Once again, I'm extremely impressed with the stats that you obviously have saved in an Excel document on your desktop. However, if you were at least semi-intelligent, you would realize that you completely missed the point of my post. Of course, on AVERAGE (there's a statistical term for you), upperclassmen generally have the upper hand on underclassmen from weight to weight, due to "experience, physical maturity and mental maturity," as you said.
However, if you actually look up from the statbook and watch wrestling, it is obvious that at the state level, the large majority of the underclassmen at the lighter weights are more skilled than the large majority of the upperclassmen at the heavier weights. This is simply due to the fact that a greater PERCENTAGE (there's another one) of lightweights spend much more time developing their wrestling skills than do heavyweights. I'm sure you could do a statistical analysis of all the posts on this site begging for wrestlers to fill upperweight spots on teams competing in offseason tournaments to prove that point. My question was why you automatically consider the lighter weights to be weaker than the heavier weights simply because they consist of a greater number of underclassmen, all of whom are "factually" inferior to upperclassman heavyweights (according to you) only because underclassmen don't "account for an equal amount of placings and qualifiers at state" across all weights. I know you have a much more firm grasp on numbers than common sense, but sometimes it'd serve you well to use the latter.