absolutely correct twink:

1.5% is arbitrary as well. I have contacted the National board via e-mail to find the minutes. I got a blanket e-mail back stating that due to the volume of e-mails per day, they may not respond.

However, something to consider a 180 lb athlete, losing 1.5% per week is as follows:

Week 1 - 180
Week 2 - 177
Week 3 - 174.5
Week 4 - 172
Week 5 - 169.4
Week 6 - 166.8
Week 7 - 164
Week 8 - 161.9

This was compiled by using the 1.5% rule towards the current weight at the new weigh in each week. If this individual wanted to wrestle @ 160, the Drs.' note endorsing such a move could take place. Most important - we've instilled a weight management program for the kids and have done it sensibly.

This would also eliminate the need for certification. Since a wrestler has brought his weight down sensibly, using sound management rather than cutting the week of certification, we've instilled a belief that we are serious about the health of our kids. Having been a wrestler many years ago, I remember coming in fat and cutting down. This would just ensure that I do it in the correct manner. Fasting for two days for the then 5 lb bump after certification was not the correct way to do it. Monday practice, the week of certification, with sweats on, running to get your water shed is not the correct way.

Greetings,

A lot of arguing going on about what is right and what is wrong, how much or how little, how many or how often--really all pointless if we align ourselves with the NF rules, as some think we should.

Again,
take the time to contact a committee member
OR
Rick Bowden of the KSHSAA
OR
your KWCA rep

and let them know if you think we should again be full NF members--if we are, then we adopt ALL the rules--weigh in and weight control--and this discussion revolves around how overbearing the NF is and not the KSHSAA!

Shannon--walk down the hall and talk to Gonzo--he is on the committee.

Yours in wrestling.

Mann supt211@ruraltel.net

update on the fat monitor scale-- got on the search engine did tanita scale and see that you can get a scale with body fat monitor for less than 100 dollars!

Mike,

Hate to muddy the water even further as it has been fairly well discussed and established that all fat measures have a margin of error--but the monitors to which you refer are the most inaccurate of all and would probably not be on a list of approved devices to be used.

Mann

Your assumption is that the wrestler will not gain back any previously lost. If he gets down to 161.9, leaves for Christmas break, and comes back at 168, it would take him an additional 4 weeks to get back down to weight. If he lost weight faster than 1.5% (as most wrestlers do when they come back from an extended break), he would be ineligible to participate. This seems a little strict considering we are working with athletes who are 14-18 year old young men, and may not have developed the necessary self conrol or knowledge of their bodies natural cycles for this to be effective.

I know, but he never listens to me. That's why we work well together.

Totally agreed twink,

self control is lacking, which is why the rules have been put in place. A little restrictive, yes.

Here's when the removal of the certification would take hold It would allow athletes those opportunies to fix a goof, instead of running and doing things that are what we're trying to eliminate from the sport.

Question - is certification a national rule or a state rule?

Gibby: Certification is national.

I've been staying out of this discussion, although it's been interesting -- sort of like a 1950s States Rights argument.

The seven percent body fat standard has been used in Iowa since 1998. Personally, I don't think it's so bad. And, I think you'd be surprised at the figures you end up with. We had some pretty lean (VERY lean) kids this year at the beginning of the season and the lowest of all of them was 9 percent.

On the one hand, body fat testing and hydration testing are annoying, but I guess it's the cost of doing business. It's really not as bad as people are making it out to be; whatever you guys decide to do is up to you and KSHSAA, but if these plans go through, everyone will survive. I did, and as I'm constantly being told here, you're all better than me! LOL

Holmes

Thank you Vikes for the info.

Mr. Mann - a favor to ask.

Is there any way you could post the national minutes. I'm curious as to wether we are the only state that has lost voting rights and what the vote was on instituting the new rule.

Gibby,

Not sure that I can track down what you are asking.

Mann

Sorry, this press release on the NF website was the closest that I could come. There were no links on theri website that led me to minutes of vote reporting.

Mann


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jerry Diehl

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (April 22, 2005) � Rules addressing weight-management headlined the 15 rules approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Wrestling Rules Committee April 10-11 at its annual meeting in Indianapolis. The rules subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The most significant rule change is the complete rewriting of Rule 1-3, which outlines a weight-management program. Under the revised rule, beginning in 2006-07, stronger guidelines discouraging rapid weight loss will take effect. The revised rule includes a hydration level not to exceed 1.025, a body fat assessment no lower than 7 percent (males)/12 percent (females) and a monitored, weekly weight loss plan not to exceed 1.5 percent a week.

�The weight management rule change effective 2006-07 is certainly monumental,� said Dave Carlsrud, assistant to executive secretary of the North Dakota High School Activities Association and chairperson of the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee. �While weight management has been researched for many years and may have been passed earlier, a number of our states needed time to prepare for an effective implementation.�

Another rule revision that involves the weight issue is Rule 4-5-5, which decreases the amount of weight a wrestler is able to acquire during days of consecutive competition. In the past, wrestlers could gain a pound for each day of consecutive competition. However, under the new rule, a maximum of two pounds will be allowed, regardless of how many consecutive days are spent in competition.

I have to wonder how much is all this going to cost, and who does all the monitoring to determine whether or not the rules are being adhered to? from what I can see of the regulation, no small amount of documentation and reporting will be required. is this a deal where each team is on the honor system, to be "audited" only if a complaint is filed by another school when they think someone is cutting too much weight? Over the years, I have seen a lot of kids that just were enormous for their weight, some did really well, some not.
but the decision to wrestle at a certain weight was made by the wrestler, or the coach, or the kid at the next higher weight that could kick the crap out of the wrestler that dropped down to the next weight. I can't think of a sport that requires more sacrifice and disciple than does wrestling, and regulating the weights in such a restrictive manner is, in my opinion opening the door for all kinds of rules abuse. I remember when we made a rule that teams could weigh in at home the night before or morning of a match, seemed like a good deal that coaches a could be trusted to regulate and not cheat on until one coach brought the scales out before the match and SHAZZAM--whodathunkit? some lightweightson the other team were about 10 pounds over. That practice turned out to require a little more observation to be successful, and this looks like a similar situation to me. I think the folks that adhere honorably to the new regulations will be restricted in their team lineup adjustment in a way that those who choose to falsify data will not. I can't see that the old system here was flawed to the extent that it requires such drastic adjustment, which in my view is only as enforcable as the integrity of the people documenting the weights. the lions share of the programs would be clean, but the new system would offer a benefit to those who chose not to be. I know this post will likely draw a lot of criticism from the gallery, but I guess what it boils down to is, "can somebody just explain to me what was so seriously wrong with weight adjustment practices in this state since 1930?" I don't recall any deaths or serious injuries that have resulted from excessive weight loss since the 70's at least, so what in the world is the big deal?

Mike:

At the sake of bringing the fury of Towanda down about my ears, let me relate a couple of things to you.

First, let me tell you the procedure we go through up here:
--On the last Friday before practice started a physician's assistant from our local clinic came to school. He weighed all of the wrestlers, did the body fat testing (with calipers, by the way), filled out the paperwork, sent a copy to us and copy to the IHSAA. This paperwork had each kid�s alpha weight, body fat content and lowest certifiable weight at 7 percent body fat (minus three pounds).
-- Since we do shoulder-to-shoulder weigh-ins (one hour before duals and dual tourneys, two hours before regular tournaments) we have the opportunity to challenge anything we don�t think is kosher on the spot.
-- Documentation-wise, we have to carry our body-fat paperwork, copies of all of our weigh-in sheets, plus any waivers we have at all times. Plus, for Sectionals, we have a sheet to fill out that documents our each starting line-up�s weigh-ins, their opponent that weigh-in and their exact weight.
-- And next year, I�m sure, we�ll have to carry sheets that document each kid�s 1.5 percent weight loss at all times.
(My managers have a notebook with all of this stuff in it -- looks like a presidential briefing book!)

Second, keep this in mind: So long as you guys stick to home weigh-ins, the opportunity for abuse and cheating will always be there. There is no way to avoid it. You could put in a rule that says everyone has to wear pink lace underwear when they weigh-in, but if everyone is weighing in at home at 7 a.m. (or whatever), there is no possible way to prove it. How often does cheating happen? Who knows? When I was at Immaculata there was always someone saying Lansing cheated on weigh-ins. First, knowing Ron Averill, that�s laughable and insulting, but even it was true, how would you ever prove it? Unless you want to be the ballsie one who�s going to pull the challenge, it�s impossible to prove. The only way to eliminate the doubt is to do shoulder-to-shoulder.

Finally, how it was done 30 years ago is irrelevant. Legal drinking age used to be 18, now it�s 21. Were there less problems with drinking 30 years ago than now? That�s debatable, but what�s not is that for one reason or another, the rules changed. The NFHS made the rule change and whether we like or not, that�s what it is. If Kansas doesn�t want to go along with it, that�s up to you guys. But the thing is that this isn�t a bad rule, it�s not hard to administer or maintain and it�s the legal expression of evil incarnate. And it won�t bring the end of society (or wrestling) as we now know it. It�s simply a new idea.

Holmes

Sorry: ....it's NOT the legal expression of evil incarnate. Pretty dumb when you punt your best punch line. LOL

I probably missed something here, but the 7% body fat thing has me confused. What if the wrestler only has 3-5% body fat to begin with? Could someone please clarify this for me? Thanks!

I think cheating will typically be caught! People (in particular kids) always talk. It may not come to light until down the road a ways but someone will talk. Isn't that the way the last weight cheating was discovered?


But there are now talks of lowering the drinking age on a national level. They are in their infancy and I haven't followed them enough to know the reasoning but they exist none the less. That's why it is important for the KWCA and KSHSAA to get this as close to right the first time as possible.

Greetings,

Sports fan 02: "That's why it is important for the KWCA and KSHSAA to get this as close to right the first time as possible."
The first time will not be last time! There are no ultimate and final solutions. Getting as "close as possible" the "first time"only assures congruency until the next "thing" comes along. The fact that there is talk about lowering the legal drinking age only supports the fact that rules are in a state of flux all the time--and that the only constant is change.

VS Vike Coach: Appreciate sharing your experiences from a "user's" point of view. Would like to point out that the use of calipers by your school is a local choice as tanita scales are also an option in Iowa. Your Iowa Association director of wrestling, Alan Beste (sp?) has been involved with the KSHSAA committee in all three of our meetings thus far and he has been very, very helpful to us.

Mike: The cost in dollars will be negligible; I do have concerns about the time it will require of our coaches--especially keeping up with a descent plan.

Mom 160: I am guessing that such people (in a healthy state of being) are a very, very small percentage of our population. My thinking would be that they would be alowed to lose zeo pounds; that they would required to wrestle the closest weight class to their actual weight--if they are between two, they must wrestle the greater one. VS Vike Coach--what do they do about this in Iowa?

Mann supt211@ruraltel.net

Egg:

Thanks for making my point about the drinking laws --- laws/rules change and we have to change with them.

As for the method of fat testing, we have a Tanita scale that measures body fat, but our PA perfers his calipers. And honestly the difference in the readings is so small, it's not worth mentioning.

As for the question about kids who come in below 7 percent, what they weight that day is their weight. Period. There is no provision -- short of a waiver -- for letting them go lower.

One thing I would like to add; I don't know how many people who are claiming that they -- or their kids -- are starting the season at seven percent or below, but I'm guessing they're guessing and have really been checked. I talked to a lot of my berthern up here, and the number of kids who were already at (or below) seven percent was extremely low. I only personally know of one kid and he was an 88-pound 103 pounder. My point is that I really think once you start testing for real, you're going to find that the number of kids who'd have this problem is pretty low -- certainly not
enough to make exceptions for.

Holmes

Actually, I wanted to clarify something...

If a kid comes in at the beginning of the season at 158 pounds and is at 1-2 percent body fat, his actual weight at seven percent body fat (minus three pounds) would be 163. That would mean his certified weight would actually be 171. Since the odds of a kid coming in at 158 and one or two percent body fat are between slim and none, that's not worth arguing about.

At three to seven percent, that same kid would still come in above 152, which would mean he'd have to certify (without waiver) at 160. Finally at eight percent would this 158-pound kid beable to go down to 152.

I got this out of a 54-page booklet we have called "Certified Wrestling Weight Matrix for High School Wrestlers," that has the complete breakdown for everything from 103 to 30 pounds. It's like a calculus problem gone wrong! The IHSAA sends it out to every school and it's an important part of that presidential briefing book we discussed earlier.