Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

new weight classes???

Home ▸ Archive ▸ High School Wrestling ▸ new weight classes???
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Apr 3, 2010 3:44 AM
What about option "D"? You know, the one that says leave it the way it is.
Apr 2, 2010 11:44pm
zambrown's avatar

zambrown

Senior Member

1,093 posts
Apr 3, 2010 4:12 AM
I'm with you, Bitter. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Apr 3, 2010 12:12am
G

girevik

Member

97 posts
Apr 3, 2010 7:28 AM
I think they should leave it the way it is, I also think that they will change it anyway.
Apr 3, 2010 3:28am
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Apr 3, 2010 10:44 AM
While I get the leave it idea, and have no beef either way, if they did change it, I'd like option B.

My only point of contention with the current system is that there are only a 5 pound difference between 4 or 5 weight classes but as many as 9, 11 and 18 between others. I do not like the idea of equal weights between weight classes, I just wouldn't mind seeing the middle open up a bit.

Just sayin.
Apr 3, 2010 6:44am
C

Cthelites

Senior Member

1,951 posts
Apr 3, 2010 2:28 PM
All of the proposals eliminate a lower/middle weight class.
Are we seeing more bigger kids getting involved in wrestling or is it still more of a "smaller" kids sport?
Will adding an upper weight class attract more of the bigger/football player type wrestler?
How have the numbers gone from when they added the 215 class?
I'm all for promoting the sport to become more mainstream popular.
I still think wrestling is the sport of choice for that smaller kid who doesn't have the size disadvantage as in the other sports. Should we take away another spot from one of those kids?
Is there any way to add a weight class to the upper weight without subtracting?
15 sounds like a nice round number.
Apr 3, 2010 10:28am
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Apr 3, 2010 4:53 PM
So, over seven seasons you filled the weight class every year but one and had a District placer, State qualifier, a State placer and a State runner-up and this is somehow an argument against the 103-pound weight class?
Apr 3, 2010 12:53pm
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Apr 3, 2010 5:34 PM
Cthelites hit the nail on the head with this sport being an opportunity FOR ALL!!!

Are you short??? You can wrestle.
Are you tall??? You can wrestle.
Skinny, fat, built, not built, bad vision, bad hearing, NO vision!, missing a limb, can't dribble, fear the high school curve ball, want to play a sport that you CAN use your hands, etc.????????

WRESTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bitter: It is possible to have too much success... I guess. ;) I think his point was they had one kid in the weight class... not like when he was in school. Which could be more of a recruiting problem than a weight class problem.
Apr 3, 2010 1:34pm
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Apr 3, 2010 7:54 PM
OK, first off, that was a reasonable and well thought out response. I'm not used to reading that sort of stuff on these forums. While I still don't agree that the weights should be changed, your points are clearly valid and perhaps I need to take a second look at those options and the rationales behind them.
Apr 3, 2010 3:54pm
W

WGBplayer

Member

79 posts
Apr 3, 2010 10:53 PM
Something needs to be done about 103/112/215.... I think 103 is TOO SMALL these days. Look at how many teams actually have one. I like 107ish. which would eliminate 112 and make it around 117.... then i think 215 needs to be bumped up to about 225/30. I don't want to see them add a 225 or 30. That is the last class I'd concerned about though. The little ones need some growth...
Apr 3, 2010 6:53pm
G

girevik

Member

97 posts
Apr 3, 2010 10:59 PM
Isn't 103 already 107 on day 3? Would that make 107 111 on day 3?

Leave it alone.
Apr 3, 2010 6:59pm
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Apr 4, 2010 1:47 AM
Make sure not to confuse inability to kid a get or kids out to fill a weight class with there not being a kid to fill the weight class period. As if 90 pounds was a college weight class. How many 18 or19 year olds do you see under 100 pounds???

Anyone think 14 is the number? Personally, I like it. One area I'd like to growth as far as numbers are concerned is in the olympics. But the last I heard the governing body is thinking of cutting one. Booooo!!!
Apr 3, 2010 9:47pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Apr 5, 2010 4:24 PM
When looking at the rationale behind each of the respective proposals it appears they were based on analytical reasons with the input of parameters changed slightly for each respective option while the current weight classes were based on a survey!

Some interesting points from the proposals:

The weights were created from looking at the hydrated body weight at the time of assessment of 195,000 wrestlers from the NWCA Optimal performance calculator.

Each weight class was created to have approximately 7.14% of the wrestlers.

Equal distribution of wrestlers in each weight class.
Apr 5, 2010 12:24pm
K

ksig489

Senior Member

943 posts
Apr 5, 2010 4:57 PM
It really looks to me like they want Option C to be the one. It seemed to have the most in terms of trying to justify the weights.

Im good for A or C...all of our logjammed weights have been 145-160 in the last few years (when we have had a full roster).
Apr 5, 2010 12:57pm
C

CoachTim

Member

85 posts
Apr 5, 2010 5:19 PM
How do you think moving all the weights up will eliminate weight cutting? I don't understand that arguement. When you move 103 to 107, the 112 lb kids will drop to 107. It doesn't matter what number you pick, kids will drop weight. The hydration test is to control weight cutting not the "weight class".

We have a sophomore that weighed 84lb this year. He didn't wrestle last year because 103 was to big for him. I know he's not the norm, but there are lots of kids who are small. Most teams that forfeit 103 also forfeit other weights (I said most not all). Just because a D1 school cant fill a spot in 1 of 6 years doesn't mean to eliminate it. Did that D1 school forfeit any other weights in those 6 years?

Also, look at the 103 state placers. I've heard complaints about to many of them being freshman. But off the top of my head, the one's i can think of all place again after moving up a weight or 2 over the following 3 years. It's not like they were not of state placing quality. Do any of you know if a freshman state placer that wrestled the next 3 years without placing again?

Maybe if we cut from 14 weight classes to 7 we could eliminate all forfeits (sarcasm).
Apr 5, 2010 1:19pm
S

Shankapotamus

Member

58 posts
Apr 5, 2010 8:39 PM
When is the decison on this proposal suppose to be decided? If there are changes, when will they be implemented?
Apr 5, 2010 4:39pm
ts1227's avatar

ts1227

Senior Member

12,319 posts
Apr 5, 2010 8:44 PM
I believe I saw where the meetings were like the beginning half of this week.
Apr 5, 2010 4:44pm
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Apr 5, 2010 10:09 PM
My birthday??? Decemeber 27... aka 1227!!!
Apr 5, 2010 6:09pm
W

WGBplayer

Member

79 posts
Apr 6, 2010 12:19 AM
CoachTim wrote: How do you think moving all the weights up will eliminate weight cutting? I don't understand that arguement. When you move 103 to 107, the 112 lb kids will drop to 107. It doesn't matter what number you pick, kids will drop weight. The hydration test is to control weight cutting not the "weight class".

We have a sophomore that weighed 84lb this year. He didn't wrestle last year because 103 was to big for him. I know he's not the norm, but there are lots of kids who are small. Most teams that forfeit 103 also forfeit other weights (I said most not all). Just because a D1 school cant fill a spot in 1 of 6 years doesn't mean to eliminate it. Did that D1 school forfeit any other weights in those 6 years?

Also, look at the 103 state placers. I've heard complaints about to many of them being freshman. But off the top of my head, the one's i can think of all place again after moving up a weight or 2 over the following 3 years. It's not like they were not of state placing quality. Do any of you know if a freshman state placer that wrestled the next 3 years without placing again?

Maybe if we cut from 14 weight classes to 7 we could eliminate all forfeits (sarcasm).
Hydration test is a bit of joke IMO. It hasn't done any of the "controlling" it was supposed to. From what I've seen in this area and surrounding all it has done is caused kids to cut a bunch of weight before the season starts. I guess at the end of the season they are "more hydrated" than they would be if we didn't have it?!?! I know of many kids in the 60+ weight range dropping 20 lbs or more so they could reach 3 or 4 weight classes lower by xmas/Jan. Plus I know of a lot d3/d2/d1 teams who had trouble filling 103 more than any other class. Each year I'd say it is the hardest to fill. I believe two d3 sectionals in the NE had 5 kids in 103. What's wrong with upping it to 105-107 if it increases the chances of adding more wrestlers since kids are in general bigger these days than 20 years ago?
Apr 5, 2010 8:19pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Apr 6, 2010 12:50 PM
WGBplayer wrote:
Hydration test is a bit of joke IMO. It hasn't done any of the "controlling" it was supposed to. From what I've seen in this area and surrounding all it has done is caused kids to cut a bunch of weight before the season starts. ...
I agree with this. They could solve this issue by defining all MWW be at 7% body fat the enitre year.
Apr 6, 2010 8:50am
B

Bitterrunner-up

Senior Member

632 posts
Apr 6, 2010 12:51 PM
I don't want to get off on a tangent here, and I have no personal issue with the trend as it is within the current OHSAA rules, but does anyone else think the problem with finding 103-pound wrestlers could have something to do with the "junior high red-shirt"? Doesn't it stand to reason that if many wrestlers are a year older coming in to high school, then they're a year bigger?

Anthropologically speaking, a population just doesn't get bigger over 20 years. They can get fatter, but these test were done within the hydration testing, so we're talking about size, not body fat. The average age of freshman wrestlers might explain the difference in 2010 and 1990. Just a thought.
Apr 6, 2010 8:51am
Westie101's avatar

Westie101

Senior Member

847 posts
Apr 6, 2010 1:38 PM
a junior high redshirt?
Apr 6, 2010 9:38am
C

Cthelites

Senior Member

1,951 posts
Apr 6, 2010 3:21 PM
Westie101 wrote: a junior high redshirt?
It's those who get the Redshirt Fever.
Apr 6, 2010 11:21am
G

girevik

Member

97 posts
Apr 6, 2010 5:26 PM
Bitterrunner-up wrote:The average age of freshman wrestlers might explain the difference in 2010 and 1990. Just a thought.
Hadn't even thought about that, you may be on to something.
Apr 6, 2010 1:26pm
S

Shankapotamus

Member

58 posts
Apr 6, 2010 5:51 PM
Anybody know where you can get the stats for the average age of a currrent freshman, sophmore, etc....compared to say 1990s freshman, sophmore, etc......?
Apr 6, 2010 1:51pm