Weight classes

[Jeff Miller]

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.

I'm fine with all that, I was just trying to think of a system that would not allow for an easy derailment. After Rick's Poll is done percolating, he's opening another follow up one after, so I suppose your idea will work Eric, we'll just have to give it some more time. Though I doubt we need a full three weeks to sit on that first poll though as Rick suggested; the interest might fizzle out by then.

[Eric Roussin]

Agreed. I think the system you described could be used if there wasn't such a rush to get a decision made (at least in my mind). I'm really hopeful that if class changes are made, that they can be in effect for the 2014 Nationals. (Plus triple elimination!)

[Jeff Miller]

No doubt Eric! Rick - let's get the next poll going sooner rather then later when nobody cares....again (please not 3 years in a row of dead-in-the-water)! lol.

[Rick Pinkney]

Oct 30, 2013 13:43:47 GMT -5 Eric Roussin said:

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.

I agree 100%.

I wanted to leave this poll up for 3 weeks then take the top one and place it against the Neimeroff classes to see what people want. However it seems a runaway right now so I'll lock the present poll and start a new one.Once this is done I'll put this forward to the CAWF executive. We'd have to get all the Provincial Presidents on board so TALK TO YOUR PROVINCIAL PRESIDENTS. Tell them you want change! WE can get this done by Christmas.

[Will Sarty]

Rick, Nova Scotia wants change!!! Lol

[Eric Roussin]

Great to hear this, Rick!

[Pat Rehill]

It's the sport that we need to cater to and NOT the individual. As Mr. 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.

Or we will loose more pullers and the sport will not benefit from the changes at all; is reducing the number of classes really going to make a difference? I said what I thought would help the sport more and would improve numbers at the national event. when the nationals are held in a central location the turnout from east and west is much higher; now how can we work together to make this happen? The old days when the east and west battled it out were awesome for both pullers and spectators; we need to find that again...

[Jeff Miller]

I've always been in favour of a Nationals every year in Ottawa or Toronto, since that is where the big population of aw'ers is. If it were in Winnipeg every year I suppose that'd be OK too, but personally I doubt that it would be better than if it were in Ontario every year. But if everyone agreed Winnipeg is the place to go every year - that would of course be fine with me.

[jerrymilne]

I also posted this on the proposed ladies classes thread. I figure it should be here, because it's more in general as opposed to just the ladies classes.


I was wondering if someone has done a cost analysis on this issue.

Considering the costs of trophies and referees, you can figure out how many competitors required so you would not lose money.

I don't compete any more (some say I never was competitive ) but having fewer weight classes would make the championships harder and therefore, the trophies/medals are more deserved.

I looked at the past 5 years (2009 - 2013) and the men's classes typically have 10 classes while women's classes typically have 6.

If we took the men's classes down to 6 (70,80,90,100,110, 110+) and the women's down to 4 (60,70,80,80+), we would eliminate the classes with only 1 or 2 pullers.

Men's Classes (average of past 5 Nationals)
-------------
L 70 has 13
R 70 has 14
L 80 has 13
R 80 has 14
L 90 has 13
R 90 has 14
L 100 has 6
R 100 has 8
L 110 has 5
R 110 has 6
L 110+ has 5
R 110+ has 5

Women's Classes (Average of past 5 Nationals)
---------------
L 60 has 3
R 60 has 4
L 70 has 2
R 70 has 3
L 80 has 3
R 80 has 4
L 80+ has 3
R 80+ has 5


Condensing the existing classes down to the fewer classes might make it worthwhile (cost effective) for the promoter and give more competition to each individual.

One could even argue that removal of 100 kg class (which most non Provincial or non National tourneys already do) would even be better, but I think with an average of 7 pullers per arm, it's worthwhile keeping.

Just an opinion.


The 70 kg class would be the sum of the 60,65 and 70 kg classes.
The 80 kg class would have the 75 kg and 80 kg combined.
The 90 kg class would have the 85 kg and 90 kg combined.
Etc.

The fewer classes would be the result of the classes in between the previous class and including the weight class offered.

[Eric Roussin]

I'm pretty confident in saying that anyone who has every hosted a Nationals has done a lot of number crunching.

In my opinion there are two main problems regarding Nationals that need to be solved: 1) how to make Nationals more appealing to competitors to boost attendance, and to reduce the fixed costs associated with hosting Nationals to make people want to step forward and organize the event.

I see reduced weight classes and triple elimination as changeds that will hopefully make the event more appealing to competitors. While there could be a slight reduction in costs relating to the need for fewer awards, the big issue that needs to be addressed are the fixed costs associated with referees and scorekeepers. Currently this adds up to $5,000 in salary expenses and approximately $5,000 in accommodations.