ADVERTISEMENT

Theoretical new weight class proposal: NCAA

Delcolion915

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2022
716
1,064
1
126
134
143
153
164
176
189
202
215
280

Brings lower and middle classes closer to international freestyle weights, and provides more options and opportunities for upper weights while slightly regulating Heavyweight.

Could possibly be implemented with approval by 2027? Just a little off season banter.
 

Men's freestyle wrestling​

  • 57 kg (125 lbs)
  • 61 kg (134 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 65 kg (143 lbs)
  • 70 kg (154 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 74 kg (163 lbs)
  • 79 kg (174 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 86 kg (190 lbs)
  • 92 kg (203 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 97 kg (214 lbs)
  • 125 kg (276 lbs)
Why not just use these weight classes and align internationally?

Why are there 4 non Olympic classes, anyway!
 

Men's freestyle wrestling​

  • 57 kg (125 lbs)
  • 61 kg (134 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 65 kg (143 lbs)
  • 70 kg (154 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 74 kg (163 lbs)
  • 79 kg (174 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 86 kg (190 lbs)
  • 92 kg (203 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 97 kg (214 lbs)
  • 125 kg (276 lbs)
Why not just use these weight classes and align internationally?

Why are there 4 non Olympic classes, anyway!
The Olympics are only once in 4 years. They used to support 10 weight classes. The odd pound or 2 is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOESTROSSER

Men's freestyle wrestling​

  • 57 kg (125 lbs)
  • 61 kg (134 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 65 kg (143 lbs)
  • 70 kg (154 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 74 kg (163 lbs)
  • 79 kg (174 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 86 kg (190 lbs)
  • 92 kg (203 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 97 kg (214 lbs)
  • 125 kg (276 lbs)
Why not just use these weight classes and align internationally?

Why are there 4 non Olympic classes, anyway!
If you recall, about 10 years the IOC voted to remove wrestling (all ten weights) entirely from the Olympics. This decision was reconsidered and wrestling was not eliminated, but was reduced from ten weights to six weights.

It's generally believed that these decisions were because wrestling is one of the less popular and profitable events at the Olympics. Some also considered wrestling too similar to judo, another Olympic sport. Also, the Olympics continues to expand to newer, less conventional "sports" that are considered more popular to the masses. These include free-style skate-boarding, synchronized swimming, rhythmic gynamistics, trampolining, etc.
 
126
134
143
153
164
176
189
202
215
280

Brings lower and middle classes closer to international freestyle weights, and provides more options and opportunities for upper weights while slightly regulating Heavyweight.

Could possibly be implemented with approval by 2027? Just a little off season banter.
I'm a little off topic here. Always wondered why college wrestling does not have a weight class in the 212lb to 220lb range? I have heard in the past that there aren't enough participants to fill a 215 in addition to a 285 lb class. Anyone know the reason. I know there aren't too many wrestlers weighing 265 or more,but a hell of a gap currently exists from 197lb class to the average heavy weight at 240ish
 
If you recall, about 10 years the IOC voted to remove wrestling (all ten weights) entirely from the Olympics. This decision was reconsidered and wrestling was not eliminated, but was reduced from ten weights to six weights.

It's generally believed that these decisions were because wrestling is one of the less popular and profitable events at the Olympics. Some also considered wrestling too similar to judo, another Olympic sport. Also, the Olympics continues to expand to newer, less conventional "sports" that are considered more popular to the masses. These include free-style skate-boarding, synchronized swimming, rhythmic gynamistics, trampolining, etc.
Very true but saddening
 
I think adding a weight class is a great idea (as do most college wrestling fans I would presume). You do have the issue of 9.9 that's not likely to change, but perhaps NIL really does make that far less relevant. I look at this as a folkstyle fan and not a way to align the college weights with Olympic weights and maybe I shouldn't do so, but.....Keep in mind that 10 pounds for a 130 something pound guy is a much larger percentage than 12 pounds is for a 180 or 190 pound man, so I don't really like seeing the gaps between the lighter weight actually increase after getting another weight class. Furthermore, it's always been my belief that you likely have more really competitive guys at the middle weights than at the lower or upper part of the scale. I think in high school the 138-160 pound range probably has more really athletic and highly competitive kids than many of the other weights. College kids are more mature, but I still think you see better competition and more potential athletes in the 141-174 range maybe? Or maybe I'm nuts and none of that is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: live4now
I'm a little off topic here. Always wondered why college wrestling does not have a weight class in the 212lb to 220lb range? I have heard in the past that there aren't enough participants to fill a 215 in addition to a 285 lb class. Anyone know the reason. I know there aren't too many wrestlers weighing 265 or more,but a hell of a gap currently exists from 197lb class to the average heavy weight at 240ish
I think the common theme is that the extra weight in high school will lead to more forfeits as there are not a whole lot of school who can fill the weights we have. Not sure how that translates to college if at all I guess another weight could be implemented there just for college. I agree there are a lot of tweeners in that weight area
 
I think the common theme is that the extra weight in high school will lead to more forfeits as there are not a whole lot of school who can fill the weights we have. Not sure how that translates to college if at all I guess another weight could be implemented there just for college. I agree there are a lot of tweeners in that weight area
The OP is not adding another weight but aligning with the conventional freestyle weights, keeping it at 10 weight classes. I do see a need for a 215-220 lb weight for tweeners.
 
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
220
290

Yep I know it will get roundly criticized but, humans are getting bigger. I think it makes sense to swap the lowest weight for a new light heavy.

Aside from that I like round numbers.

I understand completely the span between the lighter weights in theory should be more "proportional" (i.e. the current 8 lbs) thus less than 10 lbs and slowly grow larger as you go up (I e. the current 12 lbs).

Should a collegiate football lineman have to lose weight to get the heavy? Not many of those out there but 285, is probably a limit partially due to concern about size discrepancy. Adding the 220 with class helps with that as well.
 
Last edited:
Yep I know it will get roundly criticized but, humans are getting bigger. I think it makes sense to swap the lowest weight for a new light heavy.
That’s going to crush Iowa’s chance to ever win another individual national championship 😆
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: danoftw
Great post....very interesting proposal.

Although the first order of business is to reinstate the original 10 Olympic weights. By doing that you alleviate the need for college wrestlers to cut or bulk up every 4 years to prepare for the trials.

I just can't believe that adding 4 weights impacts the huge Olympic budget all that much. Especially with them adding so many odd...and really obscure new sports. The current 6 weight classes causes a hardship for many of the competitors of one of the original Olympic sports, and leaves out so many talented wrestlers.

PS: I thought the decision to cut from 10 to 6 was not only for popularity/viewership reasons but also because of the mismanagement/corruption of the wrestling world body. Haven't they cleaned that up yet? I thought they had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creamery freak
126
134
143
153
164
176
189
202
215
280

Brings lower and middle classes closer to international freestyle weights, and provides more options and opportunities for upper weights while slightly regulating Heavyweight.

Could possibly be implemented with approval by 2027? Just a little off season banter.
3 words:

Bring
Back
Unlimited

Make Heavyweight Heavy Again
 
The 2 weakest weight classes in HS are 215/220 and 285. Those 2 weights + 195 are also the weights that lose the most talent in college to other sports (especially football).

--> Adding 215/220 in college merely dilutes the talent in both 197 and 285.

Given that our backup 197 handily beat a HWT All-American, is there really enough high-end talent to dilute?

When we get past sentimental reasons, adding a weight in that range does not benefit the sport.
 
If you recall, about 10 years the IOC voted to remove wrestling (all ten weights) entirely from the Olympics. This decision was reconsidered and wrestling was not eliminated, but was reduced from ten weights to six weights.

It's generally believed that these decisions were because wrestling is one of the less popular and profitable events at the Olympics. Some also considered wrestling too similar to judo, another Olympic sport. Also, the Olympics continues to expand to newer, less conventional "sports" that are considered more popular to the masses. These include free-style skate-boarding, synchronized swimming, rhythmicAt least show the gynamistics, trampolining, etc.
I don't get it. Do people not watch any wrestling or boxing? I used to watch both but they are not on anymore. It is all swimming, gymnastics and figure skating.

I hate swimming and figure skating. I get some people want to watch. Do they really want to watch 100 or so swimming events? 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, x multiple different strokes x multiple sexes x relays.

At least show wrestling and boxing finals.
 
Great post....very interesting proposal.

Although the first order of business is to reinstate the original 10 Olympic weights. By doing that you alleviate the need for college wrestlers to cut or bulk up every 4 years to prepare for the trials.

I just can't believe that adding 4 weights impacts the huge Olympic budget all that much. Especially with them adding so many odd...and really obscure new sports. The current 6 weight classes causes a hardship for many of the competitors of one of the original Olympic sports, and leaves out so many talented wrestlers.

PS: I thought the decision to cut from 10 to 6 was not only for popularity/viewership reasons but also because of the mismanagement/corruption of the wrestling world body. Haven't they cleaned that up yet? I thought they had.
Stated factors in the Feb 2013 recommendation to drop wrestling from the Olympics (subsequently changed to have six weights only). Mismanagement/corruption in FILA was among them:
  • Low popularity with the public at the 2012 games in London
  • Low global TV audience
  • Low internet hits
  • Low press coverage
  • FILA shortcomings:
    • No athletes on the FILA decision-making bodies
    • No women's commission
    • No ethics rules for technical officials (assume this means referees)
    • No medical official on its executive board
Wrestling ended up surviving at the Olympics, but at 60% of previous strength.
 
I just can't believe that adding 4 weights impacts the huge Olympic budget all that much. Especially with them adding so many odd...and really obscure new sports.
The new sports are about the IOC flailing to stay relevant. Olympic viewership has been mostly in decline since 1996. There was a bump up in 2008 and 2012 that approached 1996, but then viewership has dropped considerably since.

The new sports don't make the Olympics relevant. But the corrupt corporate dinosaurs at IOC wouldn't know relevant unless it hit them with a truck full of money.

Not adding weights isn't about IOC budget. It's about (1) maintaining limits on the total number of athletes for Olympic Village capacity; (2) finding TV airtime for all events. Those are mostly fixed pies; if the IOC adds another weird "sport," those beds and that TV time has to come from somewhere.

It's also not just about the 4 weights in freestyle. Greco doesn't have 10 weights, and several countries value that style. Women don't have 10 weights either.

I don't like those more than anyone else. But those are the facts to be overcome.
 
Stated factors in the Feb 2013 recommendation to drop wrestling from the Olympics (subsequently changed to have six weights only). Mismanagement/corruption in FILA was among them:
  • Low popularity with the public at the 2012 games in London
  • Low global TV audience
  • Low internet hits
  • Low press coverage
  • FILA shortcomings:
    • No athletes on the FILA decision-making bodies
    • No women's commission
    • No ethics rules for technical officials (assume this means referees)
    • No medical official on its executive board
Wrestling ended up surviving at the Olympics, but at 60% of previous strength.
Wrestling was also hard to watch at that time. The ball grab rule was still in place at London.
 
The 2 weakest weight classes in HS are 215/220 and 285. Those 2 weights + 195 are also the weights that lose the most talent in college to other sports (especially football).

--> Adding 215/220 in college merely dilutes the talent in both 197 and 285.

Given that our backup 197 handily beat a HWT All-American, is there really enough high-end talent to dilute?

When we get past sentimental reasons, adding a weight in that range does not benefit the sport.
Seth Meyers Reaction GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cali_Nittany
if you make me watch three weights over 190 i'll slit my throat.

the talent pool there is atrocious, it's (historically) boring, and any athlete can cut 20 or add 20 to get where they need to be.

totally out on it.

Are you up early or late? I'm not going to slit my throat over it, but I agree with you on the 1st and 3rd paragraphs.

But any athlete cutting or adding 20? Adding 20 is easy for anyone, not just athletes.
 
Last edited:

Men's freestyle wrestling​

  • 57 kg (125 lbs)
  • 61 kg (134 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 65 kg (143 lbs)
  • 70 kg (154 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 74 kg (163 lbs)
  • 79 kg (174 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 86 kg (190 lbs)
  • 92 kg (203 lbs) (non-Olympic class)
  • 97 kg (214 lbs)
  • 125 kg (276 lbs)
Why not just use these weight classes and align internationally?

Why are there 4 non Olympic classes, anyway!

190, 203, 214 and 276? For NCAA wrestling?

letterkenny-hard-no.gif
 
I'm a little off topic here. Always wondered why college wrestling does not have a weight class in the 212lb to 220lb range? I have heard in the past that there aren't enough participants to fill a 215 in addition to a 285 lb class. Anyone know the reason. I know there aren't too many wrestlers weighing 265 or more,but a hell of a gap currently exists from 197lb class to the average heavy weight at 240ish
The athletes at these weights play college football.
 
Future path for most of our elite college wrestlers is to wrestle internationally. For that reason, I’m all in on aligning the weights with the international weight scale. We all have our reasons for what we would like to see, but aligning to the international weights will benefit the wrestler and the United States in the long run. Make them exactly the same weight.
 
if you make me watch three weights over 190 i'll slit my throat.

the talent pool there is atrocious, it's (historically) boring, and any athlete can cut 20 or add 20 to get where they need to be.

totally out on it.
If it ain't broke...
 
Totally wrong, wrestling needs an added middle weight never an added upper weight. There are so many more kids wrestling in the middle weights than upper weights. Make the spirt benefit those that participate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldenanimal
126
134
143
153
164
176
189
202
215
280

Brings lower and middle classes closer to international freestyle weights, and provides more options and opportunities for upper weights while slightly regulating Heavyweight.

Could possibly be implemented with approval by 2027? Just a little off season banter.
weight classes need to reflect who is wrestling, and this means in HS and college. throw too many upper weights in and weight lifting will be the side sport.
 
If they add a class I would prefer something below 125. I enjoy watching the lightweights more than the upper weights.
 
I don't get it. Do people not watch any wrestling or boxing? I used to watch both but they are not on anymore. It is all swimming, gymnastics and figure skating.

I hate swimming and figure skating. I get some people want to watch. Do they really want to watch 100 or so swimming events? 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, x multiple different strokes x multiple sexes x relays.

At least show wrestling and boxing finals.
Aristotle always said raw democracy (as distinct from a democratic Republic) is probably the worst form of government because it's easily manipulated. I always point to the 1994 Nittany Lions. Every computer algorithm agrees that was one of the best teams ever, not just that year, but democracy, manipulated by the press, decided they didn't even deserve a split. We would have killed Nebraska that year. Nebraska didn't have the offense to keep up. But that wasn't what the almighty voters decided.

Raw viewership is a terrible way choose, say, swimming over wrestling. Why? Because while swimming is more self-explanatory than wrestling, and perhaps easier to market, wrestling is inherently superior in the aesthetic sense of "watchability." But viewership is manipulated against wrestling because wrestling has a niche culture. Wrestling gets poor exposure internationally, which creates a self-fulfilling problem.

I didn't wrestle. I didn't start watching it till I was a teenager. Now I can't get enough of it. I prefer folk, because of its emphasis on control and because I hate freestyle back exposure rules, but I love both. Greco is boring and feels contrived.

But it took an investment of time, initially, to learn to appreciate wrestling.

More importantly, many foreign countries - especially the ex Soviet ones - tend to cheat and be dirty in wrestling so the international bodies frown on wrestling.

In any event, there should be ten international weight classes. Six is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
weight classes need to reflect who is wrestling, and this means in HS and college. throw too many upper weights in and weight lifting will be the side sport.
I would love having more upper weights myself but Jefe is right - football etc takes much of the talent.

Wade Schalles proposed moving wrestling's start date later, because, in theory, it would allow for more football players to wrestle. Lest we forget, Dave Joyner and Mike Reid were awesome Penn State football players who also wrestled successfully for us. It's an interesting idea.
 
The new sports are about the IOC flailing to stay relevant. Olympic viewership has been mostly in decline since 1996. There was a bump up in 2008 and 2012 that approached 1996, but then viewership has dropped considerably since.

The new sports don't make the Olympics relevant. But the corrupt corporate dinosaurs at IOC wouldn't know relevant unless it hit them with a truck full of money.

Not adding weights isn't about IOC budget. It's about (1) maintaining limits on the total number of athletes for Olympic Village capacity; (2) finding TV airtime for all events. Those are mostly fixed pies; if the IOC adds another weird "sport," those beds and that TV time has to come from somewhere.

It's also not just about the 4 weights in freestyle. Greco doesn't have 10 weights, and several countries value that style. Women don't have 10 weights either.

I don't like those more than anyone else. But those are the facts to be overcome.
Not only that, but the Olympics took a sh&t after they left ABC in 1988. ABC was about Olympic sports, not all the drama bs NBC brought. They've made it about their hosts and drama. Plus, society just isn't into sports, or even the outdoors like it used to be.
 
Not only that, but the Olympics took a sh&t after they left ABC in 1988. ABC was about Olympic sports, not all the drama bs NBC brought. They've made it about their hosts and drama. Plus, society just isn't into sports, or even the outdoors like it used to be.
The outdoors, at least in Pennsylvania, is partly a function of the fact that the boomers had fewer kids, which has continued. A lot of guys - myself included - didn't have a teacher in the family. Pennsylvania is an aging state and our hunters reflect that. Pennsylvania still has the highest hunter density in the world, 😂, but the old days of the big woods up north being full of orange are gone.

Although now is actually the Good Old Days as far as hunting goes. Bigger bucks all over the country, the highest turkey density ever, great bear hunting, cheap licenses.

I honestly think this is the best quality of competition we've had in wrestling too! College football sucks in my opinion, but that's because we let cheaters like Nick Saban oversign the sport into transfer portal and NIL. Then we crown that ass as the "GOAT." he couldn't hold Bill Snyder's jockstrap, let alone Cael. We let Harbaugh steal signs then run to the NFL. Another guy who couldn't touch Cael.

I'm off my soapbox now.
 
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
220
290

Yep I know it will get roundly criticized but, humans are getting bigger. I think it makes sense to swap the lowest weight for a new light heavy.

Aside from that I like round numbers.

I understand completely the span between the lighter weights in theory should be more "proportional" (i.e. the current 8 lbs) thus less than 10 lbs and slowly grow larger as you go up (I e. the current 12 lbs).

Should a collegiate football lineman have to lose weight to get the heavy? Not many of those out there but 285, is probably a limit partially due to concern about size discrepancy. Adding the 220 with class helps with that as well.
@PurposePitch would be able to wrestle with the 290 class. A huge cut for sure, but she can make it.
 
The 2 weakest weight classes in HS are 215/220 and 285. Those 2 weights + 195 are also the weights that lose the most talent in college to other sports (especially football).

--> Adding 215/220 in college merely dilutes the talent in both 197 and 285.

Given that our backup 197 handily beat a HWT All-American, is there really enough high-end talent to dilute?

When we get past sentimental reasons, adding a weight in that range does not benefit the sport.
Constant comments from every corner of wrestling about the athleticism of the top of the HWY class….every year….largely suggesting it’s a unicorn confirms the need to stay put. After the top 5 it’s another dancing bear event and I would rather see the small guys come up.

And I sure as heck do not ever want to see UNL again. That was an awful display.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT