Are you in favour of triple elimination at Nationals?

[Rick Pinkney]

Darrell, the refs get paid the same and we'd stay with 3 tables.

[PinArm]

This will let everyone - who spent money on flights, hotels, meals, etc. and time away from work - have an opportunity to pull more competitors.

This is a proposed change that likely would add fun to the tournament without compromising team Canada much as this variation from the WAF double-elimination format shouldn't change the way we actually compete. However,we should always be aware that any change from WAF adds confusion to the sport and may not position Canada best to compete at Worlds. For example, triple elimination may favour different pullers than does double elimination, which could (theoretically) result in a team from Canada not being as competitive at Worlds as it otherwise would be.

[Windover]

I posted this question earlier and I will again. How many competitors went to Worlds? What is the percentage of pullers attending compared to overall? Or even attended Nats.

I am not trying to be a prick here. I am asking a question.

Why are we gearing everything towards WAF when WAF really wouldnt care if Canada went or not? They threatened to toss the Head referee for frigs sake if he didnt comply with the monitor ref fiasco without getting it passed? And if we are going to gear everything to WAF as we have in the past, are we prepared to do it at the expense of Less Pullers and Less Promoters wanting it? Because the reason for these discussions is because of the Lack of Pullers and Promoters. So it seems the way it was wasnt working? Or am I wrong?

[PinArm]

Hi Guy,

It seems to me that there are usually 20-some Canadians at Worlds on average (probably less than that with just competitors and more than that with family members counted). Percentage-wise, I am not sure. The nubers for Nats have been terrible the last two years, maybe 150 entries in the open classes, i.e. 80 persons.

The CAWF Nationals is the only tourney to gear itself to WAF. There are many other tourneys in Canada that do not do so. I'll also point out that CAWF Nats is the only tourney in Canada to offer the breadth of classes that it does. It is an opportunity for the disabled, aged, light and heavy. I would not want to see that go away. Cut the price of prizes and offer the classes. Don't even get me started on why many do avail themselves of the opportunity to attend Nationals - lol, on a separate thread maybe.

It is a good idea to gear CAWF to WAF to help Canada put forward the best team for WAF.

[Windover]

Thanks Gord, one issue I had at my first Nats back and have had on the Prov, Nats trail was to enter a class, only to find out when the class was called that there was either no competitor or one competitor in my class. I WAS PISSED to say the least that I was not allowed the opportunity to pull up at least to get some armwrestling in. This weighed partly on my decision to spend $2 - $3000 to go to BC. If I had spent that kind of money to get handed a trophy with no pulling I probably would have quit. Now with it being in May that is my reason and I know others who are of the same boat.
I am not knocking this trail, but what I am trying to point out is that many or most depending how you look at it attend Nats as a Canadian National tournament, not a leg to Worlds. I attend to pull the (best in Canada), without caring about attending worlds. If 25% or less are choosing this avenue I am asking if we are catering Nats to the few at the expense of the many? Its just a thought. I do like alot of your points.

[Eric Roussin]

^Guy, the situation you described should NEVER happen (not being told you are alone in your class). Whenever this situation occurs (or even when there are only 2 competitors for that matter), you should be told and given an option to pull up a class.

Triple elimination results in more accurate placings. In double elimination, it is techinically possible for the fifth best competitor in a six-man class to finish in third place, just by winning his first match. This type of situation does not happen in triple elimination.

[PinArm]

I agree with Eric. I also don't want to get into a discussion of a personal, one-off situation; but, I think that everyone including Lise and Fred would agree with Eric on this. I have heard Lise say that often and seen her advise pullers of this. I think that the pullers should recognize their RIGHT to pull, and if there are only one or two pullers in a class then they should advise the organizers of their desire to pull up a class even if that stops the tournament for the drawsheets to be redone. Probably they should pay to enter the extra class to avoid pullers in that extra class from complaining that they may have had their class'results affected by someone who did not even pay to enter that class.

[Andrew Grant]

Not sure what kind of triple elimination structure people have in mind:


1. The loser of the A/B final (or rematch if B wins final) would take on the C side winner for the chance to pull in the overall final (which may require one or two rematches)

2. The b-side winner has to face the C side winner (twice if C wins first match) for the right to pull in the overall final (which may require one or two rematches)

[Andrew Grant]

I like the idea of a normal double elimination tourney with the addition of a C bracket to determine 3rd place. Any puller that lost a B-side match would drop into the C bracket and would get at least one more match competing for third place.

Playing out a C side for third place better ensures that all the right matches get to happen to determine proper rankings, without the complication of running a full scale triple elimination.

__________________________________________

I don't think it is very likely that the puller who goes undefeated through the A side will then proceed to lose 3 matches against pullers who have to battle back on the B/C sides.

I think the final match of the tournament should be the A side winner vs B side winner. Someone who has lost to two different pullers shouldn't get to come back and win 1st place.

[Jeff Miller]

I like Andrew's idea here^