3 years in, whats the verdict?

[notlong2go]

Well its 3 years in since the new weight classes have taken effect, whats everyones thoughts? At first I thought it would be good, but I definately think it was a bad move for the sport. 

[maligned]

I posted my thoughts a couple years ago in September based on a lot of research.  My opinion hasn't changed since then.  The full thread is here if you want to see people's responses at that time: http://indianamat.com/messageboard/index.php/topic,18049.0.html

 

"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."

 

 

[Loki27]

They got it right in 1987 with 13 classes with 10 of the 13 being 160# and below.

[littlevito]

Well its 3 years in since the new weight classes have taken effect, whats everyones thoughts? At first I thought it would be good, but I definately think it was a bad move for the sport.

 

I didn't like the weight changes then, and I still don't like the weight classes now. Taking a middle weight away to add a heavier weight class was a huge mistake. I feel like I see a lot of forfeits in the bigger weights while kids are out of the lineup in the middle weights cause the weight class is gone.

[notlong2go]

The talent level of the weight classes above 160 is VERY diluted.

[ronschoolcraft]

The classes are what they are.  For the whiny argument about "lifers" vs. "warm bodies", consider this.  My son has been wrestling since he was 4 years old Pee Wee 50.  He is now a Junior in HS weighing about 210 lbs., is 6'5" tall.  He is a very technical wrestler.  He took his lumps as a Freshman and Sophomore wrestling 182 and 195 respectively wrestling older, stronger kids yet still pulled off 20+ wins both years and 19 pins last year.  Are you trying to run kids like that off to basketball (which he's pretty good at, by the way)?  He's worked as hard as any of those so called "lifers" at the lower weights and loves the sport, yet you argue he's a warm body.

 

Your generalizations are very ignorant and self serving.  We were grateful for the change in weight classes or he would have been at 189 freshman year instead of 182 and at 215 last year instead of 195.  He has no excess weight to cut and has been growing like a weed.

 

I guess the one argument above is probably the root -- some of you guys can't do anything else and want the sport to yourselves.

 

Instead of crying and complaining, make the best of what your dealt and get on with life.

[littlevito]

The classes are what they are.  For the whiny argument about "lifers" vs. "warm bodies", consider this.  My son has been wrestling since he was 4 years old Pee Wee 50.  He is now a Junior in HS weighing about 210 lbs., is 6'5" tall.  He is a very technical wrestler.  He took his lumps as a Freshman and Sophomore wrestling 182 and 195 respectively wrestling older, stronger kids yet still pulled off 20+ wins both years and 19 pins last year.  Are you trying to run kids like that off to basketball (which he's pretty good at, by the way)?  He's worked as hard as any of those so called "lifers" at the lower weights and loves the sport, yet you argue he's a warm body.

 

Your generalizations are very ignorant and self serving.  We were grateful for the change in weight classes or he would have been at 189 freshman year instead of 182 and at 215 last year instead of 195.  He has no excess weight to cut and has been growing like a weed.

 

I guess the one argument above is probably the root -- some of you guys can't do anything else and want the sport to yourselves.

 

Instead of crying and complaining, make the best of what your dealt and get on with life.

 

I don't see anyone crying or complaining. Glad your son got a participation ribbon cause a weight class was made for him so he wouldn't have to wrestle someone to hard.

 

 

[Y2CJ41]

Can't you say that about the lower weight classes also? What other sport designates a couple varsity roster spots mainly to freshmen and sophomores?

[littlevito]

Can't you say that about the lower weight classes also? What other sport designates a couple varsity roster spots mainly to freshmen and sophomores?

 

So we should start weight classes at 120 and go up from there?

[Y2CJ41]

Actually I think we should just have one weight class. If you can't compete with the big boys, why even compete?

[ENoblewrestling]

Can't you say that about the lower weight classes also? What other sport designates a couple varsity roster spots mainly to freshmen and sophomores?

 

I have to agree with Y2 on this one.  I don’t know why everyone is so down on the upper weights?  I agree that a middle weight getting cut wasn't a good thing, but the lighter weights are mainly just for freshmen and sophs, if good freshmen fall in middle to upper weight classes they are often behind an upperclassman the way they would be in most other sports.  This makes the kids that wrestled lighter weights and have success early on appear to be superior to the upper weight kids who were JV for a couple of years.  In actuality those upper weights who had been JV may be just as talented as the light weight kids.  If anything I would argue that we would be better off cutting a lighter weight and adding a middle weight, than cutting a bigger weight to add a middle.

 

If the new weights are "watered down" can you provide an example of an undeserving state champ or qualifier from the last few years? 

 

I have seen form my experience that the upper weights can be just as technical as the lighter guys.  Our state qualifier last year was a 220.  He wrestled 125 his Freshman year, IMO he would have been in contention for state his senior year no matter what weight he was at.  I would stand by that statement for all of my upper weights who have made it to semi-state or further.  I would also say that had our better lighter guys been an upper weight there would be no guarantee they would have made it any further than they did in the lighter weight classes.

 

[TripleB]

At Jeff Classic this Saturday 106 has 5 ffts and 9 freshmen.

 

No other weight class has more than 2 ffts.

[Y2CJ41]

At Jeff Classic this Saturday 106 has 5 ffts and 9 freshmen.

 

No other weight class has more than 2 ffts.

Don't come at me with those made up stats! Go back to the wing buffet!

[littlevito]

I would also say that had our better lighter guys been an upper weight there would be no guarantee they would have made it any further than they did in the lighter weight classes.

 

Did you seriously just try to compare a kid wrestling at say 113 to how he would wrestle against people at 195?

[ENoblewrestling]

Did you seriously just try to compare a kid wrestling at say 113 to how he would wrestle against people at 195?

 

First off are you not doing the same thing by stating that wrestlers in the middle to lower weights are somehow superior to those in upper weights?

Secondly I was not saying a 113 lbs. kid could beat 195 lbs. kids, I was saying that a good if a good 113 lbs. weighed 195 lbs. I don’t think that they would suddenly walk through the competition at 195 because they were “superior wrestlers”  I also believe that a good 220 would be good at wrestling if they weighed 145 too, so in my opinion the weights are fine.

 

So if you agree with my statements, what makes the new weights so horrible?  If you disagree, what makes you feel that way?

[littlevito]

I never once said said any wrestler light, medium, or heavy was more superior than the other. I said earlier I thought it was stupid to take out a middle weight and add a heavier weight class. I would have thought it was stupid to take away a middle weight and add a lower weight. I see more heavier weight forfeits now cause of that weight class addition, while more kids miss out on matches in the middle weights.

 

If you want, I can repeat my statement for a third time later in this discussion. Weight classes are weight classes so whatever. The question of the thread was what we felt since the weight changes. I said how I felt.

[Cosgrove]

ive always thought about why do we always try moving the weights around to make a gap someplace else or try to even the gaps when we could just simply add a weight class. wouldnt think that would be to hard and would make weights alot easier to space apart by lbs.

[Y2CJ41]

Here are the forfeit totals at sectional for the past three years

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At9kk8BWi5ZUdFVpd09mUU12S2ozTW1JSmRxYUMxa2c&usp=sharing

 

I am curious to see if the bigger weights will keep trending downward in terms of forfeits. I would still say we need 3-5 years worth of data for it to be relevant.

[littlevito]

Here are the forfeit totals at sectional for the past three years

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At9kk8BWi5ZUdFVpd09mUU12S2ozTW1JSmRxYUMxa2c&usp=sharing

 

I am curious to see if the bigger weights will keep trending downward in terms of forfeits. I would still say we need 3-5 years worth of data for it to be relevant.

 

2012 was an ugly year. Big jump in number of total forfeits.

[ENoblewrestling]

I don't see anyone crying or complaining. Glad your son got a participation ribbon cause a weight class was made for him so he wouldn't have to wrestle someone to hard.

I never once said said any wrestler light, medium, or heavy was more superior than the other. I said earlier I thought it was stupid to take out a middle weight and add a heavier weight class. I would have thought it was stupid to take away a middle weight and add a lower weight. I see more heavier weight forfeits now cause of that weight class addition, while more kids miss out on matches in the middle weights.

 

If you want, I can repeat my statement for a third time later in this discussion. Weight classes are weight classes so whatever. The question of the thread was what we felt since the weight changes. I said how I felt.

 

So saying that wrestling in an upper weight class is equivalent to earning a participation ribbon, and that that person wouldn't have to wrestle anyone hard is not the same as insinuating that the upper weights are weaker?

[Y2CJ41]

2012 was an ugly year. Big jump in number of total forfeits.

Yes it was, definitely a real shocker there. I wonder if it had to do with many of the kids that would fill those weights left the sport early to focus on things like football. I have seen many kids at all weights realize they wouldn't be varsity for a few years quit the sport due to there not being a weight class for them. I think we may have seen this happen when we initially introduced these weights as evident by last year's decline in forfeits.

[Loki27]

Granted there are more ff at the lowest weights but lets be honest it's so much more exciting watching those little boogers go.

[ronschoolcraft]

I don't see anyone crying or complaining. Glad your son got a participation ribbon cause a weight class was made for him so he wouldn't have to wrestle someone to hard.

 

What an ignorant, childish, immature comment.  Wow.

 

You obviously haven't seen Ben wrestle.  I hope you were a better wrestler than you are a speller.

[Hornet]

Just to answer the original topic posted on this thread..

 

Based on my experiance the weight class system is obviously a bell-curve.  There have been and will always be more kids in the middle weights than the top and bottom.  The main issue I have, like most other people, was the elimination of a middle weight where we all have better participation #s.  I help coach a small 1A school and every year since the change I have had a solid high quality 130ish pound wrestler on the bench while forfeiting at least one weight class at the top (happening right now on my team).  In addition, my son wrestled 132 last year and it was a bloodbath, I believe the old 130s and 135s are now populating this one weight class causing a competitive unbalance.  As someone pointed out earlier the old weight class system was at least heavier in the middle which seemed to better accomodate the bell-curve.

 

On a positive side it does seem to me that 106 is a much better starting weight than 103.  I see more upper-classmen at 106 than I ever did at 103.

[littlevito]

What an ignorant, childish, immature comment.  Wow.

 

You obviously haven't seen Ben wrestle.  I hope you were a better wrestler than you are a speller.

 

Everything was spelled correctly, maybe had a grammatical error. But as long as you think everyone is ignorant cause they don't believe exactly what you do then I guess you are the chosen one for the sport.