The point everyone is missing is that the "big guys" have other sports options. Football, baseball, etc. If you weigh 95 wrestling is the only fair option available. There are plenty of 103's out there walking the halls. The coaches need to go get them!

I agree with Will 100% on this one. Isn't one of the options to keep the weights the same? Current, Option A, Option B, and Option C.

Option D:

Bring back 98 lbs!

Move 103 to 105, and the rest stay the same. Like it is stated earlier in the thread, bigger kids have a number of sports options and wrestling usually isnt one of their top choices, but a 90 lb freshman does not have that choice. Changing the weights to any of the three options would screw the little wrestlers. I find it sad that you have very decorated wrestlers like Dakota Leach from Goddard not getting the opportunity to wrestle varsity due to the current weights. Therefore bringing back 98 lbs sounds like the smartest choice!!

I would like to see them go back to 12 weight classes.

Two years ago at Kids' State:

2 - U14 75 lb
7 - U14 80 lb
16 - U14 85 lb (25 total)

Last year at Kids' State:

9 - U14 75
13 - U14 80
12 - U14 85 (34 total)

Yesterday at Topeka, there were four U14 75 and one U14 80. I can't imagine many of these wrestlers would be close to 103 by their Freshman year. As for my motive in posting - three years ago my son was U12 68, two years ago U12 76 and last year U14 85. This year, U14 95 and 100. He is in pretty good shape to be a decent sized 103 lb Freshman next year (thanks to his biggest growth spurt in nine years of wrestling). A lot of these wrestlers won't be as lucky.

I do appreciate the argument for making weight adjustments for the bigger wrestlers. The spread between 215 and 285 doesn't do much justice to a wrestler that is somewhere in the middle of those two weights.

I liked option C. True we have little guys, but our little guys are getting bigger. Option C evens out the weights more too. There aren't as many little guys walking around in high school at 98 lbs anymore. When the classes were 98, 105, et cetera that was a different era. Option C only moves 103 to 107.

98, 105, 112, 120 ,128, 136, 146, 156, 167, 178, 193, 225, 245, unlimited

I think in this weight format 14 weights - teams would be open most at 98 and 245.

As far as the NFHS proposal goes I do not think they should eliminate 103. My HS weights were 98,105,126, 138 and in college 167 all 4.5 years. Granted that was a long time ago - my weight today (college weight plus a lighter HS weight) some of you can figure that out. Today, in general you will find more kids at the lighter weights (under 110) that have more wrestling years of experience coming in as freshman. It seems to me that there are not as many kids coming into high school that are over 210 with a lot of mat time - high school coaches tend to try to get freshman football and/or bigger guys to fill the upper weights.
Maybe I am wrong - but parents of the little guys try to get them involved in a sport where they can compete against someone closer to their size. We as kids club coaches need to get out to those little league football games, BBall games (yikes), soccer and grab some of these atheletes and expose them to wrestling.
Or get kids that are already in wrestling all to bring one or two buddies to practice by the 6th or 7th grade.

I am not going to do it so maybe I shouldn't suggest it, but somebody go through all the regional brackets. How many byes were there? I would imagine this would show you we need to decrease the amount of weight classes, not increase them. This would make wrestling more competitive. Put in a 220 class, make heavyweight unlimited, make 103 into 105 and strip a couple middle weights. Give me a kid that weighs 240 and is in shape and I will throw him into the unlimited division and be successful. How many tournaments did you go to this year where there were more than 15 teams and not even enough 112's to make an 8 man bracket???

Zero!
. . .

Turner 5A Regional had 36 opening byes out of 112 starting slots (8 schools X 14 weight classes). Thats 32% of the starting field. But that regional is not a good example. The KC, KS schools are always short in classes. Only Lansing, Aquinas, and Turner came with 12 to 14 wrestlers--Miege had more wrestlers than opens.

I did look thru the 4A and 321A rosters that were on the regioanal web sites. Only a few 321A schools fielded a majority of the opening slots---I think Norton had the most wrestlers in 321A. All 4A regionals seemed to have 1 to 3 opening byes in each bracket.

Need to get more kids in the program.

Like the idea of the a 98 lb and 107 brackets--or perhaps a 100 lb and 107. You will keep some of the bigger 103s in a 107 bracket and open a 100 lb bracket for the lighter current 103 and the smaller kids just coming unto HS.

Also would like to see some splits in the heavier weights.

Why can't KSHSAA do this on its own. Don't think they have to strictly follow NFHS rule book.

Need to do what is necessary to get more kids into the HS programs!!!!

You were fortunate then coach. I am sure I am in the minority here. Usually am. Your regional. Buhler 11 kids, Andale 13 kids, Cheney 3 kids, Clearwater 8, Hesston 7, Hugoton 10, Maize South 7, Nickerson 5, Pratt 13, Russell 11, Scott City 12, Ulysses 13, Valley Center 14, Wellington 9.

I am not educated enough to know the statistics that can help answer this question. My gut (which personal history has shown is not that reliable!) tells me to grow the sport, not condense it. My gut says that there are kids walking the halls that are 103 and lighter. How many freshman are 103 and less? What kind of sports opportunites do they have? There are high school kids who weigh 112 who currently don't wrestle. If we combine classes to create more eight man brackets, do we run the risk that we are just accepting we can't or won't beat feet to grow interest in the sport?

Is it better to produce fewer weight classes based upon current participant data, resulting perhaps in shorter duals when other threads are trying to promote duals to market the sport, or is it better to accept that the sport will live or die based upon its numbers of participants, number of fans? Shouldn't we design the weight class structure in a way that satisifies the question, "Will the new kid to the sport have a better chance at some success and therefore get enthusiatic enough to stick around?" And if he does, mom and dad, grandma and grandpa will be in the stands! And buy a hotdog!

Especially at the low and high ends of the weight classes, SIZE MATTERS. My gut says don't make that a show stopper for a kid who wants to win but is simply not big enough.

For what its worth!

I don't completely disagree with your reasoning Spratdad. I guess I just look at it from wanting to be competitive year in and year out. We are a small school and getting better, but it is very hard to fill 14 year in and year out. I actually had 4 103 lb kids this year, but only one of them belongs on a varsity mat. Too often I am thinking more about weight and trying to get kids to cut to fill a spot or my 189 weighs 175 but wrestles up so the team we are dueling can have a match there. It would help a lot with competition in my room and putting a better product out on the mat if we only had to fill 12 classes. I also think it would make tournaments and duels tougher.

Our Regional had smaller brackets at some weights than we see at most of the tourneys we go to. There were only 9 112's and 10 103's there. Surprisingly, there were only 9 152's and 9 160's as well. Those are two weights that most teams can usually fill.

There may be a few freshmen that are around 103 lbs, but wrestling is a tough sport and putting them on the mat won't make them competitive in the sport if they don't have the fire for it. I see filling in the weight differential at the higher weights as important and starting the 1st 2 weights at more reasonable sizes 107 115. I noticed one of the posters listed teams from our regional and our team has 13 wrestlers. The truth in that is we only had competition for slots in the upper weights, everyone else just wrestles at the other open varsity slots. We don't have more than a handful of backups.
We encourage kids to try sports all the time. The reality is that some kids aren't interested in any sport and being the size for a lower wrestling weight class does not matter to those students.

I concede, Mr Thompson, that your experiences give you insights that I do not have. The times we live, the distractions kid's have, perhaps some kind of growing apathy, do create challenges to our efforts to champion the cause. Your well argued opinion and those that share it may ultimately prevail. We may be forced to adapt the sport to the reality you describe.

With all due respect, I still hope not.

I agree with Kale Mann, Wrestling is one of the only contact sports that does not discriminate based on size of the contestant. The little guys need this opportunity. I think that the NWCA's statictics are far more complete than any of our situations within our own teams and communities. Regardless of what the statistics say, I say dont mess with it. Unless they want to add opportunities for varsity spots for the little guys.

I am all for the little guy. I am a little guy, but I see way more wrestlers wrestling up for lack of opportunities to compete in the upper weights, which is why if we were to vote for a proposal, I would vote for option C.
You would still have opportunities for little guys, but look at the opens across the state and it is clear that those spots are open and it is because there is no one there to wrestle in those slots. If there were, the coaches would be wrestling those kids in those slots.



http://www.mpssaa.org/assets/wintersports/wrestling/Proposed%20Wrestling%20Weight%20Class%20Options%20(2009).pdf

james,

they do discriminate based on the size of the athletes. by putting a weight limit on our sport.

How many 103lbs actually weigh 103lbs? I'm guessing most weigh in in the 99-102 range on most days