WI Wt. Classes - (MN dropping weight classes)

[MNbadger]

"Don't think this changes forfeits. This will affect individuals. Want better duals? Go to 12 weight classes and get rid of 106 and 195. Individual tournaments shouldn't be affected. "

We have not forfeited 106 or 195 all year.  Our 106 has gotten one forfeit.

[Ledger]

How many ties ever happen?

I'm all for an odd number.  No more tie breaking headaches.

I'm still smarting over the Badger's loss to the Hawkeyes.  You're right that it doesn't occur very often in high school.

[wrastle63]

"Don't think this changes forfeits. This will affect individuals. Want better duals? Go to 12 weight classes and get rid of 106 and 195. Individual tournaments shouldn't be affected. "

We have not forfeited 106 or 195 all year.  Our 106 has gotten one forfeit.

106/133 and 195/220 were where most of the forfeits were according to the data presented by another poster, so combining those two weight classes would reduce forfeits for duals. Then keep the 14 weight classes for individual. Better duals and still great opportunities for kids. Win Win situation.

[Ghetto]

This is a step. Hopefully Wisconsin will adopt 12 or 13 and see if there are positives/negatives that come from it. Right now we know what 14 looks like. We've seen it for years.

Time for a change.

[neutral]

... not doin' this again

[DocWrestling]

Quote from Wrastle 63
"106/113 and 195/220 were where most of the forfeits were according to the data presented by another poster, so combining those two weight classes would reduce forfeits for duals. Then keep the 14 weight classes for individual. Better duals and still great opportunities for kids. Win Win situation."

I have always thought this is the best solution!

[Ghetto]

... not doin' this again

Yes we is

[ChargerDad]

Quote from Wrastle 63
"106/113 and 195/220 were where most of the forfeits were according to the data presented by another poster, so combining those two weight classes would reduce forfeits for duals. Then keep the 14 weight classes for individual. Better duals and still great opportunities for kids. Win Win situation."

I have always thought this is the best solution!

Combining 106/113, and 195/220 is absolutely the solution..  pushing 106 up to at least 110, and pushing 220 down to 200, maybe 205 and adjusting the other upper weights accordingly.  In order to address the forfeights, the weight classes need to be stretched out at the upper and lower end, and more bunched up in the middle where there are more available athletes.  The MN solution did neither of those things, and I doubt it's going to have a meaningful impact on forfeits.  As for keeping the regular weight classes for tournaments, IMO that just isn't practical because kids will have to maintain weight  for 2 different descent plans.. kid wrestling say a combined weight class of 110, but can't weight more than 107 because of the next individual tournament, wrestling a kid who cut down to 110, and then when that kid who had to get down to 110 wrestles a dual, he has to maintain his descent plan for 110 at an individual tourney to get back down while weighing in for 113, so he can get back down to 110 for the next dual.  Even if you just get rid of 106 for duals, and go right to 113, that's a mess for kids having to maintain a weight plan for 106.  IMO you really have to have the same weight classes for both duals and tourneys, and for all 3 divisions, because the same things happens if some divisions have less weight classes, but go to tourneys with all weight classes.  If we are going to reduce weight classes, which at this point seems inevitable, we need to make sure we do it in a way that actually reduces forfeits or all we are doing is taking opportunities away.  The WORST thing we can do is reduce weight classes and not address forfeits.  Some will fight for the lightest weight classes, some for the heavier weight classes, and we will end up with a solution that doesn't solve the problem we are trying to solve, which I believe is where MN ended up, though MN might have a little less of a problem at the lighter weights because of JHI??

[rankwizard]

Forfeits are a part of life for most WI teams. Quit trying to completely eliminate them.

Most teams have a different set of available athletes. The top 10% (or so) of the teams in each division can fill each weight class, the rest have forfeits in all various locations.

The top 16 wrestlers at each current weight are very talented and deserve the opportunity at state glory. Dropping to 13 weights won't really harm them, just eliminate some of them from contention.

Dropping to 13 weights won't really help any forfeit situation as probably over 50% of WI teams have multiple forfeits in different spots. I would have to look at each regional team to get better statistics.

As always, we can be excited for the postseason and don't get too caught up in this discussion of forfeits.

Have a great day of wrestling folks!

[Scramble_king]

Never had a problem whether it be 12, 13 or 14 weight classes.  I just don't understand the weights picked.

Why not the college weights and add 3.

106 112 118 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285.  Fair to the little guys along with the some tough brackets at 197 and 285.

The closest weight difference should always be at the bottom not the middle.  Making the larger weight gaps at the bottom makes sense based off of the min weight and weight descent plans.

Agree with this. We do not need 3 weight class from 195 on up. I'm against moving up the lowest weight too. There are lots of kids who are already small for the weight class.

[MNbadger]

I do disagree with cutting the lower weights.  We should be looking at the CDC numbers for high school age students.  I have posted these numerous times before so I'll not bother doing so again.  The issue is that we are not getting these potential athletes out.
I am looking at the CDC charts right now...
5% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh under 90 pounds.
10% of 14.5 year old males (freshman)weigh 95 pounds.
25% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh 106 pounds.
10% of 15.5 year old males (sophomore) weigh 106 pounds.
5% of 16.5 year old males (juniors) weigh under 100 pounds.
Remember, this is examining 9-12 grade males.  If you include 7-8 th the numbers are even lower.  I believe allowing 7-8th graders makes our sport stronger and better in quality.
Some believe varsity sports are for upperclassmen.  Then yes, cut the lower weights.  I do not believe this.  Additionally, if we want to discourage underclassmen, we will only have a worse time with overall numbers.

Never had a problem whether it be 12, 13 or 14 weight classes.  I just don't understand the weights picked.

Why not the college weights and add 3.

106 112 118 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285.  Fair to the little guys along with the some tough brackets at 197 and 285.

The closest weight difference should always be at the bottom not the middle.  Making the larger weight gaps at the bottom makes sense based off of the min weight and weight descent plans.

Agree with this. We do not need 3 weight class from 195 on up. I'm against moving up the lowest weight too. There are lots of kids who are already small for the weight class.

[Ghetto]

If anyone is interested in some data, the link below has all the bodyfat data from kids in Wisconsin who tested from 2011-12 to 2019-20.

I stopped because I don't know who to contact at Flo now that they run Trackwrestling. If anyone has a contact at Flo, I'd love to get that data as well.

Here's what the data says the 13 weights should be, if you divide all the tests from those years and use 285 as the highest weights:

113, 123, 130, 136, 142, 148, 154, 161, 170, 182, 198, 224, 285

BodyFatData

[ChargerDad]

I do disagree with cutting the lower weights.  We should be looking at the CDC numbers for high school age students.  I have posted these numerous times before so I'll not bother doing so again.  The issue is that we are not getting these potential athletes out.
I am looking at the CDC charts right now...
5% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh under 90 pounds.
10% of 14.5 year old males (freshman)weigh 95 pounds.
25% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh 106 pounds.
10% of 15.5 year old males (sophomore) weigh 106 pounds.
5% of 16.5 year old males (juniors) weigh under 100 pounds.
Remember, this is examining 9-12 grade males.  If you include 7-8 th the numbers are even lower.  I believe allowing 7-8th graders makes our sport stronger and better in quality.
Some believe varsity sports are for upperclassmen.  Then yes, cut the lower weights.  I do not believe this.  Additionally, if we want to discourage underclassmen, we will only have a worse time with overall numbers.

Never had a problem whether it be 12, 13 or 14 weight classes.  I just don't understand the weights picked.

Why not the college weights and add 3.

106 112 118 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285.  Fair to the little guys along with the some tough brackets at 197 and 285.

The closest weight difference should always be at the bottom not the middle.  Making the larger weight gaps at the bottom makes sense based off of the min weight and weight descent plans.

Agree with this. We do not need 3 weight class from 195 on up. I'm against moving up the lowest weight too. There are lots of kids who are already small for the weight class.

If we decide to cut weights because of weight classes that can't be filled, and then don't make adjustments based on the weights that can't be filled, then what are we doing??  Those CDC numbers are only marginally relevant.. what really matters is the weights of the ones that actually come out for wrestling.

[MNbadger]

I respectfully disagree.  We need to keep opportunities open for as many as possible.  Judging by years and years of debate on this and other wrestling sites, people are frustrated with forfeits, coops, etc.  Going to 13 weights or even 12 weights will have negligible impact on these issues.  So, in the mean time, all we are doing in MN is eliminating numerous state champions and place winners all while likely not changing the outcome of any duals.  I went over the duals we had this year and while anecdotal, There was not any of our duals we were involved where the winner/loser would have changed.  I am at the end of my career but I still feel like I should be a voice for opportunity(and JV is not what athletes see as opportunity).  I also believe this opportunity leads to more and better wrestlers.  One of the worst parts in my mind is that we are the only sport that cannibalizes itself.

I do disagree with cutting the lower weights.  We should be looking at the CDC numbers for high school age students.  I have posted these numerous times before so I'll not bother doing so again.  The issue is that we are not getting these potential athletes out.
I am looking at the CDC charts right now...
5% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh under 90 pounds.
10% of 14.5 year old males (freshman)weigh 95 pounds.
25% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh 106 pounds.
10% of 15.5 year old males (sophomore) weigh 106 pounds.
5% of 16.5 year old males (juniors) weigh under 100 pounds.
Remember, this is examining 9-12 grade males.  If you include 7-8 th the numbers are even lower.  I believe allowing 7-8th graders makes our sport stronger and better in quality.
Some believe varsity sports are for upperclassmen.  Then yes, cut the lower weights.  I do not believe this.  Additionally, if we want to discourage underclassmen, we will only have a worse time with overall numbers.

Never had a problem whether it be 12, 13 or 14 weight classes.  I just don't understand the weights picked.

Why not the college weights and add 3.

106 112 118 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285.  Fair to the little guys along with the some tough brackets at 197 and 285.

The closest weight difference should always be at the bottom not the middle.  Making the larger weight gaps at the bottom makes sense based off of the min weight and weight descent plans.

Agree with this. We do not need 3 weight class from 195 on up. I'm against moving up the lowest weight too. There are lots of kids who are already small for the weight class.

If we decide to cut weights because of weight classes that can't be filled, and then don't make adjustments based on the weights that can't be filled, then what are we doing??  Those CDC numbers are only marginally relevant.. what really matters is the weights of the ones that actually come out for wrestling.

[ChargerDad]

I respectfully disagree.  We need to keep opportunities open for as many as possible.  Judging by years and years of debate on this and other wrestling sites, people are frustrated with forfeits, coops, etc.  Going to 13 weights or even 12 weights will have negligible impact on these issues.  So, in the mean time, all we are doing in MN is eliminating numerous state champions and place winners all while likely not changing the outcome of any duals.  I went over the duals we had this year and while anecdotal, There was not any of our duals we were involved where the winner/loser would have changed.  I am at the end of my career but I still feel like I should be a voice for opportunity(and JV is not what athletes see as opportunity).  I also believe this opportunity leads to more and better wrestlers.  One of the worst parts in my mind is that we are the only sport that cannibalizes itself.

I do disagree with cutting the lower weights.  We should be looking at the CDC numbers for high school age students.  I have posted these numerous times before so I'll not bother doing so again.  The issue is that we are not getting these potential athletes out.
I am looking at the CDC charts right now...
5% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh under 90 pounds.
10% of 14.5 year old males (freshman)weigh 95 pounds.
25% of 14.5 year old males (freshman) weigh 106 pounds.
10% of 15.5 year old males (sophomore) weigh 106 pounds.
5% of 16.5 year old males (juniors) weigh under 100 pounds.
Remember, this is examining 9-12 grade males.  If you include 7-8 th the numbers are even lower.  I believe allowing 7-8th graders makes our sport stronger and better in quality.
Some believe varsity sports are for upperclassmen.  Then yes, cut the lower weights.  I do not believe this.  Additionally, if we want to discourage underclassmen, we will only have a worse time with overall numbers.

Never had a problem whether it be 12, 13 or 14 weight classes.  I just don't understand the weights picked.

Why not the college weights and add 3.

106 112 118 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285.  Fair to the little guys along with the some tough brackets at 197 and 285.

The closest weight difference should always be at the bottom not the middle.  Making the larger weight gaps at the bottom makes sense based off of the min weight and weight descent plans.

Agree with this. We do not need 3 weight class from 195 on up. I'm against moving up the lowest weight too. There are lots of kids who are already small for the weight class.

If we decide to cut weights because of weight classes that can't be filled, and then don't make adjustments based on the weights that can't be filled, then what are we doing??  Those CDC numbers are only marginally relevant.. what really matters is the weights of the ones that actually come out for wrestling.

I'm saying IF we decide to cut weights.  I'm not arguing for cutting weights.  My point is if you DO cut weights, then you had better do it in a way that actually has an impact on the number of forfeits or it's a completely wasted effort and ALL you are doing is reducing opportunities.  But if you decide 14 weight classes is too many, and you don't move 106 up more than 1 pound, you are looking at numbers to argue for a reduced number of weight classes, but you are using emotion to pick the new weight classes.