Jump to content
swoopdown

Fewer PA weight classes

Recommended Posts

http://fw.to/o6vQv5D
 
Helps teams with smaller enrollment / fewer participants, but limits opportunity for individual wrestlers in schools with numerous participants.
 
There do seem to be routine forfeits in the programs I follow, even some good ones.
 
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 
 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally like the change back to 12 from the 14 weight classifications we now have.  However, the bump from 170lb to 190lb is much too great.  What about

105, 115, 125, 135, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185, 200, 220, 285

By having a minimum of ten pounds between each weight classification it will decrease the amount of weight that wrestlers are currently cutting.  Weigh reduction is much better than it was in the 70's, 80's & 90's but this would further discourage trying to cut weight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bryan said:

I personally like the change back to 12 from the 14 weight classifications we now have.  However, the bump from 170lb to 190lb is much too great.  What about

105, 115, 125, 135, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185, 200, 220, 285

By having a minimum of ten pounds between each weight classification it will decrease the amount of weight that wrestlers are currently cutting.  Weigh reduction is much better than it was in the 70's, 80's & 90's but this would further discourage trying to cut weight.  

Having a greater distance in the middle will create MORE weight cutting.

106lbs already has the most forfeits, dropping it a pound won't help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

170 to 190 is a HUGE difference that probably affects a lot of kids.  That one jumped out at me.  I think it probably puts more kids at a disadvantage than 190 to 215 (another large jump, but similar to what we have seen in the past)..

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

170 to 190 is a HUGE difference that probably affects a lot of kids.  That one jumped out at me.  I think it probably puts more kids at a disadvantage than 190 to 215 (another large jump, but similar to what we have seen in the past)..

Colleges won't like that because it will be harder to find true 184lbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Maybe this is my dumb opinion, but I'm thinking maybe 110-117-125-133-141-149-157-165-174-184-197-285 (those last ten should sound familiar) if you're going to ten weights.

I 100 percent agree with this and have said this to local coaches for a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 2:36 PM, swoopdown said:

http://fw.to/o6vQv5D
 
Helps teams with smaller enrollment / fewer participants, but limits opportunity for individual wrestlers in schools with numerous participants.
 
There do seem to be routine forfeits in the programs I follow, even some good ones.
 
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 
 

 

Does it definitely help teams with smaller enrollment? Take a team with 10 kids, one naturally at each weight from 132 up. They Currently forfeit weights. A lot of folks don't stop to think. This does not mean they will now have 10 men in the lineup,  In this case, They will have 9 men in the line-up, 3 forfeits, one guy hoping he can find a JV match.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 9:54 AM, BobDole said:

Having a greater distance in the middle will create MORE weight cutting.

106lbs already has the most forfeits, dropping it a pound won't help. 

Got solid evidence on that?  I have seen evidence that the most forfeited weights in the Post Season are 195 + 220. And of course, in December, when Football and wrestling may overlap, lots of holes in the upper weights.  

Best plan - 13 weights, combining the current classes with the prior grouping. 106 thru 160 then go back to 171-189-215-285. (I could see maybe a tweek of 171 to 173)

And how about all 9th graders, except for the super small, up with Varsity-JV.-- Jr High teams? 7-9 and varsity 10-12 made sense from the mid 1950's thru the mid 70s. But today, how many school systems have the 9th graders+10th graders in two different buildings. (The only one I know I encountered in the last decade is Jefferson County WV, at the time they had a 10-12 building and a 9 only building)  

Edited by RichB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, RichB said:

Got solid evidence on that?  I have seen evidence that the most forfeited weights in the Post Season are 195 + 220. And of course, in December, when Football and wrestling may overlap, lots of holes in the upper weights.  

Best plan - 13 weights, combining the current classes with the prior grouping. 106 thru 160 then go back to 171-189-215-285. (I could see maybe a tweek of 171 to 173)

And how about all 9th graders, except for the super small, up with Varsity-JV.-- Jr High teams? 7-9 and varsity 10-12 made sense from the mid 1950's thru the mid 70s. But today, how many school systems have the 9th graders+10th graders in two different buildings. (The only one I know I encountered in the last decade is Jefferson County WV, at the time they had a 10-12 building and a 9 only building)  

Yes I do, where is your evidence?
Ohio in 2013
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FGcqfXz7OOyP9j8vjrfCguadadpZBt8yGRDQXlAR3lI/edit?usp=sharing

Indiana in 2017
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1krfJOL8VwuS33WW30KkI6rtHlL-lhu2QhNUcp4Hw8AM/edit?usp=sharing

I can probably find others, but here is a start. I can't wait to see your stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, RichB said:

Your Ohio Data is under the OLD CLASSES system,  Yes 103 had a lot of forfeits.

Here is the raw data from Pennsylvania http://www.boutmastersllc.com/results.cfm?page=701, for all 8 years of the new classes in Pa. We are talking about PENNSYLVANIA.

Per those stats, 106 and 113 are the most forfeited with 195 the 3rd most. Out of 99 schools 34 forfeited 106 and 35 forfeited 113, with 31 forfeiting 195.

Again, if the purpose of the reduction of weight classes is to REDUCE forfeits we will need to RAISE the lowest weight class. The Pennsylvania proposal for the lowest weight to be 110 is probably fairly accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 99 schools entered Wrestlers in this years PIAA qualifiers???? 470-480 would be more accurate. No District Tournament had 99. No sectional Tournament had 99. and the Regional tournaments each had the same number per weight, unless someone withdrew too late to be substituted for. 

So the entity closest to 99 schools is D3 with 91 schools. Entrants 106-63  -  113-60  - 195-62 - 220-60

I then added the second largest district D 81 schools. Entrants 106-47  -  113-44  - 195-42 - 220-47

total of the two largest districts, the only two both AA and AAA have sectionals: 106-110  -  113-104  - 195-104 - 220-107: this represents 37% of PIAA wrestling programs

 

Sure does not look like overwhelming  numbers that 106 has massive more forfeits than all other weights

 

 

Edited by RichB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 8 sections in AAA were what I used. There were at least 99 schools that entered participants.

Add them all up and tell me the number of forfeits in all weight classes, don't just cherry pick random ones that fit your agenda. If you are going to show data do it right.

I'll let you get back with me to show me how the upper weights have more forfeits. I promise you that 106 and 113 will have the most.

No one said a massive amount more, but the data shows more forfeits at 106 and 113 than the other weights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 14 sections in Pa AAA. I can't help you don't know how to find all the data, you seem to know everything about Pa wrestling, whereas I have only been involved 57 years

the entire PIAA AA, AAA, Sections Districts, sub districts, conferences 106-305, 113-302, 195-304, 220-306. Obviously within the range of miscounts. (You do realize PIAA, does not do statistics well. Look at the stats they give to the National Federation. Every sport counts athletes by multiplying an integer by the number of schools wrestling 20, Vball(b+G) 18, Outdoor track 40.) 

Significantly different from when you tried to pass off 103 data as 106  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about you're both right?  seems clear the data indicates the greatest vacancies are at both ends of the spectrum, with only about 60% of those spots being filled.  in case anyone did not see the new proposed PA weight classes, they are 110, 118, 125, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215 and 285.  Pretty much combined the lowest 4 into 3 (with a slight bump up at the bottom), combined the upper 4 into 3 and left the middle 6 alone.  Sounds fairly reasonable (although most would prefer an odd number to eliminate the dreaded tie-breaker...but that could be achieved with scoring modifications debated in other threads).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two philosophies about how weights should be distributed. That each weight class should have the same percentage of the weights 10 weights 10%, 12 weights 8.333%, 14 weights 7.143%. OR should they be on a Bell Curve. For 10 weights, the lowest and highest maybe 8%, maybe next highest and next lowest 9%... and the two in the middle 12%. In either case you could expect the most forfeits at the lowest weight, unless you set up a system whereby one certifies at a weight, and can only compete at that weight, never going up. (that would be a wrestler certs at 144.9, he cannot wrestle 160, cannot even wrestle at 152. Obviously unacceptable Of course another question would be, if bell shaped how bell shaped 8-9-10-11-12   or   9.0 9.5, 10.0, 10.5, 11.0?  

Another thing. The new classes could also be considered the older (F1990 to S2011 in Pa)  top 7 classes, but only 5 of the lower 7.  (yeah 171-189 would be replaced 170-190) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio's forfeits for this year, division 1 is biggest and 3 is smallest schools

Totals     Div 1   Div 2   Div 3  
106 241 39.70% 52 28.89% 66 33.50% 123 53.48%
113 246 40.53% 49 27.22% 78 39.59% 119 51.74%
120 189 31.14% 37 20.56% 53 26.90% 99 43.04%
126 173 28.50% 39 21.67% 45 22.84% 89 38.70%
132 152 25.04% 30 16.67% 43 21.83% 79 34.35%
138 138 22.73% 30 16.67% 41 20.81% 67 29.13%
145 137 22.57% 20 11.11% 40 20.30% 77 33.48%
152 131 21.58% 22 12.22% 32 16.24% 77 33.48%
160 164 27.02% 27 15.00% 51 25.89% 86 37.39%
170 166 27.35% 36 20.00% 50 25.38% 80 34.78%
182 185 30.48% 31 17.22% 59 29.95% 95 41.30%
195 222 36.57% 51 28.33% 70 35.53% 101 43.91%
220 198 32.62% 42 23.33% 60 30.46% 96 41.74%
285 197 32.45% 53 29.44% 59 29.95% 85 36.96%
Teams 607   180   197   230  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RichB said:

There are two philosophies about how weights should be distributed. That each weight class should have the same percentage of the weights 10 weights 10%, 12 weights 8.333%, 14 weights 7.143%. OR should they be on a Bell Curve. For 10 weights, the lowest and highest maybe 8%, maybe next highest and next lowest 9%... and the two in the middle 12%. In either case you could expect the most forfeits at the lowest weight, unless you set up a system whereby one certifies at a weight, and can only compete at that weight, never going up. (that would be a wrestler certs at 144.9, he cannot wrestle 160, cannot even wrestle at 152. Obviously unacceptable Of course another question would be, if bell shaped how bell shaped 8-9-10-11-12   or   9.0 9.5, 10.0, 10.5, 11.0?  

Another thing. The new classes could also be considered the older (F1990 to S2011 in Pa)  top 7 classes, but only 5 of the lower 7.  (yeah 171-189 would be replaced 170-190) 

Now that you are back on the rocker, you are right. There will ALWAYS be the most forfeits at the ends, that is nothing new nor would stop unless the lowest weight class is 135 and the highest is 170-300...which are both unreasonable.

The question that I have is, what is the reason for the proposal to eliminate weight classes? 
Is it to reduce forfeits? If so it will, but artificially. In Ohio for example there are about 4 forfeits per team, eliminating 2 weights could cut that in half.  This is also like saying we want to increase scoring then make takedowns worth 5 points. Yes that will increase scoring, but will we get more takedowns?
Is it to make duals more competitive? It very much could and would make them more competitive because each team would likely have a little less fluff or lineup fillers.
Something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a team is forfeiting the last two weights,  they will likely forfeit the last two if classes go from 14 to 12, and lose two starters

If a team is forfeiting the first four weights they will not go from four forfeits to two. They will go from Four to three and lose a starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding 106, you can't really count forfeits, because guys often wrestle up a weight or two for duals.  Unlike the other weights, nobody bumps up to 106 (because it's the lightest!).  So, saying "106 has the most forfeits" is a flawed argument as far as participation rates go. The lightest weight will almost always have the most forfeits, no matter what it is.  For a better statistic, you need to count bracket sizes at tournaments.

Edited by wnywrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...