a motion for provincials

[Rob Hancock]

I would like to make a motion to standardize all provincial prizes at our provincial championship. The current prizes for open mens, ladies and masters classes are up to the tournament directors. I would like to see this issue discussed at this years annual meeting. Last year I paid $30 to enter the masters class (the same amount as the open classes) but got the same cheap medal that the kids got for their $5 entry! Every tournament director has a different idea about trophies. Over the years I've seen men's open, ladies, masters and kids classes all have different size prizes at the same tournament. I think if you pay the same entry and your class is available at the nationals you should receive the same trophy. Maybe a dollar value should be set for provincial prizes? I've always believed the OAA should run (or atleast sponsor) our provincial championships. The OAA currently sponsors most big money tournaments, so why not sponsor our own championship? What does everyone else think?

[Eric Roussin]

Interesting points. Here are my thoughts:

For the type of prizes offered at Provincials, I prefer to leave this to the tournament director's discretion. I like variety, plus setting a minimum budget for prizes could be unfair to tournament directors who live at an extremity of a province. For example, a Provincials held in Peterborough, due to its central location, could reasonably expect to get a bigger turnout than a Provincials held in Windsor, and could therefore afford to give out bigger prizes. However, I do understand the frustration of getting a smaller prize when you pay the same entry fee as everyone else. I can say that I've offered smaller/less prizes for women's and master's classes in the past, while charging the same entry fee. My reasoning was based on expected turnout for particular classes. For example, at the 2009 Provincials, I gave out trophies to the top 5 in the open classes, but only top 3 in the masters and women's classes. I also think the trophies were slightly smaller. I felt justified in giving more to a class than was reasonably expected to have 10 entries than to a class where I wasn't sure if I would get 3 entries. I'm not saying the decision was right, but that was my thought process. I'm also curious about what others think of this issue.

Regarding OAA Provincials sponsorship, as I've said in the past, sponsorship decisions have been based primarily on costs to run the event. It is relatively easy for a tournament director to put on a Provincial Championship without losing money. Of course, it depends on how much is spent on awards, the venue, etc., but these decisions are within the tournament director's control. Compare this to a National Championship, which costs upwards of $10,000 just for referee and scorekeeper salaries and accommodations. The total event cost is not in the same ballpark. Also, I don't know of any tournament director who has lost money when putting on a Provincials, but I know several who have lost money putting on a pro cash tournament or a National Championship. If it became cost prohibitive to run a Provincials, as is the current case for Nationals (and why there still aren't any bids for the 2014 Nationals), then I could see the need to review how sponsorship decisions are made, but this isn't the case right now.

There should probably also be a discussion at the AGM surrounding Masters classes at Provincials. Though they've been offered since 2009, they've never been mandatory. If there is support for making them mandatory, then I would suggest 176/220/221+ as the mandatory classes, with tournament directors having the discretion to offer additional classes if they want.

[Dave McEwen]

you will more particapents if the 154 class is added because at 176 it has been dominated for 10 years by one person and no one will enter. joe dicussed this and added the class this year.and that might give older pullers an incentive to go to the nationals

[Eric Roussin]

If no one enters the 176 class because Crazy Geoge is in it, then that's pretty sad. Do you only compete if you think you have a good shot at taking first place? If everyone thought this way, the sport would die...

[Dave McEwen]

no eric too much weight differencs . if you dont want to hear the truth don't ask for input.that's why for years almost no one entered 176 masters.just ask other wrestlers

[Eric Roussin]

This may be your version of the truth, but it's not everyone's:

• Since Masters classes started being offered at Provincials in 2009, the 0-176 class has averaged more entries than the 177-220 class, and almost as many as the 221+ class (right arm).
  
  
• Looking at the right arm Masters class results from Nationals dating back to 2004, the 176 class has averaged more entries than the 154, 220, and 221+ classes and has averaged almost as many entries as the 198 class.
  

Not wanting to give up too much weight is understandable, but this is different than what you wrote in your previous post where you said no one is willing to pull the class because there's a dominant puller in it.

I support torunament directors' decisions of adding additional masters classes if they want, but I don't think I would support making more than three masters weight classes mandatory. The numbers just aren't there (yet).

[Dave McEwen]

i guess i should of clairified the feeling was given by 154 pullers it was pointless to compete in a 0 to 176 pound class ,therefor you are getting alot less turnout as a result of too much weight difference in this lighter class ,and no choice was give as you state from the 2009 inclusion of the masters classes. your talking about a promoters risk of 12$ in prizes to offer the class, EG MGC only gives medallions , so in this case i would rather see a class offered then not. To lower prize costs a nice printed achivement certificate could be given . it's not alway's about getting a piece of iron , sometimes a displayable record of particapation is fine , what doe's one get when they graduate school ?