|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Jun 30, 2010 15:07:47 GMT -5
With attendance up at most events this year, and the central location of the Provincials, I expect this year's Provincials to have the largest turnout in at least 10 years. It has the makings of an event for everyone: - Masters classes
- Awards down to fifth
- Annual awards
- Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony
- OAA Annual General Meeting
Does anyone have anything they'd like to discuss at the Annual General Meeting? This is an opportunity for new ideas to be discussed and changes can be implemented. If anything is on your mind, I encourage you to contact me or to post your thoughts on the board ahead of time so that preliminary discussions can take place. Possible topics: weight classes, tournaments (types/frequency/locations), entry fees, ideas to help grow the sport, etc... I hope to see all of you in Mississauga on the 10th! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2010 15:50:04 GMT -5
I would like to open up discussion on womens arm wrestling. I wanted to turn my event into a triple elimination for women, to be run throughout the day so they did not have to sit all day and pull twice. We need to keep women involved and this is one complaint I have heard first hand from my daughter. Long day and its over. Yes you can take the tough crap road, or we can honestly make some changes until womens numbers warrant strictly double elim. Nice to hear from some women on this idea or others.
Also want to make Hugh Brodie an Ontarioan!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2010 16:10:06 GMT -5
Sorry Guy, but Quebec legislation is very strict on letting former convicts change residency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hancock on Jun 30, 2010 19:30:39 GMT -5
I would support Guy's idea about triple elimination for the ladies classes. The wait time between pulls is usually far too long in the ladies classes. I would like to bring up the topic of reducing the number of armwrestling regions. The borders need to be re-drawn so every region has a chance to win. I'd also like to say that the O.A.A. financial records have never properly been available for the members inspection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Jun 30, 2010 19:58:27 GMT -5
Triple elimination classes for women at circuit events: Triple elimination reduces the element of chance. Is this an issue to consider? In a double elimination class with five competitors, the winner of the second match is guaranteed to finish in the top 3, whereas in a triple elimination class this is not a guarantee. Do people like the luck factor? I ask because placement in circuit events count towards the various points races.
Armwrestling Regions: I agree that it may be time to redefine these. Does anyone have any proposals? How many regions should there be?
OAA Financial Statements: Although they were not handed out to everyone in 2008 and 2009, I had copies on hand and mentioned that anyone who was interested was welcome to take a copy. I will do the same for these Provincials.
It's great to hear these ideas. Keep them coming!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2010 20:28:26 GMT -5
I feel with womens arm wrestling in mind it is not a matter of points races and such as much as promoting women to WANT to show up to events even if there are only two of them and have the possiblity of pulling more than twice. Just to allow some semblance of change should it be needed. Maybe the ladies disagree and would like me to just worry about me. I dont know. Just voicing a concern I got from Jericho when she was involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Heidebrecht on Jul 1, 2010 0:05:16 GMT -5
I'd like to suggest a change to the way team points are calculated. Instead of putting a cap on the number of competitors per team, why not just limit the number of placings that count towards the team's total at any given tournament. For example, if it were limited to ten placings (either arm) per tournament, that would mean a five person team could potentially max out their points and beat a much larger team. If you lower the number of allowable placings per team even further, teams of 3 or 4 would also become competitive. As a benefit for the larger teams, it becomes un-necessary to restrict the number of their members.
EDIT: After re-reading the rules on the OAA website, I would also suggest getting rid of the automatic 1-point-per-arm-entered, as this also makes it more difficult for the smaller teams to compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Jul 1, 2010 13:11:50 GMT -5
Changes to the team points race may be a good idea, but I wouldn't want any changes to discourage attendance at events. Say in a team of ten, there are three pullers who are more experienced and always place near the top of the standings. If we only count the points for the best three, some of the less experienced pullers may figure "what's the point" and decide not to go to an event if they won't be contributing to the team score. The one point per arm at least assures all team members who attend a circuit event will be contributing to the team total. I also see the team race as a way to hopefully encourage teams to try to grow and add new members. Would a change such as this one affect a groups' interest in adding more members? Maybe not, but it's something to consider.
I think taking the top 5 placings may be a good compromise with unlimited team members, but award one point for each team member who pulls the tournament (as opposed to one point per arm).
What doo you think?
Does anyone else have opinions on this?
I hope the reasoning behind these proposed changes to the team and region points races is not based on trying to avoid Teeswater Thunder form always winning. That team does a great job of adding new members and getting people out to events. They have a mix of new and experienced pullers. Their efforts should be rewarded and they are a great example for other teams. Instead of changing rules to level the playing field, interested teams should be trying harder to compete with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Heidebrecht on Jul 1, 2010 15:58:07 GMT -5
Eric, just so there's no misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with Teeswater or any other club. I think one of the reasons that Teeswater does so well is that they show up for everything, for which they should be commended.
I just don't think a teams chances of winning should be based on the number of members. Under the current system, what chance do 3 or 4 guys really have, even if they all take first, against a 10 man team?
I don't think taking a teams best five results would be considered "handicapping" them, and they would no longer have to turn anybody away from officially being part of the team. At the same time, the smaller teams are then competitive and can take a more serious interest in the team points race. Looking at the current team rosters, I think any team could do well in the points race if they are dedicated to attending circuit tournaments.
I would agree with taking the top 5 placings (total, either arm) and unlimited team membership, but I still think awarding points for entries makes it harder for smaller teams. This creates a 5 or 6 point lead (or greater, with unlimited membership) for the larger teams right off the bat.
This is only my opinion, and I would also like to know what other people think about this. Does anybody think that not awarding team points for entries would lower participation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Furness on Jul 1, 2010 19:10:21 GMT -5
Rick your free to your opinion but most of turnies Teeswater goes to we have 6 at the most sher we have a big team but we dont come out with full force ...........ect...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2010 19:18:03 GMT -5
Personally I like what both Rick and our prez are discussing. Has nothing to do with teams in particular but nothing gets better without change. Great discussion so far gentlemen. Great ideas!! Teasewater is still #1. Until unseated Al and the boys are definitely active!!! Great job!!! We are trying, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hancock on Jul 2, 2010 17:39:16 GMT -5
TEAM POINTS - I vote for keeping the current points system in place. My only suggestion is refs, scorekeepers and tournament directors receive a point for their efforts as well. I think changing the rules so that small teams can be more competitive is just wrong. People that pull the tournaments should be rewarded with a point. If the small teams want to be competitive they should recruit new members or atleast sign-up some experienced pullers. Anyone can join any team, there are no restrictions.
REGIONS - Divide the province into four regions: North (LaFountaine Locked and Loaded, and anything north of Barrie, ON), South (London, Hamilton, Cambridge, St. Catharines and The Durham arm Machine), East ( Ottawa, Buckhorn and Bellville), West (Teeswater, Havoc, Mapleton Madness and Collingwood). You could also consider dividing into five regions adding a central region that would include Collingwood, The Durham arm Machine and Cambridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Jul 3, 2010 23:12:02 GMT -5
I think more formal boundaries should be used for the regions -- ideally census divisions. What do you think of three regions? Is three enough? I was thinking possibly 1- Northern and Eastern Ontario, 2-Central Ontario, 3-Southern and Western Ontario. Northern and Eastern Ontario would include the following teams: Timmins, Sudbury, Ottawa, Belleville Specifically, the following census divisions would be included: • Ottawa • Frontenac • Hastings • Lanark • Leeds and Grenville • Lennox and Addington • Prescott and Russell • Prince Edward • Renfrew • Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry • Manitoulin • Parry Sound • Nipissing • Algoma • Sudbury • Greater Sudbury • Timiskaming • Cochrane • Thunder Bay • Kenora • Rainy River • Muskoka • Haliburton Central Ontario would included the following teams: Collingwood, Lafontaine, Buckhorn, Durham Specifically, the following census divisions would be included: • Kawartha Lakes • Northumberland • Peterborough • Durham • Halton • Peel • York • Toronto • Simcoe • Dufferin Southern and Western Ontario would include the following teams: Teeswater, London, Hamilton, Cambridge, St. Catharines, Havoc, Mapleton Specifically, the following census divisions would be included: • Huron • Perth • Bruce • Grey • Waterloo • Wellington • Niagara • Hamilton • Essex • Chatham-Kent • Lambton • Elgin • Middlesex • Oxford • Brant • Norfolk • Haldimand Anyone interested in seeing how this looks on a map can check out this page and work it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_divisions_of_OntarioThoughts? If anyone would like to propose different regions based on these census divisions, I'd be interested in hearing them. |
|
|
|
Post by Daylan Thomas on Jul 4, 2010 8:09:52 GMT -5
I would like to talk about ways to get armwrestling on tv with the main goal of putting armwrestling in the bright lights so much that we can make a real push to get armwrestling in the Olympics. I for one would love to see armwrestling get the respect that it really for the future of this sport needs. We can have all the greatest tournaments we want to but until are sport is a recognized and respected sport nobody other then us armwrestlers get to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Jul 5, 2010 11:05:58 GMT -5
I encourage discussions surrounding this on the message board or in a different setting, but the AGM is not the best forum for it. The topic is much too broad in scope. The AGM only lasts one hour and there is a lot to get through. However, if there is a specific action that someone would like to propose that can be quickly described and voted on, please let me know.
|
|
