Anyone hear about changes to PIAA weight classes? Excellent source, or I wouldn't ask...though unclear if it's 12 or 13.
PIAA High School Weight Classes
- Thread starter RoarLions1
- Start date
Here is link to story.
https://tribhssn.triblive.com/piaa-...ucing-number-of-weight-classes-for-wrestling/
https://tribhssn.triblive.com/piaa-...ucing-number-of-weight-classes-for-wrestling/
The 13 class proposal looks better IMO, currently too many upper weight classes for the number of participants at those weights. I don’t have data to back this up just prescription glasses. The 13 proposal keeps roughly the same number of low and middle weights which usually fill their brackets.
106 is the most forfeited weight class.
Can't remember off the top of my head but the top 4 most forfeited are the 2 lowest and the 2 highest I believe. Maybe not 285, I'll have to dig it up to check. Which is logical.
Last edited:
Way back when (through the mid to late 1960s anyhow), the lowest four classes were 95, 103, 112 and 120. How times have changed when the number of 106 lbers seems too low to sustain the class.
Kids got bigger on average. Happened in football so it isn't surprising there's a similar impact on wrestling.
Kids got bigger on average. Happened in football so it isn't surprising there's a similar impact on wrestling.
A little later it was 98, 105 and none of them were frosh because 9th grade was in junior high, not senior high.
I wonder if it would be possible for AAA and AA to have differing weight classes. It's much easier for a big school to fill a lineup of 14 weight classes, but I would imagine most of the forfeits happen at AA schools.
The biggest issue is what weights would be put forth at tournaments that have both AA and AAA schools in attendance.
The biggest issue is what weights would be put forth at tournaments that have both AA and AAA schools in attendance.
I don't think the PIAA would go down that route. As best as I know, they don't have different rules per classes in any other sports.
FWIW, the problem is more school specific. I've seen relatively large schools, whose wrestling programs are so-so at best, and those schools have problems filling 14 spots. There are other schools -- those with excellent programs -- that have no problem filling 14 spots for V and JV.
There is a problem in terms of number of wrestlers at many schools (both AA and AAA), but I'm not sure that changing the number of weight classes is the solution. Unfortunately, the PIAA doesn't have the ability to influence the youth programs in an area, the economics of an area, etc.
I tend to agree. Reducing the weight classes does not solve the problem. I have seen some schools, with a history of a strong program, only have half a line-up. While not the largest schools, they are still AAA. If a school is forfeiting 5 weights, really what difference does it make to forfeit 4.
Here is a radically idea, which will never fly, maybe adopt something like a madison system for dual meets without a set # of classes. Match-up kids close in weight for the dual & let them wrestle. Keep weight classes for the tournaments. I realize there are a plenty of problems but it might be time for some new ideas.
I do like the idea of allowing multiple entries per weight class at tournaments. However this again will receive a lot of pushback. This idea is referenced in the article. Forget which tournament director they quote, but he said he will never allow it at his tournament.
The better solution to help participation is to allow two kids per weight for tournaments and the state series with a max of 14 entered into the event.
This helps in many different ways.
1. Less drastic weight cutting to make a specific spot in the lineup just to be varsity.
2. No need to worry if you aren't varsity, you'll get your shot during the state series. Kids many times will see the writing on the wall and quit or don't join up when they see it will be extremely difficult to crack the lineup.
3. Teams will be able to cover 14 spots easier if they can't find a couple weights.
Some states like Utah and Michigan do this and it works out great.
This helps in many different ways.
1. Less drastic weight cutting to make a specific spot in the lineup just to be varsity.
2. No need to worry if you aren't varsity, you'll get your shot during the state series. Kids many times will see the writing on the wall and quit or don't join up when they see it will be extremely difficult to crack the lineup.
3. Teams will be able to cover 14 spots easier if they can't find a couple weights.
Some states like Utah and Michigan do this and it works out great.
A shift to 110lbs would have meant my brother would have never wrestled in high school. He wrestled 70lbs for the junior high team as a freshman and wasn't allowed to wrestle as a sophomore because he didn't weigh enough to qualify. As a junior and senior he wrestled 103lbs. As a 40 year old now he only weighs 115lbs soaking wet. Heck, even 106lbs would have put him at an even greater disadvantage.
MN kinda half-assed this idea last year. Honestly, numbers are going down. The weights are spread all screwy. Nobody wants to lose wrestlers or hinder participation, however, this is simply losing "Varsity" roster spots. It will help the elite of teams tighten up, help lower end teams fill lineups, and maybe even keep super teams from hoarding all of the talent?
I don't know. I've seen top-flight programs and coached not-so-top-flight programs... The weights are hard to fill, especially with varsity-caliber kids. With all of these "spread the weights out up top" weights to "try to lure football kids" who simply don't see interest in wrestling in many instances, I'm all-aboard giving one the boot.
I don't know. I've seen top-flight programs and coached not-so-top-flight programs... The weights are hard to fill, especially with varsity-caliber kids. With all of these "spread the weights out up top" weights to "try to lure football kids" who simply don't see interest in wrestling in many instances, I'm all-aboard giving one the boot.
"...The weights are hard to fill, especially with varsity-caliber kids. With all of these "spread the weights out up top" weights to "try to lure football kids" who simply don't see interest in wrestling in many instances..."
Changing the subject a bit, in PA, and a lot of other states now, many of the schools are having difficulty trying to "lure (enough) football kids" to play football.
Fear of injury and probably other factors are taking a toll.
I hate getting away from the lightest weights as those are the one's made for wrestlers -meaning kids that size have a hard time being successful in football, basketball, etc. Cool thing about wrestling is that it enables you to be successful regardless of size.
The data tell a different story: the lightest weights have startlingly high forfeit rates.
He still could have earned a spot as a JR and SR.
I'm not trying to get on you but I never understand this argument that is always made in wrestling. At 130lbs I was nowhere near big enough or strong enough to earn a starting position on our varsity football team. So I played on the 9th grade team with 55 other freshman. In 10th grade at 135-140, I was at a big disadvantage physically but worked hard enough to letter, but not start. I was one of of only two sophs to earn a letter. I finally got to start my last two years. We had 125 kids 10-12, most of whom would never start their entire careers. They didn't get the memo that they were entitled to start as freshmen.
I didn't play basketball but the situation was similar for all, except the numbers were smaller. I went to school with a kid who held the career scoring record for a number of years and he didn't become a full time starter until he was a JR.
Yes I went to a very large and competitive school that might give me a different perspective than some, but for the life of me I don't understand the arguments that many wrestlers make given the competitive nature of our sport.
You only weigh 95lbs and cant start despite being a talented 9th grader because there is a 115lb JR cutting weight? Tough darts, wrestle JV. Wrestle 1/2 of the hundred events available in the offseason and get better.
Only weigh 103 as a soph and still cant start? Do it again.
Weigh 109 soaking wet as a JR and face an uphill battle against the 125 to 130lb kids coming down at the end of the season? Go down the hall and talk to the 5'8" QB on your football team who doubles as your BBall teams PG and ask him how he does it.
I have yet to met a wrestler who was 10lbs under the lowest weight - whatever it may be - as a SR. Or even 5.
When it comes to the lower weight wrestling arguments, the wrestling community turns into a bunch of millennials.
How many wrestlers have you ever known that couldn't have been successful because they would have been at a size disadvantage if the starting weight was 110 as a senior in HS?
The counter argument to yours could be why the younger generations have such a high love for soy.
not debating the data. I think that is more related to overall participation numbers and the bell curve of where most the kids 'fit'
If they approve the weight changes I will let you know in 2020-2021 as I have a family member that will most likely fall into said criteria.
Wow, so you're the crazy uber-competitive guy at the novice wrestling tournaments yelling at the kids and cutting weight to get to 55? Pretty intense post.
He's actually the tournament organizer who gets to see it up close, and not just his own school's program.
Tagging onto Dice's thought: amazing how many 106/113 guys in March magically grow 1-2 weight classes before the offseason events start in April. Also how this "growth spurt" is not nearly so widespread in other weight classes immediately after states.
Which likely means many 106/113 guys could compete at a higher weight during the regular season but choose not to. (Yes, some are cutting for a spot in their own lineup -- but very few state placers couldn't start at the next weight up.)
Of the remaining 106/113s -- how many could stand to pick up a fork?
So you have a family member that is not projected to get to around 105 or so by the time he is midway through his SR year? Just want to confirm this so we are on the same page.
The worst weight cutting I've seen are the guys at 06 and 13. Most don't have much to lose anyway and cut for Team and individual placing. Going to lowest weight of 110 probably hurts a few extra small kids but helps many more be able to have a few more dinners during season.
Exactly. Occasionally there is a super stud that gets caught in the squeeze but that's not any different than any other place in the lineup - think about Northampton 126 to 138 a year or two ago.
We had a kid at our school that made the finals of Cumberland Valley and beat a couple of state qualifiers, but got squeezed out when our next 3 veterans all dropped. He'll be back as a JR no worse for the wear, just like our two-time state medalist at 106 wasn't when he couldn't break the lineup his freshman year because he was too small.
Moving it to 110 is a non-issue to me. At most, a few more really good freshman have to wait a year before they are fixtures in lineups. Is that really such a big deal? Competitively, some younger kids may not be as successful as they think they should be because moving the lower weights up will naturally make them more accessible to the older kids. Again, no big deal.
People always point out the extremely rare exceptions - which in my experience are extremely extremely rare.
It shouldn't be all about the super studs with HS sports. There should be room for kids to get a chance to play. You are basically considering the 10% of super stud athletes. At least that's the tone I'm inferring from your posts. "Occasionally there is a super stud that gets caught in the squeeze but that's not any different than any other place in the lineup". What about everyone else? Why do you have to be a super stud to play?
I get it, you organize ultra competitive tournaments so that's where you're interest lies.
To me, this is the kind of thinking that has led all HS athletes to need specialize in one sport.
This is just my take, I've read your posts, you probably know what you're talking about.
Lol. Funny how people can look at the same something and come away with two completely different takes. I'd look at my post as pretty much the opposite of intense and competitive. The important values one takes from wrestling are not in winning, competing at the highest levels or even being able to compete at an "optimum weight." Rather they are work ethic, dealing with adversity, discipline and the value of teamwork.
At our recent end of the year banquet, we had a total of 9 seniors honored with letters. 4 of them had been with the HS program for four years (and our youth and JH programs for more) and had accumulated a total of 16 varsity matches (all by one of the four). A fifth was a JV wrestler for 3 1/2 years before earning a spot halfway through his SR year - he ended his career at regionals and won a league championship at 195lbs. I'm pretty confident that these kids are going to end up being pretty successful in life, which is a lot more important than getting to wrestle varsity for an extra year or two.
I only am at one novice tournament per year (we have one novice division in our big youth tournament which I also help run), but I'm actually the guy at the table telling the parents not to worry about what weight class "B" is, the kids are close enough in weight and ability hopefully and more hopefully, nobody's getting hurt. If I know them well enough I'll tell them, hey, you probably want them wrestling kids that are bigger and better than them as much as possible, cause my experience tells me that kids who are not afraid to lose (which can be difficult for a parent who is deathly afraid for his kid to lose to teach) are generally the ones wrestling for many years and kicking butt. But that is waaaay off topic.
Back on topic - with no judgment on my part on the reduction of weight classes or reorganizing, yet - I'm still waiting for a really good reason why the lowest weight class - which has the least participation in the sport - maximum weight limit should not be raised 4lbs. I'm searching for a rational and relevant negative consequence.
You couldn't be more off base. You completely have the wrong take on my attitude.
I think the arguments on message boards and in the stands FOR keeping the lowest weight class ARE actually about competitiveness. People want to make sure their young wrestlers who have kicked butt all their life are kicking butt and taking names right off the bat at the HS level. Or that their older kids still have a weight class to cut down to so they can compete in a mostly younger weight class (= more success)
I'll reiterate - I really don't see a ton of JRs and SRs walking around at 106 or 113 without cutting a ton of weight. I don't see this "average kid" you are talking about who is being denied a chance to compete by raising the lowest weight limit unless he's an underclassman..
Some may argue that keeping younger, talented wrestlers more involved at the varsity level is better because it helps to retain them in the sport, but I don't think that necessarily true.
Last edited:
After reading your previous post, you're right, I misunderstood. I'm completely on board with everything you said in your last two posts. When you mentioned about the occasional super stud being squeezed out, that made me go down a path in the tone of what you were saying. Completely agree with your last two posts, thanks for responding.
We must not be on the same page. I said if they approved the weight changes so that would make the weight 112 with the allowance after Christmas I believe. In which case i would say yes, that would put him at a disadvantage. I would guess some wrestlers would be walking around at 120 and make the cut.
PIAA approves new weight classes.
https://tribhssn.triblive.com/piaa-approves-weight-class-reduction-in-wrestling/
https://tribhssn.triblive.com/piaa-approves-weight-class-reduction-in-wrestling/
This has been an interesting discussion. To me, big picture, it's about balancing participation numbers with the number of weight classes in a situation that is highly variable.
Pennsylvania wrestling had about 20,000 high school participants in 1980, according to the National Federation of High Schools data. That declined to around 12,000 in 1990, further declining to around 8400 in 2000 before recovering to a very stable 9,700 to 9,900 since 2010.
Weight classes numbered 12 in PA in the 1960's, 70's, and early 80's, before going to 13 in the 1980's. In 2003, the tweener weight class 215 was added between 189 and 275, making it the first year of 14 weight classes.
It appears the state was adding weight classes while overall participation was declining, but that's where the highly variable part kicks in. High school size, and participation rates at each high school are so variable, it's extremely difficult when the system (number of weight classes) is "one size fits all".
So we're left with the balancing act:
-- Number of weight classes that reflect current participation rates
-- Number of weight classes that minimize forfeits
-- Number of weight classes that allows youth the opportunity to "start" on varsity, and not drive them away
-- Number of weight classes that promote growth of the sport
-- ...and on and on.
Tough challenge for rule-makers. I believe in complete inclusion -- if a high school kid is interested in a sport, they're on the team. At State College High, several sports have tryouts, and the less-talented at the time are cut...late-bloomers, kids in need of feeling like they belong, troubled kids needing something to do among them. Maybe others can answer the question if that ever happens in other schools, specifically for wrestling.
Not having all the facts, I'll assume the PIAA will make the right call. Just trying to show a historical perspective.
Pennsylvania wrestling had about 20,000 high school participants in 1980, according to the National Federation of High Schools data. That declined to around 12,000 in 1990, further declining to around 8400 in 2000 before recovering to a very stable 9,700 to 9,900 since 2010.
Weight classes numbered 12 in PA in the 1960's, 70's, and early 80's, before going to 13 in the 1980's. In 2003, the tweener weight class 215 was added between 189 and 275, making it the first year of 14 weight classes.
It appears the state was adding weight classes while overall participation was declining, but that's where the highly variable part kicks in. High school size, and participation rates at each high school are so variable, it's extremely difficult when the system (number of weight classes) is "one size fits all".
So we're left with the balancing act:
-- Number of weight classes that reflect current participation rates
-- Number of weight classes that minimize forfeits
-- Number of weight classes that allows youth the opportunity to "start" on varsity, and not drive them away
-- Number of weight classes that promote growth of the sport
-- ...and on and on.
Tough challenge for rule-makers. I believe in complete inclusion -- if a high school kid is interested in a sport, they're on the team. At State College High, several sports have tryouts, and the less-talented at the time are cut...late-bloomers, kids in need of feeling like they belong, troubled kids needing something to do among them. Maybe others can answer the question if that ever happens in other schools, specifically for wrestling.
Not having all the facts, I'll assume the PIAA will make the right call. Just trying to show a historical perspective.
The history is interesting. Maybe they already have, but the question they need to answer is what caused the reversal to higher participation numbers. If you could argue the expansion of weights played any part in that, then this proposal is risky.
On another note, can someone please explain to me what result the proposal is ultimately intended to accomplish? Is it inequitable team scores due to forfeits by only one team? Otherwise I see the result just going from 2 matches not wrestled due to forfeit and now 2 matches not wrestled because no weight class. I'm sure I'm missing a few things but I dont see a great outcome here.
If one team has a 106 but not a 113 and the other team has the opposite, I'd rather see the bottom guy forced to move up.
As someone pointed out, kids are generally getting bigger. So I'm not against slowly moving the weights up over time. I'm just thinking through the process.
A couple of good posts from Roar and Mac that point the discussion towards thinking about these changes from the proper perspective - why are they being implemented, whether they have a purpose and what is it?
Rather than retyping it, I will just copy and paste a post I made on another forum (HS-centric):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of good takes on this above and I agree that this is not a move that is going to help grow the sport. But I don't take the view that this is what they are trying to accomplish with the weight changes. If that's what they are trying to do, it is a mistake. To be clear, I think these weight class changes (and the ones in the past) are more of trying to match the rule set to the current state of the sport. Weight class changes are an attempt - however, good or bad - to reflect the current conditions, e.g. weigh-in rules, attitudes towards nutrition, physical makeup of athletes participating, etc. It is an attempt to try to maximize full participation with the existing pool based on those conditions. Whether it is a proper analysis of those conditions can be debated.
As I stated in the previous paragraph, if this is seen by the PIAA steering committee as a panacea, it is a serious mistake. The changes P2W suggested are excellent and these should be the focus of the powers to be. If successful, I'd expect that to be reflected in the next round of weight class changes.
Buried in this discussion is the news that the proposal includes a provision allowing multiple entries at the same weight in regular season tournaments of nine or more. Not as good as what P2W is suggesting, but a step in the right direction. Also, NJSIAA is considering a proposal that will carve out two tournaments (ETR and the Beast) as exempt from their prohibition on split squad competition dates. Not quite as impactful, but also indicative of attempts to think of new ways to grow participation (or at least not limit it).
The weight classes get more attention, here and elsewhere, because they have personal implications. The others items - not so much. But it's the other items - like the things P2W suggested - that are what is important from a broad perspective, rather than from the individual's perspective. If they are successful, the future weight changes will be received positively for the most part, I suspect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: P2W - who is an excellent poster in the other forum I mention - had suggested some very positive growth oriented changes that included multi-wrestler at a weight participation in a tournaments (with conditions), more co-op programs, and a dedicated task force (not made up of the current leadership).
Rather than retyping it, I will just copy and paste a post I made on another forum (HS-centric):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of good takes on this above and I agree that this is not a move that is going to help grow the sport. But I don't take the view that this is what they are trying to accomplish with the weight changes. If that's what they are trying to do, it is a mistake. To be clear, I think these weight class changes (and the ones in the past) are more of trying to match the rule set to the current state of the sport. Weight class changes are an attempt - however, good or bad - to reflect the current conditions, e.g. weigh-in rules, attitudes towards nutrition, physical makeup of athletes participating, etc. It is an attempt to try to maximize full participation with the existing pool based on those conditions. Whether it is a proper analysis of those conditions can be debated.
As I stated in the previous paragraph, if this is seen by the PIAA steering committee as a panacea, it is a serious mistake. The changes P2W suggested are excellent and these should be the focus of the powers to be. If successful, I'd expect that to be reflected in the next round of weight class changes.
Buried in this discussion is the news that the proposal includes a provision allowing multiple entries at the same weight in regular season tournaments of nine or more. Not as good as what P2W is suggesting, but a step in the right direction. Also, NJSIAA is considering a proposal that will carve out two tournaments (ETR and the Beast) as exempt from their prohibition on split squad competition dates. Not quite as impactful, but also indicative of attempts to think of new ways to grow participation (or at least not limit it).
The weight classes get more attention, here and elsewhere, because they have personal implications. The others items - not so much. But it's the other items - like the things P2W suggested - that are what is important from a broad perspective, rather than from the individual's perspective. If they are successful, the future weight changes will be received positively for the most part, I suspect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: P2W - who is an excellent poster in the other forum I mention - had suggested some very positive growth oriented changes that included multi-wrestler at a weight participation in a tournaments (with conditions), more co-op programs, and a dedicated task force (not made up of the current leadership).
You might have misunderstood my post. My brother did start at 103lbs as a Jr and Sr in high school. He was pretty good, too. When he wrestled for the junior high team at 70lbs in 9th grade he was undefeated. He wasn't even allowed to wrestle in 10th grade. He weighed like 75lbs. He wanted to but the requirement was that he had to weigh a certain amount to wrestle 103lbs and he wasn't even close. He probably weighed like 95lbs as a Jr and Sr so he was already giving up about an entire weight class to kids who were small 103lbers and actually only weighed 103lbs. That doesn't count the kids who cut down from like 112lbs or 119lbs and had like 20lbs on him by the time they hit the mat. And he was still pretty damn good at 103lbs. His senior year he was able to take a wrestling legend to OT.
Now, if the lowest weight class had been 110lbs he's probably giving up like 15lbs to small 110lbers who actually weighed 110lbs when they hit the mat. Imagine a 95lb kid wrestling kids who weigh 125lbs when they hit the mat. My brother was always up for a challenge because he spent his life wrestling kids who weighed a lot more than him but man, that would have been brutal if they even had let him wrestle in that weight class.
Thank you for the additional information and your brothers story is a good one.
To put my "powers to be" hat on, I'd say making weight class decisions based on his plight would be akin to making sure the state tournament series is an even playing field for Austin HS in Potter County (should they ever decide to field a team on their own). Its just not good practice (although Virginia might argue otherwise).
Putting on my personal hat, I'd say your brother most likely has some grit, became a better wrestler from having to consistently battle guys bigger and stronger than himself, and learned more from dealing with adversity than any gold medal could have gained him. Which is what it's all about.
Agree 100%. My brother was definitely an outlier and they can't/shouldn't make decisions based on those outliers.
Similar threads
