Jump to content


Photo

Weight Classes & Growth Allowances: 2018 Rule Proposals (Jan 10--week #2)


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 davenowa

davenowa
  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 03:38 AM

The following ideas are based on an attempt to increase action, increase & simplify scoring, increase participation, reduce forfeits and increase fan interest. Some are original, others borrowed (or modified from folks such as Wade Schalles), and some are concepts that have appeared on annual surveys or as forum suggestions or comments. Always look forward to feedback and suggestions. I will post each of the following 4 proposals over the next 4 weeks...

**Individual Match Scoring (Jan 2)
**Weight Classes & Growth Allowances (Jan 10)
**Team Scoring
**Weigh-Ins

Weight Classes--Reduce the number of weight classes from 14 to 11.
1. There remain far too many forfeits, and the ability of many schools to adequately fill 14 weights remains a struggle.
2. Dual meet tie-breaker criteria becomes 1 step in 99% of ties
3. Reduction of weight classes would invigorate JV level programs
4. The current 6-pound differences between weight classes encourages unhealthy weight loss. A slightly greater difference between classes would discourage this. Currently, someone around 132 knows that 126 becomes 128 with an allowance...and for 2-day events, what once was 126 is now 130.
5. The duration of tournaments would be reduced, a benefit to fans and teams.
6. A high-caliber dual (or tournament finals/medal round) would be reduced from around 2 hours to around 80 minutes.
7. Comparable weights to college (with an additional lower weight class)
8. Begin to reign in escalating costs of officials, particularly at tournaments

Proposed 11 weight classes: 108, 116, 124, 132, 140, 148, 158, 170, 188, 212 and 285 (if implementing matside weigh-ins, add 2 pounds to each class). Based on current 14 weight classes, the first 5 wts (106-132) become 4, the next 5 (138-171) become 4 and the final 4 (182-285) become 3.
Also, consider option of allowing teams in tournaments to enter a 2nd scoring wrestler in 1 weight class (so up to 12 scorers).

Growth Allowances
As originally intended, growth allowances are well suited for high school wrestlers who are still growing. However, the terminology and implementation has changed over the years, diminishing the effectiveness. The following re-establishes a true growth allowance.
1. Weight certification process that determines a minimum weight based on 7% for males and 12% for females must be based on establishing a minimum weight class that reflects scratch weight classes at the start of the season. Ex: Wrestler A has an initial certification that determines his body fat would permit him to wrestle at a minimum of 134 pounds. This should not permit him to wrestle in the 132 pound weight class even after the “growth allowances” are implemented and the weight class becomes 134. Growth allowances are intended to allow for growth--not intended to permit wrestling at a lower weight class during descent.
2 Due to varying start dates in each state, the following is an attempt to provide a consistent growth allowance schedule that covers the regular and post-season, with an additional pound every 3rd week. Dates are based on an approximation, but for January & February would be the Sunday that is nearest the dates shown of the month.
**Scratch weight classes from start of season until December 25 (ie 106)
**Two pound allowance on December 25 (ie 106 becomes 108)
**One additional pound on January 15 (ie 106 is now 109)
**One additional pound on February 10 (ie 106 is now 110)
Note: If maintaining current NFHS wording regarding “average weekly descent” (as opposed to monitored weekly descent), the rule requiring a minimum number of weigh-ins (ie 33%) at the lowest weight class during the season seeking post-season eligibility should be re-established.


  • Erminio8 likes this

#2 RichB

RichB

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 669 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 01:23 PM

Let's say you are part of your states swimming federation. There are 14 individual events (not counting diving) (6 freestyle events from 50-1600 and 2 of the other four disciplines). Athletes can swim 3 events (plus 1 relay), and a team can put 3 guys in each. event. It becomes noticed that teams no longer have the former depth.   So the state committee decides to go to 12 Individual swims, the eliminate the 50 + 800 M/yd events.  Because most every swimmer does some practice in every discipline, teams with only 12 healthy swimmers can now field full teams. No empty lanes. Wonderful. (Actually in Pa at least, there are only like 9 individual events)

 

Now lets take wrestling. 14 weights. If you got two guys certified at each weight, about the only time you forfeit is if both 106s are unavailable.  If you are a smaller school, with a strong program, 20 guys is more likely. If they are reasonably distributed. once in a while you will fft. Not really a big deal. I expect in the 56 duals at Pa states there are typically about 56 ffts - mostly in the smaller division.

 

Ok. lets go where the problems is teams with 5-10-15 guys. OK frankly, If you have 5 guys, you shouldn't be going to dual meet tournaments. The only Dual meets should be required conference meets. No dual meet tourneys. Should only be individual. Pool style if most of the five are inexperienced, Brackets maybe if they are mostly studs.

 

10 guys - obviously you are forfeiting at least 4. 15 - you are probably usually surrendering a weight or two when guys are sick or hurt.  IF--IF they are very evenly distributed.   

 

Ok pretty obvious.

 

But a lot of times 15 is not evenly distributed. Heck even with 28 you may have only 9 in the first seven weights, and 19 in the last seven (typical of a mid sized school with a real good football program, and a coach who wants his players to wrestle in the winter, instead of just lifting weights. OK Extrapolate that to a small school with power football. 14 guys from 132 to 285, and only 1 in the first four. You field 11 guys and fft 3. 

 

If we switch to Davenowa's plan, now we are only fft two. But instead of wrestling eleven, we only wrestle nine. Then, what if the football oriented team of 15 meets a team of 15 little guys (that is only 1 in the top four weights, and the coach does not want to bump either of his sophomore 170's all the way up 188. I think a coach is a lot more likely to bump a kid to 182.  Whith 14 classes, 5 ffts and 9 bouts wrestled. With 11 weights. only four ffts, but only seven bouts. 

 

But what about increases in JVs? I wish it would be so, but I doubt it. Some(not all, but some) seniors who find they are not wrestling Varsity, are not going to wrestle JV, they are going to quit. And even with underclassmen, even if both schools non-starters are all underclassmen, I suspect the total bouts will decrease.

 

I don't have THE answer. Just a brain storm. What if coaches were allowed to declare, several weeks before a meet that "we cannot compete at weight XXX"  Say Team A has no good option at 170. So the coach notifies Team B who has a real star at 170. They will know to plan on not bothering with 170, and moving the stud to 182. Also allow, at least in the no-compete situation, allow a guy to jump 2 weights. (for example the stud has been weighing in at 160, but going to 170. in this case he could go to 182.

 

I remember a time when it was common for team A to fft 126, then B to fft 132, then those two guys wrestled an exhibition. That does not seem to happen anymore. Sure I can see it, if the meet is tight, and for conference championship, but it seems to happen too often when the final result is not in doubt, or when the meet is for 3rd place in the conference, not 5th.      



#3 cbg

cbg

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 850 posts

Posted 17 January 2018 - 02:37 AM

Well people are finally figuring out what many of us said when the great wrestling social experiment (going from 12 weight classifications to 14) was implemented and that is you are not going to increase participation numbers simply by adding 2 additional weight classifications.  My recommendation would be for high school wrestling to return to 12 weight classifications again and those being:  108, 116, 124, 132, 140, 148, 157, 167, 178, 190, 215, Unl   The biggest injustice we have in wrestling is that we have kids that are 6'4"+ and they weigh 305+ but have no where to wrestle.  These kids have the size to play not only NCAA D1 football but NFL football and we are excluding them from wrestling.  THESE KIDS ARE NOT GOING TO LOSE WEIGHT TO WERESTLE WHEN IT IS A SECONDARY SPORT FOR THEM!  I love the idea of the weight growth allowance on December 25, January 15 and February 10.    



#4 JerseyJoey

JerseyJoey

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 504 posts

Posted 21 January 2018 - 02:46 PM

Reducing the number of weight classes is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. It is moronic.

If your team is having a problem filling weights do a better job with your feeder program. Our program is average at best and we never forfeit and out of all of our opponents there is only one town that really forfeits. And that is an affluent town that loses all their decent wrestlers to prep schools.

Any change that would reduce the number of weights would be the beginning of the end for the sport

#5 BigTenFanboy

BigTenFanboy

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 5,004 posts

Posted 21 January 2018 - 06:12 PM

I think the realignment of weight classes in 2011 has hurt the sport. How do you take a weight class from the most heavily concentrated arena where the most wrestlers are and put it in the weight range thats already filled with fluff and kids that might do the sport as a secondary thing?

Sorry, but football players don't want to wrestle. You change 285 to unlimited and they wont wrestle. You can make weight classes above 200lbs at 5 lbs increments and they still wont wrestle. You can make wearing full sweats in matches so they can hide their bodies and they still won't wrestle.

Cater to the middle weights. Those kids want to wrestle. Regrow the sport from where its strongest. Taking a middle weight class away has alienated the sports most loyal athletes and given it to a group that will never hold it a prioriety over football.

Edited by BigTenFanboy, 21 January 2018 - 06:13 PM.

  • rd149 likes this

#6 cbg

cbg

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 850 posts

Posted 22 January 2018 - 05:10 AM

I think the realignment of weight classes in 2011 has hurt the sport. How do you take a weight class from the most heavily concentrated arena where the most wrestlers are and put it in the weight range thats already filled with fluff and kids that might do the sport as a secondary thing?

Sorry, but football players don't want to wrestle. You change 285 to unlimited and they wont wrestle. You can make weight classes above 200lbs at 5 lbs increments and they still wont wrestle. You can make wearing full sweats in matches so they can hide their bodies and they still won't wrestle.

Cater to the middle weights. Those kids want to wrestle. Regrow the sport from where its strongest. Taking a middle weight class away has alienated the sports most loyal athletes and given it to a group that will never hold it a prioriety over football.

 

I am going to disagree with you on the unlimited weight classification.  You give me a 6'5" & 300lb+ kid that is being recruited as a left tackle or defensive end by most of the major D1 football programs and people would be shocked at how athletic those kids are.  I witnessed what John Hannah did on the wrestling mat and I will tell you that compared to today John Hannah was an average athlete.  With just a small amount of coaching these kids would change the way people view the big boys.  The problem is the college coaches tell these kids they want them to wrestle but not to lose and weight.  


Edited by cbg, 22 January 2018 - 05:10 AM.


#7 repechange

repechange

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 765 posts

Posted 22 January 2018 - 06:24 AM

My issue with the certification tests is that BMI, skin calipers, and even pool tests are not 100% accurate. They provide ballpark estimates, but thats what they are is ballpark.

Edited by repechange, 22 January 2018 - 06:27 AM.


#8 BigTenFanboy

BigTenFanboy

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 5,004 posts

Posted 22 January 2018 - 10:45 AM

I am going to disagree with you on the unlimited weight classification.  You give me a 6'5" & 300lb+ kid that is being recruited as a left tackle or defensive end by most of the major D1 football programs and people would be shocked at how athletic those kids are.  I witnessed what John Hannah did on the wrestling mat and I will tell you that compared to today John Hannah was an average athlete.  With just a small amount of coaching these kids would change the way people view the big boys.  The problem is the college coaches tell these kids they want them to wrestle but not to lose and weight.


That's fine. There's always exceptions to the rule. IMO making 285 unlimited won't make any seriously noticible difference in numbers. I've known high school football coaches that were also their schools wrestling coach who struggled to get numbers. I know a football lineman coach who is also the wrestling coach and can't get his big guys to wrestle.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users