Re-igniting the Weight Class debate...

[Andrew Grant]

The National Championships should be our showcase tournament to evolve arm wrestling into a spectator sport in Canada. If we ever want our national champions to become household names we need to drastically limit the number of classes. The title 'national champion' is prestigious in the public mind and we shouldn't abuse its value by awarding dozens of titles annually. The fewer the classes the more value the title holds.

A single tournament will never be the best way to determine the best pullers for ranking purposes, but it is our best chance to market the sport to a national audience.

But that's just my opinion.

Three questions for everybody:

What would be a fair weight limit for the heaviest class, the lightest class and the largest tolerable increment between two classes?

Here's what i think:

The upper limit -there are a lot of 220-240 pullers in the top ten overall rankings - ~230?

The lower limit - To be fair this needs to be low enough that having a very small frame is not a huge disadvantage in this class - ~160?

The size of the increments? -

Are you willing to lose a national title to someone 10, 15 or 20 pounds heavier than you are? How much heavier of an opponent should our champions be forced to face to earn their titles?

Because we all have some control of our body weight and can make sure that we don't show up at the bottom of our class, i think the real question is: How big can the increment be before it is no longer fair to those whose optimum weight (best pound for pound) fits poorly with the classes we adopt? No one is going to show up two pounds over the limit, but rather some may be forced to gain or cut from their optimum to stay competitive.

Weight classes with large increments can be made more fair by seeding every round by weight. The lighter pullers won't have to face the heavy pullers until the later rounds. This allows the determination of the best 187 pound puller, for example, in a 176-198 pound class.

As a spectator I'd rather see something more like the 154, 176, 198, 242, 243+ that we used at our provincials.

[John Milne]

Nov 17, 2012 18:05:25 GMT -5 Jeff Miller said:

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.

Bingo

Forget Nationals. Seriously, we have no need to tie ourselves to it if we just want to see who's best. Too much bullnuts already and we're not even off the ground.

It all depends on what you want. If you just want to find out who's best you'll not even consider Nationals and all its rules and reg's... you'll go with one on one matchups using established champions.

[weights]

I think the weight classes that should be used are 0-138, 154, 171, 189, 209, 231, 231+.

They are part of the old AAA and the pro's in europe use them today.

[mwiggins]

how about
140
160
180
200
220
240
241+
at most tournys the 140 and the 241+ could be merged into the next closest class? that would 5-7 classes depending.
the lighter the class the more important the weight gap is. 20lbs might be too much ?
great discussion.

[Eric Roussin]

Debating the ultimate set of weight classes is fun, but first we need to come up with a way to select which athletes qualify to represent Canada at the Worlds in the WAF weight classes if the weight classes at Nationals are different.

Does anyone have any ideas? It would be good to come up with a few different options, refine them, and then put up a poll to see which option the pullers prefer. It wouldn't be official, but at least we'd be able to see which option to bring forward to the CAWF AGM if it were to come to this.

There are still other obstacles to overcome (already raised by a few in several preivous posts), but just talking about the best weight classes isn't getting us any closer to change.

[Andrew Grant]

If we ran 154, 176, 198, 242, 243+ classes and seeded each round by weight, i think the outcome of the 198 pound class, for example, would show pretty clearly who to send to worlds for both the 187 and 198 classes.

[Will Sarty]

Those attending Worlds, would make weight at Nationals for the class they wish to represent. Top finishers qualify

ie.

If I wanted to compete at 132 at Worlds, I would make 132.0 at Nationals, compete in the new category system (whichever is chosen). If I placed the highest out of any other 132lb competitor, I would be given the 1st slot. Next highest placing would be the next slot offered.

This makes it hard for some who like to move up a category but depending on the new weight distributions, that may not be the case anymore

[Andrew Grant]

We could start an online registry of the people that want to contest for each position on Team Canada at worlds each year.
Even if we don't make any changes, it may help us build a stronger Team Canada by knowing ahead of time who is and isn't interested in attending the worlds.

[Jeff Miller]

I see Will's point about making World's weight at Nationals, but I'd personally rather not do that; I just want to weigh in for that weight class and let-er-rip and see who's the best. If I was Will and came in in 4th in the 154s and hence was 1st in the 132's I would feel robbed of a fair competition just to qualify for Worlds at a lower weight.

I think the ideal lowest weight class should be about 63kg (139lbs), top weight class about 105kg+ (231 lbs+), which unfortunately doesn't mesh with current WAF classes.

I'd prefer really messing up the classes with 83kg and 95 kg or whatever, using a 6 or 7 class system and doing that part right to make the competition fair and fun for everybody. Then the tricky part - how to put pullers in classes at Worlds. Could say pullers can come from two nearest classes at Nationals, with preference to the top two finishers of the heavier class, followed by the top two finishers on the lower of the two classes. This would take some back-and forth communication, maybe a meeting with all the winners after the tournament, but could be done.

[Eric Roussin]

Nov 18, 2012 16:13:29 GMT -5 Will Sarty said:

Those attending Worlds, would make weight at Nationals for the class they wish to represent. Top finishers qualify

ie.

If I wanted to compete at 132 at Worlds, I would make 132.0 at Nationals, compete in the new category system (whichever is chosen). If I placed the highest out of any other 132lb competitor, I would be given the 1st slot. Next highest placing would be the next slot offered.

This makes it hard for some who like to move up a category but depending on the new weight distributions, that may not be the case anymore

I like this idea, but I'm wondering how much those attempting to qualify for a lower weight class would like it. Because luck of the draw can be a major factor, it could be discouraging to be eliminated by after two matches against heavier competitors. A lower claibre lighter weight puller could finish ahead when this probably would not be the case if the lower class was offered.

Anyways, it's usually a struggle to fill a team for Worlds, so chances are if someone had their heart set on it, attending would likely still be possible regardless of placement at Nationals. (This may not hold true in years the Worlds are in the US or Canada.) Will's proposal may be a good one to try.