Kansas Wrestling
Kansas Wrestling Community:

Below is an e-mail I recieved today concerning proposed changes in weight classes by the NFHS. All of the proposals eliminate the 103 pound weight class. I personally feel that this is not a good change for the sport or for athletes. Wrestling is a unique sport that gives the smaller athlete a chance to compete and attain success. This is really not found in any other team sport. If you feel strongly against these changes, I encourage you to sign the on-line petition.

Good luck to all at Regionals this weekend! Don't forget that you can watch Norton's on line.

Kale Mann
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS OF E-MAIL:
Originally Posted By: ]
As you may or may not be aware, the National Federation of High School Associations (NFHS) will soon be considering a change to high school wrestling weight classes. All 3 options on the table eliminate the 103 pound weight class.

The options and the rationale for the changes can be found at:

http://www.mpssaa.org/assets/wintersports/wrestling/Proposed%20Wrestling%20Weight%20Class%20Options%20(2009).pdf

Many people in the wrestling community feel that this is a bad idea that will prevent the participation of many talented small wrestlers from competing at the high school level. An on-line petition against these changes has been started at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/103pounds that is being sent to the NFHS, and to the affiliated State Athletic Associations that are being asked to provide input into these changes to the NFHS.

We are contacting wrestling organizations nationwide in the hope of obtaining support for keeping 103 pounds. We would appreciate any help you could add to our cause, and any distribution of this information to other wrestling organizations.

Thank you.
Pete Dorney
Pennsylvania
[/quote
Kale,

While I agree that eliminating 103 is a bad idea, I feel that something should be done to address the fact that kids are getting bigger and there are issues at the higher weights with "talent stacking". This leads to kids having to make decisions to:

  • Accept the fact that they will not wrestle varsity
  • make a decision to move to another weight class accepting that they will either have to lose an unhealthy amount of weight or be light for the higher weight
  • quit the sport because they will not wrestle much for the year

I have seen all three of these, and would have to admit that I am biased as my son has been in that very position the last (2) years. He made the decision to go lower last year and was able to get the Doctor to approve it, and after battling through that he wrestled up this year.

But, here is what I really don't get. If you look at Proposal B (my favorite for the upper weights), they list the lower two weights as 106 and 113. This leads me to this question:

If we are only changing the 2nd weight by a pound from 112 to 113, why not just keep the first weight 103?

Is that too simple of a solution?

Chuck
Is NHFS trying to solve the wrong problem.

We discussed weight classes the last couple of years.

Still would like to see a couple of NEW Weight classes in the upper brackets. Take 215 down to 204, add a new 225 and a new 250.

The current weight spreads are far too big (189 to 215 = 26 lbs = 14%, and 215 to 285 = 70 lbs = 32%). We don't ask our lighter weights to face thos differientials, i.e 135 to 140 is 5 lb and ony 3.8%.

The big differientials are keeping a lot of big kids out of wrestling. Splitting the brackets should bring more kids and good athletes to the program. Lots more footballers should be wrestling!!!
Problem with making more weight classes is filling them. I don't believe kids DON'T wrestle because they are caught between weight classes. They don't wrestle because it is HARD. It is why we lose lots of kids to BBall late in the grade school years.

I had someone tell me at the Pratt regional that they are SOOOOOOO mad at their 8 yr old son because he is playing basketball. I asked "why you mad at the kid, you are the one that gave him the option?"

Too many parents give their kids the option of quitting (or not ever starting)this sport. That doesn't teach them anything about real life.
I would be for the Option B more than any of them. So many schools have 103 open, and I understand some kids only weigh 85-90 pounds, but an extra 3 pounds would add some more kids to that weight class.

I don't think we need to be adding more weight classes because of filling them, but it will water the competition down even more.
That is another point that I left out.............watered down competition. It would make the "make the kids feel good about themselves" crowd happy though!!!!
I would like to see some more upper weight classes too, the jr league has them why not high school?
Originally Posted By: hornetwrestling
I don't think we need to be adding more weight classes because of filling them, but it will water the competition down even more.


Agreed, no more weight classes, just spread them out a little at the top to accomodate the fact that kids are getting bigger.
I like option B the best.
I think the idea of getting rid of 103 is a bad idea. There aren't that many schools that have an open 103 usually any decent school has it filled. I know in the Turner regionals there was more 103's than 125's and 112's
As disappointing as getting rid of 103 may be (bumping it to 106 in option b) what about not having a weight like 235 or 245 in between 215 and heavyweight. I liked option B the best because it did a better job of balancing the weights, ex...160, 170, 182, 195, 220. In my experience this year we have seen very many brackets with very few 103 pounders in it. Doesn't mean they aren't out there, but we have seen alot of open weights. Take it for what it's worth.
Its a trade off neither side wins, You either have left over light weights or heavy weights
Bump.

I fear change.
It seems odd to me that a majority of 321A and 4A schools can roster a 103lber but 5A and 6A schools can't? Maybe coaches should be compensated base on filling the roster? If you are getting $2800 to coach and you put 13 in your regional you only get $2600. I am adamantly against bumping it up again. From 98 to 103 and now even more!! Cmon, are we really wanting to further exclude the small high school kids from sports?? They can't play any of the ball sports. Wrestling is all that is left. The coaches just need to get into the halls and get these guys out!
I think I like the rationale behind C better. The statistical point that those weight ranges encompass right at 7% of the population per bracket added to those weights stretch from the 5 to 95 percentile for all weights is just facing reality. There desperately needs to be less than an 18 lb jump to '89 and 26 lb jump to '15. I think spreading the lower weights a little would be a good thing.
Every year there are plenty of undersized 103 lb kids that weigh 90-100 lbs, wrestling against kids cutting from whatever to get to 103. They are giving up as much or more than these kids wrestling the upper weights.
Originally Posted By: doug747
Problem with making more weight classes is filling them. I don't believe kids DON'T wrestle because they are caught between weight classes. They don't wrestle because it is HARD. It is why we lose lots of kids to BBall late in the grade school years.

I had someone tell me at the Pratt regional that they are SOOOOOOO mad at their 8 yr old son because he is playing basketball. I asked "why you mad at the kid, you are the one that gave him the option?"

Too many parents give their kids the option of quitting (or not ever starting)this sport. That doesn't teach them anything about real life.


I'm sorry but that is just about the worst parenting advice i have ever heard. Most kids I have met that are forced to wrestle end up hating it. and if the kid doesn't want to wrestle wouldn't you still want them doing some sort of physical activity? Pretty sure I would rather have my children play basketball then have them sitting around the house doing nothing.
I have always been a big fan of wrestling, but i never pushed my son towards it. It took his 7th grade football coach ( who was also the jr high wrestling coach) to suggest he go out for wrestling as it would help him in football. Needless to say he fell in love with the sport. He has taken his lumps over the past 5 years, but keeps at it because he enjoys the sport. Sometimes i wander back thinking what if he had started earlier, but then i realize that that is a waste of time. I am just so glad he enjoys it so, successful or not. I think it has really made him a better person, and he has made countless friends through the sport. By the way, he gave up football because of his size. Options for smaller weights need to be kept.
After summer weight training and being in a weight lifting class as a freshman, by the end of wrestling season my son tipped the scales at a whopping 87lbs. Giving up almost 20% of his body weight,I never once saw him back down from opponents that were most times a head taller. He kept a positive attitude and I encouraged him by telling him that his time will come. He will most likely stay at 103 for one or two more years.
His brother is a 75lb 7th grader who will likely be in the same boat as his brother. Both boys have wrestled from the age of 5 and are looking forward to some success in High School wrestling. This is the only sport that levels the playing field for the smaller athletes.
Thanks, I will allow my kids to run the house from now on. Obviously they are much more experienced at life than me...........
The point everyone is missing is that the "big guys" have other sports options. Football, baseball, etc. If you weigh 95 wrestling is the only fair option available. There are plenty of 103's out there walking the halls. The coaches need to go get them!
I agree with Will 100% on this one. Isn't one of the options to keep the weights the same? Current, Option A, Option B, and Option C.
Option D:

Bring back 98 lbs!

Move 103 to 105, and the rest stay the same. Like it is stated earlier in the thread, bigger kids have a number of sports options and wrestling usually isnt one of their top choices, but a 90 lb freshman does not have that choice. Changing the weights to any of the three options would screw the little wrestlers. I find it sad that you have very decorated wrestlers like Dakota Leach from Goddard not getting the opportunity to wrestle varsity due to the current weights. Therefore bringing back 98 lbs sounds like the smartest choice!!
I would like to see them go back to 12 weight classes.
Two years ago at Kids' State:

2 - U14 75 lb
7 - U14 80 lb
16 - U14 85 lb (25 total)

Last year at Kids' State:

9 - U14 75
13 - U14 80
12 - U14 85 (34 total)

Yesterday at Topeka, there were four U14 75 and one U14 80. I can't imagine many of these wrestlers would be close to 103 by their Freshman year. As for my motive in posting - three years ago my son was U12 68, two years ago U12 76 and last year U14 85. This year, U14 95 and 100. He is in pretty good shape to be a decent sized 103 lb Freshman next year (thanks to his biggest growth spurt in nine years of wrestling). A lot of these wrestlers won't be as lucky.

I do appreciate the argument for making weight adjustments for the bigger wrestlers. The spread between 215 and 285 doesn't do much justice to a wrestler that is somewhere in the middle of those two weights.
I liked option C. True we have little guys, but our little guys are getting bigger. Option C evens out the weights more too. There aren't as many little guys walking around in high school at 98 lbs anymore. When the classes were 98, 105, et cetera that was a different era. Option C only moves 103 to 107.
98, 105, 112, 120 ,128, 136, 146, 156, 167, 178, 193, 225, 245, unlimited

I think in this weight format 14 weights - teams would be open most at 98 and 245.

As far as the NFHS proposal goes I do not think they should eliminate 103. My HS weights were 98,105,126, 138 and in college 167 all 4.5 years. Granted that was a long time ago - my weight today (college weight plus a lighter HS weight) some of you can figure that out. Today, in general you will find more kids at the lighter weights (under 110) that have more wrestling years of experience coming in as freshman. It seems to me that there are not as many kids coming into high school that are over 210 with a lot of mat time - high school coaches tend to try to get freshman football and/or bigger guys to fill the upper weights.
Maybe I am wrong - but parents of the little guys try to get them involved in a sport where they can compete against someone closer to their size. We as kids club coaches need to get out to those little league football games, BBall games (yikes), soccer and grab some of these atheletes and expose them to wrestling.
Or get kids that are already in wrestling all to bring one or two buddies to practice by the 6th or 7th grade.
I am not going to do it so maybe I shouldn't suggest it, but somebody go through all the regional brackets. How many byes were there? I would imagine this would show you we need to decrease the amount of weight classes, not increase them. This would make wrestling more competitive. Put in a 220 class, make heavyweight unlimited, make 103 into 105 and strip a couple middle weights. Give me a kid that weighs 240 and is in shape and I will throw him into the unlimited division and be successful. How many tournaments did you go to this year where there were more than 15 teams and not even enough 112's to make an 8 man bracket???
Originally Posted By: Vandeventer
How many tournaments did you go to this year where there were more than 15 teams and not even enough 112's to make an 8 man bracket???


Zero!
. . .
Turner 5A Regional had 36 opening byes out of 112 starting slots (8 schools X 14 weight classes). Thats 32% of the starting field. But that regional is not a good example. The KC, KS schools are always short in classes. Only Lansing, Aquinas, and Turner came with 12 to 14 wrestlers--Miege had more wrestlers than opens.

I did look thru the 4A and 321A rosters that were on the regioanal web sites. Only a few 321A schools fielded a majority of the opening slots---I think Norton had the most wrestlers in 321A. All 4A regionals seemed to have 1 to 3 opening byes in each bracket.

Need to get more kids in the program.

Like the idea of the a 98 lb and 107 brackets--or perhaps a 100 lb and 107. You will keep some of the bigger 103s in a 107 bracket and open a 100 lb bracket for the lighter current 103 and the smaller kids just coming unto HS.

Also would like to see some splits in the heavier weights.

Why can't KSHSAA do this on its own. Don't think they have to strictly follow NFHS rule book.

Need to do what is necessary to get more kids into the HS programs!!!!
You were fortunate then coach. I am sure I am in the minority here. Usually am. Your regional. Buhler 11 kids, Andale 13 kids, Cheney 3 kids, Clearwater 8, Hesston 7, Hugoton 10, Maize South 7, Nickerson 5, Pratt 13, Russell 11, Scott City 12, Ulysses 13, Valley Center 14, Wellington 9.
I am not educated enough to know the statistics that can help answer this question. My gut (which personal history has shown is not that reliable!) tells me to grow the sport, not condense it. My gut says that there are kids walking the halls that are 103 and lighter. How many freshman are 103 and less? What kind of sports opportunites do they have? There are high school kids who weigh 112 who currently don't wrestle. If we combine classes to create more eight man brackets, do we run the risk that we are just accepting we can't or won't beat feet to grow interest in the sport?

Is it better to produce fewer weight classes based upon current participant data, resulting perhaps in shorter duals when other threads are trying to promote duals to market the sport, or is it better to accept that the sport will live or die based upon its numbers of participants, number of fans? Shouldn't we design the weight class structure in a way that satisifies the question, "Will the new kid to the sport have a better chance at some success and therefore get enthusiatic enough to stick around?" And if he does, mom and dad, grandma and grandpa will be in the stands! And buy a hotdog!

Especially at the low and high ends of the weight classes, SIZE MATTERS. My gut says don't make that a show stopper for a kid who wants to win but is simply not big enough.

For what its worth! smile
I don't completely disagree with your reasoning Spratdad. I guess I just look at it from wanting to be competitive year in and year out. We are a small school and getting better, but it is very hard to fill 14 year in and year out. I actually had 4 103 lb kids this year, but only one of them belongs on a varsity mat. Too often I am thinking more about weight and trying to get kids to cut to fill a spot or my 189 weighs 175 but wrestles up so the team we are dueling can have a match there. It would help a lot with competition in my room and putting a better product out on the mat if we only had to fill 12 classes. I also think it would make tournaments and duels tougher.
Originally Posted By: Vandeventer
You were fortunate then coach. I am sure I am in the minority here. Usually am. Your regional. Buhler 11 kids, Andale 13 kids, Cheney 3 kids, Clearwater 8, Hesston 7, Hugoton 10, Maize South 7, Nickerson 5, Pratt 13, Russell 11, Scott City 12, Ulysses 13, Valley Center 14, Wellington 9.


Our Regional had smaller brackets at some weights than we see at most of the tourneys we go to. There were only 9 112's and 10 103's there. Surprisingly, there were only 9 152's and 9 160's as well. Those are two weights that most teams can usually fill.
There may be a few freshmen that are around 103 lbs, but wrestling is a tough sport and putting them on the mat won't make them competitive in the sport if they don't have the fire for it. I see filling in the weight differential at the higher weights as important and starting the 1st 2 weights at more reasonable sizes 107 115. I noticed one of the posters listed teams from our regional and our team has 13 wrestlers. The truth in that is we only had competition for slots in the upper weights, everyone else just wrestles at the other open varsity slots. We don't have more than a handful of backups.
We encourage kids to try sports all the time. The reality is that some kids aren't interested in any sport and being the size for a lower wrestling weight class does not matter to those students.
I concede, Mr Thompson, that your experiences give you insights that I do not have. The times we live, the distractions kid's have, perhaps some kind of growing apathy, do create challenges to our efforts to champion the cause. Your well argued opinion and those that share it may ultimately prevail. We may be forced to adapt the sport to the reality you describe.

With all due respect, I still hope not.
I agree with Kale Mann, Wrestling is one of the only contact sports that does not discriminate based on size of the contestant. The little guys need this opportunity. I think that the NWCA's statictics are far more complete than any of our situations within our own teams and communities. Regardless of what the statistics say, I say dont mess with it. Unless they want to add opportunities for varsity spots for the little guys.
I am all for the little guy. I am a little guy, but I see way more wrestlers wrestling up for lack of opportunities to compete in the upper weights, which is why if we were to vote for a proposal, I would vote for option C.
You would still have opportunities for little guys, but look at the opens across the state and it is clear that those spots are open and it is because there is no one there to wrestle in those slots. If there were, the coaches would be wrestling those kids in those slots.



http://www.mpssaa.org/assets/wintersports/wrestling/Proposed%20Wrestling%20Weight%20Class%20Options%20(2009).pdf
james,

they do discriminate based on the size of the athletes. by putting a weight limit on our sport.
How many 103lbs actually weigh 103lbs? I'm guessing most weigh in in the 99-102 range on most days
Fewer weights on a team is one discussion. Filling weights at quailifying tournaments is another discussion. Fewer high school classifications is another. Maybe Kansas should rethink the classifications. It doesn't eliminate any high school from having wrestling - it just regroups them into 3, 2 or 1 class. If we had one class we could have 16 regionals 8 sectionals and only the top 2 come out of each sectional with wrestle back to true second at sectional and state. Maybe in its current form just have 5A and 6A state tournaments 32 man bracket. These teams are wrestling in 24 - 32 team tournaments a couple of times a year anyway. Why do smaller towns have 7 and 9 man football? It doesn't hurt to have all the weight class opportunities. In one city and/or school area they maybe able to fill all the spots and another may not - so what. You could have a city that only fills 6 or 8 spots with varisty caliber guys but they could still win state in its current form of scoring. A very good team of 6 most likely would not win many duals.
I am still in favor of keeping the 103 where it is.
I personally liked Option A, with a little of Option B thrown in, making it as follows:
110, 119, 125, 131, 136, 141, 146, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220, 285

What do you think? I know that the 110 class wouldn't help the lighter weights, but I think it would get more upper classmen to try to make the weight. 103 is primarily Fr/So only. Plus, a little larger weight class might get college coaches more interested in scholarships to these "lighter" guys (more so than now, anyways).
We cant let this happen what do we tell the kid that has wrestled for almost 10 years when you get to high school your not going to able to wrestle because your to small its only for the big kids. we need to grow the sport. get in to the hallways these kids are out there.
Originally Posted By: Devast8r
I personally liked Option A, with a little of Option B thrown in, making it as follows:
110, 119, 125, 131, 136, 141, 146, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220, 285

What do you think? I know that the 110 class wouldn't help the lighter weights, but I think it would get more upper classmen to try to make the weight. 103 is primarily Fr/So only. Plus, a little larger weight class might get college coaches more interested in scholarships to these "lighter" guys (more so than now, anyways).


Bad call is what I think. Is there a problem filling a 103 bracket at regionals? Do you really wnat your stud light weights taking a year off til they get to 110? Don't think that would help college recruiting. Appears to be an ill thought post. There are plenty of kids that are in 8th grade this year that are worried about getting to 103 by next year. This post seems to be worried only about the upperclassmen. Remember Freshmen & Sophmores do become Juniors & Seniors.
Andale has two tough kids that will have to hoof it to get to 103 by next year. Goddard has a stud freshman this year that is still struggling to get to 90 lbs. I would venture to guess that lots of kids programs have an eight grader that will struggle to get to 103 by the time he is a freshman. And I am just talking about getting to 103, not getting to 110 or more that kids cut from to get to be a big 103. We have to keep the 103 class.
It's always hard when they change weight classes, but it ends up being part of the natural process of things. Forty years ago, the highest weight class before heavyweight (which was unlimited at that point) was 165. There was even a year in there when they experimented with a 12-class system that went 98, 107, 115, 123, 130, 137, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185 and HWT. A year later we went to the 98, 105, 112, 119, 126, 132, 138, 145, 155, 167, 185 and HWT system that we had until 1988.

We have had the same classes now for going on 25 years. And there are fewer and fewer 103-pounders, there is no question about that. And, at the same time, we are getting more and more big kids. I remember when we went from 98 to 103 as the low weight, there was so much outcry about what it meant for smaller kids; yet we survived. The same is true here. Maybe a good compromise would be start at 107 or 108 and work up from there.

Change is inevitable; and in all honesty, it's probably long past time to do it. But it can be done fairly for everyone and we'll just all learn to adapt to the change.
Originally Posted By: trunorth
It's always hard when they change weight classes, but it ends up being part of the natural process of things. Forty years ago, the highest weight class before heavyweight (which was unlimited at that point) was 165. There was even a year in there when they experimented with a 12-class system that went 98, 107, 115, 123, 130, 137, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185 and HWT. A year later we went to the 98, 105, 112, 119, 126, 132, 138, 145, 155, 167, 185 and HWT system that we had until 1988.

We have had the same classes now for going on 25 years. And there are fewer and fewer 103-pounders, there is no question about that. And, at the same time, we are getting more and more big kids. I remember when we went from 98 to 103 as the low weight, there was so much outcry about what it meant for smaller kids; yet we survived. The same is true here. Maybe a good compromise would be start at 107 or 108 and work up from there.

Change is inevitable; and in all honesty, it's probably long past time to do it. But it can be done fairly for everyone and we'll just all learn to adapt to the change.


Same classes for 25 years?? In 1995 they added 215! When they first added 215, they shifted the weights around to keep it at 13 weights and then the next year they went back to tho 1994 weights with the addition of 215 to make 14 weights.

...
In our kids club room in Lawrence, we have a group JR high kids who work hard every day with the goal of not just being varsity 103 lbers, but strong varsity 103 lbers! It's the body size they were given and they are doing their best with what they got. They're not busting their butt just to "fill a slot." The "reality" is these kids care about the sport of wrestling because their is opportunity in it for them at their size.

I say keept 103! 107 and 108 are esentially 109/110!

On a side note, I think there is quite a lot of room between 215 and 285 though. The new proposals seem to hurt the smaller kids while not helping the larger kids.
Well said. I don't think moving up to 107 will hurt the sport at all. And, I am all for little guys and I don't discriminate against any grade being a varsity wrestler. If a 9th or 10th grader makes the team, that's awesome. There may be some kids under weight at a particular school, we have one, but he is the only one for us and we can't find a 112 lber and we only have one wrestler at each of the rest of the small half of the weights. The infamous small "kids in the hallways" may exist, but they have no desire to wrestle whatsoever no matter how enthusiastic WE are about the sport.
I was in a 6A school last year and the story was the same. Our kids are getting bigger and I don't just mean on the top side. The weight classes from 145-171 are the most crowded year in and year out from my perspective and the gaps in weights between 171-215 are too large and we could work to diminish that to help out the bigger guys too and give more guys an opportunity at the upper weights.
Alex, I know this this the 5th time this week you had bacon, chocolate cake & cheetos for breakfast. Do you want to wrestle or not. How bad do you want it? You got to make weight boy! Suck it up! smile
That is funny, but that happens on the upper end of the weights as well. If you have a stud at 171 your closest option up is 189 and 215 from there. The argument is on both ends of the weight scale.
The difference Tate, is we wouldn't have the option of dropping down.
I see what you are saying, but I still don't see that many 103 lbers at 1 school anymore, but I do see a lot of congestion in the middle upper weights in myriad schools. I think fighting for the little guy is valid and it should continue to some extent, but 107 lb kids and 115 lb kids and 120 lb kids are still represented and those are small weight classes as well. Most successful 103 lbers, with a few anomalous exceptions have to cut a little to get to 103 anyway. I guess I just will have to agree to disagree
RJ:

Well, I was referring to the weights other than the addition of 215, and I wasn't in Kansas in 1994, so I was unaware of the shifting of weights. My point is that other than that it has been the same system for a long time.

As for the weight differences, a couple of points. I had a three-time State qualifier at 103 that never weighed more than 100 pounds until his senior year. And, just for fun, Andrew Long, who is now the starting 125-pounder at Iowa State was a state placewinner up there in 2005 as a freshman. He weighed all of 85 pounds. There will always be kids who are "too small." The thing is that while that might put them on JV as freshmen and might mean they get their heads handed to them a few times, they'll get bigger.
Our Varsity 103lb kid weighed 97 and ate constantly....wishing to have to cut a little to get to 103! He was a Freshman that has wrestled for the past 10yrs or longer! He has placed at Tulsa, USJOC, Liberty and Brute among others. Was one match away from qualifing for State at our 4a Regionals...wrestled hard and deserved a spot on the team! It would have been a shame for Hunter Price of Holton not to have been able to wrestle his Freshmen year! To talk of not having the 103lb spot is wrong! Add a weight class after 215 and before HWT...don't take away from the sport! We also filled our 112 and 119 classes with out hassle or worry! Holton wrestling was fortunate to have over 30kids out this year! Let's keep the room full from 103 to hwt!

Kim Lovvorn
Holton Wreslting Mom
Good for him! Sounds like he would have done okay if the weight class was 107 as well. We have 30 kids too, but not at the lighter weights. Our 103 lber ate all the time too, but so did our 215 and 285 lb wrestler. I guess I just don't see the argument of keeping 103 and not moving it up when we can lower the gaps between the higher weights and keep more kids involved. The kids that we lose from the room are those that are the highly competitive mid upper weights. I want to keep the room full too, we just have a different way of getting to the same goal.
If it really comes down to it, take a survey of all the weights of the male athletes in High School right now (Fr. So. Jr. & Sr.) and graph the data showing weight ranges from:

90-100
101-110
111-120
121-130
131-140
141-150
151-160
161-170
171-180
181-190
191-200
201-210
211-220
221-230
231-240
241-250
251-260
261-270
271-280
281-290
291-300

I say athletes because they are what we are researching not the band members, drama club, science club, people, we are looking at the athletes. You will find a bell shaped curve that should land in the center somewhere around 145-160 lbs, as that is how the world works, you will always find more kids at the middle weights than the upper & lower weights because most kids are in the middle of the bell curve.

The reason for more lower weights is kids grow into bigger weights not shrink into the lower weights, so why not have more steps to get to the top than giant leaps to get to steps at the upper end. There needs to be more weights in the middle with more lower weights as kids are growing coming from sub 103 and growing upwards.

A 10lbs or 15lbs difference to a HWT is nothing, I mean honestly they can lose 6-8lbs a practice if they push hard enough for a little guy 3lbs is a HUGE practice so a 7lbs or 8lbs weight differential is needed or less even, thus the smaller weight differentials at the lower end, and more weight classes as they are needed.

On the note of adding more upper weights will add more kids to the wrestling room, you guys are the same ones saying we don't need the lower weights because we don't have the kids to fill them, it's kinda the same philosophy, just because we have room for them doesn't mean they will always get filled. Why not provide opportunity to kids who have no other opportunities instead of catering to only a handful of athletes?

As it has been said already most 103lbs kids are eating to make weight, why punish them even more by adding another 3-4lbs to the weight class? Also how many Heavyweights cut weight? How many teams are stacked 2-3 deep at HWT? Most teams have multiple 103's due to the nature of the Freshman classes and wrestlers maturing as they get older.

Maybe I'm way off, and go ahead and shoot holes in this, it's just my own opinion.
Having a son who wrestled 103 for two years in high school, I would be against getting rid of the 103 class. As a freshman he was a light 103, and then after growing chose to sacrifice and wrestle 103 as a sophomore even though he could have earned a spot at 112 or 119 on his team. That year alone there were two seniors at 103 in the Blue Valley region, and one of those placed 2nd in the state.

There are skilled wrestlers in all the classes, but if you take a look at any kids tournamement these days you will find some of the deepest and most technically skilled kids brackets at your lower weights under 100 pounds. Those are the kids who wrestle year round because of their lack of size to compete in other sports. Those are the kids who will ultimately wrestle 103 in high school. At BVW, we have had trouble filling the heavier weights, not the lower ones.
On a side note, I was one of the 103lbs kids in High School, I weighed 96lbs soaking wet as a freshman then cut to 103 as a sophomore then 130 the next 2 years, so I do have a fondness for the lower weights.

Plus if we're all about fan base, who would you rather watch, 2 103lbs kids wrestling or 2 HWT's?
103's everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
How is that good for him he did not make it at 103 so how is he to make it at 107. in the next three years we will be loaded at 103 some very good kids will not make the team. i think it comes in waves as said before 5lbs for a 103lber is a lot someone who weighs 170 10lbs is not that much. maybe the 170lber should be pushing a pumpkin. as a fr. i weighed 86lb and wrestled 98 lost every match then they cut wrestling at my school but would do it again it was all i had to short to play basketball to small for football at least the coach thought so i did not. it wont matter what we say or do here they will do what they want a we will eat and eat some more thank God for sams club.wish i could make my son bigger all i can do is help him get faster and stronger and hope for the best.so much for cross country we will be in the weight room hard to put weight when they run 4 miles a day.
Posted By: BLT Re: New Weight Class Proposals- Petition Against - 02/25/10 02:07 PM
But isnt there something to be said about asking a 235 pound kid to wrestle a kid that cuts to 285?
Its too much weight!
Add a 245 or 250 class!
I understand that in some smaller schools they wont let those kids drop to 215 cause the COACH needs to fill a roster. I say that both ends (lighter and Heavier) could use a little revising.
What is the average years experience (how many years coming into high school) of each weight class?

Wisconsin 3 classes

103 lbs By grade Percent
Qualifiers
Freshman 11 34.38%
Sophmores 12 37.50%
Juniors 7 21.88%
Seniors 2 6.25%
Total Qualifiers 32 100.00%

Kansas 4 Classes

103 lbs By grade Percent
Qualifiers
Freshman 32 50.00%
Sophmores 21 32.81%
Juniors 9 14.06%
Seniors 2 3.13%
64 100.00%


If the NFHS moves the limit on the lightest high school weight up. Currenlty in Wisconsin over 63% of the High School state qualifiers (32) are sophmores or above. In Kansas this year 50% of the state qulaifiers (64) are sophmores or above. If we are trying to maintain a starting point for lighter weights 110 is to big. Another topic for discussion is the consolidation of classes. Wisconsin has at least a couple more million people in that state compared to Kansas. Yet they have half the qualifiers per weight for state. Kansas should a least try 3 divisions for wrestling and have it all in the same location - where ever that may be.


Edited by smokeycabin (Today at 07:45 AM)

Top Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post


#162152 - 56 minutes 39 seconds ago Re: 103 pound statistics/qualifiers by grade [Re: smokeycabin]
smokeycabin
Member

Registered: July, 07 2001
Posts: 1260
Loc: Shawnee Kansas I think another interesting stat might be the average experience level. By weight how many years of experience does the average state qualifier have? 0-13 years of experince. This would be tough stat to get but not that hard for each coach to calculate on their HS team. It would help Kansas wrestling tremendously if we can get kids to start by the 6th or 7th grade. So 5th & 6th grade parents of wrestlers - have you son or daughter bring a buddy to practice next year.
The good part was he was one match from qualifying for state. So, the 170 lber should just play basketball because he is not 95 lbs? Like I said there aren't that many to draw from across the board at 103 even if a particular school has a lot of light guys in waves.

The kids that can't quite get to 103 also have some issues with success as you mention and that wouldn't make a difference if the weight was 103 or 93.
We have to look at the sport as a whole across the state and for all weight classes. There needs to be some revision at the top and bottom and opportunities need to exist for some of the mid upper weight kids, where there are a lot of athletes all the time across the board. One individual example doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of holes in every tournament all year round for the 103s. 107 is still pretty light and it actually allows for more athletes to make the lower weights and evens the gaps in the mid uppers-- especially if you look at the actual proposals.

I am for more opportunities for all of our wrestlers. Revising the weights allows for more kids to find a spot they fit without 11, 18, 25 and 60 lb gaps.
Take this national ranking list of 103 pounders. 75% of them are not freshman. These are some the guys that will grow into 125 and 133 pounders or higher in college.

5 freshman
12 sophmores
3 juniors
0- seniors


Rank Name High School State Class
1 Nick Roberts
North Star PA 2012
2 Tyler Fraley
Colts Neck NJ 2011
3 Tyler Daniel
Stevensville-Lakeshore MI 2012
4 Ruben Navejas
Kentwood WA 2011
5 Cody Phillips
Union County IN 2012
6 Brad Perkins
Oak Park MO 2013
7 George DiCamillo
St. Ignatius OH 2012
8 Dean Heil
St. Edward OH 2013
9 Zach Bridson
Timberlane NH 2012
10 Max Hvolbeck
Blair Academy NJ 2012
11 Tyson Dippery
Central Dauphin PA 2013
12 Nashon Garrett
Chico CA 2011
13 Bo Pursel
Lansing KS 2012
14 Sam Brancale
Eden Prairie MN 2012
15 Kevon Powell
Montini Catholic IL 2012
16 Nathan Tomasello
CVCA OH 2013
17 Jordan Kingsley
Apple Valley MN 2012
18 Ryan Taylor
Graham OH 2012
19 Alec Dierna
Wayne NY 2012
20 Micah Perez
Central Union CA 2013
Of course you can find a list of 103s nationally, but it doesn't mean there are more of them existing in our state and I guarantee those kids are all cutting to get to 103 which seems to be the argument against raising the lowest limit. That same list will exist if the lowest weight were 107. I am passionate about a change because I both support the little guys and the guys in the most congested weight classes. When 215 was added, so many doors were opened for the 200+ pounders competing for HWT. But, making some of the gaps in the upper mids lessen would be very beneficial for our sport.
yes they are cutting because the next weight is 112 and they weigh 107 5lbs is to much to give up at this weight how about have a 100 and a 105 and a 110 my be a dumb ? but how about let a school put 14 kids on the mat maybe two at one weight and none at another.
Not trying to start a fight. 215 did open some doors.

Tate Thompson - find me the state or national HS statistics where heavier guys (215lbs & HWT's) have more experience than the lighter weights(103's and 112's).

Look at this years Kansas high school state qualifiers. Maybe we can track some of these high school guys and see what weight they end up at kids state 14 & under or the HS division. That would give us a good idea on wieght loss. My guess we may have some under weight freshman not cutting to much weight and then you'll have quite a few that came from 103-115 some even higher that hit growth spurts during the year.

Kansas 4 Classes

103 lbs By grade Percent
Qualifiers
Freshman 32 50.00%
Sophmores 21 32.81%
Juniors 9 14.06%
Seniors 2 3.13%
64 100.00%

I think it is crazy we have weights every 5 pounds a part in high school - I think that should.

Sean McCarthy
STA Kids Club
Ok if we are looking at Kansas kids up and coming. Last year at kids state their were 78 kids who qualified for state that were wrestling at 75, 80, 85, 90, 95 & 100 - to me that is a good agruement to keep 103 as the lightest weight in Kansas. If you take 14 and under weights 175, 205, 235 & 265 there were 55 kids who qualified for state. Even if you take out the 100 pound kids who may be 112 the next year there are still 62 kids from 95 pounds or less from 14 & under. Those 62 are all going towards the 103 division. On the upper end of 14 & under the 175lbers have 189 or 215 to grow to or the can cut to 171 if the are a small 175 (actual weight 180-183). the 235's can cut to 215 or grow into heavys. The heavys are going to have to stay fit - no more unlimited available.

The 85, 90 & 95 pounds can't cut anything. More kids fewer options coming into high school. 103 is the only option. 110 will be way out of reach for some.
Please take time to sign the petition. It takes less then 1 minute.
You could look at the 14 and under data I posted above in another way. 78 kids at the state tournament between 75-100 pounds 25 pound range. Additionally there were 55 kids at the Kansas state tournament within a 90 pound range 175-265. There still are plenty of 103's out there. And I did sign the petition.
These types of wrestling participation statistics have more use than just total kids by size.
Originally Posted By: BLT
But isnt there something to be said about asking a 235 pound kid to wrestle a kid that cuts to 285?
Its too much weight!


I would be willing to bet the kid who weighs 235 probably is in better physical shape than the kid who has to cut to make 285, which is already an advantage in itself.

I will also agree a 245lbs could be beneficial, but 15 weight classes is too many. I would be all for getting rid of a middle weight and redistributing the weights to cover the spread but unfortunately as I stated above, the majority of kids will fall in that range thus we need more opportunities there as opposed to the upper end of the spectrum. We need the lower opportunities because everyone who comes into high school usually grows larger as time goes on so more opportunities are needed in the lower weights.

Some numbers for discussion...
# of Wrestlers (Pratt 1st, Norton 2nd)
103- 10 , 11
112- 9 , 15
119- 11 , 12
125- 11 , 13
130- 12 , 12
135- 11 , 15
140- 11 , 16
145- 12 , 15
152- 9 , 14
160- 9 , 16
171- 10 , 14
189- 12 , 16
215- 11 , 14
285- 12 , 10

It seems the numbers show that the weight classes are pretty evenly distributed now, what else is there to gain? Adding another weight class at the top will only take participants away from what already there and lower the numbers there.
I have kids in my room that have problems on both ends of this spectrum... But Smokey,I think you are skewing the numbers to fit your opinion this time. Everything you said about last years numbers is accurate but it does not tell the whole story.

14-75 6 kids in bracket
14-80 13
14-85 11
14-90 16
14-95 16
14-100 15

14-175 16 kids in bracket
14-205 16
14-235 15
14-265 8

I think there are just as many (or just as few depending on your perspective) kids in the heavier side of the bell curve as in the lighter side...but the top side has far fewer options. Also my gut tells me that a 216# kid wrestling #285 carries far more risk of injury with it than a 103# wrestling 110/112.

...And for the record my 185# freshman who wrestled #215 has no interest in roundball...at least that is what he told the basketball coach this year smile
To further make my point on participation numbers and weights.
I firmly believe by high school you have many more higher caliber kids with more experience at the lighter weights.
How can the NFHS ignore numbers like this. We can not say the big kids are playing football in April.

Participation numbers from SchoolBoy Folkstyle Nationals in Iowa 2009 - Kids coming up on high school.

70 lbs - 21 participants
77 lbs - 34 participants
84 lbs - 47 participants
91 lbs - 52 participants
98 lbs - 48 participants

202 partcipants under 103 pounds or within 28 pounds of each other

175 pounds - 12 participants
190 pounds - 9 participants
210 pounds - 3 participants
265 pounds - 3 participants

27 participants between 175-265 or within 90 pounds of each other.
Go ahead and add 165 and make it a cool 100 pound range for the upper weights. I know my statistics and bell curves.

Pretty glaring if you ask me.

This shows me national wrestling participation interest in the sport by weight for kids entering high school. Not kids you chase down as freshman who are big and can not play basketball. I am not making up these numbers Mark. The NFHS is making a nationwide decision for wrestling for all states. I am telling you like I see it.
All these numbers haven't proven anything glaring to me. If we are going to do stats, then let's track the number of kids at each weight class in each tournament throughout the high school season. The kids season is a different bird and upper weights are not always participating after the high school season as they are doing baseball and track. The argument of amount of experience means nothing. You can have 10 years of experience and get beaten by a first year guy as it depends on how quickly the athletes learn and how athletic the athlete is. Like I have said, I support the little guy, but that's not where are athletes are losing opportunities, it is in the mid upper weights.

Obviously we can't convince each other of anything, so I am done posting, it's just that I think we are arguing based on loyalty to our own children(which I understand). However, there are just not as many lighter kids (103 lbers in high school) out there wrestling unless you have 50 kids in wrestling, which is an occurrence in a couple of KS schools, but it is not very common. Most of the varsity 103s cut, so why not move it to 107 and adjust the other weights to give the congested weights some more opportunities to participate.
Tate - I see your point. But I think there is still many more kids coming in or staying around the 95-107 range compared to the numbers of wrestlers that will be heavier than 200. More weights the better but the NFHS are talking about cutting weight classes. Also, I will take a full team that each kid has 8-10 years experience over a full team with 2 or 3 years experience for each kid everytime.
All this stuff is so much tripe. I will grant you that there will be some 100 lb kids that will have a hard time wrestling as a freshman or sophomore for having to wrestle "up." For that matter, how many freshmen wrestle, successfully at 189?

We simply can't set the rules to cover everyone, particularly a small minority. You see the statistics. 5% of the high school male population weighs less than 107 lbs and the same holds for over 285. So 90% of the population will fall into those weight categories and approximately 7% of the population will be in each weight bracket itself. All this other stuff is really immaterial. There is no other sport that facilitates competition between like sized individuals for 90% of the high school population.........and that is the bottom line....not the 5% at either end.
I didn't want to go here, but I guess I am going to. I would say pound for pound, so to speak, the lighter weight freshman are better quality wrestlers than their heavier freshman counterparts (lower 5% versus upper 5%). That may very well be because they have more opportunities to get a good volume of quality matches at a younger age, and more kids in the wrestling room to practice with that are near their age and weight. I see it in our wrestling room and have seen it for many years. At an early age, there are a lot more smaller guys than bigger guys which gives them an advantage to hone their skills at an earlier age. I believe that 103 should be the starting end of the weight classes for high school. From there, make adjustments as needed to get the bigger guys a better equilibrium between weights.
I learned a long time ago that figures lie and liars figure. All that says is any set of data can be used to prove both the pro and con.

I rwecommend that you look at the pondage and percentage differientials between weight classes:

103 to 112 = 9 lbs/ 8.7%
112 to 119 = 7 lbs/ 6.25%
119 to 125 = 6 lbs/ 5%
125 to 130 = 5 lbs/ 3.85%
130 to 135 = 5 lbs/ 3.85%
140 to 145 = 5 lbs/ 3.6%
171 to 189 = 18 lbs/ 10.5%
189 to 215 = 26 lbs/ 13.75%
215 to 285 = 70 lbs/ 32.5%

I would think if anything needs to be done it would be to even out the per centage differientials between a weight classes--some which are gerossly unfair.

To do that other issues have to be considered:
1) The normal bell curve distribution of wrestlers across all weight classes. Lots of wrestlers at all ages in the welter and middle weights (lets use 125 to 160) and fewer wrestlers above and below those weights.
2) The grossly largest differientials are between the 4 top weights 171 to 285. Be realistic, what chance does a 225 pounder have against a decent 285--virtually none. Yeah Yeah--exceptions happen!!
3) It would not be feasible to establish a set percentage differiential between all weight classes. The bell curve distribution would have the weight classes skewed to the heavier weights--with not enough wrestlers to fill the added brackets--while the welter and middle weight classes would have to be reduced and the differientials increased--which could result in not enough weights for the number of wrestlers.

AS Option D, how about:
103 no change or a very small increase to 106
112 No change
119 No change
126 replaces 125
133 rplaces 130
141 replaves 135
149 replaces 140
158 replaces 145
167 replaces 152
177 replaces 160
190 replaces 171
210 replaces 189
240 replaces 215
252 is a new weight class
285 no change

This scheme is constructed using a 6% differiential between 119 and the 177 weights.

Why not just leave the current lower weights and differientials as they are, add at least one mor bracket in the heavier weights, and slightly increase the diffierientials in the welters and middle weights. Although the new weights aoppear to have wide spreads, they are not that great. Plus by being a few pound difference that allow wrestlers to either cut or add weight as they and their coaches choose.

Maybe not the answer, but another thought!!



You wouldnt need a 240 and a 252, but either one or the other would be nice to have.
Smokey,

I agree with your position. I would argue that one of the reasons you see more numbers on the smaller kids side during the summer is because the bigger kids are training for football. They have that option.....the little guys don't, therefore they are more likely to wrestle during the summer.

I personally think we need to keep the weights the same at the lower end and possibly look to add a weight in the heavier end. JMO.
i think there should be a weigh class between 215 and 285 like 245 or 250. My senior year I cut 40 or 45 pounds to wrestle 215 and to let another senior wreslte hwt
My scheme adds only one weight class to the current 14 classes.

The intent of such a restructure of the classes was to try to even out the percentage differientials
betewwen classes. Why continue to have the 3 to 5 percent differientials for 125 throught 152 classes, and then jump to 10% climbing to to 32% for the higher brackets.

Agree that only oen new bracket between 215 and 285 would be a tremendous improvement--but still think two brackets are better yet for the sport--get the footballers back into the sport.
Posted By: C C Re: New Weight Class Proposals- Petition Against - 02/26/10 04:07 PM
With obesity becoming more widespread among teens and tweens, I believe we need more upper weight classes to accomodate these kids. I bet we've all had a good 215lber that somehow over the summer put on 25lbs. If he put on 25lbs the right way, then he'd be in great shape to wrestle heavyweight, weighing 240. But, now you realize that he's going to have to lose that weight to get to 215 or give up some strength and weight to the heavier guys. That's just not right, and I bet the football coach would agree.
Not doing it to accomodate obese kids. Doing it so slightly heavy kids for a weight bracket might be motivated to lose/cut some weight, get in shape, and wrestle!!
Don't raise 103. I do not care if they add a weight between 215 and heavy - but I do not think the number of kids participatiing in wrestling supports adding 3 weights over 200. Not a bad idea. But most teams will then have opens at 245 and/or heavy. Larger schools will benifit from the addition of another weight just because off numbers. This would have a bigger impact in duals. I do not think it would have as big of an effect on regular bracketed tournaments with 24 to 32 teams and team scoring.


shawnbudke
Member

Registered: 03/21/05
Posts: 239
Loc: Leavenworth, KS Smokey,

I agree with your position. I would argue that one of the reasons you see more numbers on the smaller kids side during the summer is because the bigger kids are training for football. They have that option.....the little guys don't, therefore they are more likely to wrestle during the summer.

I personally think we need to keep the weights the same at the lower end and possibly look to add a weight in the heavier end. JMO.
14 weights are plenty. Tournaments and duals last long enough. Need to keep the little guys in the sport. There are other sports where being big is anadvantage. Football and basketball... Those sports are not changing to accomadate small kids. Most of the havier weight (215 & 285) mathches are boring to watch. They just push each other around and score 1 to 3 points during the 6 minutes. At 321A state this weekend most of the fans were gone by the time the 285 lbers started and it was an very good 285 lb mattch to watch. If someone really thinks it is necessary to add a weight for bigger kids then they need to do away with some of the weights between 125 and 145. Should not have a weight class every 5 lbs...7 lbs gaps at those weights are about right.
14 weight classes seem to be holy and locked in concrete for many ex wrestlers, coaches.

A weight scheme I posted earlier was 15 weights but it also made bigger weight differientials at those congested 125 to 145 classe. Used a standard 6% increase between classes. One, two and three lb increase at the lower weights were used to make a the 15th weight class. Can't see that such a scheme can do anything but improve wrestling in all brackets, but especially at the heavier weights. Especially need to breakup that 70 pound differiential between 215 and 285.
© Wrestling Talk Forums