Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wrestler

New rules and weight categories

Recommended Posts

Burroughs will obviously wrestle 75. Personally I had no issue with 7 weights. Six is too few though. Mind you, I would have kllled for an 80 kg weight class when I was competing...

 

I like 7. I want to see the highest level of wrestling have fewer weights than the lower collegiate level. In HS there's 14, college there's 10 and 7 internationally. Seems good to me.

 

I believe the current 7 weight classes covers the weight spectrum just fine.

 

i dont follow the logic. why 7 instead of 8, 9 or 10? with 7 theres pretty big gaps between weights. especially in the middle weights where the majority of the population falls. tweeners get screwed. 8 is the minimum i'd vote for. 10 preferred. have not seen any good reason why 7 is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:If you have too many weight classes, the talent pool becomes diluted with similar sized wrestlers not needing to compete each other. If you have too few, wrestlers are included because they will always be either too big or too small to compete effectively. Seven isn't necessarily a perfect number, but it did seem to be workable. Ten seems like a bit much- did we really need 3 weights under 60 kg and 4 weights over 80 kg? The proposed 8 (or 9) seem just fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they would have a 50-52kg weight in there. A lot of the Asian countries have some very tough guys who fill those weights and are very exciting to watch. I think what they're doing with this approach is showing the Olympics what they're missing by restricting us to only 6 weights. If they can get through more than 6 weight classes in the same amount of time they're given to complete the Olympic program, I think they can petition to get more weights added in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:If you have too many weight classes, the talent pool becomes diluted with similar sized wrestlers not needing to compete each other. If you have too few, wrestlers are included because they will always be either too big or too small to compete effectively. Seven isn't necessarily a perfect number, but it did seem to be workable. Ten seems like a bit much- did we really need 3 weights under 60 kg and 4 weights over 80 kg? The proposed 8 (or 9) seem just fine to me.

When there were ten weights, they were not well distributed to suit the majority of athletes -- as you point out. But they could have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:If you have too many weight classes, the talent pool becomes diluted with similar sized wrestlers not needing to compete each other. If you have too few, wrestlers are included because they will always be either too big or too small to compete effectively. Seven isn't necessarily a perfect number, but it did seem to be workable. Ten seems like a bit much- did we really need 3 weights under 60 kg and 4 weights over 80 kg? The proposed 8 (or 9) seem just fine to me.

 

i agree in theory but i dont think the 10 weight classes FILA had in from 1969-1996 came anywhere near an over saturation point. they were much more spread out than the current 10 weights in the NCAAs.

 

below are the former 10 weights in lbs/kgs/%change

 

106/48

115/52/8%

126/57/9%

137/62/8%

150/68/9%

163/74/8%

181/82/10%

198/90/9%

220/100/10%

287/130/23%

 

there's a lot of room for more weights before the talent pool becomes diluted IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it looks like much thought has been made, I believe 57 kg is too high a starting wt class; this was the 3rd weight class less than 20 years ago (48 & 52 kg). Many Asians and others are being cut out; Bobby Weaver, Zeke Jones, V Jordanov, etc would not have ever wrestled internationally. JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it looks like much thought has been made, but I believe 57 kg is too high a starting wt class; this was the 3rd weight class less than 20 years ago (48 & 52 kg). Many Asians and others are being cut out; Bobby Weaver, Zeke Jones, V Jordanov, etc would not have ever wrestled internationally. JMO

 

i agree. i would support adding in another weight class on the low end during non olympic competitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burroughs will obviously wrestle 75. Personally I had no issue with 7 weights. Six is too few though. Mind you, I would have kllled for an 80 kg weight class when I was competing...

 

I like 7. I want to see the highest level of wrestling have fewer weights than the lower collegiate level. In HS there's 14, college there's 10 and 7 internationally. Seems good to me.

 

I believe the current 7 weight classes covers the weight spectrum just fine.

 

Yeah but HS needs more not because it's a lower level of competition, but because you must account for smaller athletes. If you throw away the lightweights, it's basically the same:

 

106

113

120

126 125

132 133

138 141

145 149

152 157

160 165

170 174

182 184

195 197

220 235 (NCWA only)

285 285

 

I agree with fullnelson. If anything, there should be more weights internationally to account for smaller people in some countries. Boxing does this - they start at 108! The average male height in the US is 5'10". In India it's 5' 3-1/2".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burroughs will obviously wrestle 75. Personally I had no issue with 7 weights. Six is too few though. Mind you, I would have kllled for an 80 kg weight class when I was competing...

 

I like 7. I want to see the highest level of wrestling have fewer weights than the lower collegiate level. In HS there's 14, college there's 10 and 7 internationally. Seems good to me.

 

I believe the current 7 weight classes covers the weight spectrum just fine.

 

Yeah but HS needs more not because it's a lower level of competition, but because you must account for smaller athletes. If you throw away the lightweights, it's basically the same:

 

106

113

120

126 125

132 133

138 141

145 149

152 157

160 165

170 174

182 184

195 197

220 235 (NCWA only)

285 285

 

I agree with fullnelson. If anything, there should be more weights internationally to account for smaller people in some countries. Boxing does this - they start at 108! The average male height in the US is 5'10". In India it's 5' 3-1/2".

 

That number for India refers to men older than 17 in rural areas -- not representative.

 

International participation starts to drop off significantly already in the 121 weight class. Is it more fair for an extreme minority of the population to get a weight class, or for more people in the center of the weight distribution curve to be able to compete? If there's a limited number of weights, it's pretty difficult to do both.

 

The current weights, and the projected weights, are skewed to give disproportional representation to light-heavyweights and heavyweights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm the only one who likes 7 weights? I think 7 is perfect.

 

8 would satisfy me. The problem with the c.2013 7 weight classes is the gap from 66-74kg. Metcalf is 20lb smaller that Burroughs and yet they compete one weight class apart? Not good for those light-middle weights. The non Olympic 70kg fixes this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 or 9 weight classes in non Olympic years is great (how about 9).

Different weight classes for different styles is great.

Changing the 3 to 4 is great (when all TDs are 2)

Changing FS tech to 10pts is great.

2 day tournaments, 30 minute rest, wrestling starting at 11am is great.

Implementing this in 2014 is great.

 

I think the lowest weight class is fine. Nutrition, strength training and weight cutting is far different in 2014 than it was 30 years ago. I think most of the US competitors mentioned before probably would have been able to compete if they "time travelled" to the present. Not sure about the Asian competitors, but I would guess that representatives from those countries would be far more informed about arguing the lowest weight class than anyone on this forum.

 

At this point, I'd prefer all of this, rather than concentrating on the Olympics being 6-6-6. I'd save all complaining until 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I also would prefer more weights during olympic years, I do think that the mash up of weight classes in the Olympic year will add a ton of drama to Team trials as well as the actual Olympics. World champs against world champs across classes. Think about the hype Dake/Taylor had or the recent Steiber/Maple. Not the same I know but you get the idea.

 

I'm incredibly thankful to the new FILA leadership for the work they are doing. I believe they are truly trying to help wrestling while working within the constraints they have and keeping the federation whole. There are likely a lot of chefs in the kitchen working on this and a lot of different sub-goals that probably sometimes conflict to varying degrees. They have a hard job, let's continue to find ways to constructively support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten weights total. The smallest and biggest compete in every Olympics and every other Olympics the other weights switch off. For example 54, 58, 63, 68, 73, 79, 85, 92, 100, 125. One Olympic cycle 54, 63, 73, 85, 100, and 125. Next cycle 54, 58, 68, 79, 92, 125. Also have worlds each Olympic year for non olympic weights and maybe even host it in the same city as the olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ten weights total. The smallest and biggest compete in every Olympics and every other Olympics the other weights switch off. For example 54, 58, 63, 68, 73, 79, 85, 92, 100, 125. One Olympic cycle 54, 63, 73, 85, 100, and 125. Next cycle 54, 58, 68, 79, 92, 125. Also have worlds each Olympic year for non olympic weights and maybe even host it in the same city as the olympics.

 

 

I love that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worlds the same year as Olympics doesn't do it for me. The non-Olympic weights will be weak, Olympic champs probably won't enter...

 

As someone pointed out, paring down the weight classes for the Olympics does have some positives. WTT will be a lot more exciting and the Olympic weight classes will be much, much deeper. More world champs around battling each other just to go to the Olympics and then for a medal once they get there.

 

The more I think about the new proposals, the more excited I get - especially if they go to 9 weight classes in non-Olympic years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weak weights could be solved some what by using opposite weights from FS to greco. That way instead of seeing guys change weights they could change styles and wrestlers would become more diverse and exciting. In america this would really help grow greco. If this system is adopted then you wouldn't have worlds for Olympic weights in an Olympic year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The weak weights could be solved some what by using opposite weights from FS to greco. That way instead of seeing guys change weights they could change styles and wrestlers would become more diverse and exciting.

I don't really get this. You choose greco because you're good at it, not because there's no weight class for you in freestyle.

 

We need a full set of weights for Worlds, which it sounds like they might do. Six weights is only half a wrestling team. IMO, even 9 is too few.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...