I can't for the life of me understand this debate...
What is the difference between?
A. a freshman 14-year-old, who started wrestling in the eighth grade,
B. a 13-year-old "kid's club" wrestler who is in the eighth grade but started wrestling when he was five and attends a half dozen wrestling camps a year,
C. a kid who has a parent that was an elite wrestler and thus gets trained year round, and
D. a run of the mill "kid's club" wrestler who just happens to be genetically gifted?

I don’t know! They sound like a good mix of talented young wrestlers to me.
Bottom line, we have a sport that is based on a couple fixed metrics that can’t be changed the day of the match, namely weight and age.

Kansas is a great wrestling state because all of those kids mentioned above get a fair shot at being a champion because they are provided an opportunity to compete in a fair environment.
IF this change is made, where will we draw the lines next?
Second, what is the underlying goal of this debate? Hard to figure this one out. I thought the goal of the state championships was to determine the best wrestlers by age and weight. Any division of this population waters down the competition, and unfortunately for the eventual champion, brings into question the results of the contest. Who would want to be the 14 and under state champion, but have to be reminded that he didn't really compete against all of the competition? Like the tee-shirt says, how do we determine who the best wrestler is—“we wrestle!”

I say, leave this great system alone… and let the wrestlers figure it out.