PROPOSED WRESTLING WEIGHT CLASS OPTIONS
FROM THE NFHS WRESTLING RULES COMMITTEE
(September 2010)

Current

103
112
119
125
130
135
140
145
152
160
171
189
215
285

Option A

106
113
120
126
132
138
145
152
160
170
182
195
220
285

RATIONALE FOR WRESTLING WEIGHT CLASS OPTIONS
FROM THE NFHS WRESTLING RULES COMMITTEE

CURRENT:
* These current 14 weight classes have been in place since 1995.
* The 215-pound weight class was added in 2002.
* In 2006, the 275-pound weight class was increased to 285 pounds.
* These weight classes were developed from a survey that the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee administered in 1994-95.

OPTION A:
* The weights were created from looking at the minimum wrestling weight (7% weight) at the time of assessment of 195,000 wrestlers from the NWCA Optimal Performance Calculator.
* Each weight class was created to have approximately 7.14% of the wrestlers.
* Equal distribution of wrestlers in each weight class.
* Adds an 'additional' weight class at the top.
* Creates a weight class in the low 180-pound range

Weight Class Change? single choice
	Current
	Option A
Votes accepted starting: 02/22/11 08:26 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I believe that coaches were given exit surveys at the regionals. Last year they voted on three different options or the status quo. At the national level the majority of the vote was split between "no change" and an option that looked pretty close to Option A above. NFHS decided to kick the can down the road a year. This year they are only asking for feedback on the two options listed above.

Accoding to WIN magazine, "The Iowa High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) decided not to wait for the NFHS to take action. The IHSAA Board of Control voted last month to adopt the proposed weights." It appears that change may be coming, what do you think.

It would be a good change!

The rumor is that this proposal passed in Missouri also.

to go into effect next year?

The biggest problem might be for the Dakota Leaches and Reese Cokeleys and other small 103's giving up more weight! But like with any changes theres pros and cons.



Kevin Seybold

Why does wrestling, a sport that was made for the small kid - too small for football and other sports - continue to push the small kids out. We should not worry about where the average kid is. We should cater to the small kid and the big kid too un-coorinated to play that other sport. If you are going to go with option B, add a 98 lbs, and how about a 250 also. And, the dual argument is quickly becoming irrevalant. I bet only 40 % of the schools can field a full team now. If wrestling wants to survive and not become a sport like swimming, it needs to innovate and adapt.

Wow! All those years I thought wrestling was for the biggest B.A.s around. And now I find out its made for the little people. Im heart broke. Dang, that little f.. with the .....ball in his hand was right. "You have to cut weight to wrestle" and "wrestling is just for guys that arnt good enough to play BASKETBALL"!




NOT!!!!!!!

You know what I meant, we need to take care of the little guys. Wrestling has declined significantly since the 1970's and will continue. It is a tough sport, most kids today are not prepared for the work.

Back in the old days there were 98 105 112 all good weights. the problem with 98lbs was only 15 kids were in the whole class.so they raised it to 103 now the class is full but 15 kids are under weight. i think 103 112 119 126 132 138 145 155 these are all the old classes they used to have except 103,was 105. the upper classes were all messed up. it jumped to 167 then 189 and then hvy thats three classes for all those big guys i think it was unlimeted so 200 pounders were wrestling 300 pounders i like this change but i think they need to lower it to 103 for those little fellows

I think the rules committee is on the right track - equal distribution of wrestlers in each weight class.

We talked about this last year as well. I am a fan of the little guy too, but our little guys are bigger than they used to be.

This is a great proposal! At least it allows for the smallest weight to align with the athletes available and makes for less of a cut for those who already shouldn't be cutting much weight. This proposal also allows for more opportunities without huge jumps at the top. I hope this occurs next year!

By the way, I haven't seen a tournament full of 103 pounders anywhere during the regular season. 106 is a little fellow for sure in this day and age. Wrestling is for the little guy and the big guy as well and this proposal evens things out while adjusting to the changing body types of today's athlete.

I am not convinced that the even distribution of wrestlers among weight classes is the best and only criterion for creating weight classes.

Each pound means a lot more to the lower weights. Five pounds does not matter that much to the upper weight classes. But five pounds makes a HUGE difference 152 and below.

The new proposal removes lower weight classes to create more upper weight classes. I'm not convinced that is a good strategy to promote the sport.

So you think people have evolved into bigger humans in the last 20 years? I don't think so. If you believe in evolution, then you believe that it takes thousands or even millions of years to make these changes. Each year brings a different sized group into the mix. If you go back and look at kids wrestling, some years there are quite a few kids in the 14 and under 75 pound weight class, and some years not. My son will be in high school next year and is only weighing 80 lbs. Max. I can guarantee that next year he won't even come close to making the minimum. So raising the weight will just delay his potential. We will deal with whatever, but would prefer to have it stay the same, or go back to 98lbs, of course. There are other kids in the same boat.

There are other kids in the same boat, of course. They are the exception and not the norm. I didn't say we evolved into bigger humans in the last 20 years, but the kids weigh more now as a whole. Maybe there is just more fat in the kids' diets or hormones in the food.

All I know is that there are not that many 98 pounders left to choose from. You will see if the numbers are released from the Regional voting that coaches who see the kids that are available for wrestling see the same thing and will once again vote for change.

D.W. I'm pretty sure you know what Johnson meant in his post, or at least I would hope so.

In case you really honestly dont understand it, I'm going to throw just a little spin on it that I feel strongly about personally which is 100% in support of the smaller wrestlers and what he was eluding to.

Yes, in several of the very small schools, a 4'11-5'3" 103/112lb wrestler could get the chance to suit up and get some playing time on the football and/or basketball team. Make all league, all state, be the "stud", get a football/basketball scholarship, etc... highly doubtful. Can he do that in wrestling? ABSOLUTELY, and he can start as a FRESHMAN building his experience and his resume.

I have no problem adding a weight into the gap of 215 to 285, but NOT at the expense of the 103lbers (including those that are even smaller since this is the best we feel we can offer)

But, at the same time all you big boy supporters should be petitioning the basketball and football teams to make if "fairer" in their sport as well in respect to the little guys that contribute to your teams.

Let's see if they are interested in changing the rules to state that EVERY basketball team is required to have at least one player under 5'4" tall on the court at all times.
Football: Every team must have one player that weighs under 110lbs on the field at all times. Sound reasonable?

I hope you would agree: Wrestling has 12 GUARANTEED opportunities to make the team for guys/gals that are closer to 120lbs or more. Realistically, how much of a chance does a 103lber have to make the starting line-up at Hutchinson, Andale, Etc.. in Football or Basketball. Just doesnt seem "fair" to me. I'd hate to see wrestling stoop to that prejudice and descriminative level of available participation that is based only on size and not on talent in an equal playing field.

Mr. Thompson - I've been attending wrestling tournaments for a couple of years myself. When you were noticing the 103lb brackets that werent full, were you able to make it to the other end of the hallway brackets? I've had a hard time finding a tournament that was full of 215 and 285 lbers as well. HOWEVER, you wont catch me on here saying they need to lower those weight brackets to fill them up. But hey, if thats your supporting arguement, be careful: someone might just catch on and suggest that we need to reconsider what we need to drop that top weight down to get those brackets filled up as well.

Mr. Moeder,
I believe a change is necessary, especially to make some of the gaps at the mid upper weights smaller. If we have to sacrifice 3 pounds for that, then so be it. I mentioned the amount of 103s at tournaments in a response to a post stating that the 103 class is full. It simply isn't. As a whole, for our sport, I believe this change is good and I believe the majority of coaches will vote that way too. With the exception of the undersized few, most wrestlers will have to cut to 103 and I am not for encouraging that, so we may have a philosophical difference, and I am okay with that. 106 allows for a more manageable cut for our little guys. I doubt anyone is going to argue for the upper weight brackets being lowered. Wrestling still offers plenty of opportunities for the little guy.

Am also supporter of small wrestlers. 106 lbs is a small wrestler.

Now let me give some food for thought - We talk about oportunity for young kids. Who has the most oportunity to make it to state as a 9th grader? A kid weighing less than 112 lbs. (bottom 25 percentile of 15 year olds, or one who is 152 and above (top 25 percentile). How many top 25 percentile kids have a chance to place?

How excited do you think the stud 160 lb fr. is about getting pounded while a 98 lber byes himself to the semi s?

Yes I am a supporter of smaller wrestlers. Just would like to even it out a little.

Tate - Sorry, this is not directed at you personnaly, but since you feel we have a philosophical difference and you are concerned about a wrestler cutting down to 103 instead of just 106, I've got to ask: Do you feel it was a necessary move originally to go from 275 to 285? Since 3 extra pounds of weight loss on an already little guy is of concern to you, that apparently means you feel 10 extra pounds on an already big guy is healthy? You are definitely not a doctor or insurance company!
I ask because the bracket is still not really filled much better than the 103lb'ers that are at stake, and call me crazy, but for some reason I just feel those 285 lb. entrants just may deserve your concern as well. I'm going to have to think that the wrestlers that are cutting to 103 as compared to 106 are going to still be much healthier than someone that couldnt even make a 275lb maximum weight limit. Except for a VERY few select individuals, I would think your concern for weight needs to be much more directed to the 285lbers as to the 103lb guys.
Again, I am not against the upper weights, but not at the expense of the smaller athlete who is already limited in the majority of the other sports.