Coaches,
I just read an article in WIN magazine that said that of the teams that were surveyed when we changed to the weights we have now said that 60% of the kids fell in the range between 119 and 160. I just calculated our team this year and we had 79% of our team fall in that range. If we change to the new proposed weights there will only be 7 weight classes in that range. There are 8 for the current system.

I am not sure which one I will vote for. I do think that 103 is too low. I would like to raise that number even though we will probably have two kids that will naturally weigh less than 103 next season.

I would like some of you to calculate your teams percentage for the kids that fall into the 119-160 range and put the percents on here before I have to vote on the 15th.

We want to create the most opportunities for the most kids.

I also agree bottom needs to move up.

We have 13% 103 and 112, 48% from 119 to 160 and 39% from 171 to 285.

what are the proposed weights?

Current Option A
103 106
112 113
119 120
125 126
130 132
135 138
140 145
145 152
152 160
160 170
171 182
189 195
215 220
285 285
CURRENT:
• These current 14 weight classes have been in place since 1995.
• The 215-pound weight class was added in 2002.
• In 2006, the 275-pound weight class was increased to 285 pounds.
• These weight classes were developed from a survey that the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee administered in 1994-95.

OPTION A:
• The weights were created from looking at the minimum wrestling weight (7% 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.
• Adds an 'additional' weight class at the top.
• Creates a weight class in the low 180-pound range.

The new weights would benefit my team for next year, but I am still not convinced the change is needed. My team breakdown for this year is as follows...
103-112 - 13.3%
119-160 - 40.0%
171-285 - 46.7%

103-112: 6.66%
119-160: 50%
171-285: 43.3%

Our percentages were
103-112= 15%
119-160= 40%
171-285=45%

we are class A

Well at York we are......
103-112- 0%
119-160- 65% 20 out of 31
171- 285- 35% 11 out of 31

As long as there is not another class added from 100-125, I'm good. Anywhere else I'm fine with.

2010-2011
103-112 23%
119-160 54%
171-285 23%

2011-2012

graduating 7 seniors and gaining 1 freshman
103-112 42%
119-160 34%
171-285 34%

Class C

Over the past 5 years, our breakdown would be the following:

103-112: 14%
119-160: 50%
171-285: 36%

One of the things I hate is the constant moving up of the bottom weight class. I know that is one of those weights that can be chronically hard to fill, but wrestling was always the sport where the little guy that didn't have the size to compete in other sports could find success. If you take the ability for the little freshman to get in there and wrestle at his weight, you may lose that guy. As an undersized 98 pound freshman, I was very glad to get the opportunity. Everyone else always has the ability to cut some weight, but those undersized guys are scrapping for any advantage they can get. I know I am partial, because (many years...and pounds ago)I was one of those little guys. My two cents.

I also went back the last 5 years.
103-112 10 out of 103 10%
119-160 67 out of 103 65%
171-285 26 out of 103 25%

Just for comparison......... We are supposed to see:

103 and 112 = 14%
119 through 160 = 56%
171 through hwt = 28%

Adams Central and York need to combine and then they would be 3 wrestlers deep at every weight class and win class B by 40 pts!

I'm kind of on the fence on this one. We seem to carry some kids at the JV level near the top of our line-up that could help us at the varsity level. Several come to mind over the years. With this being the case the new option would seem to address the situation in a positive way for us. On the other hand I have a soft spot in my heart for that under 100 lbs. kid. Wrestling is one of the few places in athletics that these guys can excel and I don't want to see that compromised.

I see in the top post that these ranges came from WIN magazine. My question is what do they tell us? Not much at face value, just looking at the percentages gives you terribly skewed view of what is going on. Comparing 103-112 a 9+ lbs range with 119-160 a 41+ lbs. range? The next cut is even wider yet; not exactly apples to apples. That said if they looked at 195,000 wrestlers and this is an even distribution, that's a pretty compelling argument for "fair change"

Here is O'Neill by weight class for this season

103 - 8.7%
112 - 4.3%
119 - 4.3%
125 - 8.7%
130 - 4.3%
135 - 0%
140 - 4.3%
145 - 4.3%
152 - 4.3%
160 - 13%
171 - 4.3%
189 - 13%
215 - 17.4%
HWT - 4.3%

I think that adds up to 100????

103-112: 20%
119-160: 60%
171-285: 20%

B Corkle
The reason why the 119-160 range was used is because we will be cutting down to 50 percent of the weight classes in that range. If there are 60 percent of the wrestlers from 119-160 then why take a weight out of there.

I really don't buy the arguement about taking oppurtunities away from the little guy. If the minimum weight moves from 103 to 106, I am not sure that things will change that much.

A lot of freshman meets are just paired up with guys around their weight regardless and there are ways to work around it if you have unusually small kids. They should be able to compete just fine at that level.

Over 50% of the 103 lb wrestlers at state are freshman by my calculations. My guess is that no other weight class has more than 25%. Is having a bracket that consists of that many freshman good for the sport? I'm not sure. I know when I made it to state as a freshman 145, 13 kids in my weight class were seniors, 1 soph, 1 junior. I think that makes a big difference and provides unfair comparison when you compare career results. maybe I'm bias because of my own personal experience

On the other hand, the 180, 195, and 220 lb weight classes are going to water down an already weak 189, 215, hwt pool. When I say weak, I mean depth wise from top to bottom. The level of competition just isn't that good at those spots outside of a few top notch kids at the top so I'm not sure that is good for the sport either. Hopefully, if those upper weights are added, we will see more football players out who can't get any better training in the winter

for us this is a bad move, we cant seem to keep any big kids out. all of them are going to "lift for football" but never show up at the weight room. we had 28 kids after preseason conditioning. our incoming freshman class has 3 middleweights and 6 112 and below.
103-112 19% all freshman
119-160 60%
171-285 21% and of this group only 2 weigh over 189

I walked down the hallway this morning and counted 7 kids that do nothing during this season that would fall in the 171-285 range. I really don't think that we would get many more out, if another weight was added up top. They carry some extra weight so I don't think they want to work that hard. It is much easier to say they are going to lift for football, but NEVER show up. I am not sure the new proposal would benefit the majority that wrestle. It would most likely be better to move all weight from 103-215 up 3 lbs.

I am one of those that was initially hesitant to move up the lowest weight class because I was one of the little guys, but I think it would be better overall.

It would spread out the weights more evenly at the heavier weights, which is badly needed, and more wrestlers could squeeze into the 106 lb class to make it a stronger weight.

The only alternative imo, is to add an extra weight class to the upper weights so that they are spread out more evenly between 170-225.