New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Weight changes, not so fast?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Weight changes, not so fast?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
underhook View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: Jul 29 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote underhook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2020 at 9:21am
Tuna think there is a few real good reasons to keep 106

1. The spot is usually occupied by a kid who has been in your program since youth as a wrestler
2. If your program has a system / they are much more coach able since they already know your core drills.
3. A freshman 106 can grow into the weight classes above - Vincenzo / Kemmer ect.
4. You usually have to recruit the 195 - 220lb kids from the football team and if you get one he is usually much harder to coach - Another reason why coaches would rather have 106 vs 220
5. I am guessing some of the old guys on the PIAA who vote are former 98 or 103 guys from years gone by - remember this was always a small mans sport until the world go bigger

The real question is what is good for the sport reducing FFT or how can we grow the sport or at least maintain the participation that we presently have. I would much rather try to grow the sport even though no one likes FFTS  
Back to Top
monkeyBoy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 23 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 292
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote monkeyBoy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 8:38am
Originally posted by Mctuna40 Mctuna40 wrote:

No No monkey boy clearly has it correct... no need to discuss anymore or you will be told >You don’t understand< 
No need to have any debate or really any posts! We can all get the gospel according to M-Boy... 

Even though I agree with you YoungBuck, I capitulate to MB!  The truth is none of it matters the PIAA will do what it wants as a nameless faceless group. 

Classic Tuna.  Make inaccurate statements and then attack the person who calls you out on them AND make more inaccurate statements.  Reminds me of someone else these days.

The sad part is for the most part we share the same opinion - that if you want to get rid of the most forfeits, you have to cut a light weight.  I just hope we actually have a wrestling season in a few months to see if the proposed 13 weights (if approved) actually decrease forfeits (it should).
Shock the Monkey!
Back to Top
monkeyBoy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 23 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 292
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote monkeyBoy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 8:43am
Originally posted by underhook underhook wrote:

5. I am guessing some of the old guys on the PIAA who vote are former 98 or 103 guys from years gone by - remember this was always a small mans sport until the world go bigger

The weird thing is you are probably mostly right.  The overwhelming majority of PIAA coaches fought back against making 110 the lightest weight.  A good portion were probably light weights when they wrestled sure, but not sure I'd call them "the old guys on the PIAA who vote" - it's the coaches who propose the change, and then the "old guys" usually approve it because that's what the sport wants.  Isn't that how it usually goes?

Doesn't matter if you wrestled 95 pounds back in high school if that was 30+ years ago.  The fact that there were 95 lb kids in HS on wrestling teams back then has no bearing on if there are kids that weigh that now.  That's the part that confuses me the most about all this.  
Shock the Monkey!
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 hours 33 minutes ago at 9:01am
Originally posted by underhook underhook wrote:

Tuna think there is a few real good reasons to keep 106

1. The spot is usually occupied by a kid who has been in your program since youth as a wrestler
2. If your program has a system / they are much more coach able since they already know your core drills.
3. A freshman 106 can grow into the weight classes above - Vincenzo / Kemmer ect.
4. You usually have to recruit the 195 - 220lb kids from the football team and if you get one he is usually much harder to coach - Another reason why coaches would rather have 106 vs 220
5. I am guessing some of the old guys on the PIAA who vote are former 98 or 103 guys from years gone by - remember this was always a small mans sport until the world go bigger

The real question is what is good for the sport reducing FFT or how can we grow the sport or at least maintain the participation that we presently have. I would much rather try to grow the sport even though no one likes FFTS  


I was told emphatically here that the goal of reducing forfeits is....to reduce forfeits and has nothing to do with growing the sport or maintaining participation. The state has an average of 2.13 FFTs per dual for AAA. District 1 is a whopping 1.71. Oh the horror. A clear plague on the sport. Two matches with a forfeit. So terrible. And that's the average, which is skewed a bit by teams with a large number of holes. 
Back to Top
MTLeister View Drop Down
Administrators
Administrators
Avatar

Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MTLeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 hours 12 minutes ago at 10:22am
Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:

Originally posted by underhook underhook wrote:

Tuna think there is a few real good reasons to keep 106

1. The spot is usually occupied by a kid who has been in your program since youth as a wrestler
2. If your program has a system / they are much more coach able since they already know your core drills.
3. A freshman 106 can grow into the weight classes above - Vincenzo / Kemmer ect.
4. You usually have to recruit the 195 - 220lb kids from the football team and if you get one he is usually much harder to coach - Another reason why coaches would rather have 106 vs 220
5. I am guessing some of the old guys on the PIAA who vote are former 98 or 103 guys from years gone by - remember this was always a small mans sport until the world go bigger

The real question is what is good for the sport reducing FFT or how can we grow the sport or at least maintain the participation that we presently have. I would much rather try to grow the sport even though no one likes FFTS  


I was told emphatically here that the goal of reducing forfeits is....to reduce forfeits and has nothing to do with growing the sport or maintaining participation. The state has an average of 2.13 FFTs per dual for AAA. District 1 is a whopping 1.71. Oh the horror. A clear plague on the sport. Two matches with a forfeit. So terrible. And that's the average, which is skewed a bit by teams with a large number of holes. 

With all due respect, you are cherry-picking a single stat/number from a ton of data on the subject.  That stat doesn't account for a little less than half the state (Class AA schools).  Yes, the average AAA school last season forfeited 2.13 bouts in their duals.  That number was 3.35 for AA schools.  Statewide it was 2.70.  And yes, all of those numbers were slightly better than the previous year, which is good.

I may not have posted some of these other stats lately but last season 22.9% of all duals in the state had 7 (that's seven) or more forfeits.  And over half of all dual meets had 4 or more forfeits.

In most of the stats I've been able to look up, District 1 is doing well, relative to other areas of the state.  Personally I'd say those numbers for D1 are too high...they are only good when compared to other parts of the state.  Other areas are really struggling it seems.  Just because it's "OK" here doesn't mean it's OK everywhere. And from what I've seen, it's a national problem too.
PA-Wrestling.com - online home for Pennsylvania wrestling - https://twitter.com/PA_wrestling
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 59 minutes ago at 10:35am
Originally posted by MTLeister MTLeister wrote:

Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:

Originally posted by underhook underhook wrote:

Tuna think there is a few real good reasons to keep 106

1. The spot is usually occupied by a kid who has been in your program since youth as a wrestler
2. If your program has a system / they are much more coach able since they already know your core drills.
3. A freshman 106 can grow into the weight classes above - Vincenzo / Kemmer ect.
4. You usually have to recruit the 195 - 220lb kids from the football team and if you get one he is usually much harder to coach - Another reason why coaches would rather have 106 vs 220
5. I am guessing some of the old guys on the PIAA who vote are former 98 or 103 guys from years gone by - remember this was always a small mans sport until the world go bigger

The real question is what is good for the sport reducing FFT or how can we grow the sport or at least maintain the participation that we presently have. I would much rather try to grow the sport even though no one likes FFTS  


I was told emphatically here that the goal of reducing forfeits is....to reduce forfeits and has nothing to do with growing the sport or maintaining participation. The state has an average of 2.13 FFTs per dual for AAA. District 1 is a whopping 1.71. Oh the horror. A clear plague on the sport. Two matches with a forfeit. So terrible. And that's the average, which is skewed a bit by teams with a large number of holes. 

With all due respect, you are cherry-picking a single stat/number from a ton of data on the subject.  That stat doesn't account for a little less than half the state (Class AA schools).  Yes, the average AAA school last season forfeited 2.13 bouts in their duals.  That number was 3.35 for AA schools.  Statewide it was 2.70.  And yes, all of those numbers were slightly better than the previous year, which is good.

I may not have posted some of these other stats lately but last season 22.9% of all duals in the state had 7 (that's seven) or more forfeits.  And over half of all dual meets had 4 or more forfeits.

In most of the stats I've been able to look up, District 1 is doing well, relative to other areas of the state.  Personally I'd say those numbers for D1 are too high...they are only good when compared to other parts of the state.  Other areas are really struggling it seems.  Just because it's "OK" here doesn't mean it's OK everywhere. And from what I've seen, it's a national problem too.


We aren't debating the 'national problem' we are debating PIAA weight changes, right? 

Call it cherry-picking all you want. You did the same above. It's what people do to emphasize their point. 

I've said before that I don't think AA or districts that are struggling should dictate for the rest of the state. If AA has a 'problem' then they are more than welcome to eliminate weights just for AA. 

District 11 has LESS than 1 forfeit per dual meet last year but we are going to tell them to eliminate a weight and remove an opportunity for a kid because it's a 'problem'. 

Anyone ever watch an Oakland A's game on TV? They have this huge ballpark where they cover the upper deck in tarps so that it doesn't look like there are empty seats. I see this as similar. We are trying to 'sell out'/'reduce forfeits' so that it LOOKS better but it doesn't really help anything. 
Back to Top
monkeyBoy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 23 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 292
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote monkeyBoy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 58 minutes ago at 10:36am
Careful Mike, this guy works in the world of data.  He knows what he's doing.
Shock the Monkey!
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 55 minutes ago at 10:39am
Originally posted by monkeyBoy monkeyBoy wrote:

Careful Mike, this guy works in the world of data.  He knows what he's doing.


Wow, internet tough guy 
Back to Top
MTLeister View Drop Down
Administrators
Administrators
Avatar

Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MTLeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 28 minutes ago at 11:06am
Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:


We aren't debating the 'national problem' we are debating PIAA weight changes, right? 

Call it cherry-picking all you want. You did the same above. It's what people do to emphasize their point. 

I've said before that I don't think AA or districts that are struggling should dictate for the rest of the state. If AA has a 'problem' then they are more than welcome to eliminate weights just for AA. 

District 11 has LESS than 1 forfeit per dual meet last year but we are going to tell them to eliminate a weight and remove an opportunity for a kid because it's a 'problem'. 

Anyone ever watch an Oakland A's game on TV? They have this huge ballpark where they cover the upper deck in tarps so that it doesn't look like there are empty seats. I see this as similar. We are trying to 'sell out'/'reduce forfeits' so that it LOOKS better but it doesn't really help anything. 

My point about the national issue was that it's not just a PA issue.  PA has just chosen to be pro-active in trying to find a solution (in my opinion at least).

I don't believe I cherry-picked stats though.  I provided several stats to get a clearer idea on the situation.  And believe me or not, I have actively tried to find some kind of number or stat that would show there is no "problem" with forfeits, weights, or participation... but everything I find points to the same thing, there is a problem.

Do you think having multiple sets of rules would actually work?  Personally I don't think that'll work at all.  I can't see AA having a set of rules and AAA having another set.  Or letting District 11 have one set of rules and other Districts different rules.  I'm not sure how it would work to be honest.  Even if it's just AA vs AAA, what would the weights be for tournaments? Or when an AA team has a dual with a AAA team?  I think even the coaches association and others have said they don't want to go down that road.

On the District 11 item, you are only looking at AAA again.  When you figure in AA, they averaged more than 2 forfeits per dual.  I could go the opposite direction and say "look at District 8, they average 6.44 forfeits, we need to go to 8 weights MAX!!", right?

Whenever rules/laws/etc are changed you will always have some people "hurt" by them and some people "helped" by them.  That's the nature of the change.  You just try to help more people than you hurt, right?  Personally I think more programs will be helped if you go to 13 (or even 12) weights than there will be programs truly hurt by it.  From what I heard that was the case with the PA coaches, overwhelming majority were in favor of dropping at at least 13 weights.  Others can certainly have a different opinion, that's fine.

And I see your point about the A's and attendance (they have been trying to get a new stadium for years or maybe even decades at this point - same with the Rays in Tampa), though I'd say comparing that to the participation of athletes is apples to oranges.  Now if the A's only had 10 players under contract, and all other teams had 25... I'd see a similarity.  Then again, if half the MLB teams couldn't get enough players to fill their 25 man roster (or even get enough for 9 on the field at once), then you can be sure MLB would look into changing the rules, don't you think?
PA-Wrestling.com - online home for Pennsylvania wrestling - https://twitter.com/PA_wrestling
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 21 minutes ago at 11:13am
Originally posted by MTLeister MTLeister wrote:

Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:


We aren't debating the 'national problem' we are debating PIAA weight changes, right? 

Call it cherry-picking all you want. You did the same above. It's what people do to emphasize their point. 

I've said before that I don't think AA or districts that are struggling should dictate for the rest of the state. If AA has a 'problem' then they are more than welcome to eliminate weights just for AA. 

District 11 has LESS than 1 forfeit per dual meet last year but we are going to tell them to eliminate a weight and remove an opportunity for a kid because it's a 'problem'. 

Anyone ever watch an Oakland A's game on TV? They have this huge ballpark where they cover the upper deck in tarps so that it doesn't look like there are empty seats. I see this as similar. We are trying to 'sell out'/'reduce forfeits' so that it LOOKS better but it doesn't really help anything. 

My point about the national issue was that it's not just a PA issue.  PA has just chosen to be pro-active in trying to find a solution (in my opinion at least).

I don't believe I cherry-picked stats though.  I provided several stats to get a clearer idea on the situation.  And believe me or not, I have actively tried to find some kind of number or stat that would show there is no "problem" with forfeits, weights, or participation... but everything I find points to the same thing, there is a problem.

Do you think having multiple sets of rules would actually work?  Personally I don't think that'll work at all.  I can't see AA having a set of rules and AAA having another set.  Or letting District 11 have one set of rules and other Districts different rules.  I'm not sure how it would work to be honest.  Even if it's just AA vs AAA, what would the weights be for tournaments? Or when an AA team has a dual with a AAA team?  I think even the coaches association and others have said they don't want to go down that road.

On the District 11 item, you are only looking at AAA again.  When you figure in AA, they averaged more than 2 forfeits per dual.  I could go the opposite direction and say "look at District 8, they average 6.44 forfeits, we need to go to 8 weights MAX!!", right?

Whenever rules/laws/etc are changed you will always have some people "hurt" by them and some people "helped" by them.  That's the nature of the change.  You just try to help more people than you hurt, right?  Personally I think more programs will be helped if you go to 13 (or even 12) weights than there will be programs truly hurt by it.  From what I heard that was the case with the PA coaches, overwhelming majority were in favor of dropping at at least 13 weights.  Others can certainly have a different opinion, that's fine.

And I see your point about the A's and attendance (they have been trying to get a new stadium for years or maybe even decades at this point - same with the Rays in Tampa), though I'd say comparing that to the participation of athletes is apples to oranges.  Now if the A's only had 10 players under contract, and all other teams had 25... I'd see a similarity.  Then again, if half the MLB teams couldn't get enough players to fill their 25 man roster (or even get enough for 9 on the field at once), then you can be sure MLB would look into changing the rules, don't you think?


I definitely never suggested that different districts have different weights. That doesn't work at all. 

I don't see any problem with AA and AAA having different weights. There was already discussion about PIAA having different weights than NFHS and how teams would have to adjust for out of state tournaments. Same idea for AAA vs AA. 
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 15 minutes ago at 11:19am
And I don't think you saw my point (which means it wasn't the best analogy). I was trying to say that covering the seats doesn't change the attendance, it just hides it. Reducing weights doesn't change participation, which is the actual problem. 

Back to Top
MTLeister View Drop Down
Administrators
Administrators
Avatar

Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MTLeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 hours 42 minutes ago at 11:52am
When the wrestling steering committee proposed the 13 weights, they cited a stat that 95% of all events for PA teams took place in PA.  And even the selection of those 13 weights was done to minimize the number of potential issues with descent plans and such when going out of state or bringing out of state teams into PA hosted tourneys.  So that was thought about.

I don't have the numbers on how many duals took place the last few years for AA vs AAA teams, but I can get them.  Pretty sure it would be a bigger "disruption" (for lack of a better word), than the out of state issue.

Sticking with the baseball theme, I suppose it could be treated like the DH rule in MLB.  Maybe if AA went to 12 weights and AAA stayed at 14 (or dropped the 13), you'd use AA weights when a dual is hosted by an AA school and use AAA weights when in a AAA school.  If the weights are close enough though, you know coaches will complain about issues with descents and such.  Is that acceptable though?  Not sure.  Personally, as a huge baseball fan, I hate the 2 sets of rules and I switch back and forth over liking or hating the DH.

And yes, my bad, I didn't interpret your fan analogy the way you meant it.  With participation in virtually all sports down over the last few years, there probably isn't anything that's going to quickly bring it back.  I've said before that if you added weights when participation goes up, then you should cut weights when it goes down like it has.
PA-Wrestling.com - online home for Pennsylvania wrestling - https://twitter.com/PA_wrestling
Back to Top
monkeyBoy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 23 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 292
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote monkeyBoy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 hours 40 minutes ago at 11:54am
Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:

Originally posted by monkeyBoy monkeyBoy wrote:

Careful Mike, this guy works in the world of data.  He knows what he's doing.


Wow, internet tough guy 

Just quoting you.  Calm down.
Shock the Monkey!
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 hours 45 minutes ago at 12:49pm
Originally posted by monkeyBoy monkeyBoy wrote:

Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:

Originally posted by monkeyBoy monkeyBoy wrote:

Careful Mike, this guy works in the world of data.  He knows what he's doing.


Wow, internet tough guy 

Just quoting you.  Calm down.


Lol, sorry. That felt like a shot 
Back to Top
Peterson5 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 06 2020
Location: Langhorne
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peterson5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 hours 3 minutes ago at 1:31pm
"With participation in virtually all sports down over the last few years, there probably isn't anything that's going to quickly bring it back.  I've said before that if you added weights when participation goes up, then you should cut weights when it goes down like it has."

Are there any other HS sports that cut the number of varsity spots based on a drop in participation? I understand you can't really change the number of players in a baseball lineup or basketball court, but do other 'individual' sports like XC, track, tennis, cut spots?
Back to Top
MTLeister View Drop Down
Administrators
Administrators
Avatar

Joined: Nov 26 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MTLeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 hours 3 minutes ago at 3:31pm
Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:

"With participation in virtually all sports down over the last few years, there probably isn't anything that's going to quickly bring it back.  I've said before that if you added weights when participation goes up, then you should cut weights when it goes down like it has."

Are there any other HS sports that cut the number of varsity spots based on a drop in participation? I understand you can't really change the number of players in a baseball lineup or basketball court, but do other 'individual' sports like XC, track, tennis, cut spots?

That's a good question.  I don't know if anyone has an answer to that.  I'd edit that question and ask both sides of it though... have sports added spots when participation has grown OR cut spots when participation has dropped?

Wrestling is somewhat unique with the weight class aspect of it.  One constant in the sport over the years is the changing weight classes to adapt to the population and its participants.  When it was first a PIAA sport, there were just 10 weights (from 85 to 185).  Glad it's been updated a few times since then.  Granted there are no instances yet (at least in PA that I'm aware of) of them decreasing weight classes.

I do know that some states have been taking a deeper look at 7-on-7 football the last few years, and I think some states have sanctioned it.  And I know New York was looking into getting rid of their 99 pound weight class last year, though I don't know the status of that today.

I would have to think (maybe I'm way off base here, don't know) that as sports like tennis, swimming/diving, and track/field have grown they have added events or whatever the equivalent is for their sport.  Are there instances of them cutting back if/when participation drops too much?  Don't know.
PA-Wrestling.com - online home for Pennsylvania wrestling - https://twitter.com/PA_wrestling
Back to Top
DelcoProper View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: Jan 23 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DelcoProper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 9 hours 52 minutes ago at 10:42pm
Originally posted by Peterson5 Peterson5 wrote:

"With participation in virtually all sports down over the last few years, there probably isn't anything that's going to quickly bring it back.  I've said before that if you added weights when participation goes up, then you should cut weights when it goes down like it has."

Are there any other HS sports that cut the number of varsity spots based on a drop in participation? I understand you can't really change the number of players in a baseball lineup or basketball court, but do other 'individual' sports like XC, track, tennis, cut spots?

While it doesn’t help participation, it does help wrestlers improve. In theory, if there are less ffts, then there are more actual matches.  Kids can’t get better walking to the center to just get their hand raised. 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down