|
|
Post by joegould on Dec 6, 2012 10:46:10 GMT -5
I know this will be an unpopular post, but...
I am one of the few people who disagrees with cutting classes - at the CAWF Nationals. Sure, less classes is more appropriate at all other tournaments, but these Nationals are qualifiers for the WAF Worlds which offer 165's, 187's, etc., (all classes). I think it's the best way to establish WAF Worlds qualified competitors, and it's appropriate to crown champions.
I think any Nationals run in Ontario can support all the classes, with maybe the exception of the 121's, but I still say keep it.
Why do people really want to cut out classes? I don't get it really.
JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Dec 6, 2012 12:05:31 GMT -5
If the population is there to support it, I'd say it's fine to keep all the classes.
I think my motivation for wanting less would be to keep Nationals viable, probably especially Western Nationals, without having to buy many unused trophies, or to have classes of three people like what happened this year at Vancouver.
If we keep current classes:
1) Hold nationals in Ontario every year to ensure full classes and decent competition, and count on Westerners only coming every second year or so. OR keep moving the nationals around and risk having poor class turnouts in less populated areas.
2) It would be easier to qualify for Worlds classes.
3) If you want to implement Eastern/Western championships, might be harder to fill the all the qualifying classes, so you might have to use every second class like we've done with Provincials.
4) Difficult to offer ever every class at Provincials due to the quantity.
If we reduce the number of classes:
1) We can move Nationals province to province more viably, due to less competitors.
2) We have a more complicated World's qualifying process.
3) It becomes easier to implement Del's solution of a West and East Championship with subsidized winners going to the nationals (easier to raise money to help less winners). Same principle applies to using Provincials to help subsidize winners travel expenses to go to Nationals.
4) Less difficult to offer every weight class at Provincials.
Personally I have been trying to find the lowest number of weight classes that could be considered fair competition by all (I emailed the IPF about their recent weight class changes, they are digging up info for me). Even if we don't apply this to Nationals, I think this might help us understand what is required for fair competition in smaller, or even pro tournaments, so IMO is a worthwhile discussion regardless.
|
|
Andrew Grant
Local Muscle
Andrew Grants Arm Transplants
Posts: 207
|
Post by Andrew Grant on Dec 6, 2012 13:30:41 GMT -5
I voted for less classes because I see nationals as a showcase event. As a spectator I would rather not see competitors split up into classes unless it was absolutely required for fair competition. The fewer the classes the more value the title holds and the easier it is to showcase our champions.
If worlds were held in Canada it would make sense to mirror the worlds classes at our nationals as every position would be under contention. Many years we don’t send a full team and there is no need to mirror the classes at worlds because no one is actually contending for most of the positions.
Every year we may have enough interested people to send a full team but seldom fill all the positions with our current qualifying process. I think those wishing to attend worlds should have to declare their intentions before nationals. This would allow us to find candidates to fill the empty spots. Some might be convinced to attend nationals and worlds if they know there is a uncontested spot for them on Team Canada. It also allows the disputed positions to be settled through supermatch or some other means when agreed upon by the contenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by joegould on Dec 6, 2012 15:25:41 GMT -5
One of the reasons why the Nationals is often a successful event is because of the number of classes, which creates incentive by giving chances for many people to win National titles. If we cut the number of classes in half, we would lose half the incentive as well. That's not going to necesarily create National championships with classes that are twice as big as before.
I think if there is a change made (which I don't think there should be), we should stick with WAF classes as a guideline, and a Nationals event promoter should have the choice to offer all classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Dec 6, 2012 15:33:21 GMT -5
Interesting out-of-the-box idea there Andrew. I think you're saying if you and I both wanted the 90kg position at worlds, you won the new 95kg class, and I won the new 86kg class at nationals, we could have a supermatch much prior to Nationals to determine who get's preference IF that should happen? It's cool if the pullers live near each other, otherwise might not be feasible.
Personally, I wouldn't consider attending World's unless I did well at nationals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Dec 6, 2012 18:22:54 GMT -5
Personally I've enjoyed Nationals because I finally got to armwrestle a bunch of people my own size! ;D I think this can be accomplished with less weight classes too. It seems ridiculous to me that people (warriors) would prefer to attend nationals because there are less people per class, therefore less chance of being beaten due to more classes. What makes sense to me as an incentive is enjoyment from a level playing field, and not having to armwrestle guys 10-20lbs heavier than yourself (as a middle-weight) - which is what the current classes do*. What I'm saying is, I think people like more weight classes purely for the fairness part of it; the side benefit of this is that you have a greater chance of winning because it's FAIR for a change. I believe you can cut a certain number of classes, and not remove any incentive - cut too many, and you DO lose incentive. Ex. Cutting 1/2 the classes might break the threshold, and reduce the incentive, but it's in no way proportional to the amount of incentive lost.
Another weight class system can do this too, and do a better job of it; You want to maximize class size while ensuring nobody is overly advantaged with body mass.
*edit - Meaning current Nationals classes do already achieve a level playing field. Dec 7, 2012, JM
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Dec 6, 2012 18:25:19 GMT -5
Good idea, but I wouldn't know what to leave in or cut out, so I'd probably leave everything in.
|
|
Andrew Grant
Local Muscle
Andrew Grants Arm Transplants
Posts: 207
|
Post by Andrew Grant on Dec 6, 2012 20:32:19 GMT -5
Interesting out-of-the-box idea there Andrew. I think you're saying if you and I both wanted the 90kg position at worlds, you won the new 95kg class, and I won the new 86kg class at nationals, we could have a supermatch much prior to Nationals to determine who get's preference IF that should happen? It's cool if the pullers live near each other, otherwise might not be feasible. Personally, I wouldn't consider attending World's unless I did well at nationals. There are many possibilities; we would reach an agreement with the other athletes that want that position. The excitement and economics of the Nationals shouldn't be limited by its current status as a qualifying event. The size and strength of Team Canada, as well as the cost to our athletes, shouldn't be compromised by the logistics of a sometimes unnecessary qualifying tournament. For example: The 90 kg Team Canada positions went unfilled last year in Brazil. There may have been a few Ontario pullers that would have gone but couldn't afford to travel to both Vancouver and Brazil. They could have met locally for a fundraising round robin tournament with the winner receiving a spot on team Canada and a plane ticket to Brazil. There are many other exciting and economic ways to better settle the disputed positions. I advocate that those who wish to contend for a position on Team Canada declare their intention early in the season. This would allow them the option of reaching a consensus as to a better way to settle their dispute. The focus of building Team Canada should be on building the strongest team possible with the least cost to the participants. The focus of Nationals should be on holding an exciting tournament to showcase our sport to our national audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Dec 7, 2012 1:42:18 GMT -5
Interesting, thanks for posting these ideas Andrew, they are definitely a new way of thinking compared with what I've been doing. Kind of opens my mind to the multitude of possibilities of what the function of Nationals could be. And yes I see how costs can stop people from attending Worlds + Nationals in the same year, given the current framework.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Jan 2, 2013 16:45:07 GMT -5
FYI, I got this message from the Powerlifting president, Ryan Stinn:
Not based on a math formula or chart like I thought it might be, but they still used a gradient of some kind.
|
|
