Possible New Weight Classes for 2010-2011

[Grinder157]

The NFHS will be voting to either leave the weight classes the same or change to one of the three options below. I just wanted to see what the opinions are on the four choices. As far as I know, each state will cast one vote to the NFHS and then they will make their decision on the weight classes for next year.

 

Current Option A: Option B: Option C:

103 110 106 107

112 119 113 115

119 125 120 122

125 131 126 128

130 136 132 134

135 141 138 140

140 146 145 146

145 152 152 152

152 159 160 159

160 167 170 167

171 177 182 177

189 192 195 192

215 216 220 216

285 285 285 285

[ghouse]

I think that the DII coaches discussed this during their state meeting and I believe the vote come down to stay with the current weight classes. Personally, if we were forced into a change I would prefer that we end up at Option B.

 

I don't like the idea that we need to stay at the current number of weight classes. If everyone feels that we need to shift some weights in order to add a weight up top then lets do that and make it to 15 weight classes. Eliminating a weight down low just limits the opportunities for kids to compete and I am never very supportive of that.

 

Not sure what everyone else's opinions are but that is mine for what it is worth. Of course I think there has already been another pretty good discussion of this on the board before.

[ramseyl]

I like option A. I think one of the problems with growing the sport now is the lack of Frosh and J.V. teams and I feel that the current weight structure esp. 103 is detremental in developing full time Frosh and J.V. teams. Teams have trouble finding 103's and when they do they are usually starters on the varsity. This year I believe there were only 4 upper classman wrestling in the 103 weight division at state. A varsity sport should try to get as many upper classman on the mat as possible.

Of course there will still be a frosh here and there that can and will do really well regardless of the weight classes like Boykins (171) and I believe Bruner would have done well at 110 as well as 103, but I believe that you structure the sport to have successful upperclassmen and encourage Frosh teams and J.V. teams to grow.

[PUMMELKING]

If it changes I think the B option is best. It raises the weight at the top so that the jump after 170 is not 19 pounds and so forth as the big jumps are now.

Really never seen the importance of 5 pound weight classes. Why not 10 pounds between wight classes. Open up the field, if going to wrestle after HS then there are fewer weights and less than that if going to wrestle in the Olympics. Just my thoughts.

[werazzlin]

The NFHS will be voting to either leave the weight classes the same or change to one of the three options below. I just wanted to see what the opinions are on the four choices. As far as I know, each state will cast one vote to the NFHS and then they will make their decision on the weight classes for next year.

 

Current Option A: Option B: Option C:

103 110 106 107

112 119 113 115

119 125 120 122

125 131 126 128

130 136 132 134

135 141 138 140

140 146 145 146

145 152 152 152

152 159 160 159

160 167 170 167

171 177 182 177

189 192 195 192

215 216 220 216

285 285 285 285

I would love to see option A also>

[Sommers]

option a & b (ok), i really like C, sure helps with the gap between 189 and 215. Perhaps Farve can help us moderate this?

[HSDAD]

"B" would be my vote. Best option for the big guys.

 

When will they decide?

[THEANIMAL]

I LIKE OPTION B. I WOULD LIKE THE MAXIMUM FOR HEAVY WEIGHT GO UP TO 300.

 

THE ANIMAL

[knuckles1975]

I like option A. 103 is to small for high school kids.

[2blLeg]

I like option A. 103 is to small for high school kids.

 

if it's too small, why are the 103 brackets full for the state tournament?

 

I'm not sure if staying at 103, or moving to 105 is best. I would have to see all the numbers, but I don't understand why we (the powers to be) feel that 14 is only number we should be looking at when it comes to weight classes. Why just 14? If we are trying to grow the sport, wouldn't it make sense to grow the number of weight classes?

 

I would think the best option right now would be to look to add a new weight class, for at least 15. Something in the upper weights to stop the huge jumps in weight classes. Like the 18 pound jump from 171 to 189. Or the 26 lb jump from 189 to 215. Why not add sometihng in there to break this down a bit?

[THEANIMAL]

I WOULD GUESS THAT ABOUT 1/2 OF THE TEAMS DID NOT ENTER 14 WRESTLERS IN THEIR REGIONAL TOURANMENT. DOES ANY ON KNOW THAT STATISTIC?

 

THE ANIMAL

[perfessor]

I WOULD GUESS THAT ABOUT 1/2 OF THE TEAMS DID NOT ENTER 14 WRESTLERS IN THEIR REGIONAL TOURANMENT. DOES ANY ON KNOW THAT STATISTIC?

 

THE ANIMAL

 

I'm sure they didn't...1/2 may be generous....and look at Intermat results in states across the country, including Nebraska, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, etc....lots and lots of forfeits. Too many forfeits. How is this "growing" the sport? I believe that adding weight classes is a preposterous idea. I say take it back down to 12! And for anyone who's gonna come on here and call me names for saying that, please don't...it's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it.