|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 24, 2013 11:34:10 GMT -5
I also agree with Lori's point about if you cut too many classes it could only destroy women's armwrestling altogether. I know what it's like armwrestling the big boys, and the power discrepancy can make it very disheartening!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 24, 2013 14:01:09 GMT -5
All that said, maybe four classes still is too few for ladies - how many and what should they be Lori, Aimee, and Chantal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane Bauch on Oct 24, 2013 14:08:39 GMT -5
some of the tournaments that i have put on with only two womens classes i loose some pullers because they don't want to pull someone way bigger then them. most of times it is someone new to the sport, which dose not help it grow
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 24, 2013 15:26:44 GMT -5
What about a 60, 75, 90, 90+. The reason for the spread around 70kg is that joining 65 and 70 will still have an average of under 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Oct 24, 2013 15:37:29 GMT -5
I think 90 is too high. If the unlimited class at Worlds is 80+, there's no reason we should be adding a heavier class at Nationals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Oct 24, 2013 15:43:53 GMT -5
There shouldn't be much of a strength difference between a 90 kg women and one who weighs 110 kg. Unless they are very tall, women who weigh over 90 kg are likely carrying more than just lean body weight, which shouldn't have much of an effect on armwrestling ability.
As a comparison, many of the best male armwrestlers in the world (overall) weigh less than 240 lbs, making classes above this weight unecessary, assuming the purpose of weight classes is to protect smaller pullers.
|
|
|
|
Post by joey costello on Oct 24, 2013 21:00:50 GMT -5
A triple elimination may be the way to place the guys into their prospective categories. or give them choice for categories based on how they place.
EG: 1st place get first choice on what class he/she wants to pull.
It's good odds that the heaviest guy will want to pull closest to his natural weight anyway and so on down the line.
I don't like the idea of seeding people, there are to many ways to control the outcome and to many ways to create controversy.
Let the chips fall where they may in a triple elim event at Nationals and let the best person have first choice on what class they pull.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Oct 24, 2013 21:18:47 GMT -5
Triple elimination at Nationals would be awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 24, 2013 23:30:10 GMT -5
Great ideas Joey!
This would be great, a part of me has always hated double elimination with only a single pull - too much luck involved and too little of a workout. I was considering best of three double elim, but that'd take too long and burn out athletes if you had a big turnout (but this would be the great for a smaller turnout!). Best of three single elimination would be fun, but you could run into somebody out of your league by bad luck and done. The only practical way is triple elimination to achieve most realistic standing, not be too dependent on an unlucky draw, and get a decent amount of pulls in (three should be the minimum, when I was two and out at Mayhem it sucked, and I was an organizer!!!). For Nationals where it's a big deal, everyone invests all this time, money and effort...the least we could do is have three pulls minimum!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 26, 2013 20:17:20 GMT -5
If we went to triple elimination we definitely will need 3 tables. I was going to propose cutting back to 2 tables at Nationals. However if there is enough interest I'm all for it.
|
|
