Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SetonHallPirate

States using different weight classes than NFHS

Recommended Posts

I've found two so far...Michigan uses the old NFHS weights (103-112-119-125-130-135-140-145-152-160-171-189-215-285), and Montana has just 13 weights (103-113-120-126-132-138-145-152-160-170-182-205-285). Anybody else aware of other states that use different weight classes? (I'm not looking for states that add weight classes to the normal 14, such as the NYSPHSAA uses a 99-pound weight class in addition to the normal 14, although feel free to mention them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just as some divisions within some states with predominantly smaller enrollments are opting for 7 on 7 (or 8-man) football, it might be beneficial for a reduced number of weight classes (such as 11) to be offered in certain states (or within small-school enrollments, in states that separate based on enrollment).  While it could improve dual-meet competition and reduce forfeits, unsynchronized weights could cause issues when individual state tourneys roll around (or at in-season invites).  Have advocated fewer weight classes before (11, but allowing a 12th scorer at tournaments), but saw limited support (108, 116, 124, 132, 140, 148, 158, 170, 188, 212 and 285).  

 

http://board.themat.com/index.php?/topic/16457-weight-classes-growth-allowances-2018-rule-proposals-jan-10-week-2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard talk that PIAA is thinking about using their own weight classes and dropping to 12 weights. That may be why the OP asked. I am in favor of eliminating a weight class or two, but if every weight is different from other states, wouldn't that make it quite difficult for out of state competition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard talk that PIAA is thinking about using their own weight classes and dropping to 12 weights. That may be why the OP asked. I am in favor of eliminating a weight class or two, but if every weight is different from other states, wouldn't that make it quite difficult for out of state competition?

I actually asked because I happened to see Montana's weights, and totally had been unaware of it. As to the second part, like you said, it would certainly make out-of-state competition difficult...just ask anybody who coaches in Michigan (although the MHSAA makes things difficult for their teams to go out of states in a multitude of other ways as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually asked because I happened to see Montana's weights, and totally had been unaware of it. As to the second part, like you said, it would certainly make out-of-state competition difficult...just ask anybody who coaches in Michigan (although the MHSAA makes things difficult for their teams to go out of states in a multitude of other ways as well).

Gotcha. Now that you mention it, I really like Montanas weights. It has a slightly lower starting weight which I think is good because some kids are too small for 106. Plus it gets rid of a weight up top which has been watered down quite a bit since they redid the weights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard talk that PIAA is thinking about using their own weight classes and dropping to 12 weights. That may be why the OP asked. I am in favor of eliminating a weight class or two, but if every weight is different from other states, wouldn't that make it quite difficult for out of state competition?

 

IMO it would be best for the sport if wrestling returned to 12 weight classifications.  With many of the current weight classes being so close together you have kids going both up and down trying to avoid various opponents.  I would love to see a rule that kids must compete in 50% of their matches that they will wrestle in the weight they enter the state tournament series.  The 12 weight classes would be as follows:  110. 118, 126, 134, 142, 150, 158, 166, 175, 190, 215 & Unlimited.  Wrestling has eliminated the opportunity for the truly large football players 6'4" & 300+ linemen by placing a 285 weight limit.  Let's go back to the old school way and see if things don't get better.

Edited by cbg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it would be best for the sport if wrestling returned to 12 weight classifications.  With many of the current weight classes being so close together you have kids going both up and down trying to avoid various opponents.  I would love to see a rule that kids must compete in 50% of their matches that they will wrestle in the weight they enter the state tournament series.  The 12 weight classes would be as follows:  110. 118, 126, 134, 142, 150, 158, 166, 175, 190, 215 & Unlimited.  Wrestling has eliminated the opportunity for the truly large football players 6'4" & 300+ linemen by placing a 285 weight limit.  Let's go back to the old school way and see if things don't get better.

Two points

1. An 18 year old kid that weighs 300lbs is unhealthy, even one that is near 285 is on track for diabetes before 25.

2. The 50% rule doesn't exactly fit in well with the weight loss management and descent plans that are in place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points

1. An 18 year old kid that weighs 300lbs is unhealthy, even one that is near 285 is on track for diabetes before 25.

2. The 50% rule doesn't exactly fit in well with the weight loss management and descent plans that are in place. 

 

Is the kid that is 5'10" and 285 healthy?  You have eliminated the opportunity for kids that are going to play D1 football to wrestle because they are not going to cut weight.  Their meal ticket is in football but they could sure help their high school wrestling team if given the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when it was unlimited, do you remember a bazillion 285+ football players wrestling? One of the reasons for 215/220 was to try to lure more players of that size out. I don't see that it did much.

Also, If your concern is locking out a class of large kids, 110/118 locks out a group of small ones. And they don't really have another sport to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the kid that is 5'10" and 285 healthy?  You have eliminated the opportunity for kids that are going to play D1 football to wrestle because they are not going to cut weight.  Their meal ticket is in football but they could sure help their high school wrestling team if given the opportunity.

You tell that kid that he doesn't have any limit to his weight and he'll be 350....

 

You seem overly concerned with D1 football players wrestling. How many guys are we truly leaving out with having this limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard talk that PIAA is thinking about using their own weight classes and dropping to 12 weights. That may be why the OP asked. I am in favor of eliminating a weight class or two, but if every weight is different from other states, wouldn't that make it quite difficult for out of state competition?

Not really. If you’re traveling out of state, it’s on your schedule well enough in advance to plan accordingly, you just conform to the weights of that state for that particular event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. If you’re traveling out of state, it’s on your schedule well enough in advance to plan accordingly, you just conform to the weights of that state for that particular event.

 

There may be more to it than that. When teams traveled between NJ and NY in the past when NY had a 215 vs 220 and I think possibly also the lowest weight class (other than the under 100 class). One of those states prohibited their kids from competing at the other weights. Rules are unclear about going up or down a weight in these cases. 220 is different than 215 and is a higher weight class even if you weigh in at your normal weight. It seemed dumb but ...

Multiply that if Pa goes 12 and the rest of the nation goes 13 or stays 14. I don't think it would affect Pa going elsewhere since they concern themselves more with weight rather than weight classes but other states coming in to compete might have issues.

Edited by gimpeltf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha. Now that you mention it, I really like Montanas weights. It has a slightly lower starting weight which I think is good because some kids are too small for 106. Plus it gets rid of a weight up top which has been watered down quite a bit since they redid the weights.

Agree. I would like to see entire country go with Montana's weight classifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see both 92 and 99 pound weights added, but I would like to see all 9th graders up with the JV-Varsity [Jr-Hi being renamed as Middle School]  92-99 would not be weights competed in Varsity Duals, or in the State Tournaments [unless sub 9th graders are part of the State individual tournament, like NY].  92-99 would, of course, be part of JV Duals, JV tournaments. 92-99 could also be part of in season individual tournaments, either as point scorers or exhibitions. 

 

30-45 years ago I often attended Pa "Christmas Tournaments" with an 88 or later 91 class, usually exhibition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of fewer weight classes for smaller schools, like 6,8,9 man for football.

 

How about, with the present 14 classes [106,113, .... , 220, 285]  require any team to field the even classes [113, 126, 138, 152, 170, 195,  285.  Teams would be allowed to "opt out", i.e. avoid a forfeit penalty under certain restrictions. For example, in a state with 3 classes, an AAA school could declare "we cannot field a 106 pounder," their opponent might declare no 220 pounder,  so there would be 12 "contested" bouts.  [a team may still fft a second waight, say 113, or 285, or even another odd weight, like 120 or 182].

 

AA teams may opt out of 2 weight classes, and A teams might opt out of 3 classes. So, possibly a dual between two very small schools with fairly weak programs might end up with only 8 bouts.      

Edited by RichB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of fewer weight classes for smaller schools, like 6,8,9 man for football.

 

How about, with the present 14 classes [106,113, .... , 220, 285]  require any team to field the even classes [113, 126, 138, 152, 170, 195,  285.  Teams would be allowed to "opt out", i.e. avoid a forfeit penalty under certain restrictions. For example, in a state with 3 classes, an AAA school could declare "we cannot field a 106 pounder," their opponent might declare no 220 pounder,  so there would be 12 "contested" bouts.  [a team may still fft a second waight, say 113, or 285, or even another odd weight, like 120 or 182].

 

AA teams may opt out of 2 weight classes, and A teams might opt out of 3 classes. So, possibly a dual between two very small schools with fairly week programs might end up with only 8 bouts.      

Coaches will find huge loopholes in your plan. If we our opponent has a stud at an "opt-out" weight, I can just not weigh a kid in and force him up without penalty. That would create havoc and not good for the sport.

 

Having different weight classes for each "division" is also a huge issue as many times teams compete with others from the other divisions. Thus you'd have kids pulling extra weight for events just so they can be varsity when they will be varsity for a different event. On top of that it creates issues for common fans who won't know why there are different weights at every meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Dole.

 

Choosing the weight to opt out would obviously not be a night of weigh in process. It would be either for an entire season, or maybe you could revise [or end] your opt out weight once during the season.

 

The following might be suggestions for those who want totally different weight class structures.

AAA  or the National Federation standard =============14 classes = 106-113-120-126-132-138-145-152-160-170-182-195-220-285

AA or the standard of states wanting fewer classes ===== 12 classes =  108-115-122-128-135-141-148-156-168-180-200-285 

Obviously this is very chaotic. And it still might not solve the "too many forfeits" problem.

 

For Example, a small school coach just cant find anyone whose certification weight is under 118. With 14 weights he has 12 wrestlers and 2 ffts, With 12 weights he still has 2 ffts. Under the opt out plan, he would declare, "we cannot field a 106 pounder, likely for the entire year unless someone moves in."  He still must surrender six points at 113, but does not begin each dual down twelve. And if he goes up against a large school with a large roster he still fields 12 guys at their better weights. 

 

The opt out system is the answer to your second paragraph problem, no one changes weight classes just because they go against schools in a different classification.

 

No perfect solution exists, but as long as there are small schools, or too many disinterested/discouraged kids, we must choose the least bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska will be moving from NHFS plus 98 to Michigan's weights for this upcoming year.

Interesting, and I just saw this. Also, congratulations to Lathrop, North Pole, and West Valley for automatically qualifying all of their wrestlers for the ASAA Division I State Championships!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the kid that is 5'10" and 285 healthy?  You have eliminated the opportunity for kids that are going to play D1 football to wrestle because they are not going to cut weight.  Their meal ticket is in football but they could sure help their high school wrestling team if given the opportunity.

My best friend in HS was later a D1 football player in college.  He wrestled for the first time his Junior year and had about a dozen matches and qualified for state.  Then his senior year he decided not to wrestle after a long football season.  We had no heavyweight so the week of district he showed up to compete.  He was 290 lbs (15 lbs over the old 275 lb limit).  He practiced for just under an hour and weighed out at 271.  The amount a huge man can sweat is outrageous.  He wrestled 2 matches to win district and neither lasted 30 seconds.  Then he declined to go to regionals, ending the year 2-0.  

 

For a 300 lb HS kid a greasy fart weighs about 3 lbs.  The only kids who can't make 285 by skipping dinner are well over 300+.  I coached another D1 football kid almost a decade ago here in Texas who didn't have to cut weight as a junior but finished football at about 310 as a senior.  It took him a month of practice without weight cutting to get comfortably to 285 and then he didn't have to cut.  I always had tons of football players in a football crazed state, many of them were heavyweights, and it was never an issue.  

 

The only kid I ever coached where 285 was an issue was a true 330.  He wrestled as a freshman and then came back as a senior.  He was a D2 football kid who won the superheavy state powerlifting championship.  He assured me he was going to practice and make weight.  He never got under 325.  There might be 50 kids around the country like him each year who are 300+ and would wrestle if it was unlimited.  But you probably lose 500 small heavyweights who quit to avoid wrestling 350 lb guys.  It's a tough call but I think the limit is in a good spot. 

Edited by boconnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize the smallest Public school in New Jersey would be in the middle third of school size in most states. That is to say, the smallest school [maybe the second or third smallest} might only be the 150th smallest of 450 in Pa. And in states like North Dakota or Wyoming it might be in the top half sizewise. If your school always carries a 25-38 man roster a forfeit may be a rare event, a freak distribution. if You have 1/3 of the boys in the school out for wrestling, and it is only 18-22 boys forfeits are inevitable. It is a real problem, but half the folks on this board are only capable of platitudes as solutions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×