Database |
Proposed Qualifying Distances MWC |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | ||
WALLY.OLECIK
Postaholic Joined: 10/10/08 Location: W. Seattle, WA Status: Offline Points: 1594 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
l agree! lt does seem to be a better solution. |
||
16lb-hammer(at)sshga.org
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no 'try!'" Yoda |
||
K Rogers
Postaholic Joined: 7/27/10 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1256 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hey-
If you'd like ... I can publish the medians for all the distance events that we compete. If we do that .. then I'd suggest that we follow with something like this: 40's must make 3 medians 50's must make 2 medians 60's must make 1 median 70' s are excluded. Just thinking out loud here, -K
|
||
K Rogers
Postaholic Joined: 7/27/10 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1256 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So-
What you're saying is that it could/should be: 1) Scots Hammer, 2) Weight for Distance and 3) Stone. ... and then we publish the medians for both the light and heavy options of implements ... either one counts ??? That way we could use all know possible combinations of games results from all over the universe to compare to the medians established from the historical masters records for use in defining a qualifying standard. Cause that's what I''m hearing you say?? -K |
||
Sammy68123
Senior Member Joined: 6/15/08 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 735 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'm not clear on what you mean with the "historical masters records". Aren't you using all MWC performances in each event for each class to find the median for each group? |
||
Teresa Merrick
Bellevue, NE |
||
K Rogers
Postaholic Joined: 7/27/10 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1256 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
Teresa-
Yes, those are the historical records that I'm speaking of. -K
|
||
S McCracken
Postaholic Craig Smith Fan Club Joined: 9/18/07 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1802 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. That’s just me trying to make it fare for those of us that suck at the stone but have the rest of the numbers to make up a competitive field Either way its your show and I am happy to see you trying to make it better. |
||
North American Highlander Ohio Chair
www.nahighlander.com |
||
Soul Eater
Senior Member Joined: 7/31/08 Location: Papua New Guinea Status: Offline Points: 950 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Make it an invite.
|
||
C. Smith
Admin Group Retired Joined: 8/30/04 Location: Antarctica Status: Offline Points: 6661443 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
Brian Randell
Senior Member Joined: 3/18/15 Location: Tulsa Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 367 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
+ 1,000,000
|
||
Bill Boyd
Groupie Joined: 10/13/08 Location: Baconland Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Great idea Kevin.
|
||
Sean
Postaholic 9th Best in the World - 2010 Joined: 12/05/06 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3759 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
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. |
||
Hapy
Postaholic Joined: 8/29/04 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1977 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You talking about me?
|
||
McSanta
Postaholic Joined: 4/12/05 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1595 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
Mark McVey
"The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." -John Ruskin |
||
Sean
Postaholic 9th Best in the World - 2010 Joined: 12/05/06 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3759 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
^^^ That's a good call right there.
|
||
Rachet
Newbie Joined: 12/10/13 Location: So Cal Status: Offline Points: 2 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
Flame of Idaho
Groupie Joined: 8/14/12 Location: Pocatello, ID Status: Offline Points: 132 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So why not do it like Wally does for the Claw? You apply, then he takes the top ranked in limited number with a waiting list by rank. Easy.
And since it is a WORLD championship, would you want to do like the olympics and at least guarantee a few spots for other countries to be represented rather than all from the USA, eventhough US athletes usually rank highest?
On a different note, I've noticed a definate trend in those who have better heavy numbers have more brute strength, whereas those with better light numbers have technique. If you happen to decide to use all heavy events to make the judgement, you risk excluding many who have better technique but not necessarily the strength. (Obviously you would hope to have both strength AND technique at this level, but I'm just sharing the observation.) |
||
K Rogers
Postaholic Joined: 7/27/10 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1256 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hey-
I posted both light and heavy weight Proposed Qualifying Distances. These values are the 6 medians per age group of the 14 years of Masters throws in the Scottish Masters Database. For example, if I looked at 200 of the Masters throws selected by age group and recorded only at the Masters World Championships during the 14 years of competition, in either light or heavy events in our population of very age specific data - then this median value would be the distance of the throw ranked 100th. I don't think that throwing over the Median is an impossible task to accomplish and it is a simple way to evaluate our population of throws and athletes. It is independent of the NASGA database to allow for the international athletes unlisted here and uses the highest quality of data. Nothing is Final yet, but I'm proposing a new qualifying method and listening to many advisers at the moment. -K |
||
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |