|
|
Post by Terry Palaschak on Nov 16, 2012 22:43:34 GMT -5
As far as weighing in the day of the competition at worlds the logistics of it wouldn't be feasible. Too many competitors plus language barriors and the gong show that is a typical worlds it just wouldn't work. I could see the weigh ins being the day before but not the day of unless you nearly double the work staff and I gaurantee no host country would agree to that and even then you wouldn't be able to start until in the afternoon and the final matches would be after 10 pm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terry Palaschak on Nov 16, 2012 22:59:08 GMT -5
Also to throw another wrinkle in the debate to address the fewer but larger weight classes how about having a triple knockout like Eric has done with his competitions. This should help some where say a lighter weight guy happened to be matched up against 2 heavier guys for his first two matches and got eliminated right away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Nov 16, 2012 23:54:10 GMT -5
Good point about the time-limiting factor w/ weigh-ins Terry. Makes weigh-ins same day impossible for large tournament.
Triple elimination also is very intriguing; provided you can make it through the tournament in the alotted time.
Weight classes now though - not ideal that's for sure. Weight classes broke down every 5kg is too simplistic to achieve best/fairest competition; that's why none of the other groups do this. I'm tired of throwing my hands up and saying "Sucks, but there's nothing I can do" If there is a will from the majority, something can change. I don't think I've heard anyone say "Man I love the WAF weight classes!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Nov 16, 2012 23:54:42 GMT -5
Should weight classes be merged or eliminated, what would be the fairest way to determine who qualifies for the different weight classes offered at Worlds? We'd need to come up with a solution for which the majority of pullers would be in favour. Perhaps adopting classes like 154/176/198/242/243+ initially would make things easier, as these weight limits match classes at Worlds (would be easier than finding a solution if the classes were completely different).
Another issue to consider is the impact fewer classes would have on attendance. I think fewer classes would discourage some pullers from attending. How many, I don't know, but I know that lower attendance equals lower entry fee revenues. It's already hard to find people interested in hosting Nationals now (do we have a location for the 2014 Nationals yet?), I would think it would be even more difficult if attendance was expected to go down. This is a bigger issue that would need to be addressed. Anyone have any ideas?
I think the talk so far has been focussed on the men's open classes. Should there be fewer women's and masters classes as well? What would be the best weight class breaks?
I would say if you want change, lobby your Provincial Director to bring forth motions at the CAWF AGM. That's where a lot of these decisions would be made.
By the way, I love the idea of triple elimination at Nationals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Nov 17, 2012 0:04:10 GMT -5
I think the 154, 176, 198, 242, 242+ is OK, but not substantially better that offering all the classes. I see the advantage of less trophy cost,bigger classes, but personally I fit in between the 176 and 198's naturally (I'm too small for 198s, yet there I'd be). I believe 7 classes lets me fit in easily to a weight class without being disadvantaged by size (6 in some cases).
I think halving the current WAF weight classes, by using every second class, is fatally flawed and without enough net benefit for me to want that kind of a change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Nov 17, 2012 0:30:52 GMT -5
I agree with both Will and Adam; Both choices are virtually identical, with only a 2 lb offset throughout all the classes - both excellent breakdowns IMO. I would be 100% in favour of either of those. Thanks guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Will Sarty on Nov 17, 2012 0:33:35 GMT -5
More like under 140 usually Terry lol..
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Nov 17, 2012 8:43:47 GMT -5
It's easy for us to sit back and say what would be the ideal classes and I agree that we have way too many classes. The reality is that Europe controls how many classes there are at Worlds and they've just added something lkike 18 new classes for next year - mostly Junior.
W've broached the subject of a 154, 176, 198, etc classes at Nationals but then we have to determine who represents us at Nationals in the other classes.
Also weighins at Worlds will take place on 2 days. Weighins for Junior/Masters will take place the day before their competition. Then the day before the senior classes they will have their weighins.
As for Government funding every Provincial armwrestling body should belong to their Provincial Sport body. There is funding available for people to attend Worlds within your Provincial Sport body. You just need to get your ducks in a row and get it. Beside funding the Sport Bodies also offer various courses on training diet, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Nov 17, 2012 18:05:25 GMT -5
154 176 198 etc. are inadequate to allow fair sport - its fine for fun, but doesn't produce the best pound for pounders because its too crude. For worlds the current weight classes are fine - just don't work too well going backwards to nationals and then to provincials.
If Europe pulls all the strings just gives more ammo to what John Milne is saying; gotta use the pro tournaments/supermatches to determine the real best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Will Sarty on Nov 17, 2012 18:30:34 GMT -5
These classes proposed by Mark are definately my favorite thus far
63kg
69kg
75kg
82kg
89kg
97kg
105kg
105kg+
|
|
