It's the thread you know you needed: 12 weights

[Ghetto]

I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

[Ghetto]

Here is the link with the body fat tests from 2011 to present. The "5 year combined", "7 year combined", etc. Is taking the data from five years,7 years and nine years, then putting 285 as the last weight, then dividing the total number into 14, 13, and 12 equal sections.

I hope that makes sense.

bit.ly/2020WeightMgmt

[Ghetto]

Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

I just want you to know that I did read to the bottom.

I have thoughts on the president and corona virus as well, but I'm not gonna get kicked off this forum. At least not today. 

[littleguy301]

I've never liked letting facts get in the way of a good story. But with that said, I have a collection of all of the dual meet programs and tournament programs throughout the 1980s and 1990s and so on that Division 1 Hudson High School was in. 
If you wanted to truly know how full rosters were with the teams at say the 1987 New Richmond Invite or a typical dual between Hudson and Menomonie in 1991 or the Division 1 Regional 1 in Sectional A in 1985, I could tell you.

Hint- the family with the last name Forfeit must have been Catholic. 

Unfortunately, we will all be dead before I get back into my office.

While I can't dispute your details, I can tell you that in 1972 in the Middle Border conference (the one in which Hudson participated in at the time), my high school (River Falls) participated in 10 dual meets with a grand total of three forfeits (all coming during the dual with Durand). Other teams on the schedule, e.g., Spring Valley, Prescott, Mondovi, Clear Lake, Baron, etc., brought full 12 member teams (I have the dual meet lineup sheets to back that up). So again, I am not sure what you were seeing in the 1980s, but those French guys named "Forfeit" were not in the lineups that I experienced - even small schools were putting 12 guys on the mat on a regular basis. As a coach at Sheboygan Falls in the 1980s once again I saw very few forfeits in the duals we wrestled in (and the conference in which they wrestled wasn't a wrestling power house). In six years as a coach we never once forfeited a weight due to a lack of a wrestler (although we did on three occasions as a strategic maneuver). I guess my point is that I was never exposed to these supposed forfeit trends even though I was milling around the sport for the better part of one or two decades. I can't vouch for what you were seeing, but that certainly wasn't my experience.

Nat -
1972, teams must have brought their A game against you guys.   
That was not the case with Hudson.
In our 1972 dual against Clear Lake, they forfeited 1 and we forfeited 1.  10 matches wrestled out of 12 weights.  That dual had 6 pins and a 22-0 decision, which I will call a pin.   
So just three "real" matches.  A 6-0 dec., a 16-3 dec., and one that doesn't list the score.  It was a snooze-fest to say the least and I'd guess it only lasted 35 min.

Then we wrestled Chippewa Falls and again, 10 of 12 matches wrestled.   This time, it was Hudson forfeiting both matches and the 10 other matches had 6 pins.
Then in 1972 we wrestled Baldwin and they gave us a forefeit.
Blair gave us 3 forfeits in 1972. 
Hudson gave a forfeit to Glenwood City, Mondovi gave Hudson a forfeit. 
I do not have any good data from the rest of the 1972 duels. Durand obviously gave Hudson probably at least 3 forfeits and we gave them probably one back. I hope fans didn't travel for that one. The rest of the duels just list the score and not a box score. It is what it is. I was born in 1972 so my memory isn't real clear.

To be clear though, I am not talking about the glory years in 1972. What I can show you, when I get back into my office, is that when I was in high school, in 1988, it was not uncommon for a Division I regional that Hudson was in to have a weight class or two with just three competitors out of the eight teams. I can show you the bracket. And I can show you the dual box scores in 1988 in which there were in the neighborhood of four forfeits.   
30 years ago, depending on where you were, things didn't look as different as we think they were. 

Was there more wrestlers? Yes. Should there have been more wrestlers? Yes.   Is it practical to believe that in 2020 we should have the same number of wrestlers as we had back then? No.   How many less wrestlers should we have today? I don't know that answer but a lot!   
That paragraph may feed into the argument that we should then have last weight classes if we have less wrestlers.   But as I pointed out, 47 years ago we had less weight classes for more wrestlers and still had forfeits.

Maybe it is a paradigm shift. Just maybe, we are not supposed to NOT have forfeits.   I have said this before. Slot the five basketball players into height increments. And every team can only one player per height class.   Wrap your mind around a sport of wrestling in which it is acceptable to not have a kid in all weight classes. The weight classes are to give the opportunity to everyone, come one come all. But a team is under no obligation to have a kid in every weight class.

Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

I read the whole thing.

I do remember having a full dual at times and remember forfeits in other duals in the 80:s. We were lucky I think not to have as many forfeits at that time overall but there was still forfeits back in the day.

I do remember that there were kids missing duals due to trouble more often back in the day.

Chris, I think there was a dual with Hudson and bw in like 85 that had some forfeits and the line ups look very different. Could have been 84 also. Lots of dumb decisions made on both sides

[MNbadger]

Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

[npope]

Nat -
1972, teams must have brought their A game against you guys.   
That was not the case with Hudson.
In our 1972 dual against Clear Lake, they forfeited 1 and we forfeited 1.  10 matches wrestled out of 12 weights.  That dual had 6 pins and a 22-0 decision, which I will call a pin.   
So just three "real" matches.  A 6-0 dec., a 16-3 dec., and one that doesn't list the score.  It was a snooze-fest to say the least and I'd guess it only lasted 35 min.

Then we wrestled Chippewa Falls and again, 10 of 12 matches wrestled.   This time, it was Hudson forfeiting both matches and the 10 other matches had 6 pins.
Then in 1972 we wrestled Baldwin and they gave us a forefeit.
Blair gave us 3 forfeits in 1972. 
Hudson gave a forfeit to Glenwood City, Mondovi gave Hudson a forfeit. 
I do not have any good data from the rest of the 1972 duels. Durand obviously gave Hudson probably at least 3 forfeits and we gave them probably one back. I hope fans didn't travel for that one. The rest of the duels just list the score and not a box score. It is what it is. I was born in 1972 so my memory isn't real clear.

To be clear though, I am not talking about the glory years in 1972. What I can show you, when I get back into my office, is that when I was in high school, in 1988, it was not uncommon for a Division I regional that Hudson was in to have a weight class or two with just three competitors out of the eight teams. I can show you the bracket. And I can show you the dual box scores in 1988 in which there were in the neighborhood of four forfeits.   
30 years ago, depending on where you were, things didn't look as different as we think they were. 

Was there more wrestlers? Yes. Should there have been more wrestlers? Yes.   Is it practical to believe that in 2020 we should have the same number of wrestlers as we had back then? No.   How many less wrestlers should we have today? I don't know that answer but a lot!   
That paragraph may feed into the argument that we should then have last weight classes if we have less wrestlers.   But as I pointed out, 47 years ago we had less weight classes for more wrestlers and still had forfeits.

Maybe it is a paradigm shift. Just maybe, we are not supposed to NOT have forfeits.   I have said this before. Slot the five basketball players into height increments. And every team can only one player per height class.   Wrap your mind around a sport of wrestling in which it is acceptable to not have a kid in all weight classes. The weight classes are to give the opportunity to everyone, come one come all. But a team is under no obligation to have a kid in every weight class.

Nobody is reading this anymore, because I know that you do not get more than one paragraph deep into a forum read.   So I will leave it with this. A belief that it is so incredibly obvious that we should only have 12 weight classes is the same belief of how incredibly obvious it is as to who should be president and how incredibly obvious it is as to how to handle Coronavirus. It's not as obvious as you think.

Yes Chris, I cannot speak to the late 1980s and after - I was totally out of the game other than to watch my nephews wrestle on occasion. I can tell you that in 1972 Hudson presented a full complement for 12 weights when we wrestled them I don't think anybody was shaking in their boots about RF in 1972...the program was just gaining steam at that time, so I don't think they were bringing their "A game" just because it was RF (Ellsworth, and to a lesser degree, New Richmond were the local "bullies" at the time). And I can't explain why your information from the '70s is so different than my experience. I can only say that RF had 60 kids out for the team in 1972 (and that's before RF actually took off for a couple of decades) and forfeits from other teams were few and far between. When we had duals in the '70s there was almost always a full varsity contingent; an almost full JV crew, and a handful of "C-team" matches.

[Ghetto]

Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

The point isn't for some team that usually is in the bottom third of their conference to upset Coleman, Mukwonago, Stoughton, Kaukauna, etc. It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals. The powers that be do it better. Of course they would be able to consolidate their lineups and be that much better.

[3boys]

I wrestled on a freshman team in the mid 70's. We had almost a full team and wrestled a freshman schedule. We also had 2 freshman on varsity. So it was different back in the day.  That being said when I started coaching I walked into a program that had several forfeits. A few years later we had 30 kids in the room and some state qualifiers. I beat the bushes and found good athletes that became ave to above even though they started wrestling as freshman and sophmores. I took a break for a few years and came back to coaching, It was the specialization where it became real difficult for that late starter to be successful and as a result our numbers suffered. Recruiting burned me out of the wrestling room.

[MNbadger]

"It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals."
We already have this with 14 weights.  For us, in our conference it would not matter how many weights we go to.  The couple of teams we are competitive with, we are competetive with now.  We had a very exciting dual during the year and we wrestled another close dual in the first round of sections.
The rest of the schedule I try to find competition like us.  I don't see how fewer weights will change this at all.
When we were regularly in the top ten our crowds were never like what you see in certain few rivalries that stick out in people's minds.  They are few and far between and again have nothing to do with the number of weight classes.
All my opinion of course.   

Going to 12 weights will not allow a team to defeat say ...... Coleman that can't beat them with 14 weights.   One might argue that it will be worse with 14 weights as Coleman will be condensing their talent making it tougher to score any points against them.

I understand the points of more exciting duals and agree, they'll be a few more exciting duals to follow.

But, there are already plenty of exciting of duals from the middle tier teams and upper tier teams. Duals in the CWC and plenty of other conferences have been fun to follow.

Luxemburg Casco vs WT and Denmark and others are always fun.

Top teams like Kaukauna, Stoughton, Mukwonoga, Coleman, Stratford, Ellsworth, etc, will still handle much of their competition if we drop to 12 weights. They have their share of interesting duals in the current 14 weight format also.

I think that what you've said here is at the heart of my argument. I would like to see duals competitive for the majority of teams. Duals create interest in programs. Every team would benefit from a competitive dual with tons of kids in the stands.

The point isn't for some team that usually is in the bottom third of their conference to upset Coleman, Mukwonago, Stoughton, Kaukauna, etc. It's for that bottom third team to have an exciting dual with someone close to their caliber. Good conference duals. The powers that be do it better. Of course they would be able to consolidate their lineups and be that much better.

[DocWrestling]

My high school recollection from the late 1980's.

1) We had a full varsity team and a full JV team and that was just with 10th-12th graders.  Our freshman were not at the high school and wrestled for their junior highs with 7th, 8th, and 9th graders.  He had two junior high teams this with many freshman on those teams.  An occasional freshman would go up and wrestle at the high school.  Our junior high teams wrestled duals with weight classes. 

There were some forfeits I am sure from other teams but much less than now.

Duals are the key to high school participation.  Kids want to be part of a team.  Duals give all talent levels a chance to help the team even in losing and also gives each wrestler two chances to win either in their match or as a team.  Those that have competitive duals and emphasize team have the best traditions and success over time.  Many wrestlers quit wrestling because duals have no team concept because result is never in doubt and they hate saturday individual tournaments.  No fun giving up their entire Saturday to go 1-2 and sit around all day after wrestling less than 10 minutes.  Parents also have less time and spend less time going to Saturday tournaments.

This sport's overall success is not about the dominant teams or dominant wrestlers.  It is about the other 80% who are just wrestling for high school fun and to be part of a team.

[3boys]

This sport's overall success is not about the dominant teams or dominant wrestlers.  It is about the other 80% who are just wrestling for high school fun and to be part of a team.

This is true of all High School sports. I agree 100%. As a football coach I wonder how this will affect our fall teams. A summer of no coaches telling kids what to do and when to do it in all sports may turn out to be a good thing. What a relaxing summer for kids and coaches.

[The wrestler]

Being that wrestling is a tough sport and isn't for all of the young men. Wrestling Is a traditional sport in most places. If the brother wrestles then so will all the boys. Also if the father wrestles so will the son in most cases. But most kids do not want to wrestle JV. If they get to high school and can't wrestle Varsity they will stay home. Also D2 and D3 had lots more farms and farms have lots of kids. Now that the farms are no longer around the people move to bigger towns and that would be D1 where they have every sport and who wants to cut weight. They play hockey or other sports. This might not make a lot of sense to people but farms had 10 kids and that is what happened no farms and no kids. That's what happened in our conference schools. We have 22 kids out and it is hard to be competitive and put 14 kids on the mat. I think team state would have more teams that would be able to win their regionals if we went to 12 wts. Think about that once. Always the same teams that make it to team state. The same D1 D2 D3 teams in the running all the time.

[DocWrestling]

But most kids do not want to wrestle JV. If they get to high school and can't wrestle Varsity they will stay home.

If this is true we have much bigger issues.  This is not true at the top programs

[ramjet]

Love this annual discussion too bad it means absolutely nothing as far a change goes. Absolutely nothing.

[npope]

Love this annual discussion too bad it means absolutely nothing as far a change goes. Absolutely nothing.

Almost like you talking to your wife, eh?