timbo Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 We hosted a JV tournament at Fishers yesterday with 13 teams. At 132 we had 24 wrestlers and at 138 we had 22 wrestlers. At 182 we had 7 wrestlers. What have been other experiences? I do not think they took into acount how many bigger football players just do not wrestle anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnobbe Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I am certain it will very from team to team and from year to year. We have 30 kids out and only a few subs between 120 and 132, have only two subs from 138-160, have 6 182 lbers, and have 4 195lbers. We hosted two JV meets a couple weeks back and had two teams bring 4 and 5 heavyweights apiece and both had only a sprinkling of lower weights. Again, team to team and year to year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bharmon01 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Can't believe this thread has not had more hits. From what I have seen through the first half of the season is most kids are in the middle weights. A lot of the Varsity and JV teams in the meets we have been at the middle weights are full of kids and from 190 up are weak. Its just like 1995 when they changed the weights - it hurt wrestling more than it helped. I hope re-evaluate this and make changes that are good for our sport. We have alot of kids 126-145 not getting to wrestle, while only a few kids are 190 - Hwt. When you go to most meets only the #1 or #2 kid at 126-145 are getting to wrestle and on the jv only few 190-hwt kids get matches. There are alot of kids from 126-145 who may or may not wrestle at all if its a dual meet or dual meet tournament. Why go to practice everyday if you don't get to wrestle? I hope we address this as an association and make changes like we did in 1995. The changes in 1995 made no sense and the changes this season make no sense. I fear we are going to lose alot of good kids if a change is not made. In my opinion this is not good for wrestling. Just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaltHarris Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I've been retired from coaching for many years, so my view is from the stands and occasionally I officiate. The new weights are harmful to wrestling. Too many good wrestlers on jv because of fewer middle weights and too many novice wrestlers on varsity at the upper weights. Bob, I agree about the 1995 weights. What a disaster that was! I hope this is a one year deal also. Go to a freestyle Tournament where hardcore wrestlers show up. There will be 10 kids at 145 and 2 kids at 215. Indiana coaches need to smack their NFHS rep upside the head (figuratively) and get back the previous classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Hartman Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 This helped out Clay wrestling this year. We have some great kids from 170-Hwt. I have a JV 195 that hasn't lost a JV match in 2 years but can't break into the line-up. But I think the changes are bad for wrestling. Most of the time the upper-weights are just big kids that don't know much about wrestling and the lower weights are the kids that have been wrestling since they were young. Cutting out a weight from 125 to 140 was not the answer. Maybe adding a weight up high and keeping the lower ones would have been best. I would love to go back to the old weights even though it would hurt my team. Penn High School is a great example Varner starts at 132, Ginter at 138 and Manspeaker at 145. The kids also on their team between 132-145 Mammolenti- multiple triple crown winner and National titles, Rhinehart -state finalist last year as a freshman at 130, Osborne -many kids state titles, and I'm sure their are many others I am forgetting to mention. This is a consistent problem with many teams this year. Sorry I just agree with Coach Harmon that this is not good for wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 This helped out Clay wrestling this year. We have some great kids from 170-Hwt. I have a JV 195 that hasn't lost a JV match in 2 years but can't break into the line-up. But I think the changes are bad for wrestling. Most of the time the upper-weights are just big kids that don't know much about wrestling and the lower weights are the kids that have been wrestling since they were young. Cutting out a weight from 125 to 140 was not the answer. Maybe adding a weight up high and keeping the lower ones would have been best. I would love to go back to the old weights even though it would hurt my team. Penn High School is a great example Varner starts at 132, Ginter at 138 and Manspeaker at 145. The kids also on their team between 132-145 Mammolenti- multiple triple crown winner and National titles, Rhinehart -state finalist last year as a freshman at 130, Osborne -many kids state titles, and I'm sure their are many others I am forgetting to mention. This is a consistent problem with many teams this year. Sorry I just agree with Coach Harmon that this is not good for wrestling. right on the mark coach.....couldn't have said it any better.....some teams are better with the change and some teams are better without but in my opinion, they should have left it as it was OR added another upper weight without taking a middle weight away....why take away one of the most competitive weight classes there is?........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Definitely bad for wrestling. Go back to what it was or add a 15th weight class or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H1N1 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Just to add my 2 cents, the new weights disproportionately harm 1A & 2A teams. 5A football teams like Perry, Penn or Warren Central can find that 195/220 athletic kid who has never wrestled but has the natural gifts to be competive. Smaller schools do not have such abilities. The new weight classes are actually a double whammy for small and mid size schools. So not only did we fail to get team class wrestling in Indiana, we also body slammed small/medium programs with the new weight classes because those schools have a harder time filling upper weights with competive wrestlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1gold Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Take a H.S. survey of freshman thru senior weights and you will probably find at least 50% of the high schoolers weigh 119 to 145 . A weight class should be added in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Just to add my 2 cents, the new weights disproportionately harm 1A & 2A teams. 5A football teams like Perry, Penn or Warren Central can find that 195/220 athletic kid who has never wrestled but has the natural gifts to be competive. Smaller schools do not have such abilities. Not sure I completely follow that logic. I tend to think most small schools are in rural communities that tend to at least have a few big farm boys sitting around in the winter. The size of kids are dispersed randomly around the state regardless of school size. So I would tend to think some small schools have an abundance of small kids while others have an abundance of larger ones. Not sure you can say the shift in weight classes is another attack on small school. Also, having a large school doesnt necessarily mean all the larger kids that are into athletics and doesn't necessarily mean the larger kids will wrestle to start with. More than likely it has equally hurts any school that has had a hard time fielding decent upper weight wrestlers. I dont see the weights staying the same (old way) or shifted to benifit lighter weights being of anymore of aid to the small schools. Sure there are less kids to choose from in the smaller schools but that's not specific to those kids being a certain size. So either way it's a wash. Some schools are helped and others helped but not sure the weight shift was a deliberate or inadvertent act that has just effected small schools. Not classing team state is more of a hindrance though that has been somewhat of a pipe dream than a viable option in the last few years. The IHSAA has been very steadfast that they wouldn't not class one aspect of wrestling without the other and said since wrestling is an "individual" sport they had no plans to class it since none of the individual sports are classed. Now the possibility of classing the team option for the IHSA looks like something to work on for the distance future now that team state has been completely eliminated in the IHSAA point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I guess what i dont understand is how the nfhs proposal passed so easily. Was there no forethougt as to this having a negative impact? So many were on this website in support.of the change (actually, a number of the folks who appeared to support the nfhs proposal, i dont think really supported it, they were just happy to see it pass because they predicted its passage and they were happier to be right than come out against it, also, it raised 103 to 106 and that was worth getting rid of a mid weight, in their opinion - anything to get rid of a weight class dominated by freshmen, right y2?). How hard will it be to reverse this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbulldog152 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Not sure I completely follow that logic. I tend to think most small schools are in rural communities that tend to at least have a few big farm boys sitting around in the winter. The size of kids are dispersed randomly around the state regardless of school size. So I would tend to think some small schools have an abundance of small kids while others have an abundance of larger ones. Not sure you can say the shift in weight classes is another attack on small school. Also, having a large school doesnt necessarily mean all the larger kids that are into athletics and doesn't necessarily mean the larger kids will wrestle to start with. More than likely it has equally hurts any school that has had a hard time fielding decent upper weight wrestlers. I dont see staying the same or Shifted to benifit lighter weights being of aid to the small schools. So either way it's a wash. Some schools are helped and others helped but not sure the weight shift was a deliberate or inadvertent act that has hurt small schools. Not classing team state is more of a hindrance though that has been somewhat of a pipe dream than a viable option in the last few years. The IHSAA has been very steadfast that they wouldn't not class one aspect of wrestling without the other and said since wrestling is an "individual" sport they had no plans to class it since none of the individual sports are classed. Now the possibility of classing the team option for the IHSA looks like something to work on for the distance future now that team state has been completely eliminated in the IHSAA point of view. Yea but the Rural schools with "Farm Boys" run into the problem of wrestling season falling during hunting season. And yes they think Hunting season is more important than wrestling season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Yea but the Rural schools with "Farm Boys" run into the problem of wrestling season falling during hunting season. And yes they think Hunting season is more important than wrestling season. The conversation isn't about what gets in the way of wrestling. It if small schools are hurt by the weight class shift. Girls, cars, jobs, video games, grades, singlets, weight management, long weekends, fear of failure, etc... also get in the way of kids not wrestling. However none of these reasons discriminate between skinny kids and large kids or being from a large school or a small one. Hunting only would fall into play here if the big farm kids were the only ones at the school allowed to hunt and the small farm kids or anyone else were just stuck with wrestling as an option. Would small schools in general be helped (or even less effected) if the weight classes didnt shift up or if they shifted to light weights compared to the current situation? I don't believe they would have, thus why I don't see the new weights as a deterrent to small school athletics anymore than it is for any other school. The fact that the new weights are top heavy isn't a small school problem it a problem for any school who has more athletic light and middle weights and/or has a problem getting larger athletes to participate (for whatever reason). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bharmon01 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 my proposal for 15 new weight classes 105 112 119 125 130 135 140 145 155 165 175 185 195 215 hwt If we want the sport to grow why not add weight classes? Why not give more kids the opportunity to wrestle? Even if some teams may not be able to fill all the weight classes? Too many kids are being cut out in the middle. From every thing I have seen most teams are heavy in the middle weights. Give as many kids as possible the opportunity to wrestle. Small-middle-big. Most middle school weight classes have 16-18 weight classes, why not High school also? Get as many kids wrestling as possible. This would help the sport grow - if that is our goal. We went from 13 to 14 back in 1988 or 89, why not 14 to 15? Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Probably because teams have enough issues with filling 14 weight classes, adding another one will not help anyone but the top teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headlock83 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 First of all I have never understood the concept of changing the weight classes in high school wrestling. I would say that the weight classes have changed at least 4 different times in the past 30 years. What is the point in changing them? What has ever been accomplished? I mean the actual weight classes are fairly arbitrary. Leave the damn things alone. Who's idea is it to keep changing them. Surely this is driven by the coaches. I kind of understood it when they put a 215 class between 185 and heavy weight. Beyond that they should still be like those in the 70s and 80s. 98,105,112,119,126,132,138,145,155,167,171,185,215,Hvy. Ok, maybe drop the 98 and put one between the 145 and 155 classes because that is the size of the average teenage kid. For the love of God, whatever weight classes we decide on, leave them alone. There is no need to keep changing them. For the record, I have never seen a need for 4 classes 185 and up when most kids don't get that big. The last thing our sport needed was another weight class where two big guys lock up and circle for 6 minutes with the score tied at 1-1 just to then have to sit through a miserably boring overtime. Quit killing our sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I agree with coach harmon.................most teams are heavy in the middle classes with great wrestlers being left out of the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phscoach Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 The new classes helped me as I tend to have more wrestlers from 152 and up each year. I would say for the last 4 or 5 years, our school has not filled the six lowest weight classes more than 4 out of 6 classes. I can't seem to find the little guys anywhere..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 The new classes helped me as I tend to have more wrestlers from 152 and up each year. I would say for the last 4 or 5 years, our school has not filled the six lowest weight classes more than 4 out of 6 classes. I can't seem to find the little guys anywhere..... I think your situation is the exception rather than the rule. I would bet at least 60% of coaches/teams in indiana believe the new weights have hurt their programs this season. Btw, I heard through a fairly reliable source that they are switching back to the old weights next season. Anybody hear the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busstogate Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Not sure this applies to the topic, but 12 out of the 16 first-round matches at the Al Smith were forfeits... in the 113 lbs weight class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bharmon01 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I have noticed the forfeits at 113 this season. I think moving 103 up to 106 has helped more kids that would have wrestled 112 rather than 103 make the pull this season. 106 is easier to pull than 103 for them. I have noticed more seniors at 106 then 103 last year. I don't know how the upper weights at al smith were but it has been weak everywhere we have wrestled this year. There have been a few athletic kids who dominated and a lot of average to below average kids in the upper weight classes. Like most years the upper weight class kids could have wrestled below their weight class but were moved up to fill out a spot. That's what flawed the the study - if you didn't have anyone under 103 you had no one to move up and had to forfeit, but you could move a kid up to 215 or Hwt and not forfeit. Thus, it looks like there are no light weights but the upper weights are full of 189, 215 and Hwt studs - which is far from the truth. If 103 was such a problem , why were there no forfeits at the Regional level? From the years of 98 to 103 I never heard of a forfeit at the Regional level. In fact I never heard of a Sectional that forfeited 98 or 103, maybe a few teams but never every team - there was always a championship match. In my time I have never heard of a kid advancing to Regionals by forfeit. I hope we go back to the old weight classes and maybe if we feel its needed add another upper weight class and go to 15 weight classes. The current weight classes are not good for high school wrestling. Cutting the middle weight class kids out is never going to be good for wrestling. I don't want to cut the big kid out either, but I hate to say it there are many more middle weight kids out there then upper weight kids who wrestle. Rather than take away - just add a bigger weight class if it is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pug Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 15 weights would help resolve the issue of ties (wouldn't have to go through the criteria) dual meets in most cases as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I have noticed the forfeits at 113 this season. I think moving 103 up to 106 has helped more kids that would have wrestled 112 rather than 103 make the pull this season. 106 is easier to pull than 103 for them. I have noticed more seniors at 106 then 103 last year. I don't know how the upper weights at al smith were but it has been weak everywhere we have wrestled this year. There have been a few athletic kids who dominated and a lot of average to below average kids in the upper weight classes. Like most years the upper weight class kids could have wrestled below their weight class but were moved up to fill out a spot. That's what flawed the the study - if you didn't have anyone under 103 you had no one to move up and had to forfeit, but you could move a kid up to 215 or Hwt and not forfeit. Thus, it looks like there are no light weights but the upper weights are full of 189, 215 and Hwt studs - which is far from the truth. If 103 was such a problem , why were there no forfeits at the Regional level? From the years of 98 to 103 I never heard of a forfeit at the Regional level. In fact I never heard of a Sectional that forfeited 98 or 103, maybe a few teams but never every team - there was always a championship match. In my time I have never heard of a kid advancing to Regionals by forfeit. I hope we go back to the old weight classes and maybe if we feel its needed add another upper weight class and go to 15 weight classes. The current weight classes are not good for high school wrestling. Cutting the middle weight class kids out is never going to be good for wrestling. I don't want to cut the big kid out either, but I hate to say it there are many more middle weight kids out there then upper weight kids who wrestle. Rather than take away - just add a bigger weight class if it is needed. Coach, I agree with much of what you say. Still, the study was done based on actual weight of kids--forgetting about weight classes entirely--at the time of fat fold tests and what weight those kids projected to reasonably lose weight down to (not weight class--actual weight). Then, the kids were divided evenly into 14 groups and the bottom weights were adjusted slightly downward to try to allow some of the littlest guys to stay competitive (the actual data suggested 108 should have been the bottom class, based on participation). For me, the faulty thing is what you alluded to above--there are in fact many big guys out for wrestling, but they are not the year-round, dedicated, skilled kids. They are multi-sport athletes with less background and skill than the year-round wrestlers who are in the middle and lower weights. I did my own research of the off-season tournaments and posted my results on this site based on participation at all the top national tournaments. It suggested, as we'd guess, that there should be an extra weight class in the middle weights and LESS weight classes in the upper weights than our old system (not more). But off-season participation doesn't reflect the multi-sport, in-season guys. So, I took an average of the NFHS study and my study and came up with weight classes almost perfectly identical to the old 14 weights. In summary, I'm with you. We have to consider both aspects--participation AND quality/dedication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bharmon01 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Maligned - We need to get your info to David Cloud and try and get the weight classes back to being in the best interest of high school wrestling. I have no problem with adding an upper weight class, just don't cut the middle weight kids out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 There have been forfeits at the regional level at least twice in the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts