|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 26, 2013 20:08:41 GMT -5
I should have done this from the beginning. Leaving it up for 3 weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Oct 26, 2013 20:30:39 GMT -5
Option 1 - not enough of a class reduction
Option 2 - number of classes is okay, but the class splits aren't as logical as option 3
Option 3 - to me, this is the most logical of the three options. Slight increases in gaps as the weights go up. Similar to the classes used by the International Powerlifting Federation.
The option presented by Jeff Slater - 63,70,78,86,95,105,105+ - would be a great option as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Pinkney on Oct 26, 2013 20:47:08 GMT -5
Sorry Jeff, I must have missed your suggested classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by collarm on Oct 26, 2013 22:44:08 GMT -5
Oppsssssssssss do i get a do over.
i'm old school don't get kg's
|
|
|
|
Post by joey costello on Oct 27, 2013 15:14:04 GMT -5
I would still like to see all WAF classes:
here is my choice.
65 - 70 - 75 - 85 - 95 - 110 - 110+
143 - 154 - 165 - 187 - 242 - 242+
|
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Oct 27, 2013 15:26:39 GMT -5
187 - 242 is a huge jump
Was this missed Joey or your intention?
It does not make sense to me that you'd offer a 143 and 154 but make the 188 guys pull much bigger people. I do think there should be something in between 187 and 242.
Edit:
I see what happened there. It was just a transposition error. I think those classes look fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by joey costello on Oct 27, 2013 16:18:03 GMT -5
sorry there should be a 209 in there somewhere
65 - 70 - 75 - 85 - 95 - 110 - 110+
143 - 154 - 165 - 187 - 209 - 242 - 242+
|
|
|
|
Post by Terry Palaschak on Oct 27, 2013 17:18:03 GMT -5
I voted other because I like Joey's splits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 27, 2013 18:30:31 GMT -5
I like these, the quantity of classes is perfect, and the weight class breaks suit me personally. However this is my reason for going away from 5kg increments:
Somebody on the lower end will get a bit screwed up ie losing the 176 lb division. I think that is a legit concern. The only way to have the whole group bite-the-bullet is to alter the breaks to a logical increment system. That is the only way it can be see as truly fair IMO.
Jeff Slater's 63,70,78,86,95,105,105+ is probably the most fair to everybody IMO - and it looks like many of us would support this one - the low end
, high end, and gradient appear beautifully melded together. Can you please add this one to a follow-up poll Rick? BTW thanks for digging into this Rick Pinkney and Joey Costello!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Oct 27, 2013 18:47:22 GMT -5
On the other hand, the third option is pretty good with respect to a fair across the board breakdown, so I voted option 3, and it's even one less class so that's a positive IMO as well.
|
|
