If we were to drop to 12 weights, what would they be?

[crossface21]

Reducing the number of weight classes does not reduce opportunities IMO. If a kid doesn't make varsity, there is still JV to wrestle. The reducing opportunities argument to me makes no sense.  I'd love 12, but I say just go back to 13 weights.

[ramjet]

Cutting weights will actually increase participation.

Pushes kids who shoukd be developed via a JV program and not get tore to shreds by upperclassmen.

Letting them or forcing it is good thing in that you will not have 14 year olds wrestling 19 year old super seniors. Less weights has only an upside using "development" as the guiding premis.

10 weight classes makes better sense add in a JV State tournament things get better

[ElectricGuy]

a straw man argument. And at upper weights right now, you could weigh 152.1 and wrestle 170, 160.1 and wrestle 182. It only matters when little guys have to give up weight?

"Straw man argument"  -  nice shot even though you took it out of context and made it about something else,  I will still pass on my cheap shot back.......

Let the teams that can recruit, emphasize duals and the rest focus more on individual tournaments - kind of like MNBadgers spin - it would need a WIAA competition limitation rule-rewrite (7 individual & 7 multi team rule) change.  Maybe a example of flexible schedule (9 multi team & then zero duals)   I love the duals - but some schools just can't draw the kids - for whatever reason which I wont get into...........

Back to my "straw man argument" - My argument wasn't that it only affects the smalls - but that we would increase the gaps when wrestling up - lower and upper -  Your example,  because that wrestler gives up 21.9 -  whatever weights you choose to shuffle and eliminate would create larger gaps for wrestling up - explain how that is a straw man argument? So your argument "coach" is that a 106 (+21.9) wrestling a 127.9lb'r is the same as 160.1 (+21.9) wrestling a 182lb'r?   Just want to confirm that is your argument?

[Ghetto]

I'm gonna guess that putting coach in quotations is your shot back. So because I disagree with your argument I'm not qualified to coach?

OK.

My point is that there is already gaps for bigger guys. It isn't necessarily something that is different, rather it would be for all groups instead of just the big guys. I don't see how it's different. If the percentages are close I don't have a big issue with it.

Also, "coaches" would have, and always do have, a say in how much weight a kid gives up. "Coaches" do this all the time and hold their kids out of matches (usually JV) when the weight differential is too large. Just because a kid CAN wrestle doesn't mean he should.

[ElectricGuy]

The "coach" was to point out that your a "coach" and I was asking you as a "coach" a question - do you think that 21.9lb differnce is the same for each kid --  Which you still didn't answer my question - do you think that is the same 106lb'r vs 160lb'r? Simple question.......  

If you want to take "coach" as a shot - lol - go ahead

Of course coaches always have that right not to wrestle someone up........   Never said they didn't - only argument that I have made is that reducing weights is going to make the gaps that much bigger.  Which you can't argue, but you can change the subject.

I saw 4 of your duals had 6 plus forfeits  - you sure you don't want to cut it from 14 down to maybe 7 to make your duals more exciting?  How about maybe just one - run it as a king of the mat?

Grafton - 7 forfiets
Milwaukee Lutheran - 9 forfiets
Nicolet - 6 forfiets
Cedarburg - 6 forfiets

[littleguy301]

a straw man argument. And at upper weights right now, you could weigh 152.1 and wrestle 170, 160.1 and wrestle 182. It only matters when little guys have to give up weight?

Sorry...but the straw man argument is think reducing weight classes will help grow the sport of wrestling.  Its society's  lazy mentality to take the easy way outm. Instead of working harder to recruit and retain...many just want decrease the weight classes.  Reality is that doesn't guarantee any less forfiets.

aarons what you may not be looking at is the small town and the budget issues.

Some powers to be see that teams are not filling out lineups and they think that sport needs to be cut because you certainly cannt field a basketball team with only 4 players is the train of thought.

Some AD look at the number of weights not being filled and think that is a major problem.

I do support going back to 12 weights or 13 because of the tie breaker rule, matches won. Though JV needs a  push and that starts at a lower level with that train of thought.

Sorry, I believe the day of handing out ribbons to everyone that competes is gone way to far. I want more of a have to earn that ribbon train of thought. To be honest though, some teams will not be able to fill out 12 and people will get that ribbon any ways.

Sports are declining in numbers so increase the chances I believe will not increase the numbers.

[DocWrestling]

The only time we lose opportunities is when we lose a team to a co-op.

With fewer weight classes, I believe we would see fewer co-ops formed and fewer programs dropped.

You have to look at this from an administrator perspective.  They are not going to continue to pay the costs for teams that continually wrestle in 20 minute duals with 8-9 forfeits.

Fewer weight classes will lead to less forfeits as it condenses the same amount of kids into fewer weight classes almost forcing them to wrestle rather than having a 140lber take a forfeit for one team and the 145lber take the forfeit for the other team.

It will not change weight cutting for good or bad.  We have a system that supposedly prevents any kid from cutting too much so I guess we should not worry about the safety of that.  If we did shift the majority of the weight classes up, there would be fewer weight classes below the average weight of a high schooler and that might lead to less weight cutting and more kids having to grow and get bigger to fill weight classes.  Remember if you have three 145lbers you can wrestle them at 145, 152, and 160 but none can fill the spot at 140.  You can wrestle up but not down.  Now I am not for this but there would be a lot fewer forfeits if the lowest weight class was 125 because everyone could wrestle up.  Now you need to balance this with fairness that provides opportunities for the little guys.

[billymurphy]

When it comes time to cut a program, they look at how many matches your team forfeited during the season.
When you go to a meet, if each team has to forfeit two weights, that means four weight classes that are
not wrestled.  I think 14 weights is way overboard.  Way too many forfeits.  For a small high school
it is very hard to fill that many weights.  However, some administrator looks at things differently. 

[bigoil]

105
112
119
126
132
138
145
155
167
185
HWT

I know this is only 11, but that is what I would go to. Not convinced we need the 215/220 class.

[DocWrestling]

My vote would be 11 weight classes for varsity and then 11 different lighter weight classes for JV.  These weight classes would be firm for every weigh-in.  No extra pounds for growth or wrestling consecutive days.  99% of juniors and seniors would fit into the varsity weight classes with only 1% maybe being too small for 112.

If we went to 12 I would squeeze in another weight class between 112 and 162

Varsity---------JV
112-------------104
122-------------114
132-------------124
142--------------134
152--------------144
162---------------154
172---------------164
182---------------174
192---------------184
202---------------194
285----------------285

[1Iota]

My vote would be 11 weight classes for varsity and then 11 different lighter weight classes for JV.  These weight classes would be firm for every weigh-in.  No extra pounds for growth or wrestling consecutive days.  99% of juniors and seniors would fit into the varsity weight classes with only 1% maybe being too small for 112.

If we went to 12 I would squeeze in another weight class between 112 and 162

Varsity---------JV
112-------------104
122-------------114
132-------------124
142--------------134
152--------------144
162---------------154
172---------------164
182---------------174
192---------------184
202---------------194
285----------------285

I absolutely can't understand the motivation to raise the minimum weight class.  The 106lb weight classs with the growth allowance becomes 110 by the time State comes around.  With weight cutting most of these kids are walking around between 115 & 120 with some weighing over 120 naturally.  In a sport that the smaller athlete gravitates too there is something substantially wrong with your program if you don't have a 106 pounder.  The heavier weights on the other hand seem to be where the largest number of FFs are & the where you are most likely to find inexperienced kids pulled out  of the hallways to wrestle. 

[DocWrestling]

The WWF runs a state tournament with basically a 7th/8th grade division.

They have 22 weight classes.  6 of those are under 110.

So 27% of weight classes fit under 110 for 7th and 8th graders

How many weight classes should be under 110 when these kids are 4 years older?

Many people disagree with me but varsity weight classes should be set up for the average size of juniors and seniors and thus JV weight classes should be smaller.  No way they should be the same.  For every kid that is too small as a freshman, there are many more juniors and seniors being squeezed out of opportunities due to so many weight classes below them.  I would rather see extra weight classes in the 130-160 range where the great majority of juniors and seniors fall.

Many argued for a wrestler like Furseth when this debate came up in past years,  Well he did not even wrestle in the lowest weight class this year.

We can argue where the forfeits come from but truth is they come from both ends of the spectrum with the smalls and the bigs because they are on the end of the curves.  Nobody can argue with what a small percentage of high school juniors and seniors can actually wrestle at 106.  Every other weight class has to battle the best of all 4 grades.  106 is basically a freshman/sophomore weight class.  There are outstanding little guys and it can be unfair to them but they are a very small percentage and we cannot have that very small percentage be a concern when change is considered for the entire sport.  I am not against the little guy, I am just against what a small percentage of the sport they make up especially when talking about juniors and seniors in relation to the lowest weight class

[DocWrestling]

I absolutely can't understand the motivation to raise the minimum weight class.  The 106lb weight classs with the growth allowance becomes 110 by the time State comes around.  With weight cutting most of these kids are walking around between 115 & 120 with some weighing over 120 naturally.  In a sport that the smaller athlete gravitates too there is something substantially wrong with your program if you don't have a 106 pounder.  The heavier weights on the other hand seem to be where the largest number of FFs are & the where you are most likely to find inexperienced kids pulled out  of the hallways to wrestle.  

This is also why I would get rid of the growth allowances and make every wrestler make that weight 90% over the course of the season to be eligible to wrestle it in the state series.  If you want to wrestle a weight class then wrestle it all year.  No more dropping at the last minute.  Cutting weight would make it more difficult over an entire season and it would also then start affecting performance with holding that weight for longer periods of time.  It would be a penalty in performance to pick too low of a weight class versus now performance can sometimes reward those that only cut for the final 3 weeks

[Ghetto]

The "coach" was to point out that your a "coach" and I was asking you as a "coach" a question - do you think that 21.9lb differnce is the same for each kid --  Which you still didn't answer my question - do you think that is the same 106lb'r vs 160lb'r? Simple question.......  

If you want to take "coach" as a shot - lol - go ahead

Of course coaches always have that right not to wrestle someone up........   Never said they didn't - only argument that I have made is that reducing weights is going to make the gaps that much bigger.  Which you can't argue, but you can change the subject.

I saw 4 of your duals had 6 plus forfeits  - you sure you don't want to cut it from 14 down to maybe 7 to make your duals more exciting?  How about maybe just one - run it as a king of the mat?

Grafton - 7 forfiets
Milwaukee Lutheran - 9 forfiets
Nicolet - 6 forfiets
Cedarburg - 6 forfiets

Simple answer: Of course it isn't the same to have a 106 pounder give up 21 pounds compared to a 160 pounder.

Complex answer: 21/106 is 19.8% of their body weight. 21/160 is 13.1%. If the 106 pounder was around 101, and wrestled up at 116, that would be around the same percentage as the 160 pounder giving up 21 pounds.

Yes gaps would be bigger.

I want to cut it to 12. It was 12 before. I'd even settle for 13. I think 14 is too many.

[slewguy]

13 weights

with different weight classes for varsity and Jv-- look at 106 at the WIAA State tourney-- some good wrestlers but mostly a freshmen/sophomore mix.  I think there are more kids in the middle weights that get squeezed out due to competing against other juniors and seniors-- I think Doc is correct in his logic