Weight classes

[John Milne]

There is a lot of good conversation regarding this topic and I hope it continues. Personally I think there are way too many light weight classes and too many women's classes. I expect that may not very popular publicly but behind the scenes I know others share this opinion as well.

My questions are:

Should there be a minimum number of participants per class to have it continue the following year? For instance, if there are only 3 people (or even less) in the 50kg class is it really worth keeping that class?



Why do we try to hang on to groups that can't and won't even support themselves? Is it really necessary? Why can we not chop the dead weight and move forward? If we build a more successful "business" it may be more attractive for people to come to later on down the road. More classes don't mean better classes. Better is better, sometimes less is more and I think it may be the case here.




Why is there a notion that we should match WAF classes? What percentage of participants actually attend WAF?



I'm all for improving our sport but not at the cost of catering to groups that haven't historically supported themselves and/or show no immediate promise to do so in the future.

[Pat Rehill]

I don't think cutting classes is the answer to improving our sport; I think if we could have nationals in a central location, Winnipeg for example, I think we would have a better turnout from east and west and the classes would have more competitors. We need to figure a way to band together and make this happen; if a venue knew that every year they were going to host our nationals and benefit from the money spent by the pullers they may be more open to give us better deals which would be a benefit to us. I think a majority of us would be willing to travel to a central location for nationals?

[John Milne]

I think you could be right regarding a central location. It would most likely be easier to plan (in the successive years) as well as fund raise etc. It could potentially be easier and more viable for the athletes to plan as well. I think this could be the best idea regarding location of Nationals. It might be difficult to find a promoter though. At least there is more communication going on right now. This is good.

[Rick Pinkney]

I think there should be minimum. But not base it on 1 year. I think we should evaluate the classes after every Nationals and ask the question as to why the numbers were low in a particular class. If the numbers are still low after the second year then look to make changes. We need to be faster to react to changing demographics but not let one "freak" year scare us into changes we might regret.

[Jeff Miller]

I think the number of classes should be reduced for the open men anyways. Mostly because I think the WAF classes are inefficient...even if there were one milion armwrestlers, I'd still think the weight classes could be reduced. For womens, masters, etc. I don't know for sure; I know cutting out too many classes can reduce the quality of the competition, although it can also help it - there is a balance point. I think you have to look at historical data and modify classes accordingly, if there are not enough people to face each other in a class it is a problem. I would actually prefer the men chose the ideal number of men's classes, and the women choose their ideal classes as well. Perhaps a flexible awards system with not throw-away trophies (like a portable trophy label maker as an example) could help save cost for dead classes. Let the masters guys/gals chose their ideal classes as well and then we can move forward.

[John Milne]

I think the problem with letting people choose their own classes is that they will choose based on what's best for them and not the sport.

It's the sport that we need to cater to and NOT the individual. As Mr. Gobby alluded to, the athletes who really love and support it will adapt to what the sport offers and not make the sport adapt to them. Without putting the sport first we risk damaging it further.

[Jeff Miller]

Agreed John...But for the love of God let the ladies pick their classes!

[Rick Pinkney]

I don't have a problem letting the ladies pick their classes but we need to put a limit on the number of classes.

[Jeff Miller]

There will be a list of logical steps to change weight classes, and this is my guess at what they are:

Formal Survey #1 (ie Survey Monkey):
1) Find out if the majority want less weight classes or not (Y/N).

2) Find out how many classes each group (mens, ladies, masters) needs to retain (ie. 6, 7, 8 classes etc.), ranked as preference (ie, 7-class rank 1, 6-class rank 2, 8-class rank 3). Only women vote for women's classes, and men vote for mens, masters for masters.

3) Find out if the majority want to pick from existing WAF classes or not (ex. 70kg vs 72kg, 85kg vs 87kg, etc.). (WAF classes/ not WAF classes)

Stuff to figure out through discussions:
Find out what the best low end weight class is (ie 60kg, 63kg, 65kg) and what the highest weight class is (ie 100kg, 105kg, 110kg, etc.). I think this is a discussion item, as lightweights need more of a say for the lowest end, and heavyweights for the highest end.

Math stuff to do:
Use a factor to multiply by each previous class to get the next class (ie. 1.1, 1.15, etc.) to model the ideal weight classes to the nearest 1kg, or in the case of maintaining WAF classes, the nearest 5kg.
Voila, the weight classes!


INFORMAL Survey #2 (ie on the forum, facebook):
1) Determine if the resultant weight classes are acceptable to most people, tweak the results as needed.

Formal Survey #3 (ie Survey Monkey):
1) Issue the completed weight classes as for approval - if the majority approves, then the weight classes can be instituted by CAWF.

[Eric Roussin]

I think some of these steps can be skipped. We already know that the majority want fewer classes, at least based on message board activity.

The message board is open to all, and I feel that if someone doesn't care enough to weigh in on the discussion, then he/she should be willing to accept whatever decision is made.

I disagree that only women should decide on the number of women's classes. There are so few women, that one or two people can significantly influence the vote. Remember, the goal is to reduce classes for both the competitors AND to lower the overall cost to the promoter. Based on attendance, it just wouldn't make sense to have a reduced number of men's classes, while keeping the same number of women's classes. The discussion seems to be heading towards 6 or 7 classes for the men, and 4 for the women -- which I believe to be fair for everyone.

It seems like the classes that are receiving the widest support are 63,70,77,85,95,105,105+ for the men and 60,70,80,80+ for the women. Why can't we just start a poll seeing if the majority are willing to try these out at Nationals, with the understanding that they can be tweaked in subsequent years if necessary?

We'd also need the CAWF Exec to voice their support for such a methodology.

In any event, it would be best if decisions could be made sooner than later. There's no reason why these types of decisions need to wait until the CAWf Annual General Meeting. All of these discussions that lead to nothing can get tiring.