Topics for Discussion at OAA AGM

[Jeff Kaye]

Lmao!!! For sure Mike, I was thinking a Brazilian would do the trick lol

[Ashley Maher]

Apr 29, 2012 11:54:16 GMT -5 Mikel Gould said:

I know its difficult but id like to see 4 or 5 solid youth brackets that we use at all events. A lot of promoters are starting to run kids classes now and there always all over the place. I know it varies on participation but if we offer the same standard classes at all events it would be easier to promote and as a result the classes would be filled.

I think that is a great idea Mike! I think the same should go for women's classes as well. I know that a lot of people get discouraged and drop out of the sport, if they feel that there is no place for them.

Since the attendance for the women's classes have been very low, the promoter could offer more than one class with no trophies, so they are not out of pocket. 0-132, 133-154 and Open. If enough girls showed up in the same class they could just split up the entry fees into 1st 2nd and 3rd. Say the entry was $25, 1st could get $40, second $20 and third $10.

Thanks
Ashley

[Eric Roussin]

Okay, let’s try to get some discussion going on these two topics prior to the AGM:


Kids Classes

Right now youth classes are offered at the tournament directors’ discretion. I feel there are certain venues where youth classes are a better fit: fairs, festivals, carnivals, etc. I think kids classes work best in outdoor settings where the kids can run around and do other things when they are not competing. (This is probably more a factor for younger kids than teenagers.) I think offering them at Provincials and Nationals is great as well.

If youth classes were to become mandatory, I think this could only be imposed on the five circuit sanctioned events. These events already have a built- in base attendance. I don’t think it would be fair to impose this requirement on the non-circuit events. However, with the five circuit sanctioned events all being held in restaurants/bars, would the number of children attending these events be high enough to warrant the classes?

Then comes the issue of how to define the classes. By age? Weight? A combination of the two? Past experience shows that there doesn’t seem to be a perfect solution. But I agree with Mike’s point that regardless of the system used, if it is the same for all events at least the parents would know ahead of time and could then decide if they want to allow their kids to compete.

What would be a fair standard entry fee for youth classes? 5$? 10$?


Extra Women's Classes

I agree that additional women’s classes could make competing more appealing to competitors -- especially first timers. I think two classes (0-143 and 144+) would do the trick for now, though, as opposed to three classes, because there just aren’t very many women armwrestlers in the province. If we went to two classes and attendance rose as a result, then moving to three could be discussed in the future.

I like Ashley’s concern of trying to minimize the extra cost to promoters. Ashley, are you suggesting eliminating the awards altogether, and replacing them with a division of entry fees? Or are you suggesting one set of awards (for say the 144+ class), and doing the division of entry fees for a 0-143 class if there are enough competitors?



IMPORTANT NOTE: There is only a very limited amount of time at the General Meeting to discuss motions and put them to a vote. I therefore strongly encourage those with opinions on these subjects to share their thoughts on the board this week, so that details can be ironed out as much as possible beforehand.

I am particularly interested in hearing the opinions of those who would be directly affected by these decisions: the women of the sport, parents of kids would potentially compete, and circuit sanctioned tournament promoters.

[Ashley Maher]

Promoting the growth of the sport should be on every ones mind because we all want high numbers in our class to make it worth our while to travel.

For the kids:
If we were to standardize classes I would say make it simple: 0-75, 76-100, 100-140 and OPEN
Maybe the O.A.A. or some one else could buy generic medallions in bulk and sell them to each circuit event, with a money back guarantee if not used. (I could take care of getting the medallions).
The medallions would cost about $3-$4 each so the entry fee could be set at $5.
I like the idea of standardizing kids categories because the sport is forever growing into a more organized event and it is important to show consistency.

For Women:
Since the open class for women is already offered, I would say give them awards that are consistent with the men's awards.

Any additional classes offer the entry fee back.
I also like the split at 0-132 133-143 and open for 3 reasons.
1- I weigh 121lbs
2- If there was 3 classes I would be able to pull in 3 classes, and I would pull in 3 classes.
3- there is no additional cost to the promoter, just an extra line on the flyer. If there were no women you wouldn't run the class. Since there are no awards you could change the categories to what ever you want on the day of the event to accommodate the women that did show up, ie: 0-160 and OPEN

Thanks

Ashley

[Hugh Brodie]

How about giving kids free entry if they (or more likely, a parent) enters the "regular" tournament?

[Eric Roussin]

I think that's the equivalent of making the kids classes free, because I expect very few kids will compete in circuit events if their parents aren't competing. However, I do think this could work in a fair/festival type setting.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with free kids classes, but the tournament director does incur a certain cost in providing awards and this should be covered in some way.

[Maksim Khodau]

A couple of things...
KIDS/YOUTH: This is the first time I am offering the Youth classes at the event I direct... Joe Gould offered them at the last year's Provincials, and I believe the attendance was marginally good. I chose to follow the divisions offered at last year's Provincials to see how the classes get filled in. I think there is not yet enough history of youth competition in Ontario in order to make a clear judgement which classes to offer or to make it mandatory for youth to compete at other sanctioned events. However, I firmly believe that getting youth involved into the sport by offering such division is great for the sport. I also think $5.00 entry fee is an equivalent of a free entry: promoter will basically break even on medals if all of the classes are filled at least to top three each arm.
WOMEN: I agree with Eric, that the two classes currently being offered at most events seem to be sufficient based on the amount of entries promoters get. Should the attendance warrant the need to additional classes (which would be great!), this can always be addressed as the need occurs.

[Eric Roussin]

What does everyone think of the idea of adding novice classes to the five circuit sanctioned events? For example, what if the novice classes that Guy offers at his event (right and left 0-176 and 177+) were offered? Entry fees would be slightly lower than for the open classes, and prizes could be smaller as well. Would people be interested in seeing these classes added?

[John Milne]

Lower entry fees? No

Do you mean these classes are mandatory for circuit events? If so then No, I do not agree with this either.

[Deleted]

I agree with John. Certain sanctioned events have small classes (less than 5 pullers) throwing a novice class can only detract from the open class. Adding an amateur class to a "pro" event is logical. But in this case it seems like its an attempt to water down an event in order to cater to all levels. Not a terrible thing.. But adding to the possible overhead of the promoter can be a risky proposition....

But what do I know. I'm from Quebec, and was born with only one testicle.

[Rick Heidebrecht]

I like the idea of standardized classes for kids, but ultimately I think it's best left to the promoter to use their discretion and arrange classes based on attendance the day of. First, it's really a judgement call, because you need to consider both weight and age. Where would you put a 180 lb twelve-year-old? In a 150 lbs+ class or in a group of 11-13 year-olds? To be really fair, should there be two weight classes for each age group? I don't think attendance would warrant that, except for maybe at Nationals. Second, kids aren't going to try to make weight the way the adults are, so publishing the classes ahead of time becomes less important to the competitor.

With the huge variation in weight and age of the youth competitors, and not having nearly a large enough group to ensure that any particular class will have at least a couple of entries, I think it all comes down to the promoter using their judgement to ensure all the kids have somebody close to their level to pull, so everybody has fun...

[Deleted]

Personally I dont like the word Mandatory, guidlines for the "possibility", could be set, but as stated above it is expensive enough to put on a tournament without adding to the cost because of Mandatory categories. I still like the medallion idea if even for these additional classes to keep costs down. If we overburden the promoters with all these classes, and they end up taking home left over trophies/medallions, what is the incentive to put on another event.
We have been fortunate with our Peterborough event that we have gotten alot of local support, but not everyone may get that. Plus you are playing the "who is truly Novice game with people who attend. We had a couple last year that should not have been there.

[Joey Costello]

May 1, 2012 19:08:57 GMT -5 Maksim Khodau said:

WOMEN: I agree with Eric, that the two classes currently being offered at most events seem to be sufficient based on the amount of entries promoters get. Should the attendance warrant the need to additional classes (which would be great!), this can always be addressed as the need occurs.

Well Maksim I'm under a different impression that if you don't offer a class you will have a harder time getting people in that class.
ie: Men's class used to be 0-132 at sanction events, then it went to 143 and now 154.. It doesn't mean that there are no small guys out there it just means that a couple of tourneys had bad turnouts so the class was dumped to save money. This is the same with the women.. I don't think you will get many women in the sport unless you offer a class for them.

If I'm awarded the provincials I will be offering more classes all around, because I thing it is the best way to get more people involved in the sport.

[Deleted]

Joey is right. If u added a 0-132 men's class and a 0-121 women's class to ALL sanctioned events. The promoter would EASILY get 8-10 entries in each of those classes. It's only logical.

Recent history shows us that 132lb men & 121 lb aw ers are out there o plenty. There mearly waiting for their classes to be offered so they may come out of the wood work to support and enjoy the sport they re so passionate about.

[Mikel Gould]

i Cant realy say about the 132 mens class but a 121 womens could be a possibility. I know are female numbers are down. If we offered that class tomoro i dont think it would be full but moving forward and trying to encourage new girls it would be benificial to see a third class. Try getting a new male puller out wieghing say 160 and try encouraging him to compete in the heavies. Its a tuff sale.