|
|
Post by Linda deGroot on May 2, 2012 12:23:24 GMT -5
KIDS
I think kids classes should have set weight classes when offered. Kids classes should be optional not mandatory. Arranging the classes the day of the event is a very poor way of doing it. Weight classes are to protect the small from the big. Our son Zane is 11 years old and pulled an older kid that was about 100lbs heavier at the MGC. When our kids pulled nationals last year we didn't know what the classes were until they started the tournament. This was the most unprofessional thing I've ever seen. These are the things that happen when the classes are arranged based on entries.
WOMENS
I think the 0-143, 144lbs and over classes should be mandatory at all circuit events. If you don't offer a lightweight class you'll never attract lightweight women. I'm not interested in pulling heavier classes even if offered. Arranging the classes should never be done the day of an event. I can't tell you how many times I've driven over 400 km's to pull an event because it offered a lightweight class only to be told "we're combining the classes into one open class because entries are poor". I've actually had this same discussion at the provincial championships after making the weight and paying my entry fee! I pay the same entry fees as the men so I should get the same trophies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on May 2, 2012 13:48:19 GMT -5
I agree with Rick in that arranging kids classes based on participation will generally result in the best possible combinations. I also think being too rigid with either age or weight classes will create unfairness. Dividing classes just by age will result in smaller than average kids being disadvantaged and bigger than average kids advantaged. Dividing classes just by weight flips this with smaller kids (in relation to age) getting the advantage and bigger kids (in relation to age) being disadvantaged. However, if I had to choose one over the other, I would divide by age categories.
At Nationals, I wanted to try to create the best classes possible for the kids division. Did the categories please everyone? No. But along with the negative feedback, I received a lot of positive feedback as well. The classes were not announced before the tournament start, because there was very little time between when registrations ended and the time when the tournament had to start. I only had a short period of time to sort through all of the registrations to try to create the best categories I could. I have a hard time believing that this was the “most unprofessional thing you’ve ever seen”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Manjin on May 2, 2012 16:33:31 GMT -5
I agree with Rick in that arranging kids classes based on participation will generally result in the best possible combinations. I also think being too rigid with either age or weight classes will create unfairness. Dividing classes just by age will result in smaller than average kids being disadvantaged and bigger than average kids advantaged. Dividing classes just by weight flips this with smaller kids (in relation to age) getting the advantage and bigger kids (in relation to age) being disadvantaged. However, if I had to choose one over the other, I would divide by age categories. At Nationals, I wanted to try to create the best classes possible for the kids division. Did the categories please everyone? No. But along with the negative feedback, I received a lot of positive feedback as well. The classes were not announced before the tournament start, because there was very little time between when registrations ended and the time when the tournament had to start. I only had a short period of time to sort through all of the registrations to try to create the best categories I could. I have a hard time believing that this was the “most unprofessional thing you’ve ever seen”. Agreed. Also have to agree with Gobby's extremely sarcastic post. Joey, do you really think that offering classes below 154 is feasible? Or offering more weight categories for the women? I think the 143lb break is good and if there isn't at least 3 per class...combine them. I have been to some small tourney's where some of the men's classes get combined which was a good way to get some pulling in. I just love bringing home a second place trophie when there was only 2 in the class  |
|
|
|
Post by Joey Costello on May 2, 2012 19:25:38 GMT -5
[quoteAgreed. Also have to agree with Gobby's extremely sarcastic post. Joey, do you really think that offering classes below 154 is feasible? Or offering more weight categories for the women? I think the 143lb break is good and if there isn't at least 3 per class...combine them. I have been to some small tourney's where some of the men's classes get combined which was a good way to get some pulling in. I just love bringing home a second place trophie when there was only 2 in the class [/quote] Below 154 is not feasible, I don't know where you got that from. More classes for women yes. 0-132, 133-154, OPEN I agree that there aren't alot of women competing, but at no expense to the promoter the categories could be offered, and if the women don't show up I agree to combine them. This is a list of women that are or could be under 132lbs At one time women in Ontario were the best in the world. I don't know why you guys have to be so sarcastic I would rather have a normal discussion if possible. Lynda D Ashley M Lori L Rene B Tanya M Barb Z Shawna D Brook S Cheryl Scribner Amanda Steele Maria Washburn Heidi Lorenz Mellisa Boher |
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on May 2, 2012 20:48:28 GMT -5
So if I understand correctly, the proposal is that the circuit tournaments would continue to officially hold one open women's class per arm, with the same awards as the men's classes, and the following stipulation would be made:
"Additional women's weight classes (0-132 lbs, 133-154 lbs) will be offered if warranted by participation (i.e. at least three competitors in a specified class). These classes would not have awards, but rather the entry fees will be redistributed among the top three finishers: 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third."
What I wouldn't want to see happen, though, is if there are five women who show up, and only one weighs over 154. Then conceivably the lighter pullers could pull in a lower weight class and the heavier puller wouldn't have anyone to compete against. Would we require all pullers to pull in the open class, if they want to also pull in a lighter class?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikel Gould on May 3, 2012 5:19:29 GMT -5
I dont relly understand the sarcasim on this thread as well. Only a conversation to try and beter the numbers.
Im not so sure on the wieght classes your choosing. I would almost rather see a 0-125, 125-145, and over. And as mentioned warrented by participation But the classes would have to be posted and advertised on the flyer. I dont believe in any way that the additional class can hurt the event.
As for the kids I totaly agree, And as i stated in my 1st post that the classes should be arranged ahead. I like the classes offered at the provincials. If we offer standerd wieght classes The kids will be put in fair brackets and everyone knows where there kids will be pulling. There is gradualy more events holding the youth classes all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hancock on May 3, 2012 12:47:13 GMT -5
KIDS
Kids classes should be optional, not forced on tournament directors. My kids will only be participating if the classes are listed ahead of time and strictly adhered to regardless of entries!
WOMENS
Light and heavy should be mandatory at all circuits with the dividing line being 143lbs. Entries do not support three classes at this time.
NOVICE
No novice classes should be offered, there were no novice and very few amateur classes offered when I started. Any tournament directors that offer novice classes should do so at their own expense.
PAID ENTRIES TO NATIONALS
I think the OAA should stop taking money from their supporters to pay the winners to attend nationals.
Eric, I think you're doing the best job the OAA has ever seen but you seem to have changed your mind regarding the kids classes? Earlier in this thread you were in favour of listing the kids classes ahead of time, and now you agree with Rick Heidebrecht saying they should be arranged the day of the event? I'm sick and tired of listening to people who don't attend tournaments complain about changing things. Two years ago Rick complained about how the team points were calculated so the OAA changed way the points were calculated. The Golden Horseshoe team barely showed up to any tournaments and earned very few points ever since! Team Thunder had representation at every event, earned lots of points and still won team of the year. The OAA needs to listen to the people that actually support the tournaments, not the people that come out once or twice a year. This is also why I'm against the OAA taking money from the supporters and paying the winners expenses to nationals. eg. If a pro like Troy Eaton competes this weekend and wins two classes he would leave with more money than he paid out. He would pay $30 for an OAA membership and $60 in entries=$90 total. If he wins both classes he enters he would get two entries paid at nationals=$100. If he only pulls one OAA tournament a year that is a poor investment. If an average puller attends every tournament in Ontario but misses two circuits, places second in every class, this OAA supporter would receive no $ from the OAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Heidebrecht on May 3, 2012 14:42:46 GMT -5
Rob, I didn't complain to anybody, and the executive didn't just go change things. I brought up several ideas to Eric, ahead of the AGM, and it was put to a vote. It was passed by OAA members.
As for Golden Horseshoe's attendance at tournaments, we are in fact a small team, so if a couple of members can't make it due to work or injury (which has frequently come up, particularly work), we may appear under-represented. It is not due to laziness or apathy.
I don't know what the issue is with the kids classes. Can we not trust that the promoter is doing their best to make it as fair as possible? For the last two years at the MGC, my boy Simon was the youngest kid there (last year he was 4-and-a-half, and I believe the next kid up was nearly 6), but I'm glad that he had other kids in his class to pull (even though he lost) instead of just going home with two first-place medals for the under 5 years age group.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on May 3, 2012 15:30:08 GMT -5
Regarding kids classes, my preference is, and has always been, to arrange them based on participation. What I tried to say earlier in this thread is that I agree that by posting specific classes, it will help parents decide whether or not they want to bring their kids. For instance if specific weight classes are listed, and you like kids classes divided by weight, you’ll probably decide to bring them. However, if your kid is bigger than average for his/her age and it would mean he/she would have to compete with kids who are five years older, you would probably decide not to bring them. I do not think posted classes will ensure the best balanced competition.
I don’t think we have the numbers just yet to make two women’s weight classes mandatory at circuit events, but I think something can maybe be done along the lines of what Ashley described. Participation in the women’s classes can be hit and miss, depending on the area. In the eastern part of the province, they are very few women who compete.
Offering amateur or novice classes would certainly be done at the tournament director’s expense. I think there is a room for them at certain events, but the message I seem to be receiving is that most do not think they should be mandatory for circuit tournaments.
Yes, the first place winners of the Provincial Championships will earn free entries to Nationals. But many more people have earned free entries to Nationals simply by attending four or five circuit tournaments this year. These people also earned entries to the Provincial Championships. So we’re trying to reward those who put in the effort to support the OAA by attending several events, and we’re also doing a bit to try to send our best athletes to represent Ontario at Nationals.
I do try to solicit ideas from OAA members, but only a handful of them express their thoughts. As Rick mentioned, he has suggested some ideas in the past, which were then discussed and voted on. When we came up with the puller incentives for this year, they were posted on the board and I asked what people thought of them. The majority of the feedback was positive, so we decided to proceed with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikel Gould on May 3, 2012 16:10:54 GMT -5
If a competitor is good enough to not pull all year and show up and win then so be it. To travel to the nationals this year is easily 1500. In our own province its easily 1000 so to give the winners entry fee is just a pat on the back for a job well done. All are incentives are great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Manjin on May 3, 2012 16:20:15 GMT -5
My sarcasm was mearly a short sentence way to make a point. Joey , sorry I am misunderstanding your post. It still sounds like the first chance you get there will be at least a men's 143lb class offered at the next tournament you host.
Also, for my "point", If you don't combine the women's classes if entries are low you will get alot of trophies like "second place" or "last", being the same thing. Linda and Ashley are lightweight pullers, that seem to have a difference in opinion. I like Ashley's "women's" layout but Linda is saying she does not, and if it costs the same, then the awards should be the same is Linda's opinion and she is very active puller. She also appears to not like combining the classes, which does put the lighter women at a disadvantage.But if the system could run like Ashley's idea I think offering more women's classes would make alot of sense for sure and work for the promoter. I have not been active myself lately but I have put on at least one small tournament every year for the last 12 years and have experimented with a few ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Manjin on May 3, 2012 16:24:08 GMT -5
I am going to try Ashley's women's idea at my next tournament locally |
|
|
|
Post by Joey Costello on May 3, 2012 18:02:34 GMT -5
So if I understand correctly, the proposal is that the circuit tournaments would continue to officially hold one open women's class per arm, with the same awards as the men's classes, and the following stipulation would be made: "Additional women's weight classes (0-132 lbs, 133-154 lbs) will be offered if warranted by participation (i.e. at least three competitors in a specified class). These classes would not have awards, but rather the entry fees will be redistributed among the top three finishers: 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third." What I wouldn't want to see happen, though, is if there are five women who show up, and only one weighs over 154. Then conceivably the lighter pullers could pull in a lower weight class and the heavier puller wouldn't have anyone to compete against. Would we require all pullers to pull in the open class, if they want to also pull in a lighter class? Not quite what I meant: "(0-132 lbs, 133-154 lbs) will be offered if warranted by participation " Not if warranted, but every circuit flyer will offer the classes. and if no one shows up nothing is lost, but if women start to see classes near thier weight they may be inclined to show up. The question of whether 4 girls will have to pull up if there is only 1 girl in the open, has the same result as if there is only 1 girl in the lower classes, and that is that the smaller girls have to move up. I'm against this because in the mens class not to long ago there was a decline in the heavy weight class, but no one would consider moving the men from the class below up into the heavy class. On the other hand, if the OAA was to have 3 classes at all circuits then a compromise by the women would be to show up or shut up. No offense to anyone... Ashley has commited herself to compete in all right hand classes that are offered, so that means that you would only need 2 other girls in each class to host the categorie. I'm away for the weekend but I look forward to a good AGM. Thanks Joey |
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on May 3, 2012 18:38:52 GMT -5
A referee should be compensated for his/her driving expenses.
A dollar amount could be agreed upon per kilometer to be fair to everyone. I rarely ref anymore but when I did ref quite a bit I found that I was often out of pocket just to go and ref. Not only that I get to listen to all the complaining and bullshit for my cost.
I could be wrong but I don't think there is a set amount for a ref's daily pay. This should be made mandatory (as well as mileage IMO).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on May 3, 2012 19:41:05 GMT -5
Joey -- I meant to say what you are saying. All circuit tournaments would advertise an additional class (classes), but they would only be run if enough pullers show up (minimum three?). There is a difference between if there is a single lightweight puller or if there is a single heavyweight puller. The single lightweight competitor would at least have the option to pull up, but the heavyweight puller doesn't have the option to pull down. This is the situation I'd like to find a way to avoid.
For referees fees, is there a need for an established set fee for compensation? Couldn't each referee set their own compensation expectations in advance? For instance: "I'll ref, but it's a ways for me to get there so I would want X amount", and then the promoter can decide if they want to use that referee or not. Or would a set fee just be better to avoid having awkward conversations? If I run an event in Ottawa, I understand that a referee coming from Toronto could expect more compensation than a local referee.
Thanks for all of the feedback everyone.
|
|
