Proposed Qualifying Distances MWC

swollenknuck wrote: ...why not go with the LWFD, Light Hammer and Open Stone as they are universally contested at all Highland Games whereas the Heavy Hammer and Braemar are often dropped from the rotation at lots of games.  That also would allow those that have turned 40 during the offseason to still have qualifying marks in all three events....

l agree!  lt does seem to be a better solution.

So-

Teresa-

Make it an invite.

C. Smith wrote: S McCracken wrote:   If your going to go that far why not post 8 all events? Make each age group have to hit 50-60% of the numbers to qualify.   This is exactly how the Pro National Championship Rankings started 13 years ago.  We started with a few of the events and then expanded to all of them.   If people want the possibility to compete at a "championship" game then they will find games that give the opportunity to get marks in each category.  Also, games may expand their current number of events to accommodate such qualifiers.   Worked great for the Pros, can't see why it wouldn't work great for the masters.

I think the idea of qualifying marks is fantastic, honestly. I think Craig's expansion isn't bad but you run the risk of a guy qualifying on two stones, two weights and bombing both hammers.

Run the numbers in 2016 based off what you have now, Kev. Tweak over time.

Quick semi-related story: Our WOB standards start at 10'. It's literally the lowest they go. First year we put them up, a lot of guys bitched and missed the opening height. The next year? Pretty much all of them made 10'.

So for any guys who don't qualify right now, don't think of this as a wall. Think of it as a target.

If worried about concentration in an event, why not qualify on one stone, one hammer, one weight.... does not matter weather heavy or light

fairness usually implies complexity

I am glad to see the proposal for qualifying scores for MWC.  It is a World Championships, after all. 

I have a concern with using HWFD as a score requirement for qualification since the weight thrown for this event varies between competitions for Masters Women's classes.  Women's 40-44 category that typically throws a 21# weight in Masters Women's Class competitions in my area, but throw a 28# in other areas.  The LWFD is the same weight across all women's classes and may be a more fair assessment score for weights.

I think a registration period with score requirements is needed and a wait list can be created for those that are outside the requirements.  It seems to me that the easiest way to rank a wait list is by having the applicants post the 3 individual required scores and a total combined score of those three distances.  If it becomes necessary to fill the classes, do this from the wait list in rank order.  This also allows someone who is a bit short on one event but very strong in the other two to help fill the class if spaces are needed to be filled and fills competition with the most qualified athletes.

Rachel

Hey-