|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Oct 22, 2013 12:30:13 GMT -5
The numbers just aren't there to support the current number of women's classes at Nationals. How fun is it to earn a national title if you are alone in your class or there is only one other person? I think three classes are the way to go. So which three would be best?
132/154/155+?
143/176/177+?
Something else?
Note that the current classes are 110/121/132/143/154/176/177+.
If attendance creeps up, then more classes can eventually be added, but for now, something needs to be done.
As for the senior men's classes, my preference is the set that Will posted (the one that was debated a while back). However, a subset of existing WAF classes, as Rick has proposed, may be more palatable to the CAWF Exec as the qualifying process for Worlds would remain unchanged for most classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 22, 2013 15:56:35 GMT -5
Jeff at Worlds there is now a pull off for 5th place, same way. If you and I want to go to Worlds in the same class along with another person and that third person finishes above us he would automatically get in. Then you and I would pull one match and winner gets in. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 22, 2013 16:08:39 GMT -5
As for the women. Using the averages of the past 5 years and we went with 3 classes under 65, 80 and 80+ the entries would be 5.4, 4.6 and 4.8 respectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 22, 2013 16:51:35 GMT -5
Eric makes a good point here. We only have previous years data to adjust current weight classes, and the (ultra) low number in the women's classes show that this doesn't work as it's set up now. I see the frustration in having to pull a lady that outweighs you by 50lbs - that sucks, but isn't that better than getting to armwrestle nobody? Even two women in a class is something, one is unacceptable. But I would be in favor of a minimum number of open ladies classes, like 3 or 4 for example. Masters is a different story. As we "grow" the sport, more classes should be added. But if numbers decline they must be taken away.
From my own personal experience, while I had fun, I still found a class with three people at nationals to be too weak to be worth it. I don't proudly tell anyone about my silver medal in that situation, so for me this is a no-brainer.
That sounds good Rick!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 22, 2013 17:04:33 GMT -5
I like Will's classes but i think it would cause a lot of problems if we had several people going to Worlds. Also as for everyone in 143 dropping down to 139, I doubt that several people can make it. I do like the idea of dropping the 110kg class.
Here is the break down on the averages of the Men's open classes: 60 - 2.4, 65 - 4.6, 70- 6.6, 75 - 6, 80 - 7.4, 85 - 6.6, 90- 7.6, 100 - 8.4, 110 - 5.2, 110+ - 5.4.
|
|
|
|
Post by joey costello on Oct 22, 2013 20:08:05 GMT -5
Good post Rick:
Here's what I came up with based on Rick's spread sheet.
everything is left and right... 36 classes
Open /M 65-75-90-110-110+ I find this to be a consistent spread and still maintain the WAF classes. Will's idea would be good for dealing with who qualifies.
Open/W 60-70-80-80+ I like what Eric was saying and I added a class. I feel cutting to many classes would move us to far back in the first year.
M/M 80-90-100-100+ I like these classes for Masters and if a promoter wants to add a class they may do so.
W/M 70-70+
GM/M 75-75+ I changed Rick's classes because I don't think there is an 80 kg class at Worlds.
GM/W OPEN
|
|
|
|
Post by Del on Oct 22, 2013 22:44:24 GMT -5
Less classes is a great idea. The concerns of lighter pullers in heavier classes is valid. However can we run the classes and layout the brackets so that everyone always pulls the opponent closest to him in weight? For example if the weight class was 176-198 a puller that weighed in at 176 would be at the bottom of the bracket and the puller who weighed in at 198 is at the top?
Just an idea to help equal things out.
|
|
Andrew Grant
Local Muscle
Andrew Grants Arm Transplants
Posts: 207
|
Post by Andrew Grant on Oct 22, 2013 22:55:22 GMT -5
Weight seeding is a great way to address the inequality. My tournament program for excel has weight seeding capabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 23, 2013 0:28:28 GMT -5
Good ideas people! I like the weight seeding Del and Andrew, I hate when guys endanger their health with crazy weight cuts! That might be incentive to not worry so much about it.
Joey's breakdown looks like a painful pill to swallow for the men's open, but kind of makes sense based on the numbers. Might make about 10 per class in the men's open, and still leaves 4 classes for women open. I'd like that, especially with seeding based on weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 23, 2013 3:09:07 GMT -5
I'm going to start 2 new threads. One for women and the other one for men. This way it could be easier to discuss them separately. See if we can come to a concensus.
|
|
