Number of weight classes should be decreased
Josh Lowe

5/7/2014
Josh Lowe, InterMat High School Analyst
josh@intermatwrestle.com
The weight class realignment that was approved and implemented by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) for high school wrestling effective with the 2011-12 season is still being felt and discussed by some, even as the third season with the changes present has ended. Given that premise, let's take a look at some data from the 2010-11 and the 2013-14 seasons. For purposes of this article, data from lineups for sectional wrestling tournaments in Ohio, which is the first layer of the state series in that state, will be used.

The nature and number of wrestling weight classes has changed over the course of time. Up through 1970 there were 12 weight classes for high school competition. Starting with the 1970-71 season, a 13th weight class (a lower-weight) was added. The next major shift came in time for the 1987-88 season, which in essence did three things: (1) the lowest weight was eliminated (2) a lighter middle-weight class was added in its place (3) the middle-to-upper weight classes were realigned.

Starting with the 1994-95 season, a 14th weight class was added. The 215-pound weight class came into place between the 189 and heavyweight/275 weight classes. Certain states (i.e. Pennsylvania) did not adopt this right away, but the vast majority of states implemented 215 right away. The recent radical change occurred for the start of the 2011-12 season, where a lower-to-middle weight was subtracted for the addition of an upper-weight class.



The forgotten component to the discussion is that when the changes were made in the Spring of 2011, there were other proposals considered that would reduce the total number of weight classes from 14 to 12. Generally speaking proposals to reduce participation opportunities are a non-starter for some-to-many within the wrestling community. However, two questions should be examined before summarily ruling out reduced weight classes: (1) are the 14 spots in a team's lineup actually being filled (2) would a reduction in lineup spots increase the relative competitiveness of some teams, especially those from smaller enrollment schools.

For the 2011 sectional tournaments in Ohio, there were 595 schools that entered wrestling squads. Of those squads, only 123 had a full lineup (20.7%); while 515 (86.6%) had what the OHSAA defines as a team, eight or more wrestlers in the lineup. In addition, the average number of participants in a lineup was 10.87, while the median was 12.

As expected, the numbers varied depending on the size of school. For purposes of the state wrestling series, schools are split into three classifications based on their male enrollment. The small-school division (Division III) features schools with about 70 or less males per grade; the medium-school group (Division II) features schools with approximately between 70 and 125 males per grade; while the big-school division (Division I) features schools with about 125 or more males per grade, with 400 or so being the high end.



Now let's look at the data from this season, which was the third with the "new" weight classes in effect. The presented data shows there are slightly less full lineups, slightly less schools with eight or more wrestlers in the lineup, and the average/median for wrestlers in a lineup has slightly dropped as well.



Based on the data above, the vast majority of teams were struggling to fill lineups even before the "new" weight classes were implemented. That concern is slightly more common due to the change in weight classes. Therefore, it is my belief that a reduction in weight classes for varsity wrestling lineups is justified. Most teams are just not able to fill a lineup, which means opportunities are not being significantly reduced, and having one less spot would help many squads -- in particular those from smaller enrollment schools -- be more competitive in tournaments and dual meets.

The item of greater contention is how to distribute the weight classes evenly and fairly to address the size of the population of 15-18 year-old males in this country, as well as in the context of what current realities are in terms of wrestling program participation. The first of those questions is outside the scope of this article, and should be determined using CDC data. From what I have been told, the failure of the NFHS to properly use CDC data during the Spring 2011 rules change process is a major reason the existing situation stands as present.

This article can, and will, address the second of those realities. It will address the second of those realities by looking at varsity wrestling squad lineups at the sectional tournament, which is the first layer of the state tournament series. The data presented in the previous section related to the ability or inability for teams to fill a lineup is but one part. It shows -- in my opinion -- that the weight class change, which went into effect during 2011-12, is decreasing participation opportunities, and does not properly reflect the reality of wrestling programs' rosters.



The 2011 sectional tournament data shows that participation in the five weight classes between 125 and 145 was all between 0.3 and 0.9 standard deviations above the mean participation for a given weight class. On the other hand, in 2014 sectional tournament data, participation for two of the four weight classes between 126 and 145 (138 and 145) is more than one standard deviation above the mean. For both years, participation in the 152-pound weight class is more than one standard deviation above the mean, with participation in 2014 creeping more than 1.4 standard deviations above the mean.

In both 2011 and 2014 sectional tournament data, participation in the 285-pound weight class was more than one standard deviation below the mean (2011: 1.3 below, 2014: 1.19 below). 2011 sectional tournaments had weight classes at 171, 189, and 215; while in 2014, there were four weight classes capturing a similar range: 170, 182, 195, and 220. For 2011, those weight classes had the following z-scores (i.e. number of standard deviations above or below the mean): 0.89, 0.21, and -0.22; while for 2014, those four weights had the following z-scores: 0.20, -0.38, -0.64, and -0.47.

The other area of study that always raises debate is participation patterns in the lowest weight classes. In 2011, the lowest weight classes were 103, 112, and 119; while in 2014, it was 106, 113, and 120. The z-scores for those weights in 2011 were: -2.34, -1.33, and -0.22; while in 2014, they were -1.82, -0.90, and -0.47.



If the goal of weight class design is to create as normal of a distribution of participation as possible -- while acknowledging the reality that participation is always going to have somewhat of a "bell curve" -- we should try to avoid outcomes where participation is either disproportionately high or disproportionately low.

Recommendation

Based on analysis of the data, my recommendation is to decrease the number of weight classes from 14 to 13. The other part of that recommendation is to keep the current configuration from 106 to 160, while changing the upper-weight configuration to where it was previously (171, 189, 215, and 285).

It is my opinion that said lineup would most accurately reflect the realities of the population and the wrestling landscape, while increasing full lineups and overall competitiveness of teams. An additional benefit of dropping to 13 weight classes is that with an odd number of weight classes, virtually all ties would be decided very early in the criteria "ladder" (i.e. at the greatest number of match victories).

I like it, makes sense!

I have always disagreed with elimination of weight classes. All it does it take opportunities away from kids. Instead of focusing on the lineups with opens, why don't we instead recognize the wrestlers that are in the lineups.

Why bench them?

How does this help grow, promote, improve our sport?

I disagree with weight class elimination. I instead feel like us coaches should continue to work as hard as we can to get kids on our teams, in our lineups, on the mat. Less varsity opportunities could be just one more reason for a kid to give the sport up to focus on his others.

The challenge is hard to continue to promote & recruit kids to our sport. But as we all know, once we get a kid on board, it oftentimes can turn in to a life-changing experience for them. We have all seen it multiple times.

I totally agree with Coach Harris on this one!

I personally thought it was a mistake to take a middle weight out a couple years ago, and add an upper weight. If you look at the 195 pound weight division over the past three years, I feel that has been the weakest division overall, not that there weren't any good kids in that division. It's hurt the smaller schools more than the larger ones.

I can only speak to 5A and 6A, but 195 was incredibly tough this year. I actually thought that from top to bottom 195 was one of the toughest two weight classes in 6A.

I agree with Coach Harris about not eliminating opportunities for kids. That being said, I would love to see us go back to where we were 4 years ago.

Just take a look at all the brackets around the State and Nation. It does not matter if it is Norton's Jake Durham or Fargo's Jr. National Tournament. There is always less entries at 182, 195, & 220 than there is in the middle weights. I agree with Josh Lowe (InterMat High School Analyst). We have too many weights and some of the upper weight classes are low in numbers.

QUESTION FOR EVERYONE! If you were the dictator of Wrestling and could change the HS weight classes to anything you want to. What would they be???

I would do something like this. To me this accomplishes some of the goals of the new weight classes on the low and high ends, but keeps weights in the middle where we need them.

106
113
119
125
131
137
143
150
157
165
175
190
220
285

Due to the feeling that I haven't been beaten down for awhile, here are my suggestions.

98
106
113
120
126
132
138
145
155
170
190
225
275

Terry

I like your proposal Terry, but would also suggest the combining of two lower weights and removal of one of the heavier weights.

103
112
119
126
132
138
145
152
160
171
190
275

12 Weights and eliminates two of the hardest to fill weights, 98 and 215 or 220(whatever you want to call it).

My suggestion is due to the fact that since the weight changes I have only had 5-7 wrestlers on the team competing for the last 5 weight classes (170-285) Last year had 1-170 2-182 1-195 1-220 1-285 on the team. However had 2-3 deep from 130-152.

106
113
120
125
130
135
140
145
152
160
171
182
197
285

I feel the removal of one of our middle weight classes was a mistake. At GHS we usually end up with 30-35 wrestlers on team and all but 5-7 are certified below 170.

Thanks
Brett Means
Goddard HS

I like 12 weights also.

112
120
126
132
138
145
155
165
174
184
197
HWT

110
117
125
133
141
149
157
165
174
185
197
285

195, not at the very top, but top to bottom has been SUPER weak since its inception. Frequently it has the LOWEST number of participants at a invitational tournament. Taking a weight out of the middle while addressing the population in general was NOT a fix for the wrestling population. The middle of the bell curve for wrestling is 145lbs. Other sports where size is clearly an advantage have frequently reduced the population of wrestlers above 170lbs in high school. I personally like the idea of 15 or 13 weight classes so an odd number of weights makes the dual tie breaker very easy... Which team won the most matches... Argument over nearly every time.

I agree with Storm. Weights need to get heavier. Some thing in line with Powerlifting would be good. 110 is where they start and feel we dont need 2 classes (106-112) there as, generally speeking, kids are bigger now. Our large 3A school had 1 boy who could weigh that last year and had to wrestle 132-138 kids in practice.
The heavier weights would help football coaches see the benifits also.