MassWrestling.com
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Guests: 38, Members: 1 ...
CoachDarl
most ever online: 859
Members: 9967
Newest: Matthew Allen
Support MassWrestling. Click a link!







Forums
MassWrestling.com :: Forums :: Urgent Announcements

Weight Classes  Go to page  [1] 2
cradleman1952
Mon Dec 22 2014, 10:14AM
Registered Member #278
Joined: Mon Jan 16 2006, 10:06AM
Posts: 1146
I'm going to start this because this year the Federation will be looking at the weight classes. As your NWCA Rep I will be bringing our thoughts on this to the meeting in March. The past 2 years there has been much discussion regarding this.

Some ideas that were brought out:
1) cut a weight class or 2 and have a true JV feeder program. Too many schools are plugging 1st year JV's into their line-ups and the quality of wrestling is not deep or strong. Also that too many teams are forfeiting weight classes as it is. Coach from Nazareth, PA made this presentation

2) go back to the old weight classes (the previous one) and continue on.

3) make new weight classes spreading the 120-160 out a little more (instead of 5 lbs. 6 or 7)

All had merit. Any thoughts as I will be creating a folder with everyone's thoughts.
wrestleman8988
Mon Dec 22 2014, 01:20PM
Registered Member #296
Joined: Thu Apr 08 2004, 09:48PM
Posts: 339
Bring back a middle weight class where most of the quality wrestling is and where the most numbers are.
dnowa
Mon Dec 22 2014, 02:04PM
Registered Member #4263
Joined: Tue Aug 22 2006, 09:45AM
Posts: 117
I would assume that I am in the minority of some of my opinions, but here goes:
1. The number of weight classes should be reduced to 11.
a. While it may seem minor, an odd number of weight classes is actually beneficial, as this would significantly reduce the number of ties that need be broken. Furthermore, with an odd number of weight classes, any ties that need breaking would most likely be broken by an early criteria. Far too many tiebreakers are reaching far down the list, which can create a pair of “undesirable” results. The first is seeing a team forfeit instead of sending out a wrestler, as they strongly believe their wrestler will get pinned, and would rather not allow “first points” to be scored. Second scenario is a dominant wrestler recording an excessive number of tilts for near fall before pinning opponent, as it has reached that criteria.
b. Current weight class differential of 6 pounds between classes is too small. This encourages a large number of wrestlers to drop down to a weight class that may not be healthy. Despite great strides in the certification process, there are still abuses. A greater differential would help to reduce these issues, as more wrestlers would clearly see which weight class is a more natural fit. In addition, once growth allowances are added, and multi-day tourneys are conducted, the current weight classes become “blurred”, as a 132 plus 2 is then 134, and if you throw in a snow day and a 2-day event, suddenly 132 is actually 138.
c. Difficult for many schools to fill all weights. Beyond forfeits, consider the following: How many weight classes are being filled “by default”, often forcing a wrestler who may not be ready for varsity to be placed in a situation that could result in dangerous mismatches. As expected, the fringe weights were the least filled, according to the entrants in the CT state tournaments, with 106 and 285 almost equal in “no entry”, followed by 113.
d. Not a great argument, but other sports such as football and soccer have only 11 positions. In a real distribution, it takes 24-28 athletes to be able to simply fill 14 weight classes.
e. Small schools have more difficulty competing, as strength through depth is harder with 14 weights. In virtually any other sport, if your team has the 4 or 5 best athletes, you have a great shot at winning. In wrestling, if you are a small school, even if you have 4 or 5 of the best wrestlers in the state, unless you can at least adequately fill some other weights, it will be a long and sub-500 dual meet season. In addition, it creates an even greater discrepancy between a team’s “dual meet” strength and their “tourney power”, as teams that have gone under .500 in the regular season have proceeded to win post season high-level team events due to a few studs.
f. JV teams will be strengthened and actually may increase JV “team” competition. Far too many JV situations are a struggle to match up enough kids from each team.
g. While an older survey asked about minimum weights for 106, 220 and 285, I believe minimum weights should be established for the 2nd weight class (ie 100 pounds for 113). If a minimum was applied to 106, it would prevent some kids from participating. By establishing a minimum for 113, it would prevent a coach from bumping an 81 pound kid to 113 because he can’t beat the 106 but does not have a 113.
h. Fees for officials, especially in tourneys, will be reduced. In these times of budget concerns, with the number of dates being reduced by some school administrations, this may provide simpler relief. With a per bout rate of over $6 in some states creating a system where officials are paid upwards of $50/hr, a reduction of weight classes means reduction of total bouts paid.
i. Fan friendly tournaments would not last 15 hours with 11 weight classes.
j. For those fearing loss of opportunity for some athletes, I would counter with the idea that programs folding due to lack of numbers (or co-ops forming for the same reason) lead to fewer available spots.
k. College has only 10 weights.

If using 11 weights, perhaps: 106, 116, 124, 132, 140, 148, 158, 170, 186, 210 & 285.


3. If maintaining growth allowance, re-standardize implementation dates (ie 1 pound Dec 15, another on Jan 15, and a third on Feb 15). While there has been some talk of eliminating the growth allowance, if it is maintained, the standardization of dates, as opposed to each state adding “any time after certification” would be beneficial.

I know it won't happen, but worth considering.
cradleman1952
Mon Dec 22 2014, 05:44PM
Registered Member #278
Joined: Mon Jan 16 2006, 10:06AM
Posts: 1146
I like the ideas.
FMS
Mon Dec 22 2014, 06:10PM
Registered Member #156
Joined: Sat Mar 27 2004, 08:20AM
Posts: 539
I have got to say I love the 99 pound weight class in NY. So many studs started there. But I understand difficulty of filling it here in Mass...
AHS611
Mon Dec 22 2014, 07:58PM
Registered Member #7279
Joined: Sun Feb 10 2008, 06:15PM
Posts: 330
I would strongly disagree with the notion of reducing the number of weight classes. Fewer weights: fewer opportunities for kids to wrestle. I understand that some teams have a hard time filling the weights, but other teams have enough quality wrestlers for an A and B varsity squad. We shouldn't punish them. I grew up in a smaller D3 school that only had 24 or so wrestlers every year, but we found a way to fill all the weights, and the 5 pound or so difference between weights is NOT too small - I split time between 130 and 135 my junior year, and trust me, there was a difference.

The only way fewer weights benefits stronger JV teams is you could have a full separate JV only schedule, which means more coaches, more money/transportation, and the guarantee that other teams you face can fill all the weights not only on varsity, but JV. I already have enough trouble finding JV matches for my 5 160 pounders. Not to mention, most coaches wouldn't want to fully separate JV from varsity because it eliminates their flexibility with varsity lineups - bumping, kids who miss weight or miss a match due to illness the day of, etc.

What I do support is going back to more middle weights. (130s, 140s) as opposed to upper weights.
AHS611
Mon Dec 22 2014, 08:00PM
Registered Member #7279
Joined: Sun Feb 10 2008, 06:15PM
Posts: 330
By the same token, I understand that its a lot harder for smaller schools to fill all the weights, especially in the west. I don't know if there was any way you could have a system where coaches could agree on having 11 or 14 weight classes in their matches before the season for duals.
cradleman1952
Tue Dec 23 2014, 07:50AM
Registered Member #278
Joined: Mon Jan 16 2006, 10:06AM
Posts: 1146
14 weight classes are too many. Most(over 90%) of the teams do not have 14 solid wrestlers. We need to develop our JV program opportunities because without that most feeder programs will collapse. You take the best 10 teams and the 10 worst/challenged teams out of the picture. You are looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 140 or so teams. They do not have solid line-ups all the way through. We lose tons of youth wrestlers for a variety of reasons. The one that stands out most are the ones who get put in to Varsity line-ups too early and become discouraged. Personally , I would like to see no more than 13 weight classes and preferably 12. It will take a little time but the JV programs will start to thrive. We also might look into the possibility of having more than 1 qualifier per weight class per team. In New York they do that so that if the best two kids in a weight class are from the same team they can both achieve their goals. We really need to look at the seriousness of what the Forfeit does to our sport. It's happening everywhere and not just in New England.
dnowa
Tue Dec 23 2014, 08:12AM
Registered Member #4263
Joined: Tue Aug 22 2006, 09:45AM
Posts: 117
excellent comment about the possibility of adding a second kid for state tourney series. could either modify qualifying process, or allow teams to enter a total of X+1 or 2 number of wrestlers, where X is the number of weight classes, so a team could choose to enter their best 2 additional kids at any weight class (or even a few more, if they still had forfeits).
coachm
Tue Dec 23 2014, 08:31AM
Registered Member #47
Joined: Wed Mar 24 2004, 11:00PM
Posts: 389
Dnowa, I really like your proposal, makes a lot of sense, combined with mray's idea regarding more than one entry seems to be a suitable solution.
Chamberlain
Fri Dec 26 2014, 12:21AM
Registered Member #491
Joined: Sat Jul 17 2004, 07:05PM
Posts: 55
Has anyone thought of using something close to the college weights and adding a 110. it would be 110, 125, 133, 141, 149, 157, 165, 174, 184, 197, Hwt. You could adjust them a little more maybe 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 172, 185, 200, 220, Hwt.

Forfeits kill our sport, but then again so does stalling. No one wants to come watch us compete. Teams with more kids get more patents. We need to find ways to get students especially younger ones into the stands to watch us compete. For 10 years I have given bonus points to any of my students willing to come to matches. It makes me sick to think of the kids unwilling to come watch our sport.

IT IS THE BEST SPOT IN THE WORLD AND WE ARE DOING A GREAT JOB OF KEEPING IT A SECRET!
Deck
Fri Dec 26 2014, 09:35AM
Registered Member #12272
Joined: Thu Jun 21 2012, 12:42PM
Posts: 100
I'm intrigued by 2 ideas here and should be debated to increase the competition level. Reduction or Growth: Which way do we go?

Reducing weight classes would definitely increase competion in house with hopes of building JV programs, forfeits would be minimized, and matches would be more competitive. Generally speaking, there has not been enough attention on JV teams or feeder programs. To be successful like the elite varsity programs in the region, we need to focus on what they are doing right in order to build more competion and stronger programs. We need more emphasis on K-8.

In maintaining the current 14 weight classes, I would fully support more wrestlers competing that probably lost the wrestle off. Team scoring is really a moot point. Elimiate the tournament byes, nobody likes them, and allow the competitive kids an opportunity they have been working so hard for. Pigtails solve any argument; even if held a week before.
HizzDad
Fri Dec 26 2014, 04:11PM
Registered Member #7158
Joined: Mon Feb 04 2008, 08:53AM
Posts: 28
Deck wrote ...

I'm intrigued by 2 ideas here and should be debated to increase the competition level. Reduction or Growth: Which way do we go?

Reducing weight classes would definitely increase competion in house with hopes of building JV programs, forfeits would be minimized, and matches would be more competitive. Generally speaking, there has not been enough attention on JV teams or feeder programs. To be successful like the elite varsity programs in the region, we need to focus on what they are doing right in order to build more competion and stronger programs. We need more emphasis on K-8.

In maintaining the current 14 weight classes, I would fully support more wrestlers competing that probably lost the wrestle off. Team scoring is really a moot point. Elimiate the tournament byes, nobody likes them, and allow the competitive kids an opportunity they have been working so hard for. Pigtails solve any argument; even if held a week before.


cradleman1952
Fri Dec 26 2014, 07:23PM
Registered Member #278
Joined: Mon Jan 16 2006, 10:06AM
Posts: 1146
Deck wrote ...

I'm intrigued by 2 ideas here and should be debated to increase the competition level. Reduction or Growth: Which way do we go?

Reducing weight classes would definitely increase competion in house with hopes of building JV programs, forfeits would be minimized, and matches would be more competitive. Generally speaking, there has not been enough attention on JV teams or feeder programs. To be successful like the elite varsity programs in the region, we need to focus on what they are doing right in order to build more competion and stronger programs. We need more emphasis on K-8.

In maintaining the current 14 weight classes, I would fully support more wrestlers competing that probably lost the wrestle off. Team scoring is really a moot point. Elimiate the tournament byes, nobody likes them, and allow the competitive kids an opportunity they have been working so hard for. Pigtails solve any argument; even if held a week before.



Fact is we are losing many kids who wrestled in youth. There is too much emphasis on youth wrestling and the seasons are too long. They lose interest between 8th and 9th for a variety of reasons. In fact that is the way most sports are going these days. Too much emphasis on specialization instead of building a complete athlete. Too many wrestlers are one dimensional instead of being well rounded. This occurs because of lack of exposure in the formative years to other athletic endeavors. Football players are specializing because they think it will lead them to the promised land. A number of FB players struggle with the training that a wrestler goes through. There is no one answer but I do know that kids are leaving the sport in droves between MS and HS.
dnowa
Tue Jan 20 2015, 07:53AM
Registered Member #4263
Joined: Tue Aug 22 2006, 09:45AM
Posts: 117
although only a small sample size (13 teams attended), the following distribution occurred at our annual JV tournament utilizing the experimental weight classes noted above:
97--6
106--7
116--8
124--12
132--16
140--20 (2 brax of 10)
148--12
158--13
170--12
186--11
210--13
287--12

might look to add a dual-meet format JV event next year, also using modified weight classes to minimize forfeits and increase matches.
nastyhalf
Tue Jan 20 2015, 02:02PM
Registered Member #138
Joined: Fri Mar 26 2004, 12:59PM
Posts: 214
I completely disagree with the idea that reducing the roster size is the way to grow a sport. Creating fewer opportunities will not help build programs. Fewer opportunities to compete would absolutely discourage involvement. The way to make the sport more appealing for kids is to give them the opportunity to compete. Providing more JV competition is the answer (and maybe being allowed to recognize them-Yes that is meant to be a shot at the MIAA). More experience on the mat is how you create rosters with "solid" entrants. It is a far greater tragedy to loose a talented wrestler because he cannot get into the line-up than a less able one to be discouraged by competing unsuccessfully. The reality is that creating JV competitions out of nothing is work. It takes extra personnel and they must be willing to work with the developing.

There are some ideas in this thread that I agree with.
1. The idea of allowing 14+ wrestlers into the post season if there are byes at a weight class. Wrester A would be designated as the team scorer and Wrestler B essentially has an opportunity for individual glory. The challenge with this is determining who and where.
2. There should be no emphasis on winning at the youth level.
3. An odd number of classes would make it harder to tie.
4. The demands of every sport encouraging kids to go year round hurts all of them

There are also some I disagree with,
1. Any athlete who is willing to lay it on the line in competition is a "solid wrestler"
2. That we need more weight classes in the middle weights. The current weight classes were created by surveying the population of participants nationally. Kids are getting bigger and more athletic. The idea that anecdotally you think there are more quality wrestlers in the middle weights is incorrect.
Rams95
Wed Jan 21 2015, 01:52PM
Registered Member #9537
Joined: Wed Dec 23 2009, 09:02AM
Posts: 131
A lot of nice ideas here.
My thoughts-

1- do NOT reduce the number of classes. But maybe implement a system where teams agree to only compete in 13 of the 14 classes. Essentially forcing a "No Contest" in what ever weight is not filled. This creates the odd number of classes which reduces ties. (Side note- in Mass Ties are NOT broken unless you are in a team tourney)

2- I love the idea of spreading and standardizing the growth allowance.

2b- (I know this is a MA thing, but 3lbs during the day it too much, reduce it to 2 or 1.5)

3- If you really want the sport to grow, you need to address the uniform. Most of the kids in my program who quit before High school, or will not join in high school say its because of the spandex. Allow fighting shorts.

4- Punish COACHES who let kids compete with skin infections.

5- Enforce Stalling. This kills fan interest, and therefor financial viability.

6- Make the MIAA recognize JV wrestling.

7- eliminate the 60% rule for post season weight class qualification. If a kid can make weight without violating the MDs certification, then he should be allowed to compete. For instance my 285 told me yesterday "I'm down to 227, I should make 220 next week". Yay, but you cant compete there in sectionals.

I"ll probably think of more...
cradleman1952
Wed Jan 21 2015, 02:20PM
Registered Member #278
Joined: Mon Jan 16 2006, 10:06AM
Posts: 1146
We absolutely should drop one weight class as there are so many forfeits, JV wrestlers filling in a weight class, and -lack of any depth throughout the sport. On Long Island I was checking the dual action out and even they have numerous forfeits. They do wrestle 99 but there are still too many forfeits. The sport is not going to move up to it's rightful place until common sense is applied to what is actually happening. The previous posts all have some good ideas and energy but we are at a crossroads.
Rams95
Wed Jan 21 2015, 02:33PM
Registered Member #9537
Joined: Wed Dec 23 2009, 09:02AM
Posts: 131
I disagree.

Dropping a class is making one less spot for a kid to contribute. Kids quit when they become upperclassmen and are "trapped" behind better guys, and cannot get varsity time.

If a coach is using a "JV" guy to fill his line up, and that kid is consistently getting pinned, then the coach needs to re-evaluate, b/c that is not helping save points or develop better wrestlers. He also needs to make the kid understand losing by points could be a "win" for the team. That's on the individual coach, not the sport.

I have never had a kid quit because "I was varsity last year and not very good". Usually these kids develop faster in my experience.
coachm
Wed Jan 21 2015, 02:39PM
Registered Member #47
Joined: Wed Mar 24 2004, 11:00PM
Posts: 389
Dnowa, if you combined the two smaller weights you would only have one bracket with less than 10 kids at a JV event with 13 teams. That seems pretty reasonable.

Rams, do you know what your enrollment is at your school for boys, and how many other varsity sports do you have to compete with? Just curious.

Cutting a class may be necessary in order to remain viable in many schools. D3W has lost multiple programs over the past decade, and there are a few more that are struggling to keep fielding a lineup. I see that a few more were cut this year outside of Wmass, not a good sign.

I hate to take away opportunities, however if kids need to compete for a spot it may be better for the sport as a whole. I agree I've never had a kid quit because they couldn't crack the lineup, I've had kids transfer to other schools that couldn't crack the lineup on our squad and then make the sectional finals the very next year on an opposing team. If a kid wants to compete he'll find a way.
Jim Maher
Wed Jan 21 2015, 03:33PM

Joined: Mon Mar 29 2004, 08:09PM
Posts: 4676
But West 3 has always had 15 wt classes at sectionals???
coachm
Wed Jan 21 2015, 08:33PM
Registered Member #47
Joined: Wed Mar 24 2004, 11:00PM
Posts: 389
D3W has traditionally had the non-scoring weight class for 97-99 throughout the years. Typically kids out here start in 7-8th grade in the very small districts, so it gives them an opportunity to compete even if it doesn't affect team scoring. I can assure you that we aren't setting the world on fire with 4 year seniors who have wrestled at the youth level in the 98b weight class.
Jim Maher
Thu Jan 22 2015, 07:31AM

Joined: Mon Mar 29 2004, 08:09PM
Posts: 4676
But CoachM, it contradicts the whole combining of weight classes because of a lack of numbers, but D3W has an extra lower weight class (non-scoring) at sectionals
nb135
Thu Jan 22 2015, 08:24AM
Registered Member #6515
Joined: Sun Dec 09 2007, 09:42AM
Posts: 1216
If the weight classes change would it be an effect next year?
coachm
Thu Jan 22 2015, 09:30AM
Registered Member #47
Joined: Wed Mar 24 2004, 11:00PM
Posts: 389
Respectfully, I don't see how it contradicts the argument. The majority of the kids in that lower weight class are 7th/8th graders, having a logjam of 8 wrestlers on your team that are all under 99 lbs doesn't help when only one can make the team, and again, they are in an exhibition class (non-scoring).

Many of these kids will quit as they get older like Ray mentioned earlier. I don't know the solution but I don't think the current 14 classes is good for the sport. College uses 10, and I'm seeing more forfeits there than I ever have. Hard work scares many people in New America.

We can debate theory behind what makes kids walk away or how many classes are good for the sport, but what Downa posted is a true application of fewer weight classes. I think 11 makes more sense than 14 based upon that tournament and what I've seen over the past decade or so. With 11 classes, and only a few byes in each bracket we have better competition.

We've got 20 teams in D3 West and I can guarantee that we will not be filling 16 man brackets in many classes, and will have a class that will have 10 or fewer kids. Numbers are killing the sport, especially in D3.
Go to page: Go to page  [1] 2          << Previous thread | Next thread >>

Jump:     Back to top



Moderators: Mike Atlas, CoachMiller, The Rankings Team, JMode, Shvarts, eoghanjames, Jim Maher, plm_77, jubele135, Hill Billy, psch, tourneygeek, NE_07, Sam Shames, Chicken Wing Coach, New England Rankings, matchamp99, Nuge
Click to see our RSS feeds available -->
Recent Wrestling Boxscores
see all | submit | rss

02/09/2017----------
Barnstable-40
Plymouth North-15
02/08/2017----------
Weymouth-17
Walpole-52
02/08/2017----------
North Attleboro-51
Oliver Ames-12
Newest Posts
2017 Ohio Tournament of Champions - April 22
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE------------------------...
Posted by OhioTofC
Mar 27 17 : 17:04

Does BGS brawls have an open division?
Does anybody know? When I went when I was in ...
Posted by MrBlastdoubles
Mar 27 17 : 16:30

Re: New England results
FiveTenthsNelson wrote ...WestSide87 wrote .....
Posted by OACoach
Mar 27 17 : 13:50

Re: New England results
WestSide87 wrote ...being able to qualify mul...
Posted by FiveTenthsNelson
Mar 27 17 : 11:36

Re: NHSCA FloArena
roll wrote ...MA 152 (not 138)-Cordio 8th (me...
Posted by coachskp
Mar 27 17 : 10:27

Re: AAU ATLANTIC COAST CLUB DUALS 2017, h.s., youth & women's 6/28-7/1, 2017
EASTON, PA has comitted 2 teams to the ACCD's
Posted by Coach C
Mar 27 17 : 09:50

Re: AAU ATLANTIC COAST CLUB DUALS 2017, h.s., youth & women's 6/28-7/1, 2017
Dark Horse WC, North Carolina will be attendi...
Posted by Coach C
Mar 27 17 : 08:21

Support MassWrestling. Click a link!