Filling WI Weight Classes: The Data

[Handles II]

The post on the guillotine intrigued me. I went back and re-read it a few times, looked at how (it seemed to me) the numbers were tabulated and why. Overall it seems to make sense and as I got into our WI numbers, it made even more sense.
The poster over there apparently tried to use both dual and individual meets/tournaments to compile data but found out that the dual information was far too subjective. Forfeiting has always been part of the coaching game in the sport. It's used very regularly at the college level, so looking at that and how he said it would take too much time, I didn't even bother (one of you can if you wish).

So, I went on track and compiled the numbers for all the WI indy tournaments thus far in the season that I could find (26 tournaments). I did as the other poster did and will list numbers by weight and percentage.  One thing that I think the MN poster discussed with people saying the numbers were skewed or not representative, was that it doesn't account for injuries, ACT tests, family vaccations, etc. I agree, it doesn't. But if your 160 lber is injured and you don't have another wrestler that can fill the weight, it's a forfeit, right? It means you don't have the depth/experience in one of the most populous high school weight classes, and that's an issue. Also, it was very apparent that in some of these tournaments that plenty of "JV" kids were being used to fill the weight brackets, especially in scrambles. So I counted those kids even if they were non-scoring or were part of a big team's "2nd team" or an "all-stars" type thing. A good example would be at a 14 team tournament where 16-man brackets were full. So overall as in MN it seems like the filling of weights with non-starters, and that of some wrestlers being out due to an illness, pretty much even out.  

Ok, on to the numbers:
As mentioned I got info from 26 individual and scramble tournaments from Dec 2-Dec 10 in which 353 teams were represented and a total of 4942 open spots for wrestlers (353 x 14 weights). Like making my addition to the Guggenheim, it didn't take that long to do.  
We filled 3472 of those weights for almost exactly 70%. Using the same types of numbers as in MN, 70% of 14 weights is equal to an average of 9.8 varsity wrestlers per team. On a large-scale snapshot this is really not good.  

Now...PLEASE don't turn this into a What Weights to Cut/Change, or a "See! I told you so the *** weight class sucks!" type of a thread. Because honestly, ALL the weight classes are not coming close to 100%.  Lets' just chill, look at the data, and use it to help our sport. We have schools that have been cut or co-oped, and others that are probably in danger. We know that empty varsity teams is a HUGE component of that. I'm a believer that 14 weights has contributed to this problem as much or more than any other singular factor (I didn't believe that until I started looking at Ghetto's stuff a few years ago).

So here are the weight classes:

Weight - Number of Wrestlers (out of 353 possible) - percentage

106 - 194 - 54%
113 - 177 - 50%
120 - 227 - 64%
126 - 234 - 66%
132 - 267 - 75%
138 - 283 - 80%
145 - 281 - 79%
152 - 281 - 79%
160 - 262 - 74%
170 - 269 - 76%
182 - 254 - 71%
195 - 246 - 69%
220 - 228 - 64%
285 - 249 - 70%

Our best weight class, #138 was 80% full. If all our weight classes were at 80%, that would still equate to 11.2 varsity wrestlers per team. And in reality, we are a long way from doing even that.

[benaskren]

Ok so here is my question before the debate gets hot and heavy and hopefully someone can provide a thoughtful answer. The bottom weight classes are the least populated and this seems counter intuitive to me.  Obviously the average HS kids weighs more than say 130lbs, but that being said it would be hard for a kid that small to be successful in other winter sports.  Seems to me as though it would leave wrestling as the only option for the smaller guys besides not participating. 

What do you guys think about the small guys, is there something I am missing?

[Boot]

Most Boys Varsity sports are full of Juniors and Seniors, yes the occasional SO and FR make the teams but it's fairly rare, that's why there are Freshman and JV football and basketball teams.  The 106 and 113 weight classes are predominantly Forfeits, FR or SO.  To the guys that scream give the little guys a chance I would say most JR and SR 106lbs walk around before cutting at about 120lbs plus, so they have plenty of opportunity to wrestle if we cut 106 and 113, and maybe had the lowest class at say 112.

Not every stud 80lb to 90lb 8th grader has to be rewarded with a varsity spot as a Freshman.  Plenty of Studs on the 8th grade football team play Frosh or JV football and then go on to be Varsity studs as JRs and SRs.  Reducing weight classes to fill teams and maybe leaving some FR and SO behind to wrestle JV is not hurting anything.

[crossface21]

The post on the guillotine intrigued me. I went back and re-read it a few times, looked at how (it seemed to me) the numbers were tabulated and why. Overall it seems to make sense and as I got into our WI numbers, it made even more sense.
The poster over there apparently tried to use both dual and individual meets/tournaments to compile data but found out that the dual information was far too subjective. Forfeiting has always been part of the coaching game in the sport. It's used very regularly at the college level, so looking at that and how he said it would take too much time, I didn't even bother (one of you can if you wish).

So, I went on track and compiled the numbers for all the WI indy tournaments thus far in the season that I could find (26 tournaments). I did as the other poster did and will list numbers by weight and percentage.  One thing that I think the MN poster discussed with people saying the numbers were skewed or not representative, was that it doesn't account for injuries, ACT tests, family vaccations, etc. I agree, it doesn't. But if your 160 lber is injured and you don't have another wrestler that can fill the weight, it's a forfeit, right? It means you don't have the depth/experience in one of the most populous high school weight classes, and that's an issue. Also, it was very apparent that in some of these tournaments that plenty of "JV" kids were being used to fill the weight brackets, especially in scrambles. So I counted those kids even if they were non-scoring or were part of a big team's "2nd team" or an "all-stars" type thing. A good example would be at a 14 team tournament where 16-man brackets were full. So overall as in MN it seems like the filling of weights with non-starters, and that of some wrestlers being out due to an illness, pretty much even out. 

Ok, on to the numbers:
As mentioned I got info from 26 individual and scramble tournaments from Dec 2-Dec 10 in which 353 teams were represented and a total of 4942 open spots for wrestlers (353 x 14 weights). Like making my addition to the Guggenheim, it didn't take that long to do.    
We filled 3472 of those weights for almost exactly 70%. Using the same types of numbers as in MN, 70% of 14 weights is equal to an average of 9.8 varsity wrestlers per team. On a large-scale snapshot this is really not good. 

Now...PLEASE don't turn this into a What Weights to Cut/Change, or a "See! I told you so the *** weight class sucks!" type of a thread. Because honestly, ALL the weight classes are not coming close to 100%.  Lets' just chill, look at the data, and use it to help our sport. We have schools that have been cut or co-oped, and others that are probably in danger. We know that empty varsity teams is a HUGE component of that. I'm a believer that 14 weights has contributed to this problem as much or more than any other singular factor (I didn't believe that until I started looking at Ghetto's stuff a few years ago).

So here are the weight classes:

Weight - Number of Wrestlers (out of 353 possible) - percentage

106 - 194 - 54%
113 - 177 - 50%
126 - 227 - 64%
132 - 234 - 66%
138 - 283 - 80%
145 - 281 - 79%
152 - 281 - 79%
160 - 262 - 74%
170 - 269 - 76%
182 - 254 - 71%
195 - 246 - 69%
220 - 228 - 64%
285 - 249 - 70%

Our best weight class, #138 was 80% full. If all our weight classes were at 80%, that would still equate to 11.2 varsity wrestlers per team. And in reality, we are a long way from doing even that.

Missing 120 lbs in the data.

[Handles II]

  Thanks. Let me go back and I'll find the mistake and edit the post correctly!

ok, all correct now and original "total" numbers and percentage were the same, I just didn't type in one weight.

[crossface21]

One of the unique things about our sport is that the little guy can compete. I am all for keeping a lower weight class because of that reason. With that said and playing devils advocate, the numbers are showing that that argument is less and less debatable. The lower weight isn't getting filled on a consistent basis. So what's better: continue giving the smaller kids a chance, or strengthening the sport so avoid the FF's and have better competition? I say keep the lower weight and redistribute the weight classes. I won't say how many weights that I think there should be.

[Handles II]

Most Boys Varsity sports are full of Juniors and Seniors, yes the occasional SO and FR make the teams but it's fairly rare, that's why there are Freshman and JV football and basketball teams.  The 106 and 113 weight classes are predominantly Forfeits, FR or SO.  To the guys that scream give the little guys a chance I would say most JR and SR 106lbs walk around before cutting at about 120lbs plus, so they have plenty of opportunity to wrestle if we cut 106 and 113, and maybe had the lowest class at say 112.

Not every stud 80lb to 90lb 8th grader has to be rewarded with a varsity spot as a Freshman.  Plenty of Studs on the 8th grade football team play Frosh or JV football and then go on to be Varsity studs as JRs and SRs.  Reducing weight classes to fill teams and maybe leaving some FR and SO behind to wrestle JV is not hurting anything.

See, it's already happening, people saying what weights to cut. The reality is that we could easily say we should cut virtually any of them since none are even close to 100%.

Here's something, on both our and MN numbers, 113 has fewer wrestlers than does 106. And 220 has fewer than HWT. Can anyone explain that, and is it an area to look at without limiting the chance for small athletes who simply can't be varsity studs in other sports, or limiting the big guys who need our sport to help them in others (football)?

[Oldtimer]

I've stated before, I'm not in favor of eliminating a low weight class just because there are forfeits.  I'm also not concerned that most of the wrestlers are Fr and So.  125 in college is also loaded with underclassmen.  It doesn't matter the age.  It matters the skill levels. 

I've seen some amazing small guys as Fr and So that have gone on to DI college all americans.  Eliminate the lower weight classes and people like Cory Clark, Niki Megaludis, Zach Sanders, etc. don't have a place to wrestle until they are big enough.  I really don't think that makes sense.

My take is leave it alone, accept the forfeits at the low weights if needed and enjoy what we have.

[DocWrestling]

My thoughts...

Wrestling is a sport for the little guy no doubt.  Can't we have a compromise?  Why not have team duals with 10 weight classes?  At duals everyone gets one match and they will still all get one match whether it is varsity. JV, or exhibition as they will be matched up with whatever the other team has.  This brings back the team concept for varsity and JV,  In a 10 weight class system 106 would likely have to be eliminated and lowest class would likely by about 115.  That eliminates those small freshman and sophomores but just as many equally talented freshman and sophomores are wrestling JV because they way 138 and are stuck behind upperclassmen.  You would also be likely getting rid of a 220 weight class

BUT..

Have all individual tournaments compete with 14 weight clasess.  yes you have to invite 12 teams to fill up 8-man brackets but now everyone can compete at their more natural weight.  106 lber does not have to wrestle up at 115 like he would in a dual.  210 lber does not have to wrestle up at heavyweight and wrestle guys that weight 270.

Great compromise for providing team and individual opportunities for all sizes.  Duals would be amazing with 10 weight classes with minimal forfeits, more depth, fewer pins, and likely less easy to move guys up to avoid great matchups.

[Ghetto]

Ok so here is my question before the debate gets hot and heavy and hopefully someone can provide a thoughtful answer. The bottom weight classes are the least populated and this seems counter intuitive to me.  Obviously the average HS kids weighs more than say 130lbs, but that being said it would be hard for a kid that small to be successful in other winter sports.  Seems to me as though it would leave wrestling as the only option for the smaller guys besides not participating. 

What do you guys think about the small guys, is there something I am missing?

I have also wondered this. It's always been my pitch to little guys. This is YOUR sport. It's the one where being little isn't a disadvantage.

[DarkKnight]

Forfeits are part of the sport. Eliminating a weight class is not promoting the sport or helping out the serious wrestlers.

[Ghetto]

Forfeits are part of the sport. Eliminating a weight class is not promoting the sport or helping out the serious wrestlers.

Agreed that eliminating a weight is not promotion. Neither is keeping 14 weights. I also agree that we aren't helping out serious wrestlers. Serious wrestlers will likely be in the lineup no matter how many weights we have.

It's about the sport in general that I am concerned. The best of the best are always going to be ok no matter what we do.

[Handles II]

My thoughts...

Wrestling is a sport for the little guy no doubt.  Can't we have a compromise?  Why not have team duals with 10 weight classes?  At duals everyone gets one match and they will still all get one match whether it is varsity. JV, or exhibition as they will be matched up with whatever the other team has.  This brings back the team concept for varsity and JV,  In a 10 weight class system 106 would likely have to be eliminated and lowest class would likely by about 115.  That eliminates those small freshman and sophomores but just as many equally talented freshman and sophomores are wrestling JV because they way 138 and are stuck behind upperclassmen.  You would also be likely getting rid of a 220 weight class

BUT..

Have all individual tournaments compete with 14 weight clasess.  yes you have to invite 12 teams to fill up 8-man brackets but now everyone can compete at their more natural weight.  106 lber does not have to wrestle up at 115 like he would in a dual.  210 lber does not have to wrestle up at heavyweight and wrestle guys that weight 270.

Great compromise for providing team and individual opportunities for all sizes.  Duals would be amazing with 10 weight classes with minimal forfeits, more depth, fewer pins, and likely less easy to move guys up to avoid great matchups.

Doc in your situation (which i'm not neither for nor against) the 1/2 lb per day rule (or whatever it becomes) must go. It would be virtually impossible and impractical to attempt your suggestion with this ridiculous rule.

[1Iota]

I would be open to the idea of cutting weight classes, but I think there is more than simply percentage of wrestlers at each class.  How about the quality of the wrestling at the various weight classes.  While I will acknowledge that there are some tremendous wrestlers at the heavier weights, I also believe that there are a much larger percentage of kids who are new to the sport.  This is not the case at the lower weights where some of the best wrestlers in the State have competed.  Thielke, Dierenger, Koontz, ect

[Handles II]

Weights were shuffled around several times in the past, kids just adjusted, wrestled off, or whatever.
As for which weights, I think it was Doc last year that said we need to look into some type of bell curve based off of the wrestlers we have. It might be the best way to go rather than going by a certain number of pounds to separate them.

But for right now, I think we need to learn more....Shall I continue collecting this data at least for a few more weeks?