Lightweight Division

Be it that I am new to this sport, hopefully someone can help me out.

What is the weight specifications for Lightweight, <190 or <200? I know it's only 10 pounds but to some, 10 pounds could be the difference between a 50' throw and a 52' throw, which could be the difference in 1st or 2nd. I checked the NASGA rules and found nothing on lightweight anything. Also for the "Lightweight Championship", should <200 results be included in determining who makes the list in with the <190's? I understand that some will find this petty and not worth the time of discussion, but how can we expect to be considered a legit sport if we can't even agree on the weight of certain division. No other sport that I know of has two weights for a division.

Also, for the "Championships", shouldn't there be only ONE championship? A <200 and a <190, really! I have been reading some topics and posts lately and seem to be multiple championships, not just for the lightweights. Are there two World Series, Superbowls, no. Okay, this is an amateur sport, most are not making any money in this sport, if any. Most people including myself don't have the money to fly across the U.S. to go numerous games.

Like I said, this is my first year competing in this wonderful sport. If there is a set of regulations, or rules that would explain this, can someone point me in the right direction.

I don't want to step on anyone's toes or ruffle feather's, but I think we, not just as competitors, but as ambassadors of this sport need to figure this out. What would you think if you were on the outside asked a competitor and his response was "oh yeah, the lightweights are under 190 pounds, but if you go out east or west they are under 200. They are bigger lightweights out there".

Questions, comments?

I think the best thing to do is ask whomever is hosting the specific games which they follow. some go with under 200, some under 190.

If it has always been 190 then changing it to 200 seems unpractical to say the least.  All records and titles would void.  There would have to be a new set. This flirts with the WOB stand vs. spin issue.  It kind of became a different event.  Even then that still had the argument of "technique evolution".  Changing the weight class would be more akin to changing the 28 WFD to the 25 WFD.  Whatever record or title that was set with the 28 could not really be compared to the new 25 record or title...  That's not evolution, improvement or a different technique, that's just a different event completely.

Sigh...  I don't see why this has any debate or issue any longer? The division was created by Greg Bradshaw and the RMSA to give the MANY lighter throwers a chance to compete among fellows that will NEVER weigh anywhere near what it takes to be a top A or whatever. Mark Howe at his best was THE exception to the rule.

brandell wrote: Sigh...  I don't see why this has any debate or issue any longer

("Which is BS imo.  

I've always argued that the lower weight lifter should get both records in that case.  But I digress...")

Agreed!!!  this isn't weight lifting!!!

I was not saying that.  I was simply talking about your powerlifting example.

Using your example, IN POWERLIFITNG, I feel the 165lb'r should own both the 165 and 181 record. 

(and ftr, with regard to highland games, I feel that there should only be one set of records, but I understand I'm in the minority there.  I just think calling a lightweight or masters record a "world" record is disingenuous, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)

No cause there isn't a weight divison,  it's A and B,  and normally the A and B Guys don't weigh in before the Comp.  The B guy would win the B and the A Guy would win the A...  If the 190 guy threw in a 200lb class and threw 70' and a guy in The 200 weighing 198 threw 70'1" the 198 guy would win cause they are competing in the same division.  Now that has nothing to do with records.  As of right Now the only records are for 190< class.  A 200lb can't get a 190 record or a 200 Record cause there is no 200 records.  The 200lb division was started a few years back cause the west coast they wanted it for some reason????  The 190 has been the wt divsion for the last 15 years when it was started.  I agree that there should be only one light weight class  which is 190,  other then the 200 masters of course.   Now for argument sake  in this system which again is not weight lifting,  a 200lb guy breaks the 190 record and now has a 200lb record.  THe 190 record would still exist, but if the 190 guy then breaks the mark that the 200lb guy beat then the record would now be the new # and would be a 190 and 200 record.  But seeing that there is no 200lb records that is a mute point..

YES,  as long as he weighs in 190 or under.  The weight of the person needs to be acurate and viewed by the AD.

markh wrote: YES,  as long as he weighs in 190 or under.  The weight of the person needs to be acurate and viewed by the AD.

If you are over 40 and the day of a game you throw 49' with the 42 WFD then you get both records period. You weighted in and were under both weight limits for lightweights and Masters.

What about 220lbs?

thegnome wrote: I can only speak for myself, I'm in favor of the 200 cut off.  It doesn't really matter for me since I get to throw the 42# as a Master anyway, goodness knows I could stand to lose more weight, and the bottom of one class is just as good as the bottom of another anyhow.  That said, 200 is used as a class in strongman, highlanders and has a rough PL comparison (198/90k), it also exists in the Masters.  I think the 200 might encourage more guys from the "other" sports to give things a go.  It's also just a more logical cut off point for number weirdos like me.  First digit on scale =1 then you are in , first digit = 2 then you are a heavyweight.  I think it gives the general public a number they can mor relate to as well.  There is also a nice round metric similar point with the 90kg for our Euro friends.   I say just let it work itself out.  Last time I checked we don't have an all powerful sanctioning body so just let it be what it will be.  You want 190 at your games ?Then have 190.  200? Then have 200.

this logic is hard to disagree with.
I think Andrew touched on something important, since other strength sports use 200 or 198 as a class, I think you'd have a much easier time recruiting those guys to start competing at 200. I know I've done real well getting 200lb strongman guys to crossover.

vonguinness wrote: this logic is hard to disagree with.

Leave it to me to disagree.

Making the argument that we should NOT use the 200lb weight limits as perscribed by a relatively new sport to guide the weight limits of an ancient sport is flawed as the Lightweight division is also relatively new aspect of this ancient sport.  Never the less, there is a strong argument that can be made to ignore other strength sports weight-limits (a long version of Mark Howe's post!?).

1. Heavy Athletics is a throwing sport with tests of strength. 
This egos what Mark Howe stated.  The premise of the argument of raising the lightweight division to 200lbs is that Heavy Athletics is a strength-sport.  But it is not, it is a throwing sport with tests of strength.  Out of heavy athletic traditions, came the hammer throw, the weight throw, and the shot put.  Do those in other "strength" sports considered those track and field throws a strength sport?

It is also a misnomer that the term "Heavy" refers to the implements or size of people throwing them (as I posted before), "Heavy" is a term that appeared before 1900 and is used to refer the strenuous nature of a sport.   It also distinguished between the running, jumping, and dancing contests that were once part of Highland Games and termed as "light" athletics (I cannot find the source on Light Athletics so I am not sure of the historical accuracy).

2. Nature of Heavy Athletics
The heavy implements (of the events that have heavy and light implements) can be thrown well with brute strength but the lighter implements requires a great deal of technique (speed and form) to generate a good throw.  A good example of this, which I have seen often, is in the hammer contest.  Strongman/powerlifter background throwers can hold their own in the heavy hammer against technical throwers but get toasted in the light hammer until they develop technique, just as  T&F Guys need to get stronger for events like standing WOB.

The draw to this sport is the unque combination of strength and skill and each individuals blending of those two.  Stronger contestants work on technique and technical contestants work on strength to get the right blend to be the champion of the day.   This I assume is a much different nature than other strength sports.

3. Heavy Athletics is NOT a lesser sport to "other" strength sport
I do see the logic to raise the limit in drawing a few more people into the lightweight division.  However, to change the limit based on this draw seems, to me, a weak argument.  If I ignored this "benefit", I feel there is a condescending element in the argument, in that Heavy Athletics is a lesser sport than other strength sport and should bow to their limits.  

Like track and field throwing, the rich history of Heavy Athletics also spawned strongman contests and other strength sports:  These sports have adopting and evolving some of Heavy Athletics tests of strength while adding their own.  Thus, the condescending element that  Heavy Athletics  should change to suit other strength sports weight classes.

I will admit that this view maybe as arogant as the other view is condescending, but I came to this sport from the cultural and heritage side, which drives this view. 

4. Heritage and tradition is embedded in this sport.  Although there is little celtic heritage in the 190 class, there is many years of tradition.  The line was drawn and there is no reason to change from a competitive prospective.   

Increasing the head count in a division is a weak argument and a very slippery slope: If 200lb, than why not 210lbs or the next breakpoint in another sport?  Why not bantam and super heavy weights as the other thread's joked about?