WWCA looking for head coaches' opinions

[Ghetto]

My data is just weights from the day they did the bodyfat testing.

[MNbadger]

Here's what I did...

There were 8007 kids who bodyfat tested in 2015-2016. I divided 8007 by 14. That gives you 572. I then started at the bottom and counted up 572, then another 572 and so on until the 13th weight class. I just thought 285 was a good ending point, so that is the last weight class. Because more kids weigh in the middle weight area, the weights are closer together.

Here's 2011-12, distributed in that way... 8946 kids bodyfatted, divided into 14, 13, and 12 equal groups.

14 weights: 112, 121, 128, 134, 139, 145, 150, 156, 163, 172, 183, 199, 224, 285
13 weights: 113, 123, 129, 136, 141, 147, 153, 160, 169, 176, 196, 221, 285

But if we want to increase numbers we should be catering to all students.  This the same argument someone on another thread stated that he did not think most college 125 pounders could make 118.  Of course not, they are 125 pounders!  Teh 118 pounders left the sport or never appeared because there weight class is/was gone.
12 weights: 114, 124, 131, 138, 144, 150, 157, 165, 176, 193, 218, 285

Do you realize at 112 you are at the 50th percentile for 9th grade high school students?

Not according to the data that I have from Wisconsin wrestlers.

[MNbadger]

Here's what I did...

There were 8007 kids who bodyfat tested in 2015-2016. I divided 8007 by 14. That gives you 572. I then started at the bottom and counted up 572, then another 572 and so on until the 13th weight class. I just thought 285 was a good ending point, so that is the last weight class. Because more kids weigh in the middle weight area, the weights are closer together.

Here's 2011-12, distributed in that way... 8946 kids bodyfatted, divided into 14, 13, and 12 equal groups.

14 weights: 112, 121, 128, 134, 139, 145, 150, 156, 163, 172, 183, 199, 224, 285
13 weights: 113, 123, 129, 136, 141, 147, 153, 160, 169, 176, 196, 221, 285
12 weights: 114, 124, 131, 138, 144, 150, 157, 165, 176, 193, 218, 285

Do you realize at 112 you are at the 50th percentile for 9th grade high school students?

Not according to the data that I have from Wisconsin wrestlers.

But we should be catering to all students if we want to increase participation.
this is somewhat similar to another thread where someone was saying that he did not think any college 125er could make 118.  Of course not, they are 125ers!  The 118 pounders left the sport(and quit appearing) when the college weights were bumped up five pounds and their weight class disappeared.

[Ghetto]

The median weight of Wisconsin wrestlers in 2012 was 149.8

That's not close to 112.

I wrestled 98. I am very passionate about little guys. I consider myself a little guy coach. That said, there aren't a ton of kids that small wrestling. Is it because the weight has risen, IDK.

[Ghetto]

My point is the fair way to cut is by weight and age.
I would hate to see a weight class loaded with seniors but maybe light on total numbers get cut just to insure a freshman gets his varsity letter.
Again why would we even want to cut kids out of the sport??

I just don't agree that we are cutting kids out of the sport if we change the weight from 132 to 137. We are reducing varsity opportunities if we go to less weights.

[Ghetto]

The lighter weights can still wrestle JV, while they are getting bigger/faster/stronger just like in all the other sports. OR We Can Just Keep What We Have and improve the experience to attract more athletes to come out.
Don't forget most teams still have a JV squad.

So can the kids that don't make varsity at every other weight in the lineup.

This just hit me... what if kids started transferring because they didn't fill a weight at School X, and went to School Y? Parity baby!!! More good duals. More opportunities!

[babywhales]

If you take the amount of kids, and divide them into 14 equal categories, the lowest weight is not 106. If you (or anyone) can explain to me how to make a bell curve graph in Excel, I would certainly appreciate it.

I am a little guy (was) but I am in support of putting weights where the kids are. If the 106 weight class doesn't make sense, then sadly I'm not for it.

There were 43 kids in the last five years who weighed 82 or less out of 43,000. That's a pretty small percentage. 146 kids weighed 88 or less. Neither needs a weight class. To me, dividing the weights according to where they lie makes more sense than a bell curve.

A Bell Curve for Wrestlers Weights

In column A "Weight Categories" enter the weight categories for high school wrestling (106,113,120,126,132,138,145,152,160,170,182,195,220,185)
In the column B "# of wrestlers" enter the # of wrestlers that participate at each weight class. At the bottom after the last entry get a total of wrestlers.  (=sum(highlight all the boxes with entries)
In column C  "% of wrestlers"

You can then graph the actual numbers of wrestlers or the % of wrestlers by weight class.

Highlight the B or C  column. Then click on "insert", in the charts section you will see I symbol with dots everywhere, this is the symbol for a scatter plot; click on it, excel will prompt you with options, pick the first symbol in the second line . this is the one with the dots connected by straight lines.


The chart will appear.  The # of wrestlers or the % (depending on what you graphed) will be on your "Y" axis and each of the 14 rows on the "x" axis will represent the 14 weight classes. To make the X axis columns show the actual weight classes, right click on the your line on the graph.  

A box titled, "Select Data Source " will appear, click the edit box

A box called "Edit Series" will appear . Click the Blue and red square symbol to the left of the x values. Your data source (# of wrestlers or % will turn gray) then highlight the weight class columns, hit " enter"
then click "ok"
The "select data source" box will reappear, click OK.


Cleaning up the chart:
Right Click on numerical labels on axis, then click "format axis" . You can reset your bounds .

Good Luck
I apologize for typos or misspellings I typed this fairly fast on my break and off my memory.

[Barou]

If the WWCA would actually push for JHI and be adamant with the WIAA (after all they are the governing body working FOR the schools) don't people think that might be worth trying before cutting weight classes?  Not just to fill some spots in the lower weights but the possibility of improved participation and better development. 

[Handles II]

Barou, You aren't getting it. The WIAA will not approve JHI for wrestling.
It would need to have coaches from all sports to the A.D.'s and the A.D.'s pushing for it.
And...Apparently, the WWCA either understands this process, or simply decided that they didn't want to include it (or double elim) into the survey.

[aarons23]

Whats really sad is we have coaches here in Wisconsin wasting 7 pages of why we should cut weight classes and not a single one of them has started a thread about what we can do to attract and keep more wrestlers to the sport....not a single thread about what are the successful schools doing to be successful...not a single thread about how to get administrations to get on board and buy into your programs, not a single thread about building of good middle school programs and the things Kuakauna, LC, Coleman and others are doing to change middle school wrestling.....I guess its just easier to cut weight classes and hope we can field a team...its pretty sad.  I spent the weekend with a bunch of Illinois wrestling families...Illinios is miles ahead of us right now...not one of them and many are coaches thought cutting weight classes was a good idea.  States like Tennessee, Georgia Texas and Maryland are passing us up because we are more interested in cutting weight classes than actually doing things that will grow the sport.  Again Sad!!!

[madeyson]

What would be the strategy behind reducing weight classes? To have less forfeits??

What would happen to overall wrestling numbers if you reduce weight classes? Anyone disagree the participation numbers would go down?

What would happen if participation numbers go down? Would all of those athletes go out for another sport?

Are we looking for better competition? Let's admit the elite wrestlers are getting the better competition at Fargo not their individual state tournament.

My two points:
1) This is high school sports - shouldn't we be more concerned with participation and getting kids involved then making for better dual meets?
2) More participants = higher probability of improving the sport. Let's focus on improving the sport and attracting more people to it.

As a parent of a small kid I definitely have skin in this game - so don't want to hide that.

Respectfully - what would we get out of fewer weight classes? I am not trying to be a jerk...I just don't understand the WHY???

[bigoil]

Here's what I did...

There were 8007 kids who bodyfat tested in 2015-2016. I divided 8007 by 14. That gives you 572. I then started at the bottom and counted up 572, then another 572 and so on until the 13th weight class. I just thought 285 was a good ending point, so that is the last weight class. Because more kids weigh in the middle weight area, the weights are closer together.

Here's 2011-12, distributed in that way... 8946 kids bodyfatted, divided into 14, 13, and 12 equal groups.

14 weights: 112, 121, 128, 134, 139, 145, 150, 156, 163, 172, 183, 199, 224, 285
13 weights: 113, 123, 129, 136, 141, 147, 153, 160, 169, 176, 196, 221, 285
12 weights: 114, 124, 131, 138, 144, 150, 157, 165, 176, 193, 218, 285

Do you realize at 112 you are at the 50th percentile for 9th grade high school students?

I have a hard time believing 50% of 9th grade boys weigh less than 112.

[Jeff Farrell]

Amen Aarons!!!!

What did Neenah do well recently to change the tide?
How about Slinger?
And Hortonville?
How about the resurgence in Kenosha Schools?
Lake Geneva Badger wasn't always a perennial power...not too shabby over the last 8 years?
Elkhorn seems to be able to field a full, competitive team lately?
Evansville sure seems pretty solid year in, year out
That Beloit Turner team seems to be improving tremendously.

There are others that I'm sure I am missing.....what is the common ingredient in these schools dramatic improvement recently?  These coaches are doing something different, and it has little to do with a "wrestling culture", JHI, or the number of weight classes.

[MNbadger]

Here's what I did...

There were 8007 kids who bodyfat tested in 2015-2016. I divided 8007 by 14. That gives you 572. I then started at the bottom and counted up 572, then another 572 and so on until the 13th weight class. I just thought 285 was a good ending point, so that is the last weight class. Because more kids weigh in the middle weight area, the weights are closer together.

Here's 2011-12, distributed in that way... 8946 kids bodyfatted, divided into 14, 13, and 12 equal groups.

14 weights: 112, 121, 128, 134, 139, 145, 150, 156, 163, 172, 183, 199, 224, 285
13 weights: 113, 123, 129, 136, 141, 147, 153, 160, 169, 176, 196, 221, 285
12 weights: 114, 124, 131, 138, 144, 150, 157, 165, 176, 193, 218, 285

Do you realize at 112 you are at the 50th percentile for 9th grade high school students?

I have a hard time believing 50% of 9th grade boys weigh less than 112.

Oil, se the CDC link provided in my earlier post.  I am sure in some places kids may be heavier than others, not to mention we have not even considered fat %.

[MNbadger]

Looking at this another way.... we have many of our weight classes where the kids aren't.  A hypothetical comparison would be boy's basketball deciding to only allow kids 6' 5" tall or better to play.  Numbers wold drop in a hurry and they would struggle to field teams everywhere.