|
|
Post by chrisgobby on Mar 20, 2014 12:18:21 GMT -5
Looks like you can't keep up with the debate on logic eh Jeff. The ground your standing on is weak, eventually someone was going to kick it.
|
|
|
|
Post by PinArm on Mar 20, 2014 16:18:15 GMT -5
The logic lies in this passage: There are a few reasons for "limiting" (read in the sarcasm) the number of Albertans to participate in Nationals. Firstly, there are not that many sports where your qualification to get to the next level is based solely on participation - or even worse, on paying for your "bye". Quite frankly, it is embarrassing to some to explain to friends that they had to participate at provincials (or pay their dues at least) when asked, "What did you need to do to get to go to Nationals?" Secondly, the payment for byes (e.g. someone must work or doesn't want to travel for provincials) has been an issue discussed at Nationals for a few years - in particular for the discretionary nature of byes granted BY THE PROVINCIAL PRESIDENTS. The Alberta solution to the "bye controversy", announced three years ago at the CAWF AGM and again two years ago at the CAWF AGM, is to make the Alberta provincials a qualifier. We gave three years notice of this - and repeated it. Thirdly, is the prestige of qualifying for Nationals - there should be some. I really think that there should be some prestige to qualifying for Nationals. Needing to place in the top three creates that feeling of accomplishment, like you have earned the privilege to compete at Nationals. Clearly, this point is closely tied to the first point (and even the second point), but the nuance here is that without value placed on the privilege to attend Nationals there is less likelihood that someone will go. If there is prestige in earning the right to go, then it is more likely that someone will go. Look to marketing for an analogy, if a company prices its product at $40 (instead of $20, which may provide a fine margin) it may actually sell more product because it is perceived as being higher quality. Why are we pricing ourselves at free? Ideally, other provinces (or CAWF) follow suit in setting their provincials as qualifiers, which can lead to everyone knowing ahead of time who is likely attending Nationals. Ultimate matchups and eventually tournaments (like the Arnold) can require advance registration, so why not the same for our Nationals? It sure would be nice to know if the promoter needs third-place trophies in all classes. Read more: armwrestling.proboards.com/thread/3832/2014-alberta-provincials-results#ixzz2wXXiUXMe |
|
|
|
Post by PinArm on Mar 20, 2014 16:23:38 GMT -5
Not ludicrous and not the worst vote ever =
Let's CUT the number of classes at Nationals so that more competitors will enter the tournament and the promoter can lose less money.
Cutting out someone's class will make them more likely to attend Nationals?
If you want some faulty logic to address then I give you that suggestion if there is not enough going on in yoiur home provinces to ridicule or correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 20, 2014 16:27:10 GMT -5
My logic isn't weak, but sometimes I get tired and need a break from your hard-hitting journalism. You are like the energizer bunny or the incredible Hulk - you keep going and going! I envy this energy you have Chris!
So you're saying that you'd rather have 5 from every participating province to make say (5 people per province)X(6 provinces)=30 entries per class, than have (3 people per province)x(6 provinces)=18 competitors from each province per class for nationals? To me either has it's good points - your preference would have more income for Nationals from entry fees, and the limited setup would have a constrained amount of athletes who arguably would be the only ones of any hope of placing anyways. The limited way would take less refs and tables to complete in a timely fashion (less resources needed) but less income gained.
Eric's point is the most significant with respect to a qualifier, as if the Nationals is in Alberta, we could have 6 per class wanting to go. I suppose I see what you mean Chris in that World's has to limit numbers for practicality, where as our Nationals does not, since participation is low as of late. Gord's logic to this I think is good; a qualifier places value on the position, so makes it more desirable to attend...this may lend itself to an overall more highly populated nationals; i.e. pretned Nationals is in Alberta, and instead of 6 Albertans, 1 Ontarian, and 1 Saskatchewanite, as might happen with a participation-to-qualify system, you might have 3 Albertans, 2 Sask, 2 Ontarians, and 1 Vancouver person show up due to the perceived prestige of the event. Both cases would have 8 participants, but the second option is obviously superior. What do you think of this Chris, and anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 20, 2014 16:28:20 GMT -5
Funny, did not realize Gord was posting on here as I wrote the above post - we did not plan this, honest!  |
|
|
|
Post by Will Sarty on Mar 20, 2014 16:32:34 GMT -5
It would make sense if you offered all the classes that were goin to be offered at Nationals,
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 20, 2014 17:00:23 GMT -5
Currently Alberta offers open men's classes that match quite well with Nationals classes - our 5lb clothing allowance makes sure of that. The women's does not match well, but I'm satisfied with the women's classes in Alberta as they are in line with our UFC-copy logic, and make more sense for our demographic here - also, the numbers of women pullers are such (not large numbers) that there will be no effect on Nationals participation in the foreseeable future. Hence there is no drawback at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 20, 2014 17:03:38 GMT -5
I'd also like to re-iterate; this tournament was IMO the best Alberta tournament I've ever been to, and it was great for both spectators and pullers as far as I could tell. I'm saying this even though my own armwrestling was pathetic to be perfectly honest, and I felt pretty crappy about that part! I wish all the people that bashed the changes Gord and I have made could have been there - it was special!
Gary MAcDonald called me the next day, and I expected criticism about some of the changes...instead he said "That was the greatest thing he's ever seen...The Game of Arms has nothing on what we (the competitors) did that day" That made my day, and it seemed very heart-felt, but it did not surprise me too much as that was how I felt too!
|
|
|
|
Post by PinArm on Mar 20, 2014 17:05:34 GMT -5
Are you changing your mind, Will? A qualifier made NO SENSE on page one of this thread and now it "would make sense" under a particular circumstance (being that the weight classes are CAWF classes). I kind of agree with that last statement. I was the lone vote against changing the weight classes for CAWF. I voted NO because CAWF is a qualifier for WAF, so CAWF should use WAF classes. I'm not sure who voted for you, but they voted to change to classes for the qualifying tournament to those that are different from the tournament for which it is a qualifier - perhaps you should raise this with them.
Now, as for Alberta's classes, for the open (senior) men, they may be different by a few pounds but are pretty close to CAWF and are the same number. It is very easy to determine who qualifies from Alberta for CAWF. For the women, this is not an issue as there are always far too few women and we collect silver and bronze medals for recycling - and I would not advocate offering all the national women's class at the provincial level. Likewise for masters (which do not require qualification, but perhaps they should as we could offer all the classes).
For those who don't know it, Alberta uses the same classes as the UFC for the open men and women with the exception of a 225 instead of a 265 for the men and there is an unlimited class for both men and women.
|
|
|
|
Post by PinArm on Mar 20, 2014 17:09:33 GMT -5
We need to make threads for the different rules etc. to focus discussion, but I too loved this tournament - my favourite. This is because there were no false starts and not because it was a qualifier. I don't like other armwrestling rules that encourage false starts and elbows leaving the pad. I heard from quite a few in attendance, pullers and otherwise that they really liked the starts and the triple elimination format.
|
|
