UWW head on new weight classes

[dunkej01]

Can someone translate, I dont speak "corruption" as a language.

http://www.flowrestling.org/video/1244274-nenad-lalovic-on-the-10-weight-classes#.WZ4nCih94w0

 

[johnstownsteel]

Can someone translate, I dont speak "corruption" as a language.

http://www.flowrestling.org/video/1244274-nenad-lalovic-on-the-10-weight-classes#.WZ4nCih94w0

Maybe ask Foley....

 

[CowboyUp61]

not sure, but think he said they had proposals, and they will take the one that pays him the most.

 

[johnstownsteel]

not sure, but think he said they had proposals, and they will take the one that pays him the most.

I thought he said, "If you ask that question again I must break you..."

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I didn't realize numbers were so hard to translate. Except for Americans.

 

[Sean Harp]

Mathin' be hard, yo!

FWIW, my proposal is below. Less emphasis on weight cutting, more emphasis on putting on "good weight" in muscle mass.

Would also love to see wrestling become a second semester sport to include some of the foosball players.

Folk lbs. Free kg
125 57
134 61
143 65
153 69
164 74
175 79
187 85
200 91
214 97
276 125

 

[diggerpup]

Maybe ask Foley....

His yurt doesn't have wi-fi.

 

[tikk10]

If I were to designate new weight classes I'd want to know a few things first.

First I'd want to figure out the number of total wrestlers and their weights, and divide them by their weights into 10 groups that guarantees equal numbers in each class, lightest to heaviest. Then take the median weight in each group. The point being, find out what it would look like if every bracket had an equal number of wrestlers. You'd likely wind up with large jumps between classes at each end (especially at the HWT end), and tinier jumps in the middle. This is the participation metric and it might look something like this:

125
137 (12 lb jump)
147 (10)
155 (8)
160 (5)
165 (5)
174 (9)
189 (15)
207 (18)
262 (55)

Obviously I'm taking a barely-educated (but probably still wrong) guess at what those groupings would be, assuming that the median weight of all wrestlers is around 160-165, per a few internet searches for avg weight of 20 yr old males.

Second, I'd take the highest and lowest from the first step (here, 125 and 262) and create 8 steps between them, basing those jumps on a fixed percentage of the weight below, that percentage being whatever would create the most gradual scale (let's say the fairness metric). In my example it'd be 8.5% (I cheated a little at the top end), leading to weights as so:

125
136 (11 lb jump)
147 (12)
160 (13)
173 (14)
188 (15)
204 (16)
221 (17)
240 (19)
262 (22)

Then you average the two corresponding weights, leading to

125
136 (11 lb jump)
147 (11)
157 (10)
167 (9)
176 (10)
189 (12)
205 (16)
224 (18)
262 (38)

Now, big caveat here is that for step one I just made up numbers for the sake of running something in a spreadsheet. I think if you ran the experiment straight up the resulting weights would be more recognizable. And perhaps you give more weight to one metric over the other depending on policy preferences (e.g., 25% participation vs 75% fairness).

But I think this method addresses what should be the two major concerns: (1) equal participation and (2) fairness to the wrestlers cutting/gaining within the classes.

What it doesn't fully address is that at the heavier weights, weight differential doesn't matter as much (though you do partly account for it by using a metric based on fixed percentage rather than arbitrary 5kg jumps, as the UWW is rumored to be doing). And maybe entertainment value factors in as well. So perhaps you keep 285 where it is and run steps one and two with 9 weights, which would produce numbers similar, I'd guess, to the present weights.

The larger idea, though, is to quantify your policy options so you're not just pulling weights out of your ass, and to institute a system that scales up when conditions change.

 

[Sean Harp]

If I were to designate new weight classes I'd want to know a few things first.

First I'd want to figure out the number of total wrestlers and their weights, and divide them by their weights into 10 groups that guarantees equal numbers in each class, lightest to heaviest. Then take the median weight in each group. The point being, find out what it would look like if every bracket had an equal number of wrestlers. You'd likely wind up with large jumps between classes at each end (especially at the HWT end), and tinier jumps in the middle. This is the participation metric and it might look something like this:

125
137 (12 lb jump)
147 (10)
155 (8)
160 (5)
165 (5)
174 (9)
189 (15)
207 (18)
262 (55)

Obviously I'm taking a barely-educated (but probably still wrong) guess at what those groupings would be, assuming that the median weight of all wrestlers is around 160-165, per a few internet searches for avg weight of 20 yr old males.

Second, I'd take the highest and lowest from the first step (here, 125 and 262) and create 8 steps between them, basing those jumps on a fixed percentage of the weight below, that percentage being whatever would create the most gradual scale (let's say the fairness metric). In my example it'd be 8.5% (I cheated a little at the top end), leading to weights as so:

125
136 (11 lb jump)
147 (12)
160 (13)
173 (14)
188 (15)
204 (16)
221 (17)
240 (19)
262 (22)

Then you average the two corresponding weights, leading to

125
136 (11 lb jump)
147 (11)
157 (10)
167 (9)
176 (10)
189 (12)
205 (16)
224 (18)
262 (38)

Now, big caveat here is that for step one I just made up numbers for the sake of running something in a spreadsheet. I think if you ran the experiment straight up the resulting weights would be more recognizable. And perhaps you give more weight to one metric over the other depending on policy preferences (e.g., 25% participation vs 75% fairness).

But I think this method addresses what should be the two major concerns: (1) equal participation and (2) fairness to the wrestlers cutting/gaining within the classes.

What it doesn't fully address is that at the heavier weights, weight differential doesn't matter as much (though you do partly account for it by using a metric based on fixed percentage rather than arbitrary 5kg jumps, as the UWW is rumored to be doing). And maybe entertainment value factors in as well. So perhaps you keep 285 where it is and run steps one and two with 9 weights, which would produce numbers similar, I'd guess, to the present weights.

The larger idea, though, is to quantify your policy options so you're not just pulling weights out of your ass, and to institute a system that scales up when conditions change.

Thanks for sharing your rationale, Tikk. Here is how I calculated my proposal: LINK

Same step two as yours without step one. My friend (next door neighbor in Hamilton Hall) and I have been debating this for years. He's in your camp, wanting an equal distribution or at least a bell curve.

I dismiss his opinion because A) It annoys him and that's what friends are for B) He was a heavyweight who never had to deal with weight cutting, the sport within the sport.

On the other hand, I sucked a tremendous amount of weight (we're talking high school here. I wasn't even good enough to advance past district one sectionals) from football to wrestling.

Back then your three highest weights were 167,185, and heavyweight. Our heavyweight was Eric Seaman who was undefeated as a senior until he ran into Kurt Angle in the state semifinals.

Our 155 pounder had regional aspirations and no reason to bump to 167 with Chris Kwortnik roaming that jungle. The kid I beat out for 185 (barely but consistently) was built like a Greek god with no fat to cut to 167. Down I went. Twice.

My metabolism has been shot ever since. My growth plates shut shop on me and I grew only one inch taller afterward, topping out well short of my father, uncles, and male cousins on either side.

So yeah, considering I gain five pounds if I so much as glance sideways at a doughnut, I have an axe to grind when it comes to weight cutting. That is why I have set the weights to incentivize more trips to the weight room instead of the sauna. Starving sucks.

PS In the words of Anthony Bourdain, "I don't have to agree with you to like you."

 

[CowboyUp61]

Thanks for sharing your rationale, Tikk. Here is how I calculated my proposal: LINK

Same step two as yours without step one. My friend (next door neighbor in Hamilton Hall) and I have been debating this for years. He's in your camp, wanting an equal distribution or at least a bell curve.

I dismiss his opinion because A) It annoys him and that's what friends are for B) He was a heavyweight who never had to deal with weight cutting, the sport within the sport.

On the other hand, I sucked a tremendous amount of weight (we're talking high school here. I wasn't even good enough to advance past district one sectionals) from football to wrestling.

Back then your three highest weights were 167,185, and heavyweight. Our heavyweight was Eric Seaman who was undefeated as a senior until he ran into Kurt Angle in the state semifinals.

Our 155 pounder had regional aspirations and no reason to bump to 167 with Chris Kwortnik roaming that jungle. The kid I beat out for 185 (barely but consistently) was built like a Greek god with no fat to cut to 167. Down I went. Twice.

My metabolism has been shot ever since. My growth plates shut shop on me and I grew only one inch taller afterward, topping out well short of my father, uncles, and male cousins on either side.

So yeah, considering I gain five pounds if I so much as glance sideways at a doughnut, I have an axe to grind when it comes to weight cutting. That is why I have set the weights to incentivize more trips to the weight room instead of the sauna. Starving sucks.

PS In the words of Anthony Bourdain, "I don't have to agree with you to like you."

But we know you were wrong, because you still have suriano listed as PSU in your link!

But I like yours better than Tikk's mainly because, being one of those 189 to 167 kind of guys, I have sympathy for you. And well understand the metabolism part, and the regret when everything turns to water inside my stomach. So bad that 35 years removed from competition, if anyone says "diet" my first thought is a double bacon cheeseburger. Told the cardiologist that one day, he has never mentioned losing weight again.

The first time I cut was when I was 12, qualified for equivalent of Fargo at 105, grew 4 inches in the next three months, had to make 105 to compete. Made it, finished 2nd, and haven't grown a bit taller since (but did get a lot thicker )

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Mathin' be hard, yo!

FWIW, my proposal is below. Less emphasis on weight cutting, more emphasis on putting on "good weight" in muscle mass.

Would also love to see wrestling become a second semester sport to include some of the foosball players.

Folk lbs. Free kg
125 57
134 61
143 65
153 69
164 74
175 79
187 85
200 91
214 97
276 125

If there is a weight limit in any sport there will be competitors cutting weight. All you are doing is changing is who cuts to what weight no matter what any weight class changes are.

There will be would be 184/197/Hwts cutting down to your proposed weights of 175/187/214. The only way to discourage weight cutting by modifying weight classes is to eliminate some to create larger gaps between them... something I do not support.

 

[PSU22]

If there is a weight limit in any sport there will be competitors cutting weight. All you are doing is changing is who cuts to what weight no matter what any weight class changes are.

There will be would be 184/197/Hwts cutting down to your proposed weights of 175/187/214. The only way to discourage weight cutting by modifying weight classes is to eliminate some to create larger gaps between them... something I do not support.

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't you manage this with the weight certification rules?

 

[Sean Harp]

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't you manage this with the weight certification rules?

Exactly. Higher minimum body fat percentages (with immersion tank accuracy) in conjunction with higher weight classes.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't you manage this with the weight certification rules?

Like they do now?

You could use as a punishment the execution of your loved ones for anyone that did "excessive" weight cutting to modified weight classes. The net result would be decreased weight cutting but you couldn't attribute that to tinkering with the weight classes. The same is/would be true for weight certification rules.
I'm simply talking about weight class modification as a method of curbing weight cutting is would not be effective.

 

[PSU22]

Like they do now?

You could use as a punishment the execution of your loved ones for anyone that did "excessive" weight cutting to modified weight classes. The net result would be decreased weight cutting but you couldn't attribute that to tinkering with the weight classes. The same is/would be true for weight certification rules.
I'm simply talking about weight class modification as a method of curbing weight cutting.

Maybe I'm misreading the conversation but I was thinking the new weight classes were intended to redistribute the spectrum to better represent the size of the participant population. My suggestion was to take that and include modified certification rules so that maybe we would also curb some the "race to the bottom" we see today.

 

[Sean Harp]

Like they do now?

You could use as a punishment the execution of your loved ones for anyone that did "excessive" weight cutting to modified weight classes. The net result would be decreased weight cutting but you couldn't attribute that to tinkering with the weight classes. The same is/would be true for weight certification rules.
I'm simply talking about weight class modification as a method of curbing weight cutting is would not be effective.

Just thinking of Shakur Rasheed wrestling 165. The current body fat limits are too low.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Maybe I'm misreading the conversation but I was thinking the new weight classes were intended to redistribute the spectrum to better represent the size of the participant population. My suggestion was to take that and include modified certification rules so that maybe we would also curb some the "race to the bottom" we see today.

Always gonna be a race to the bottom. You are just moving the bottom with weight class changes.

I agree that changes to and/or being more strict with weight certs could effective. That would be true no matter what the weight classes are.

 

[CowboyUp61]

Always gonna be a race to the bottom. You are just moving the bottom with weight class changes.

I agree that changes to and/or being more strict with weight certs could effective. That would be true no matter what the weight classes are.

do you think if they change to a two day format, and two day weigh in, that will slow down the worst?

 

[Sean Harp]

But we know you were wrong, because you still have suriano listed as PSU in your link!

But I like yours better than Tikk's mainly because, being one of those 189 to 167 kind of guys, I have sympathy for you. And well understand the metabolism part, and the regret when everything turns to water inside my stomach. So bad that 35 years removed from competition, if anyone says "diet" my first thought is a double bacon cheeseburger. Told the cardiologist that one day, he has never mentioned losing weight again.

The first time I cut was when I was 12, qualified for equivalent of Fargo at 105, grew 4 inches in the next three months, had to make 105 to compete. Made it, finished 2nd, and haven't grown a bit taller since (but did get a lot thicker )

I'm with you on the thickness, Cowboy. Diet and exercise all you want and nothing comes off. Most I've lost is a dozen pounds going low-sugar, low-carb. I'm happy for the minor success but it equates to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

 

[NoVa Lion]

Always gonna be a race to the bottom. You are just moving the bottom with weight class changes.

I agree that changes to and/or being more strict with weight certs could effective. That would be true no matter what the weight classes are.

Do they even do weight certs for international events?

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

do you think if they change to a two day format, and two day weigh in, that will slow down the worst?

Yes. The more times you have to make weight and the less time you have between weigh ins and competition would make the bug cutters less effective. Already seen that when the NCAA made changes.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Do they even do weight certs for international events?

Nah. Even though the thread started off talking about international weights, my posts were about Sean Harp's proposed college weights.
I visited Mexico a couple months ago. Already been discussion of food so might as well tag this as another Suriano thread.

 

[CowboyUp61]

Yes. The more times you have to make weight and the less time you have between weigh ins and competition would make the bug cutters less effective. Already seen that when the NCAA made changes.

I think part of that was also same-day weighins, which would correspond to NCAA two hour basically. Agreed cutting will always be part of it, but that is why I am a proponent of more weights in the middle where the majority of the population sits, rather than spread evenly.

 

[tikk10]

FWIW, if you toss out 285 and make a fixed percentage gradient between 125 and 197, you get a 5.8% jump between each folk class, which looks like this:

125
132 (-1 from present class)
140 (-1)
148 (-1)
157 (--)
166 (+1)
175 (+1)
185 (+1)
197 (--)
285

Close to the present system, but more friendly to lower weights.
EDIT Thanks for catching the mistake Roar!

 

[RoarLions1]

FWIW, if you toss out 285 and make a fixed percentage gradient between 125 and 197, you get a 5.8% jump between each folk class, which looks like this:

125
132 (-1 from present class)
140 (-1)
148 (-1)
157 (--)
166 (+1)
175 (+1)
185 (+1)
197 (+2)
285

Close to the present system, but more friendly to lower weights.

+2 at 197?

 

[tikk10]

Also FWIW, if you took the present FS weights and simply measure the gap between the inequity (as David Taylor can personally attest) really stands out:

57
61 (4 kgs from lower weight)
65 (4kg)
70 (5kg)
74 (4kg)
86 (12kg) (!)
97 (11kg)
125 (28kg)

If you toss out 125 and fix a percentage jump (9.2%) from 57 to 97, you get the following weights:

57
62 (5kg from lower weight)
68 (6kg)
74 (6kg)
81 (7kg)
89 (7kg)
97 (8kg)
125 (28kg)

Fair response to that might be that there are fewer wrestlers at the upper weights, but it's still more fair than the present weights.

 

[CowboyUp61]

Also FWIW, if you took the present FS weights and simply measure the gap between the inequity (as David Taylor can personally attest) really stands out:

57
61 (4 kgs from lower weight)
65 (4kg)
70 (5kg)
74 (4kg)
86 (12kg) (!)
97 (11kg)
125 (28kg)

If you toss out 125 and fix a percentage jump (9.2%) from 57 to 97, you get the following weights:

57
62 (5kg from lower weight)
68 (6kg)
74 (6kg)
81 (7kg)
89 (7kg)
97 (8kg)
125 (28kg)

Fair response to that might be that there are fewer wrestlers at the upper weights, but it's still more fair than the present weights.

Agreed. But isn't the current goal to get to 10? I do like the addition of something between the current 74-86 gap, which was the biggest inequity of all

 

[tikk10]

Agreed. But isn't the current goal to get to 10? I do like the addition of something between the current 74-86 gap, which was the biggest inequity of all

Yeah, it's supposed to move to 10, with precise 5kg jumps, so presumably 55kg > 95kg then 125kg. If you fixed a percentage jump (7.1%) between 55kg and 95kg, you'd get the following, which are close to what I think is being planned:

55
59 (4kg from lower weight)
63 (4kg)
67 (4kg)
72 (5kg)
78 (5kg)
83 (6kg)
89 (6kg)
95 (6kg)
125 (30kg)

 

[CowboyUp61]

Just picking 74KG . With 2 day weigh ins, in the scenario above, how many current 74's move to 78? 75%? Do some say I will go to 72 because I am not cutting hard to 74?

Will be fun to sit back, have a piece of Coconut Creme Pie, and watch the adjustments.

 

[Sean Harp]

Yeah, it's supposed to move to 10, with precise 5kg jumps, so presumably 55kg > 95kg then 125kg. If you fixed a percentage jump (7.1%) between 55kg and 95kg, you'd get the following, which are close to what I think is being planned:

55
59 (4kg from lower weight)
63 (4kg)
67 (4kg)
72 (5kg)
78 (5kg)
83 (6kg)
89 (6kg)
95 (6kg)
125 (30kg)

Question for you, Tikk. Why 55 and 95 as your lower and upper bounds bounds instead of the current 57 and 97?

 

[tikk10]

Question for you, Tikk. Why 55 and 95 as your lower and upper bounds bounds instead of the current 57 and 97?

I thought I recalled hearing on some podcast but I can't find any basis for it and don't recall which podcast. It think maybe it was being talked about hypothetically, like we're doing, because I can't find where the UWW has ever said anything so definite, even if offered as an example. You're right though, it probably would range from 57kg to 97kg.

So again, FWIW, here are the likely UWW weights, with 5kg intervals between 57kg and 97kg:
57
62
67
72
77
82
87
92
97
125

And here are intervals using 6.9% gradient (rounding makes jumps slightly uneven). Slightly easier on lighter weights than rigid 5kg jumps.
57
61 (+4)
65 (+4)
70 (+5)
74 (+4)
80 (+6)
85 (+5)
91 (+6)
97 (+6)
125

 

[tikk10]

Probably deserves its own topic but I'll leave here for now. In short, in mens FS, UWS keeps the current weights, and adds 79kg (174lbs) and 92kg (203lbs).

https://unitedworldwrestling.org/ar...-cities-among-wrestlings-bureau-announcements

So

57
61 (4kg jump from lower weight)
65 (4)
70 (5)
74 (4)
79 (5)
86 (7)
92 (6)
97 (5)

 

[El-Jefe]

New weights announced:

https://unitedworldwrestling.org/ar...-cities-among-wrestlings-bureau-announcements

 

[CowboyUp61]

57kg-61kg-65kg-70kg-74kg-79kg-86kg-92kg-97kg-125kg

I like it.

 

[dunkej01]

57kg-61kg-65kg-70kg-74kg-79kg-86kg-92kg-97kg-125kg

I like it.

so does mark hall

 

[CowboyUp61]

So does Dake stay, or go to 79? What do DT and Cox do? Looks like we can start looking toward the fun for next year already!

so does mark hall

So you think his opinion is more important than mine

 

[El-Jefe]

92 kg = 202.4 lb lines up very nicely with the NCAA 197 lb weight class.

Maybe Cox would have a little more fight there ...

 

[vhsalum]

I would bet Cox goes 92. That cut to 86 has to be giant

 

[dunkej01]

So does Dake stay, or go to 79? What do DT and Cox do? Looks like we can start looking toward the fun for next year already!

So you think his opinion is more important than mine

I would like them to spread out and then come back down for 2020

Dake v Hall would be great for the fans and promotion entities in the USofA

 

[tikk10]

New weights square well for a lineup that looks like, from 74kg and above:
JB, Dake, DT, Cox, Snyder, Gwiz