Jump to content
swoopdown

Fewer PA weight classes

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, wnywrestling said:

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.

No it's not flawed, it's the truth. The Ohio statistics are from their sectional round, aka the first round of the state series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobDole said:

No it's not flawed, it's the truth. The Ohio statistics are from their sectional round, aka the first round of the state series.

And you call them forfeits?  Aren't those byes? I'm talking regular season dual meets, where many of the 106 pounders are up wrestling 113 (and many of the 113 pounders are at 120, etc.).

Edited by wnywrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, wnywrestling said:

And you call them forfeits?  Aren't those byes? I'm talking regular season dual meets, where many of the 106 pounders are up wrestling 113 (and many of the 113 pounders are at 120, etc.).

Call them whatever you want, those spots aren't filled for the state series.

Many is an opinion, give me hard data. Prove it with hard data and not an opinion on what you see in some situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we should float the idea of dual meet weight classes ( 11 weight classes) and tournament weight classes. We can still have 13/14 weight classes for tournaments. We should also assign each wrestler points. Everything is done electronically and keep track of each wrestlers points will enable kids to wrestle more. My 2 cents 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dags158 said:

I think that we should float the idea of dual meet weight classes ( 11 weight classes) and tournament weight classes. We can still have 13/14 weight classes for tournaments. We should also assign each wrestler points. Everything is done electronically and keep track of each wrestlers points will enable kids to wrestle more. My 2 cents 

So would a kid that is in between dual weight classes be forced to cut extra for a dual? Would a coach do that for a random dual win? I'm not sure I'd want a kid cutting for a Tuesday dual then going up on Saturday for a tournament.

I think on top of that it would be confusing to fans as to why Johnny wrestled Saturday, but not at the last dual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 9:30 AM, BobDole said:

Call them whatever you want, those spots aren't filled for the state series.

Many is an opinion, give me hard data. Prove it with hard data and not an opinion on what you see in some situations.

I agree with wnywrestling - byes happen based on the size of the bracket. For example, 16 wrestlers in a 16 man bracket means 0 byes, but 17 wrestlers in a 32-man bracket necessitates many byes.

Nevertheless, I feel like your "hard data" shows that there are a significant number of lightweight wrestlers like my son, e.g., each one of those numbers represents an actual human wrestler. What are they supposed to do, just repeat 8th grade and hope they get bigger? Maybe quit the sport because their weight class isn't in the middle of the bell curve? It seems really unfair for the "majority" to take away all of the hard work these kids (my son included) have put into the sport.

What's the message we're trying to send, "sorry guys, y'all are just too small and athletic for the sport of wrestling - maybe all the lightweights should just take up gymnastics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, McycleRider said:

I agree with wnywrestling - byes happen based on the size of the bracket. For example, 16 wrestlers in a 16 man bracket means 0 byes, but 17 wrestlers in a 32-man bracket necessitates many byes.

If there are 17 teams at an event and only 15 of them field a wrestler then there are 2 teams with a forfeit or bye. It's the same thing. At the first level of the state series there are X number of teams, if the bracket is smaller than X that means there are forfeits or byes, which means a team cannot field that weight class. Call it whatever you want, it still means X number of teams cannot fill a weight class.

Quote

Nevertheless, I feel like your "hard data" shows that there are a significant number of lightweight wrestlers like my son, e.g., each one of those numbers represents an actual human wrestler. What are they supposed to do, just repeat 8th grade and hope they get bigger? Maybe quit the sport because their weight class isn't in the middle of the bell curve? It seems really unfair for the "majority" to take away all of the hard work these kids (my son included) have put into the sport.

What's the message we're trying to send, "sorry guys, y'all are just too small and athletic for the sport of wrestling - maybe all the lightweights should just take up gymnastics."

PA-wrestling.com tweeted the numbers for the past three years and 106 and 113 were the most forfeited over the past three years. That is hard data, the third most forfeited weight overall was 120 with 195+ being the next forfeited. I'm sorry I let facts get in the way.

There is no message being sent, maybe we shouldn't have a weight class that is almost solely for freshmen and sophomores. Sometimes we get too caught up with NEEDING a varsity spot or to be successful early on. You can teach your son that there is adversity in life, such as being smaller for a weight class, and he needs to figure out ways to overcome that. Things like hitting the weight room or being in the best shape possible or learning different techniques. 

What message is being sent to a kid that comes in weighing 150lbs and has to wrestle juniors and seniors while his buddy who gets called up to wrestle at 106 gets to wrestle kids his own age? 

As I stated before, if the goal of 12 weights is to reduce forfeits/byes then the lowest weight class will need to rise and we will need to also cut out an upper weight from 182-220. 

Also as stated, the issue here is not forfeits, but our participation numbers are going down. If we work on increasing participation we will fill the weight classes. Participation will not increase if we reduce weight classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BobDole said:

PA-wrestling.com tweeted the numbers for the past three years and 106 and 113 were the most forfeited over the past three years. That is hard data, the third most forfeited weight overall was 120 with 195+ being the next forfeited. I'm sorry I let facts get in the way.

...

Also as stated, the issue here is not forfeits, but our participation numbers are going down. If we work on increasing participation we will fill the weight classes. Participation will not increase if we reduce weight classes.

Exactly. Why does it matter so much that 106 and 113 were the most forfeited? Forfeits mean wrestlers were there (i.e., participating), which was my point. You're talking about turning a group of wrestlers away to "increas[e] participation."

 

7 minutes ago, BobDole said:

You can teach your son that there is adversity in life, such as being smaller for a weight class, and he needs to figure out ways to overcome that. Things like hitting the weight room or being in the best shape possible or learning different techniques. 

So something like, "you had a weight class, but now you don't. Suck it up kid, life's not fair." My kid is actually really good (and small), and we find him plenty of good matches against other kids who are the same age and weight. Maybe his workout room is an anomaly, but on any given day we have a lot of lightweights on the mats. If I'm following your logic, it sounds like these kids shouldn't have the luxury of wrestling other kids that are the same size? They should all wrestle up in the future? To be clear, eliminating their weight class will in no way encourage participation - it will only alienate an existing group of wrestlers.

If what you're saying to these long-term wrestlers is "fine then, go find another sport," how is that growing this sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great Pa small guys will just move or board at other states that have the 103lb class or they will be held back a year or two. Think of all the small studs that Pa produced that would have left the state if Pa started at 110. Many do it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 5:02 PM, McycleRider said:

Exactly. Why does it matter so much that 106 and 113 were the most forfeited? Forfeits mean wrestlers were there (i.e., participating), which was my point. You're talking about turning a group of wrestlers away to "increas[e] participation."

A forfeit in a dual meet doesn't mean there was a wrestler participating.

If there are 16 teams at an individual tournament and only 9 wrestlers are bracketed there are 7 forfeits or byes, no matter what you call them those weight are NOT filled with able bodied wrestlers. If there are 16 teams at an individual tournament in our perfect world there will ALWAYS be a full 16 man bracket, if it is not filled completely then that means there is a forfeit or bye which means a team is not filling that weight class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 6:31 PM, BobDole said:

A forfeit in a dual meet doesn't mean there was a wrestler participating.

If there are 16 teams at an individual tournament and only 9 wrestlers are bracketed there are 7 forfeits or byes, no matter what you call them those weight are NOT filled with able bodied wrestlers. If there are 16 teams at an individual tournament in our perfect world there will ALWAYS be a full 16 man bracket, if it is not filled completely then that means there is a forfeit or bye which means a team is not filling that weight class.

But why does that matter? Who cares if there are only 9 kids at some bracketed tournament. Have weight classes designed to fit the either student population and let things fall where they do. Trying to artificially force weight classes to make some internet posters happy that some magic yet irrelevant number exist in each weight classes is stupid. And before you say something I did not say we should have 200 weight classes so every kid gets a medal. There has to be some form of reasonable proportionality but this constant desire to manipulate the number of weigh classes and their separation is just dumb.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Zebra said:

But why does that matter? Who cares if there are only 9 kids at some bracketed tournament. Have weight classes designed to fit the either student population and let things fall where they do. Trying to artificially force weight classes to make some internet posters happy that some magic yet irrelevant number exist in each weight classes is stupid. And before you say something I did not say we should have 200 weight classes so every kid gets a medal. There has to be some form of reasonable proportionality but this constant desire to manipulate the number of weigh classes and their separation is just dumb.   

You are totally missing the point. If the purpose of reducing the weight classes is to reduce forfeits/byes, then we need to raise the minimum weight class based on the data that is shown. If we do not raise the lowest weight class we will continue to have many forfeits. If there is another purpose to reducing the number of weight classes, please enlighten me. Secondly, the forfeit problem is directly related to lower participation numbers. If we increase participation we will have less forfeits. In my awesome opinion if we address the issues with participation numbers the forfeits will decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there should be reasonable proportionality, but BobDole is mixing improving proportionality with changing a bottom cutoff weight. I don't have any issues with changing the proportionality of the weight classes, but I'm fully against increasing the bottom cutoff weight.

Obviously, the sizes/weights of similarly-aged wrestlers will always follow a bell curve (i.e., a normal distribution). The majority of the wrestlers (e.g., "Most People" in the uploaded figure) fall in the middle 70% of the bell curve; 30% of the wrestlers (e.g., "Some People") fall in the upper 15% and lower 15% outliers. Traditionally, wrestling is a sport that accommodates for outlier athletes, making it a particularly good sport for small guys/gals; it makes no sense to cut them out now just because they don't fall in the "Average Person" range.

With that said, there will never be as many wrestlers in the outlier brackets as there are in the middle of the bell curve. In BobDole's example, if an outlier weight class has 9 wrestlers in a 16 man bracket, then as far as I'm concerned, that's 9 reasons not to eliminate that bottom weight class. Cutting "Some People" off on the bottom end will not grow this sport, especially when those "Some People" are particularly drawn to wrestling. 

bellcurve.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if refusing to raise the lowest weight, but not against increasing increments, then to address the fact that the 2 lowest weight classes account for such a high percentage of forfeits in duals (and reduced entries in tournaments), you would need to accept keeping 106 and then jumping to 118 or 120...and many folks would subsequently rally against such a difference in weights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davenowa said:

if refusing to raise the lowest weight, but not against increasing increments, then to address the fact that the 2 lowest weight classes account for such a high percentage of forfeits in duals (and reduced entries in tournaments), you would need to accept keeping 106 and then jumping to 118 or 120...and many folks would subsequently rally against such a difference in weights. 

  • Why would 106 jump to 118? That would be a body weight jump of 11%.Not only would it be unfair for wrestlers to compete with other wrestlers having a such a high difference in body weight, I would bet that we would see significant numbers of injuries and have trouble maintaining insurance.
    • The difference in weight classes is based on percentage of body weight, not a specific number of pounds. For example, the number of pounds difference between the weight classes increases as the weight classes increase.
      • Under the 12-class system, the lower outlier body weights were separated by a difference of about 6% and the upper outliers were separated by about 7%. The middle of the bell curve (e.g., "Most People") were separated by about 5%.
      • Under the 10-class system, the percentage differences in body weight stayed about the same between the weight classes, until you get to the heavies; it's the upper outlier of the bell curve that saw the increasing percentages. 
    • So... increasing increments might mean going with an increment of 7% between each weight class, but does not necessitate raising the bottom weight class.
  • And how do the 2 lowest weight classes account for "reduced entries in tournaments"? That doesn't make any sense - you're looking at it backwards
    • If you have any entries in the lowest 2 weight classes, then eliminating the lowest 2 weight classes would eliminate those entries (not increase the entries).
      • It's like saying only X people can use product X, only Y people can use product Y, and we don't sell as many product X as we do product Y; total sales will not go up if you discontinue product X.
    • I mentioned it in another thread, but this type of thinking will kill girls' wrestling before it even gets off the ground. Just like the lightweight brackets, creating girls brackets at tournaments increases numbers, even if the brackets aren't full.
Edited by McycleRider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BobDole said:

You are totally missing the point. If the purpose of reducing the weight classes is to reduce forfeits/byes, then we need to raise the minimum weight class based on the data that is shown. If we do not raise the lowest weight class we will continue to have many forfeits. If there is another purpose to reducing the number of weight classes, please enlighten me. Secondly, the forfeit problem is directly related to lower participation numbers. If we increase participation we will have less forfeits. In my awesome opinion if we address the issues with participation numbers the forfeits will decrease.

No I get the point and it is the exact same nonsensical point they have been using for 30 years. This is high school for crying out loud not college. High schools are publicly funded (al most all of them are so done bring in the private school nonsense) and are there to support the public at large, including athletics. Sure you can't go from extreme to extreme but doing something that immediately eliminates that large of a percentage of the student population is just flat out wrong. There is no other argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 10:29 AM, BobDole said:

You are totally missing the point. If the purpose of reducing the weight classes is to reduce forfeits/byes, then we need to raise the minimum weight class based on the data that is shown. If we do not raise the lowest weight class we will continue to have many forfeits. If there is another purpose to reducing the number of weight classes, please enlighten me. Secondly, the forfeit problem is directly related to lower participation numbers. If we increase participation we will have less forfeits. In my awesome opinion if we address the issues with participation numbers the forfeits will decrease.

I believe the data quoted from PAPower did state that 106 was the most forfieted, but that it did actually have more weigh ins than at least a couple of the upperweights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 8:34 PM, 1032004 said:

I believe the data quoted from PAPower did state that 106 was the most forfieted, but that it did actually have more weigh ins than at least a couple of the upperweights

What do you mean by "more weigh-ins?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably weighed in at 106 and went 113, either due to two teammates each weighing 106 and 1 having to bump up...or more likely, a 106 bumping up to wrestle at 113 rather than take the forfeit at 106 (causing a double-forfeit at 106, which might have been calculated as 2 forfeits for purposes of their statistical analysis).  Or, as is often the case, all wrestlers on roster may weigh in (for purposes of JV matches or potential bumping), so 1 team may have had a handful of 106 pounders weighing in at every dual, while perhaps they only had one (or none) at 285 (or their 285 actually weighed in at under 220, increasing the number weighing in at that weight but not reflecting forfeits or actual matches wrestled).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BobDole said:

What do you mean by "more weigh-ins?" 

Can't remember who, but someone on twitter posted a link to the data (I can't seem to find it at the moment) and called out about 106 and I believe 113 having the most forfeits.   Someone replied and noted that within the same data, I believe it was HWT that actually had the least amount of people weigh in.

 

13 hours ago, davenowa said:

probably weighed in at 106 and went 113, either due to two teammates each weighing 106 and 1 having to bump up...or more likely, a 106 bumping up to wrestle at 113 rather than take the forfeit at 106 (causing a double-forfeit at 106, which might have been calculated as 2 forfeits for purposes of their statistical analysis).  Or, as is often the case, all wrestlers on roster may weigh in (for purposes of JV matches or potential bumping), so 1 team may have had a handful of 106 pounders weighing in at every dual, while perhaps they only had one (or none) at 285 (or their 285 actually weighed in at under 220, increasing the number weighing in at that weight but not reflecting forfeits or actual matches wrestled).


Yeah pretty much this, although I guess I was under the impression they weren't counting more than 1 "weigh in" per weight/competition, but not sure. IME 106 is also a weight where it's not uncommon to see coaches "intentionally" forfeit to studs if their guy isn't very good.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Can't remember who, but someone on twitter posted a link to the data (I can't seem to find it at the moment) and called out about 106 and I believe 113 having the most forfeits.   Someone replied and noted that within the same data, I believe it was HWT that actually had the least amount of people weigh in.

 


Yeah pretty much this, although I guess I was under the impression they weren't counting more than 1 "weigh in" per weight/competition, but not sure. IME 106 is also a weight where it's not uncommon to see coaches "intentionally" forfeit to studs if their guy isn't very good.

So basically if you have one 106 you are more likely to have MORE than one. That makes more sense since the upper weights are usually filled with upperclassmen where the bigger guys that can't cut it usually quit and thus having less bigger guys. 

The whole weight class discussion is quite interesting to watch as we all want to reduce forfeits to make duals stronger and even our JV teams stronger. However in order to reduce forfeits we must raise the lowest weight class again. Raising the lowest weight class goes against a lot of what this spot is about and that is inclusion of all sizes. Thus we get arguments to keep the lowest weight class even though we know that keeping it won't help our forfeit numbers.

There will always be forfeits, we can't get over that hump, but we need to figure out what is acceptable. At the end of the day we need to focus on retention and participation numbers. The kids that seem to be getting left out in wrestling are the part-timers. We need to realize the part-timers are just as important as the year round kids and in order to grow the sport we need them. 

Share this post


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

...in order to reduce forfeits we must raise the lowest weight class again...

I guess that's an accurate statement, but still not a good idea - just take a look at the figure I uploaded above. If reducing forfeits is your number one priority, then eliminate ALL of the outlier weight classes and just stick with the "Average Person" range; that way you won't have ANY small or big guys/gals introducing forfeits into the sport. I hope that sounds ridiculous to everyone, and can't stress enough that eliminating outlier weight classes to help grow this sport amounts to cutting off one's nose to spite their own face.
I apologise for my sarcasm, but could you even imagine what would happen to the sport if you eliminated the lightweights and the heavies? Even some of them? In other words, think about how much some of the amazing lightweights and heavies, as well as their families and supporters, have brought to this sport.

Edited by McycleRider

Share this post


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

There will always be forfeits, we can't get over that hump, but we need to figure out what is acceptable. At the end of the day we need to focus on retention and participation numbers. The kids that seem to be getting left out in wrestling are the part-timers. We need to realize the part-timers are just as important as the year round kids and in order to grow the sport we need them. 

Who are you to define what is "acceptable"? Perhaps you've missed my point. If the sport continues to raise the bottom weight classes, wrestling families with small children will leave; hence, reduced retention. Some of these smaller wrestlers might be the people that convinced their bigger friends to join the wrestling team. Likewise, their parents might be the coaches, biggest contributors, most dependable volunteers, etc. IME the smaller wrestlers are generally more athletic and technical than their larger counterparts; as I mentioned in another post, the smaller wrestlers tend to come from families where the mothers/sisters have gymnastic and/or cheer backgrounds.

106 is already too high. USAW Cadet and Juniors, as well as UWW, have much lower bottom weight classes where highly competitive wrestlers (including my son) compete at the regional/national/world level.

Edited by McycleRider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, McycleRider said:

Who are you to define what is "acceptable"? Perhaps you've missed my point. If the sport continues to raise the bottom weight classes, wrestling families with small children will leave; hence, reduced retention. Some of these smaller wrestlers might be the people that convinced their bigger friends to join the wrestling team. Likewise, their parents might be the coaches, biggest contributors, most dependable volunteers, etc. IME the smaller wrestlers are generally more athletic and technical than their larger counterparts; as I mentioned in another post, the smaller wrestlers tend to come from families where the mothers/sisters have gymnastic and/or cheer backgrounds.

106 is already too high. USAW Cadet and Juniors, as well as UWW, have much lower bottom weight classes where highly competitive wrestlers (including my son) compete at the regional/national/world level.

I'm not disagreeing one bit, it's a matter of what is best for the sport and that means a wide variety of opinions. The acceptable part is what is acceptable in terms of number of forfeits since we truly will never have that figure at 0. When we say we will accept 1.5 forfeits per team as "acceptable" then we can start working towards a solution to the issue.

The wrestling community is in quite a quandary as we want to reduce forfeits, but don't want to raise the lowest weight class. The wrestling community loves the small weight classes and will fight tooth and nail to keep them. 

As stated more than once, the problem we need to address is recruitment and retention instead of eliminating weight classes or changing them up again. When coaches and administrators realize we do a very poor job of recruiting and retention then we can start having solid discussion on what to do with the weight classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BobDole said:

So basically if you have one 106 you are more likely to have MORE than one. That makes more sense since the upper weights are usually filled with upperclassmen where the bigger guys that can't cut it usually quit and thus having less bigger guys. 

The whole weight class discussion is quite interesting to watch as we all want to reduce forfeits to make duals stronger and even our JV teams stronger. However in order to reduce forfeits we must raise the lowest weight class again. Raising the lowest weight class goes against a lot of what this spot is about and that is inclusion of all sizes. Thus we get arguments to keep the lowest weight class even though we know that keeping it won't help our forfeit numbers.

There will always be forfeits, we can't get over that hump, but we need to figure out what is acceptable. At the end of the day we need to focus on retention and participation numbers. The kids that seem to be getting left out in wrestling are the part-timers. We need to realize the part-timers are just as important as the year round kids and in order to grow the sport we need them. 

 

The more than 1 106 wasn't the way I interpreted it, but who knows as I apologize I can't find where I read that.

Obviously it's simple math that raising the lowest weight will reduce forfeits in the short-term (might as well change 285 back to Unlimited while we're at it), but I think the argument is that it might not in the long-term if you lose kids who don't think they will really be big enough for 110.   I would like to think 4 lbs (although of course up from 103 previously) wouldn't make that much of a difference, but who knows.

I think the big question as far as retention is relative to the effect on JV.    Is 2 less weight classes really going to result in that many more JV matches?   With less weights, will kids quit if they don't make varsity and thus the JV situation may not actually get any better?

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...