SD to change boys weight classes? No more 106?
Quote from TigerPride on February 28, 2022, 9:29 pmI heard this weekend that SD is going to reduce the number of weight classes available to the boys.
One discussion said 106 was going away. Another said that 195 and 220 would be removed, to be replaced by a single class of 205 or something that "split the difference" between the classes.
In both cases it was mentioned that the state had to do this to allow girls wrestling the same number of weight classes as the boys.
Is any of this true? The folks I was talking to didn't appear the have all the answers nor could anyone name a reliable source.
Curious if anyone has any insight into this hearsay.
I heard this weekend that SD is going to reduce the number of weight classes available to the boys.
One discussion said 106 was going away. Another said that 195 and 220 would be removed, to be replaced by a single class of 205 or something that "split the difference" between the classes.
In both cases it was mentioned that the state had to do this to allow girls wrestling the same number of weight classes as the boys.
Is any of this true? The folks I was talking to didn't appear the have all the answers nor could anyone name a reliable source.
Curious if anyone has any insight into this hearsay.
Quote from chalk on February 28, 2022, 10:16 pmThe weight class choices for July 1, 2023 for boys and girls are the following I believe. Hopefully they keep as many weight classes as possible to keep growing the sport and not take a spot away from a potential wrestler down the road. SD can also deviate (do our own thing) which we already do with a few NFHS rules for example like two coaches in a corner vs. 1 and time limits (30 minutes) vs. 5 matches per day. Not deviating allows us an opportunity as a state to possibly get a seat on the national wrestling board, although Dan already has a seat on the board above that I believe and maybe an insurance incentive for coverage (not sure on this one)? Montana currently deviates with a 103-pound class, but more states that don't allow 7-8 graders to compete in high school have been lobbying for bigger weights, which is a disadvantage for SD vs. like Pennsylvania (110, 118, 125, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215 and 285). It will be up to the advisory board and SDHSAA on what to do next year. I know there are more forfeits in the B's with open weights in duals and stuff, but I am not aware that they have to match boys=girls as they don't below. It will take out the 285 on the girl's side though. Some states like PA want fewer weights for duals vs. more for individual or traditional tournament, like the prep schools. It would behoove SD to look at the surrounding states where we compete to follow suit. I know we went to Montana for a tournament and had to make some adjustments as they only have 13 weights, with a 103 (not 106) and no 195 just a 205, then 285. This will need to be decided on after next year's season.
Boys (or girls wrestling in Boy's division)
12 weights – 108, 116, 124, 131, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215, 285
13 weights – 107, 114, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 152, 160, 172, 189, 215, 285
The weight class choices for July 1, 2023 for boys and girls are the following I believe. Hopefully they keep as many weight classes as possible to keep growing the sport and not take a spot away from a potential wrestler down the road. SD can also deviate (do our own thing) which we already do with a few NFHS rules for example like two coaches in a corner vs. 1 and time limits (30 minutes) vs. 5 matches per day. Not deviating allows us an opportunity as a state to possibly get a seat on the national wrestling board, although Dan already has a seat on the board above that I believe and maybe an insurance incentive for coverage (not sure on this one)? Montana currently deviates with a 103-pound class, but more states that don't allow 7-8 graders to compete in high school have been lobbying for bigger weights, which is a disadvantage for SD vs. like Pennsylvania (110, 118, 125, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215 and 285). It will be up to the advisory board and SDHSAA on what to do next year. I know there are more forfeits in the B's with open weights in duals and stuff, but I am not aware that they have to match boys=girls as they don't below. It will take out the 285 on the girl's side though. Some states like PA want fewer weights for duals vs. more for individual or traditional tournament, like the prep schools. It would behoove SD to look at the surrounding states where we compete to follow suit. I know we went to Montana for a tournament and had to make some adjustments as they only have 13 weights, with a 103 (not 106) and no 195 just a 205, then 285. This will need to be decided on after next year's season.
Boys (or girls wrestling in Boy's division)
12 weights – 108, 116, 124, 131, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215, 285
13 weights – 107, 114, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 152, 160, 172, 189, 215, 285
Quote from Nacho on February 28, 2022, 10:31 pmSo weights will be the same next year but may change for the 2023-2024 season? I wish we had those 14 weights now.
So weights will be the same next year but may change for the 2023-2024 season? I wish we had those 14 weights now.
Quote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 12:20 amLess weights = less opportunity = less kids who will stick with wrestling through high school, seems like a bad idea to me.
If they reduce the number of weights in SD, this sport will shrink and that is the opposite of what we all want.
It has been terrible for the Olympics (IMHO) as many world class wrestlers are competing for far too few of spots. And the last thing I want to see is someone representing another country only because their are not enough spots.
Less weights = less opportunity = less kids who will stick with wrestling through high school, seems like a bad idea to me.
If they reduce the number of weights in SD, this sport will shrink and that is the opposite of what we all want.
It has been terrible for the Olympics (IMHO) as many world class wrestlers are competing for far too few of spots. And the last thing I want to see is someone representing another country only because their are not enough spots.
Quote from Sprawler on March 1, 2022, 10:10 amQuote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 12:20 amLess weights = less opportunity = less kids who will stick with wrestling through high school, seems like a bad idea to me.
If they reduce the number of weights in SD, this sport will shrink and that is the opposite of what we all want.
It has been terrible for the Olympics (IMHO) as many world class wrestlers are competing for far too few of spots. And the last thing I want to see is someone representing another country only because their are not enough spots.
Less weights = better competition = fewer forfeits = fuller brackets = fewer pins. Take a look at some region brackets from the last 4-5 years - weak sauce. Plus there are all sorts of opportunities for JV and middle school wrestlers these days to sort out the sport. Perhaps some success at lesser tournaments would keep them around more than getting their butts kicked at varsity level?
Steve Bareis (Old Skool)
Quote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 12:20 amLess weights = less opportunity = less kids who will stick with wrestling through high school, seems like a bad idea to me.
If they reduce the number of weights in SD, this sport will shrink and that is the opposite of what we all want.
It has been terrible for the Olympics (IMHO) as many world class wrestlers are competing for far too few of spots. And the last thing I want to see is someone representing another country only because their are not enough spots.
Less weights = better competition = fewer forfeits = fuller brackets = fewer pins. Take a look at some region brackets from the last 4-5 years - weak sauce. Plus there are all sorts of opportunities for JV and middle school wrestlers these days to sort out the sport. Perhaps some success at lesser tournaments would keep them around more than getting their butts kicked at varsity level?
Steve Bareis (Old Skool)
Quote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 10:40 amBased on what I heard from coaches meeting at state. The B's may deviate to 12 classes next year and the A's will stay at 14. I wasn't personally there but this is what I was told.
Based on what I heard from coaches meeting at state. The B's may deviate to 12 classes next year and the A's will stay at 14. I wasn't personally there but this is what I was told.
Quote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 10:48 amQuote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 10:40 amBased on what I heard from coaches meeting at state. The B's may deviate to 12 classes next year and the A's will stay at 14. I wasn't personally there but this is what I was told.
Wouldn’t surprise me with open weights in B as is hard to consolidate much more.
Quote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 10:40 amBased on what I heard from coaches meeting at state. The B's may deviate to 12 classes next year and the A's will stay at 14. I wasn't personally there but this is what I was told.
Wouldn’t surprise me with open weights in B as is hard to consolidate much more.
Quote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 10:55 amQuote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 10:48 amQuote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 10:40 amBased on what I heard from coaches meeting at state. The B's may deviate to 12 classes next year and the A's will stay at 14. I wasn't personally there but this is what I was told.
Wouldn’t surprise me with open weights in B as is hard to consolidate much more.
Interesting topic next year is how it will work when A/B teams dual. What format will be used? Will kids be wrestling 2-3 different weight classes depending on the opponent? Also will make opc interesting.
Quote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 10:48 amQuote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 10:40 amBased on what I heard from coaches meeting at state. The B's may deviate to 12 classes next year and the A's will stay at 14. I wasn't personally there but this is what I was told.
Wouldn’t surprise me with open weights in B as is hard to consolidate much more.
Interesting topic next year is how it will work when A/B teams dual. What format will be used? Will kids be wrestling 2-3 different weight classes depending on the opponent? Also will make opc interesting.
Quote from fatmanroll on March 1, 2022, 12:04 pmQuote from Nacho on March 1, 2022, 11:29 amWait, the Bs are going to 12 weight classes next year!? What!?
Not confirmed just suggested and discussed.
Quote from Nacho on March 1, 2022, 11:29 amWait, the Bs are going to 12 weight classes next year!? What!?
Not confirmed just suggested and discussed.
Quote from Fat125 on March 1, 2022, 12:05 pmMaybe I am wrong, but I dont think the B's can do one thing and the A's do another. I would think that these decisions are being made for South Dakota wrestling.
Maybe I am wrong, but I dont think the B's can do one thing and the A's do another. I would think that these decisions are being made for South Dakota wrestling.
Quote from Viper on March 1, 2022, 9:43 pmMy vote would be to keep us at 14 weights A, B, and girls. Participation in girls isn't nearly what it is in boys but the sport is obviously growing and if we want to continue to grow the boys and girls sports then we don't want to shrink the possible placings for the athletes. Hell, in lots of states they have 8 placers in 1A 2A 3A 4A and 5A (and even 6A in a few)
I personally thought it was a crime the the International Olympic Committee took the oldest Olympic sport (Wrestling & Track) and shrunk the number of medalists way down to make way for Skateboarding, Surfing and other stuff like badminton. Then you had athletes like Jordan Burroughs/Kyle Dake, and Kyle Snyder/J'den Cox having to wrestle off to even GO to the Olympics where they'd normally all have the opportunity to come home with gold. That would happen on a much smaller scale with us leaving a bunch of Region 5th placers who'd have the opportunity to wrestle at state fizzle if we shrunk our weight classes.
I say we keep pushing to make wrestling relevant and helping improve young athletes lives by introducing them to this great sport, and keep all 3 at 14 weight classes
My humble opinion
My vote would be to keep us at 14 weights A, B, and girls. Participation in girls isn't nearly what it is in boys but the sport is obviously growing and if we want to continue to grow the boys and girls sports then we don't want to shrink the possible placings for the athletes. Hell, in lots of states they have 8 placers in 1A 2A 3A 4A and 5A (and even 6A in a few)
I personally thought it was a crime the the International Olympic Committee took the oldest Olympic sport (Wrestling & Track) and shrunk the number of medalists way down to make way for Skateboarding, Surfing and other stuff like badminton. Then you had athletes like Jordan Burroughs/Kyle Dake, and Kyle Snyder/J'den Cox having to wrestle off to even GO to the Olympics where they'd normally all have the opportunity to come home with gold. That would happen on a much smaller scale with us leaving a bunch of Region 5th placers who'd have the opportunity to wrestle at state fizzle if we shrunk our weight classes.
I say we keep pushing to make wrestling relevant and helping improve young athletes lives by introducing them to this great sport, and keep all 3 at 14 weight classes
My humble opinion
Quote from Viper on March 1, 2022, 9:45 pmI also think that girls in general being smaller than boys should probably shift lower and start at like 93-95lbs for their opening weight instead of 106
I also think that girls in general being smaller than boys should probably shift lower and start at like 93-95lbs for their opening weight instead of 106
Quote from interesting on March 1, 2022, 11:09 pmQuote from Viper on March 1, 2022, 9:43 pmMy vote would be to keep us at 14 weights A, B, and girls. Participation in girls isn't nearly what it is in boys but the sport is obviously growing and if we want to continue to grow the boys and girls sports then we don't want to shrink the possible placings for the athletes. Hell, in lots of states they have 8 placers in 1A 2A 3A 4A and 5A (and even 6A in a few)
I personally thought it was a crime the the International Olympic Committee took the oldest Olympic sport (Wrestling & Track) and shrunk the number of medalists way down to make way for Skateboarding, Surfing and other stuff like badminton. Then you had athletes like Jordan Burroughs/Kyle Dake, and Kyle Snyder/J'den Cox having to wrestle off to even GO to the Olympics where they'd normally all have the opportunity to come home with gold. That would happen on a much smaller scale with us leaving a bunch of Region 5th placers who'd have the opportunity to wrestle at state fizzle if we shrunk our weight classes.
I say we keep pushing to make wrestling relevant and helping improve young athletes lives by introducing them to this great sport, and keep all 3 at 14 weight classes
My humble opinion
Well said.
Quote from Viper on March 1, 2022, 9:43 pmMy vote would be to keep us at 14 weights A, B, and girls. Participation in girls isn't nearly what it is in boys but the sport is obviously growing and if we want to continue to grow the boys and girls sports then we don't want to shrink the possible placings for the athletes. Hell, in lots of states they have 8 placers in 1A 2A 3A 4A and 5A (and even 6A in a few)
I personally thought it was a crime the the International Olympic Committee took the oldest Olympic sport (Wrestling & Track) and shrunk the number of medalists way down to make way for Skateboarding, Surfing and other stuff like badminton. Then you had athletes like Jordan Burroughs/Kyle Dake, and Kyle Snyder/J'den Cox having to wrestle off to even GO to the Olympics where they'd normally all have the opportunity to come home with gold. That would happen on a much smaller scale with us leaving a bunch of Region 5th placers who'd have the opportunity to wrestle at state fizzle if we shrunk our weight classes.
I say we keep pushing to make wrestling relevant and helping improve young athletes lives by introducing them to this great sport, and keep all 3 at 14 weight classes
My humble opinion
Well said.
Quote from WellArmed on March 1, 2022, 11:12 pmI'm not saying what the answer is. Just gonna present some arguments....
So those that are pushing to keep 14 weights for participation reasons, would you be for raising it to 16 weight classes? That would mean even MORE participation and make it even better right?
True, 14 does offer more opportunity. That's a positive.
A negative is teams winning duals with simply having "warm bodies"
Also, I've this too often.
2 teams in a dual. Both have 11 wrestlers. 3 opens.
The opens aren't at the same weights. That's 6 forfeits.Then since there were 14 weights...there's a good chance that studs don't match up...so the studs get to wrestle lesser kids and those matches are over in 30 seconds.
The entire dual ends up being 40 minutes long.
12 weights would have more studs wrestling studs, less forfeits and the duals would last longer because there'd be more 6 minute matches. It would also allow the team with only 10 or 11 kids to compete with the the other teams, because now they aren't losing to a team with just warm bodies.
There's nothing perfect... I get participation and opportunity, but I also see the other side.
I'm not saying what the answer is. Just gonna present some arguments....
So those that are pushing to keep 14 weights for participation reasons, would you be for raising it to 16 weight classes? That would mean even MORE participation and make it even better right?
True, 14 does offer more opportunity. That's a positive.
A negative is teams winning duals with simply having "warm bodies"
Also, I've this too often.
2 teams in a dual. Both have 11 wrestlers. 3 opens.
The opens aren't at the same weights. That's 6 forfeits.
Then since there were 14 weights...there's a good chance that studs don't match up...so the studs get to wrestle lesser kids and those matches are over in 30 seconds.
The entire dual ends up being 40 minutes long.
12 weights would have more studs wrestling studs, less forfeits and the duals would last longer because there'd be more 6 minute matches. It would also allow the team with only 10 or 11 kids to compete with the the other teams, because now they aren't losing to a team with just warm bodies.
There's nothing perfect... I get participation and opportunity, but I also see the other side.
Quote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 am
- Just spitballing…
Maybe only award team points for the matches that are wrestled in a dual? (Hell you could increase the number of weights and only score team points where there are matches)
Or mandate all duals have 14 matches, and if schools have open weights coaches will pair other weights until there are 14 matches to fill the open spots, starting with closest weights to open where both have other wrestlers?
Or allow kids to wrestle more than one match in a dual?
And no offense but teams with less than 11 probably shouldn’t be in duals with full teams in the first place. Those are called matches, and they were never really duals anyway…just because they are called duals that doesn’t rally make it so. Following that logic, if two cowboys face off at 10 paces and only one has a gun is it really still a dual?
And back to my original point 12 is bad for wrestling period and nothing you can say will ever change my mind. Less is not more in this case, and testing less weights will do catastrophic, irreparable damage to the sport of wrestling in South Dakota and a giant disservice to all the hard work people have put in to grow the sport in this state.
Kids programs will suffer, small programs will suffer, and big programs will suffer.
It’s just logical that less opportunities leads to less participation. Less athletes also = less scholarship opportunities, and fewer life lessons.
So exactly who is it good for again? Oh ya the studs so they can wrestle more studs as entertainment for the fans. Well I hate to break it to you but the studs already find matches with other studs on their own and in tournaments, and the 2 or 3 duals a year where studs get to wrestle other studs aren’t making or breaking their career. And if there are less wrestlers there are less fans.
Hell…I would be all for reducing duals down to 10 or less a year and adding more and bigger tournaments.
- Just spitballing…
Maybe only award team points for the matches that are wrestled in a dual? (Hell you could increase the number of weights and only score team points where there are matches)
Or mandate all duals have 14 matches, and if schools have open weights coaches will pair other weights until there are 14 matches to fill the open spots, starting with closest weights to open where both have other wrestlers?
Or allow kids to wrestle more than one match in a dual?
And no offense but teams with less than 11 probably shouldn’t be in duals with full teams in the first place. Those are called matches, and they were never really duals anyway…just because they are called duals that doesn’t rally make it so. Following that logic, if two cowboys face off at 10 paces and only one has a gun is it really still a dual?
And back to my original point 12 is bad for wrestling period and nothing you can say will ever change my mind. Less is not more in this case, and testing less weights will do catastrophic, irreparable damage to the sport of wrestling in South Dakota and a giant disservice to all the hard work people have put in to grow the sport in this state.
Kids programs will suffer, small programs will suffer, and big programs will suffer.
It’s just logical that less opportunities leads to less participation. Less athletes also = less scholarship opportunities, and fewer life lessons.
So exactly who is it good for again? Oh ya the studs so they can wrestle more studs as entertainment for the fans. Well I hate to break it to you but the studs already find matches with other studs on their own and in tournaments, and the 2 or 3 duals a year where studs get to wrestle other studs aren’t making or breaking their career. And if there are less wrestlers there are less fans.
Hell…I would be all for reducing duals down to 10 or less a year and adding more and bigger tournaments.
Quote from WellArmed on March 3, 2022, 9:52 amQuote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 am
- Just spitballing…
Maybe only award team points for the matches that are wrestled in a dual? (Hell you could increase the number of weights and only score team points where there are matches)
Or mandate all duals have 14 matches, and if schools have open weights coaches will pair other weights until there are 14 matches to fill the open spots, starting with closest weights to open where both have other wrestlers?
Or allow kids to wrestle more than one match in a dual?
All of these would result in teams holding back wrestlers to win the dual. Which would be LESS participation. But you also said that more participation is where we should be aiming. ????
Ex 1: If your kid at 113 is horrible, you'd just say you don't have a 113 and then the match wouldn't count vs total dual score. If a kid a stud, coaches would forfeit to him. Right, wrong or other, coaches would do it. They are trying to win the dual -- Especially if regular season duals are used to dictate seeding at the state dual tournament.
Ex 2: if you let kids wrestle more than once, teams would have their studs wrestle more than once, and by having one kid wrestle twice, you're taking another kid out of the lineup---even if you have another kid. Remember, coaches are trying to win duals. So they'd pull a lesser kid if they could use their stud twice. This is yet another instance of making LESS participation.
Quote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 amAnd no offense but teams with less than 11 probably shouldn’t be in duals with full teams in the first place.
So here, you'd be eliminating participation. You talked about participation being important, now you're saying those teams shouldn't dual? Interesting.
Quote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 amIt’s just logical that less opportunities leads to less participation. Less athletes also = less scholarship opportunities, and fewer life lessons
So 21 weight classes would obviously be better in your eyes, as it offers more participation, more life lessons, more state champions, etc.... correct?
I'm not saying 12 is the cut and dry answer. I am saying there are a lot of positives to it.
Secondly, we'd all love it we COULD have more weight classes---IF we could all fill them. We can't. Obviously many are having troubles filling 14, let alone more than 14.
Which, is why the powers that be in the NFHS.... decided the options OTHER than the current 14 are both LESS than the current 14. Notice they didn't add 15 or 16 as options. Lowering the number of weight classes isn't being suggested out of "want". Unfortunately, It's out of necessity. It's where we are as a sport.
Quote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 am
- Just spitballing…
Maybe only award team points for the matches that are wrestled in a dual? (Hell you could increase the number of weights and only score team points where there are matches)
Or mandate all duals have 14 matches, and if schools have open weights coaches will pair other weights until there are 14 matches to fill the open spots, starting with closest weights to open where both have other wrestlers?
Or allow kids to wrestle more than one match in a dual?
All of these would result in teams holding back wrestlers to win the dual. Which would be LESS participation. But you also said that more participation is where we should be aiming. ????
Ex 1: If your kid at 113 is horrible, you'd just say you don't have a 113 and then the match wouldn't count vs total dual score. If a kid a stud, coaches would forfeit to him. Right, wrong or other, coaches would do it. They are trying to win the dual -- Especially if regular season duals are used to dictate seeding at the state dual tournament.
Ex 2: if you let kids wrestle more than once, teams would have their studs wrestle more than once, and by having one kid wrestle twice, you're taking another kid out of the lineup---even if you have another kid. Remember, coaches are trying to win duals. So they'd pull a lesser kid if they could use their stud twice. This is yet another instance of making LESS participation.
Quote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 amAnd no offense but teams with less than 11 probably shouldn’t be in duals with full teams in the first place.
So here, you'd be eliminating participation. You talked about participation being important, now you're saying those teams shouldn't dual? Interesting.
Quote from interesting on March 2, 2022, 12:33 amIt’s just logical that less opportunities leads to less participation. Less athletes also = less scholarship opportunities, and fewer life lessons
So 21 weight classes would obviously be better in your eyes, as it offers more participation, more life lessons, more state champions, etc.... correct?
I'm not saying 12 is the cut and dry answer. I am saying there are a lot of positives to it.
Secondly, we'd all love it we COULD have more weight classes---IF we could all fill them. We can't. Obviously many are having troubles filling 14, let alone more than 14.
Which, is why the powers that be in the NFHS.... decided the options OTHER than the current 14 are both LESS than the current 14. Notice they didn't add 15 or 16 as options. Lowering the number of weight classes isn't being suggested out of "want". Unfortunately, It's out of necessity. It's where we are as a sport.
Quote from Fat125 on March 3, 2022, 11:08 amIf we had 13 weight classes, it would make dual tiebreakers easy. Barring a double forfeit, someone would always win more matches because of the odd number of weights.
If we had 13 weight classes, it would make dual tiebreakers easy. Barring a double forfeit, someone would always win more matches because of the odd number of weights.
Tags
©2019 Dakota Grappler / SportsEngine. All Rights Reserved.
