Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BuckyBadger

Why different weights for Free and Greco?

Recommended Posts

little confused as to what a gallup poll of average american self reported weight has to do with FILA weight classes but... any research is better than nothing i guess.

 

sounds like decision by committee. could be worse but just taking a step back and looking at the new weights makes it pretty clear (to me anyway), that a mistake was made. here is what we have now (kilos, increase and % increase):

 

57

65 8 14%

74 9 14%

86 12 16%

97 11 13%

125 28 29%

 

heres what makes the most sense to me, given the objectives mentioned in Stan's explanation:

 

57

65 8 14%

74 9 14%

84 10 14%

96 12 14%

125 29 30%

 

this way you dont have the jump from 74 to 86 as a bigger % increase then the step up from 86 to 97.

 

still just my opinion. appreciate the peak into the decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaroslav Hasek wrote,

little confused as to what a gallup poll of average American self reported weight has to do with FILA weight classes but... any research is better than nothing I guess.

 

The gallup poll of Americans, by itself, has little value. Yet when coupled w/ entires/wtg over the past 10 yrs and similar avg wtg analyses among the population in BUL, GEO, AZE ARM, RUS, S. KOR, JPN, IRI & TUR; a picture of an avg wrestler who is bigger and heavier than 20 yrs ago becomes clearer. In addition, confidence in the avg of 80 kg grows.

Jaroslav Hasek wrote,

heres what makes the most sense to me, given the objectives mentioned in Stan's explanation:

 

57

65 8 14%

74 9 14%

84 10 14%

96 12 14%

125 29 30%

 

this way you dont have the jump from 74 to 86 as a bigger % increase then the step up from 86 to 97.

 

still just my opinion. appreciate the peak into the decision making process.

 

This echoes most everyone who was part of the negotiations for the 6 wtg classes. There are few if any of the hundreds who weighed in on the subject that agree w/ every wtg. My final wtgs, I believe, were: 56, 64, 74, 85, 97, 122. Nonetheless, the wtgs represent as close to a consensus as possible in an org. comprised of 177 different countries, each of course w/ its own agenda. When there are a hundred or so different opinions, a kilo or even 3 kilos difference doesn't move the needle much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When there are a hundred or so different opinions, a kilo or even 3 kilos difference doesn't move the needle much.

 

3 kg is almost a whole NCAA weight class. That's a big difference.

 

yeah i would argue that when youre down to just 6 weight classes, each kilo matters more than ever.

 

doesnt sound like a very efficient decision making process tho. i dont envy having to deal with all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GranbyTroll wrote:

StanDziedzic wrote:

When there are a hundred or so different opinions, a kilo or even 3 kilos difference doesn't move the needle much.

 

3 kg is almost a whole NCAA weight class. That's a big difference.

 

I didn't mean to imply 3 kilos was not a meaningful difference. My point: 3 kilos divided by 100+ most likely would not alter the wtg class consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Simmons tweeted that the bump from 55 to 57kg is enough for him to compete seriously in Freestyle again. 2kg may not matter for some guys in the 86kg class, but it'll be brutal for a tweener like Gavin.

 

Stan, again, thanks for keeping us abreast with the decision making process. I'll speak for the regular Int'l Board posters and say that you make these threads much more informative and interesting. However, it appauls me that a higher-up in USAW can say that "3 kilos difference doesn't move the needle much." These messed up weight-classes (I know that FILA wants to make lemonade out of the lemons the IOC passed out) don't represent a "cultural difference" like the "pass-behind" fiasco; the 70, 74, 86 weight class distribution empirically don't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't mean to imply 3 kilos was not a meaningful difference. My point: 3 kilos divided by 100+ most likely would not alter the wtg class consensus.

 

Looks like we're posting at the same time today. I didn't want to jump down your throat in my last post, and I realize that you don't directly control this issue. I would just like more candid posts from you, and less FILA party line. You're a smart guy who knows the impact that a 2-3kg can have on guys like Simmons, or what 70kg means for Dake, but that doesn't come through when you defend some of these bizarre FILA decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't mean to imply 3 kilos was not a meaningful difference. My point: 3 kilos divided by 100+ most likely would not alter the wtg class consensus.

 

Looks like we're posting at the same time today. I didn't want to jump down your throat in my last post, and I realize that you don't directly control this issue. I would just like more candid posts from you, and less FILA party line. You're a smart guy who knows the impact that a 2-3kg can have on guys like Simmons, or what 70kg means for Dake, but that doesn't come through when you defend some of these bizarre FILA decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a comparison to some other sports. Wrestling seems to be the only one that doesn't increment in a fair and balanced manner.

 

Olympic Judo
60  66  73  81  90  100 >100
   +6  +7  +8  +9  +10

Olympic Boxing
49  52  56  60  64  69  75  81  91  >91
   +3  +4  +4  +4  +5  +6  +6 +10

Olympic Weightlifting
56  62  69  77  85  94  105  >105
   +6  +7  +8  +8  +9  +11

UFC
125  135  145  155  170  185  205  265
    +10  +10  +10  +15  +15  +20  +60

Olympic Freestyle Wrestling (2016)
57  65  74  86  97  125
   +8  +9 +12 +11  +28

World Freestyle Wrestling (2014)
57  61  65  70  74  86  97  125
   +4  +4  +5  +4 +12 +11  +32

Olympic Greco Wrestling (2016)
59  66  75  85  98  130
   +7  +9 +10 +13  +32  

World Greco Wrestling (2014)
59  66  71  75  80  85  98  130
   +7  +5  +4  +5  +5 +13  +32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Self-reported weights are irrelevant. So are upper-arm to forearm length ratios, which also made their way into the scientific commission report. If you look at a bunch of irrelevant data, it can be confusing.

 

The relevant data is athlete participation, which consistently bunches in the 66-74 kg range, and drops off significantly beginning in the 96 kg range. This is true in America and on the world level. If there is more participation in the 96 kg class than in the 66 kg class in any of these countries -- "BUL, GEO, AZE ARM, RUS, S. KOR, JPN, IRI & TUR" -- I would be shocked.

 

Obviously most of the decision makers did not think that 80-88 kg was the average weight range, because all of the additional weights were added below that weight range, rather than both above and below.

 

2) The weight jump from a class in the 70 kg range to a class in the 80 kg range should be LESS than the jump from a class in the 80 kg range to a class in the 90 kg range.

 

3) If the weights for Greco and freestyle are different, the differences should be SIGNIFICANT, so that tweeners can find a weight class in one style or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Self-reported weights are irrelevant. So are upper-arm to forearm length ratios, which also made their way into the scientific commission report. If you look at a bunch of irrelevant data, it can be confusing.

 

The relevant data is athlete participation, which consistently bunches in the 66-74 kg range, and drops off significantly beginning in the 96 kg range. This is true in America and on the world level. If there is more participation in the 96 kg class than in the 66 kg class in any of these countries -- "BUL, GEO, AZE ARM, RUS, S. KOR, JPN, IRI & TUR" -- I would be shocked.

 

Obviously most of the decision makers did not think that 80-88 kg was the average weight range, because all of the additional weights were added below that weight range, rather than both above and below.

 

2) The weight jump from a class in the 70 kg range to a class in the 80 kg range should be LESS than the jump from a class in the 80 kg range to a class in the 90 kg range.

 

3) If the weights for Greco and freestyle are different, the differences should be SIGNIFICANT, so that tweeners can find a weight class in one style or the other.

 

makes sense, shouldn't be too hard to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quanon wrote,

1) Self-reported weights are irrelevant. So are upper-arm to forearm length ratios, which also made their way into the scientific commission report. If you look at a bunch of irrelevant data, it can be confusing.

 

The relevant data is athlete participation, which consistently bunches in the 66-74 kg range, and drops off significantly beginning in the 96 kg range. This is true in America and on the world level. If there is more participation in the 96 kg class than in the 66 kg class in any of these countries -- "BUL, GEO, AZE ARM, RUS, S. KOR, JPN, IRI & TUR" -- I would be shocked.

 

 

 

Athletes participation tells me more about the number of weight classes in any weight range than it does about the relevant size or where the quality of the world's wrestling population recides. Let's take the USA as an example. The US will enter a wrestler @ every weight class, even if the weight classes were 50, 57, 62, 68, 74 & 100--so will IRI, RUS, GEO, BUL, GER, AZE, JPN, S. KOR and a few other of the large countries w/ advanced wrestling programs. Yet the quality @ any one class or the make-up of the wrestling population in these countries is vastly different.

By your assessment, since 2001 wrestlers in the USA have been evenly distributed in each of the 7 weights and have not increased in size or weight during that time--since we entered a wrestler @ each of those weight classes every yr? Tell that one to any USA National Coach! I can assure you'd get quite an argument from--D. Schultz [if he were still w/ us], Monday, Kemp, Gutches, Jackson, M. Schultz, Campbell, Slay, Keaser, Gable, B. Zadick, Wells, J. Peterson, B. Peterson, Fozzard, B. Scherr, E. Banack, L. Banach, J Varner, C. Sanderson, S. Neal, Dziedzic--all won Gold medals in either the World C. or Olympic Games, but @ some time during their careers lost a USA team trial. Only H. Cejuda @ 55 kg or 60 kg comes to mind as fitting that description. The overwhelming # of successful wrestlers in the USA have been between 68 and 96 kg--John Smith being one exception.

Only if each country is allowed to enter as many wrestlers/weight as they wish, is participation/wtg class a meaningful indication of the world's wrestling population. When the 6 wtg classes are wrestled in the 2015 World Championship, I believe you'll find a fairly even distribution among the participants around 80 kg.

 

 

quanon wrote,

Obviously most of the decision makers did not think that 80-88 kg was the average weight range, because all of the additional weights were added below that weight range, rather than both above and below.

 

2) The weight jump from a class in the 70 kg range to a class in the 80 kg range should be LESS than the jump from a class in the 80 kg range to a class in the 90 kg range.

 

You're mixing separate arguments. The Technical Commission agenda item was: The 6 Olympic weight classes. The center point for the 6 was decided 80 kg. This was a somewhat academic exercise, since more important the average of the countless # of inputs realized the same result. As I said before, no one person agreed w/ each wtg class, but all agreed the outcome represented a fair consensus and was indicative of the most adept of the wrestling population worldwide--and not of FILA. As a note: the 1 or 2 kg difference arguments did not resonate among the national coaches and World or Olympic Champions on the Technical Commission [4 ex- or current national coaches and 8 World and/or Olympic Champions]. Each understands the capability of the best to prepare appropriately. Just look @ the 22 USA Gold medallists above--each had to go from 137 or 145#s to 149.5; 158 to 162.8#s; 167 or 177 #s to 180.5 or 184.8#s; or 190 to 198#s--sometimes in a matter of months?? It didn't seem to matter, each quickly adapted to the new weights class. In addition, none of the other commissions--if my memory is correct--submitted what ifs: weight classes if there were 7, 8 or 9.

Once the 6 were established, it was 1st agreed that, should there be more weight classes in 2014, the 6 had to be included as the core. The subsequent discussions were disjointed, as no one knew if the # would be 7, 8 or 9. In my opinion the result is fraught w/ self-interest [always a possibility, especially when some of the commission members have a vested interest @ stake--i.e. current athlete or coach]. I would've guessed going into the meetings that it would be decided to use 7 weights and that 80 kg would be the 7th. Perhaps @ the FILA B. meetings in late February, it will be fixed. I do not believe, however, that the 6 can change.

 

 

quanon wrote,

3) If the weights for Greco and freestyle are different, the differences should be SIGNIFICANT, so that tweeners can find a weight class in one style or the other.

 

I agree completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the 6 were established, it was 1st agreed that, should there be more weight classes in 2014, the 6 had to be included as the core. The subsequent discussions were disjointed, as no one knew if the # would be 7, 8 or 9. In my opinion the result is fraught w/ self-interest [always a possibility, especially when some of the commission members have a vested interest @ stake--i.e. current athlete or coach]. I would've guessed going into the meetings that it would be decided to use 7 weights and that 80 kg would be the 7th. Perhaps @ the FILA B. meetings in late February, it will be fixed. I do not believe, however, that the 6 can change.

 

This is the answer I was looking for and explains why the huge gap between 74-86 kg exists. An 80 kg non Olympic weight class would indeed make things a lot better and I hope the next meeting will rectify this oversight, with 9 weights (including 80) in non Olympic years. I still think 74-84 or 76-86 makes more sense but the big issue is getting that extra weight class in between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By your assessment, since 2001 wrestlers in the USA have been evenly distributed in each of the 7 weights and have not increased in size or weight during that time--since we entered a wrestler @ each of those weight classes every yr? Tell that one to any USA National Coach!

You have seen my assessment, because I sent it to you. If you are interested in international participation numbers, you measure athletes at Worlds. If you are interested in American participation numbers you measure athletes at US Nationals. You have to measure open events for the numbers to meaningful. When I did that, I found that the deepest weight in freestyle internationally was 66 kg. And yet 60 kg was cut.

 

When the 6 wtg classes are wrestled in the 2015 World Championship, I believe you'll find a fairly even distribution among the participants around 80 kg.

What data suggests this? Self-reported weights of the general population?

Even for Greco guys, who average slightly heavier than freestylers, there has always been more participation at 74 than at 84. Participation has bunched between 60 and 84. In freestyle, participation rates at 96 kg are worse than at 55 kg. Heavyweight participation is always poor. If you look at brackets in the US, you'll see the same patterns.

 

Perhaps @ the FILA B. meetings in late February, it will be fixed. I do not believe, however, that the 6 can change.

If the 6 base weights cannot change, then adding a 9th weight (roughly 80 kilos in Freestyle, and 62 in Greco) would balance out these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quanon wrote,

If you are interested in international participation numbers, you measure athletes at Worlds

 

No you don't. That tells you little. You poll the countries who enter wrestler in the World Championship. Each has every reason to reflect their true make-up and no benefit to do otherwise.

Let's take it from the extreme. Let's say 10 countries have 100 wrestlers each @ the 2 middle weights--74, 85 and only 1 wrestler each @ 55, 65 & 97, 125. These 10 countries enter 1 wrestler--all they're allowed--@ every weight class. There are 4 other countries, who have only 2 wrestlers and enter 1 each @ 55 & 65 kg and 2 countries who have 1 wrestler each @ 97 and 125. The result: 55kg--14 entries; 65--14, 74--10, 85--10, 97--12, & 125--12. 55 & 65 are 40% > than 74 & 85 despite there being 71 x as many 74 & 85 kg wrestlers in the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quanon wrote,

If you are interested in international participation numbers, you measure athletes at Worlds

 

 

No you don't. That tells you little. You poll the countries who enter wrestler in the World Championship. Each has every reason to reflect their true make-up and no benefit to do otherwise.

Let's take it from the extreme. Let's say 10 countries have 100 wrestlers each @ the 2 middle weights--74, 85 and only 1 wrestler each @ 55, 65 & 97, 125. These 10 countries enter 1 wrestler--all they're allowed--@ every weight class. There are 4 other countries, who have only 2 wrestlers and enter 1 each @ 55 & 65 kg and 2 countries who have 1 wrestler each @ 97 and 125. The result: 55kg--14 entries; 65--14, 74--10, 85--10, 97--12, & 125--12. 55 & 65 are 40% > than 74 & 85 despite there being 71 x as many 74 & 85 kg wrestlers in the world?

 

Did FILA poll the various national governing bodies? If so, when will FILA release the data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

human height distribution falls exactly on a normal curve. males have a wider range than females, otherwise both normal curves. hence, athletes with the same fat and muscle % will be normally distributed by weight. thus, start with a bell curve, and then chop up the weights accordingly.

 

it basically comes down to 5 variables: beginning weight, end weight, middle weight, % increase between weights, and if youre going to bunch of up the weights in the middle where there are more people than at the end of the spectrum, or spread the weights out evenly. the jump from the second highest weight to heavyweight is the final piece of the puzzle but that is basically an afterthought. the one thing you should never do is have the the spreads at the end of the spectrum wider than in the middle, which is how the new weights are.

 

i understand now why this happened, thanks to Stan's explanation, which is appreciated, but it doesnt make it a good reason. just one we have to live with as long as we live with FILA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i understand now why this happened, thanks to Stan's explanation, which is appreciated, but it doesnt make it a good reason. just one we have to live with as long as we live with FILA.

 

just want to add that all i mean by that is that decisions are being made by dozens of competing federations. i'm sure this is an extremely difficult process, even if everyone has the best of intentions. i imagine it is not unlike the UN. so not trying to point a finger at anyone in FILA, just that it is a large unwieldy organization that sometimes produces less than ideal results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quanon wrote,

Did FILA poll the various national governing bodies? If so, when will FILA release the data?

 

Yes audited #s are customarily provided to the FILA Bureau members @ its next meeting. In this case, late February/early March.

I'd love to see them when they're available -- or any past numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once the 6 were established, it was 1st agreed that, should there be more weight classes in 2014, the 6 had to be included as the core. The subsequent discussions were disjointed, as no one knew if the # would be 7, 8 or 9. In my opinion the result is fraught w/ self-interest [always a possibility, especially when some of the commission members have a vested interest @ stake--i.e. current athlete or coach]. I would've guessed going into the meetings that it would be decided to use 7 weights and that 80 kg would be the 7th. Perhaps @ the FILA B. meetings in late February, it will be fixed. I do not believe, however, that the 6 can change.

 

This is the answer I was looking for and explains why the huge gap between 74-86 kg exists. An 80 kg non Olympic weight class would indeed make things a lot better and I hope the next meeting will rectify this oversight, with 9 weights (including 80) in non Olympic years. I still think 74-84 or 76-86 makes more sense but the big issue is getting that extra weight class in between the two.

 

I would've gone one step further in that, once 8 is established as the # world weight classes, set those first. Then, from there, chop them to 6. For instance, the 8 UFC weights are very attractive:

 

lbs(kg): 125(57), 135(61), 145(65), 155(70), 170(77), 185(84), 205(93), 265(120)

 

Instead of then eliminating 2 weights, I would instead merge 135(61)/145(65) and 185(84)/205(93), yielding:

 

lbs(kg): 125(57), 140(63), 155(70), 170(77), 195(88), 265(120)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am far from an expert on the subject, especially considering how little freestyle/Greco I have seen since the ball grab. But would it not be logical (and logic with Fila+IOC may be a non-starter), that if wrestling is required to hold the line at 6 weights in the Olympics that 12 weights be used for the Worlds.

 

For Example--We could use these 12 weights in the Worlds: 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 77, 82, 88, 94, 106, 120. Then the Olympic weights would be 56, 64, 72, 82, 94, 120.

 

It might be more practical if the World only weights were a kilo or two closer to the Olympic weight, so he guys could build closer to that weight, e.g. 53, 61 69, 78, 89, 108.

 

Or experience might show much less need for weights one and eleven, resulting in: 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 77, 82, 88, 94, 120.

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...