer (Fargo) when there's football interference, and part of it is from March (NHSCA nationals series) when there's spring sports interference.  I've done a total 180-degree turnaround and I wish I could have put this argument together months ago.

 

Fargo % of participants per weight class for freshmen-seniors in 2010 & 2011 cadet (high-schoolers only) and junior competitions (average is 7.1%):

105 & under--7.0%

112--6.7%

119--8.3%

125--8.1%

130--8.6% (289 participants)

135--7.9%

140--8.4%

145--7.8%

152--7.8%

160--7.8%

171--6.8%

189--5.5%

215--5.1%

285--4.0% (136 participants)

 

Weight classes if evenly proportional based on Fargo participation:

105--113--119--124--129--133--137--141--146--153--160--172--199--285

 

NHSCA % of participants per weight class for freshmen-seniors in the eight 2010 & 2011 national championship events (average is 7.1%):

103--6.9%

112--8.3%

119--9.6% (384 participants)

125--8.6%

130--8.1%

135--8.0%

140--7.3%

145--7.4%

152--7.3%

160--6.9%

171--6.8%

189--5.7%

215--4.9%

285--4.2% (167 participants)

 

Weight classes if proportional based on NHSCA participation:

103--111--117--122--127--131--135--140--145--152--160--172--199--285

 

Weight classes if proportional using combined Fargo/NHSCA data.

I would call this list the "Dedicated Wrestler" weight classes:

104--112--118--123--128--132--136--141--146--152--160--172--199--285

 

New actual weight classes for this year.  I call this list the "Participation" weight classes:

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

 

And, finally, supporting both the "Dedicated" wrestlers and the "Participants" (that do have the fortitude to come out and do deserve an opportunity), here is the "Combined" list with equal weight for "Dedicated" and "Participation":

105--112--119--125--130--135--140--146--153--161--171--184--210--285

 

Does that last list look pretty familiar?  If so, it's because there's an almost identical list we've been using for years with great success.  I think we made a mistake because we data-heads missed some very important data.

 

 

 

[Y2CJ41]

Should we really cater the sport to the dedicated wrestlers?  That is one question I struggle with.  Maybe bigger guys are not as dedicated due to not having as many weight classes thus less practice partners. 

[Kurt Boyer]

I think we should. I tend to believe there is a very simple reason why the small/middle weight kids are the most likely to fall in love w/ wrestling, therefore becoming the most dedicated. They are often the same kids who got discouraged in other sports because they sat the bench, despite being the hardest workers, because they werent 6' tall and 200 lbs.

 

 

KBoyer

[aoberlin]

I think we should. I tend to believe there is a very simple reason why the small/middle weight kids are the most likely to fall in love w/ wrestling, therefore becoming the most dedicated. They are often the same kids who got discouraged in other sports because they sat the bench, despite being the hardest workers, because they werent 6' tall and 200 lbs.

 

I could not agree more.  That is supposed to be the great thing about the sport.  It doesn't matter what size you are.  I got reminded this weekend just how much I love watching the big guys just push each other around.

[KarlHungus]

I personally would have no problem with there being more middle weight classes and fewer at the top and bottom

[maligned]

Should we really cater the sport to the dedicated wrestlers?  That is one question I struggle with.  Maybe bigger guys are not as dedicated due to not having as many weight classes thus less practice partners.  

 

I'm not convinced that more weight classes will matter in that sense.  Off the top of my head, I can't remember a single varsity kid that I wrestled with that was 171 or higher that was around for pre-season conditioning from the beginning.  They all played football.  On the flip side, I can't think of a single varsity kid that wrestled below 140 that was NOT at pre-season conditioning.  

It's not so much that I'm saying we need to cater the entire sport to those that are willing to pay for all the Fargo and NHSCA trips.  It's more that I'm saying we should support the strength of the sport--which is typically the skilled kids below 171.  

 

Regarding the big boys, it's become very simple in my mind: 9 months of data about who is really training says there should only be 2 weight classes after 170 pounds.  3 months of in-season data says there should be 4 classes after 170.  Why wouldn't we at least compromise and have only 3 instead of 4?

 

With the little guys, it does seem all data suggest we bump 103 up a little.  If we consider off-season numbers at all, however, this bump should only be a pound or two--not 3.

 

 

 

[Smooth34]

Should we really cater the sport to the dedicated wrestlers? 

 

No. We should be getting more kids to wrestle, not less.  If the kids are only wrestling three months out of the year, who cares.  Isn't the object to grow the sport? 

 

Get those football players to wrestle and you won't have any problem filling out the top part of your lineup...and your football coach will thank you next season when they are better football players because of it. 

[maligned]

No. We should be getting more kids to wrestle, not less.  If the kids are only wrestling three months out of the year, who cares.  Isn't the object to grow the sport? 

 

And herein lies the issue.  No matter where we stand on this weight class issue, it says something about our philosophical perspective on who deserves the 14 opportunities on a given team.  If we believe that these 14 opportunities are primarily a tool for "growing the sport", that's one perspective.  If we're trying to have as few forfeits as possible based on current participation, that's another thing.  If we're trying to give the most opportunities possible to the kids who truly care about the sport, that's a third different perspective. 

If you read through what I wrote, I'm recommending using data that comes out in the middle of "as few forfeits as possible" and "most opportunities to kids who care."  I think this combination gives the best foundation for accomplishing our objective of growing the sport through a variety of means.

[1oldwrestler]

April 28, 2011 - Maligned:

 

Even in Indiana, the data supports the changes.  Our stretch of least-forfeited weight classes centers around 160 and 171 as the least of all.  Accompanying them, 152 and 189 were firmly in the next group of least-forfeited.  Now, instead of 4 classes in this popular 152-189 stretch, we have 5 classes from 152-195.  People keep saying we've added another 'fatty' weight class.  We haven't.  We just renamed 189 and 215 as 195 and 220.  Meanwhile, we added a weight in that crucial 152-182 range. 

Go back and read Y2's sectional forfeit data.  It supports the national data.  This isn't a 189/215 issue.  It's a 152-182 issue.

Also, people are looking at the names of weight classes prior to 145 too literally in comparison with the previous system.  The 103-145 range is all affected slightly so that there are now 8 classes instead of 9.  No one class was taken away...they all expand in range to allow more participants in each.

 

Maligned, why the change of heart?  The above post really supports the new weight classes and you seem to be backtracking a little bit.  Don't get me wrong, I support your stance now but you were all about how wonderful everything was initially.  Some of your subsequent posts to the above were making some "piece of the pie" references as to how no weight classes were taken away (had trouble following that logic).  You seem to be switching to wrestling should be there to support the truly dedicated, something I don't necessarily disagree with.  I also agree with 103 only being raised by a pound if at all, but it seems to be water under the bridge at this point.  Why keep picking at the scab if little can be done to change it?  To all of you who were silent before and now wish the new weights weren't implemented, I ask where were you when something could have been done about it?

[maligned]

You must not have read my post in full.  I'm absolutely back-tracking. 

The change in heart was from all the numbers I kept seeing for off-season events--and realizing this same thing has been going on for years.  I realized my previous stance was "we should give opportunities to the most people possible" without any consideration for the fact that all the most dedicated kids were the ones getting slighted.  I didn't have any data like I've compiled now to support an opinion with more than just emotions. 

Now that there's data for all sides, we can have serious discussions about our biases and philosophies that contribute to having a particular view.

[charger.dad]

I think that the real reason we have more kids in the middle weights is because that is where the majority of kids are at size wise. My guess would be that the average size of high school kids is probably in the 140 - 150 range. Has anyone done a study on that? There are many less 100 and 280 pound kids roamimg the halls than there are 150 pounders so it only makes sense that you would have more kids in those ranges. But in the end I think that adding the weight in the 190's and spreading the uppers out like they did was good......they just should have left the one they took away is all.....

[hammer]

To play devil's advocate a little to this post, I remember a Top 10 Warren Central team that didn't have a FB player in their lineup at all.  Hard to say that their upper weights weren't as dedicated as their lightweights and middleweights.

 

If I had my choice, I would have kept the middle weights as they were, and added the one upper weight class.  Could have eliminated most need for tie-breakers, because of the uneven number of weight classes.

[swain358]

I just wish the IHSAA would have waited one year before adopting the new weight classes. I think this would have allowed many coaches the opportunity to prepare for the change rather than throwing it out there after many coaches may have had their line ups somewhat set for this year..

[aoberlin]

You must not have read my post in full.  I'm absolutely back-tracking. 

The change in heart was from all the numbers I kept seeing for off-season events--and realizing this same thing has been going on for years.  I realized my previous stance was "we should give opportunities to the most people possible" without any consideration for the fact that all the most dedicated kids were the ones getting slighted.  I didn't have any data like I've compiled now to support an opinion with more than just emotions. 

Now that there's data for all sides, we can have serious discussions about our biases and philosophies that contribute to having a particular view.

 

I can respect someone changing his mind after getting all of the facts.  This happens far too little anymore.  It's not always a flip-flop it is more of becoming more educated and stepping back and re-evaluating.  In my opinion it is not to late to change the weight classes back if it is found necessary.  It want happen this year or maybe the next but if it is found to be flawed why not change it back?

[Y2CJ41]

By catering to the year round athletes you will be ignoring a large portion of the wrestlers and fans of the sport.

[randalllynch]

You also have to be careful using off-season data to do inferential analysis against the high school season.  Since most wrestlers don't wrestle the same weights in the ISWA season as they do in the IHSAA season your analysis could off.  Also, the ISWA season is more or less individual in nature with where as the IHSAA season has a team perspective with individuals moving up and down to keep a team competitive (and also wrestlers looking for a spot in the varsity line-up).

[maligned]

By catering to the year round athletes you will be ignoring a large portion of the wrestlers and fans of the sport.

 

Again, I'm definitely not saying we cater only to the year-round athlete.  There have been many multi-sport wrestlers that have gone on to be good college wrestlers.  I'm saying we should consider the 9 months of the off-season in the equation for how our 14 opportunities per team should be allotted when the new opportunity shift is happening directly into the weight area of kids that aren't doing much year-round.

 

You also have to be careful using off-season data to do inferential analysis against the high school season.  Since most wrestlers don't wrestle the same weights in the ISWA season as they do in the IHSAA season your analysis could off.  Also, the ISWA season is more or less individual in nature with where as the IHSAA season has a team perspective with individuals moving up and down to keep a team competitive (and also wrestlers looking for a spot in the varsity line-up).

 

Absolutely right...it is not a perfect method for deciding weight classes.  However, the issue being brought out in the data is almost entirely about the big boys.  The off-season data says there should be only 2 weight classes after 172 pounds--at about 199 and 285.  This is consistent data pulled from 12 national championships from the last 2 seasons.  It's a shocking contrast to the NFHS in-season data that says we should have 4 weight classes after 170.

[maligned]

I think that the real reason we have more kids in the middle weights is because that is where the majority of kids are at size wise. My guess would be that the average size of high school kids is probably in the 140 - 150 range. Has anyone done a study on that? There are many less 100 and 280 pound kids roamimg the halls than there are 150 pounders so it only makes sense that you would have more kids in those ranges. But in the end I think that adding the weight in the 190's and spreading the uppers out like they did was good......they just should have left the one they took away is all.....

 

Yes, the NFHS study is the whole reason the weights changed.  They did extensive data analysis to determine that the new weights would distribute participants evenly through 14 classes.  My rebuttal here is talking about the off-season data that says their study isn't the only data available.

[Smooth34]

I just wish the IHSAA would have waited one year before adopting the new weight classes. I think this would have allowed many coaches the opportunity to prepare for the change rather than throwing it out there after many coaches may have had their line ups somewhat set for this year..

 

How do you prepare for the change in weight classes?

[bbulldog152]

I just wish the IHSAA would have waited one year before adopting the new weight classes. I think this would have allowed many coaches the opportunity to prepare for the change rather than throwing it out there after many coaches may have had their line ups somewhat set for this year..

 

I think most coaches had an idea that they were going to change plus they had an entire summer to prepare.

[GrecoCoach]

Maligned,

 

I have a serious problem with you calling multi-sport athletes "not dedicated".  I have found many of them to be the hardest workers and most enthusiastic about wrestling.  It is difficult for them to go from one sport into the next, usually without any break or time off.  They are "in season" up to 9 months out of the year!  Whether they have a successful football season or a disappointing one, they always come into the wrestling season with a very positive attitude about thier potential for the new wrestling season.  It is unfair to simply dismiss them because they are not allowed to take a couple of weeks off from football (and/or spend the money) to go to national tournaments through the summer.  Some of them still come in for occassional open rooms and off-season wrestling workouts when they have the time.  In my mind, they are still dedicated to wrestling even while they are participating in other sports.

[maligned]

Maligned,

 

I have a serious problem with you calling multi-sport athletes "not dedicated".  I have found many of them to be the hardest workers and most enthusiastic about wrestling.  It is difficult for them to go from one sport into the next, usually without any break or time off.  They are "in season" up to 9 months out of the year!  Whether they have a successful football season or a disappointing one, they always come into the wrestling season with a very positive attitude about thier potential for the new wrestling season.  It is unfair to simply dismiss them because they are not allowed to take a couple of weeks off from football (and/or spend the money) to go to national tournaments through the summer.  Some of them still come in for occassional open rooms and off-season wrestling workouts when they have the time.  In my mind, they are still dedicated to wrestling even while they are participating in other sports.

 

I agree with you.  I was a 2 or 3-sport guy every year of high school.  I would never say kids doing other sports are "not dedicated."  I'm only wanting to make the point that we may have been too quick to ignore the fact that the kids that are the most focused specifically on wrestling are the ones losing an opportunity with the new weight classes.  The more I studied data from all the year-round tournaments from different months and locations, the more I was convinced that the middle weights and lower weights have more kids that live and breathe wrestling.  

With this knowledge in hand, I'm merely raising the question: "Can there not be a way that we incorporate off-season focus and dedication to this specific sport into our analysis of where our 14 opportunities are distributed?"

Research in every field--sports, music, computer programming, science, everything--shows that the best individuals are the ones that have the most hours of experience under their belts.  This is certainly true in wrestling.  Our most skilled kids are more often (not always of course) going to be below 160 pounds because of the year-round work.

Can we not compromise between our off-season data and our in-season data to reach a reasonable distribution of opportunities that reflects both data sets--not just one?

[swain358]

Well when you have 6 returning starters now fighting for 5 spots, you would have one of those guys prepare for dropping down to a weight that they did not plan on getting down to. As a coach it is tough to bump a guy out of the line up who is a returning starter, who has wrestled all spring and summer, and is committed to the sport so we can add another upper weight class in for the football kid that wrestles for 3 months of the year. I know I am not the only coach that has this problem but I guess it would have soften the blow if we waited a year to implement the weight changes. Maybe I am just being selfish as a die hard wrestling fan and coach.

[Smooth34]

Well when you have 6 returning starters now fighting for 5 spots, you would have one of those guys prepare for dropping down to a weight that they did not plan on getting down to. As a coach it is tough to bump a guy out of the line up who is a returning starter, who has wrestled all spring and summer, and is committed to the sport so we can add another upper weight class in for the football kid that wrestles for 3 months of the year. I know I am not the only coach that has this problem but I guess it would have soften the blow if we waited a year to implement the weight changes. Maybe I am just being selfish as a die hard wrestling fan and coach.

 

When were the new weight classes announced?  6 months ago?  That's not enough time for a kid to start dropping the weight needed? 

[1oldwrestler]

Regarding focusing more attention on the "committed wrestler" (those that focus all energies on the sport), how do the other individual sports (swimming, tennis, golf) manage to survive when, I would guess, 98% of the fans watching their events are parents and relatives?  I've seen it mentioned several times on this website that wrestling has to appeal to a wider audience as one of the primary ways to get the sport  to grow.  Do those other sports worry as much as we do about drawing in the casual fan?  My guess is no.  Those sports are also a little more snobby (sorry if I have offended anyone) and maybe enjoy the exclusivity the sport.  Maybe we should have that attitude as well instead of having such an inferiority complex about being the "ugly girl at the dance."  I can see it now, right next to the Jim's Wrestling Supply stand there will be a brie and wine stand.  Imagine the possibilities.