chipping a few ounces off

will barron wrote: have an almost perfect braemar...its 22.24 lbs - anyone got a clue if I were to start chipping a few flakes off how much it would take to get to 22lbs? I realize its going a bit overboard but why not get the extra few inches if its possible? do I knock off an inch?

you're actually serious with this question.    

Don't risk ruining it.  throw it as is.

You could just drill a hole or two in it or listen to Roy.

Actually, based on a 30ft throw (baseline) with 22.00lb stone, the difference in distance would be about 1 inch for the additional weight (22.24lbs). Leave it alone.

If you need to chip away at a stone this is the only acceptable reason -

http://www.claringtonclassics.ca/videos/Volvic%20Commercial. wmv

Carlos,

That was priceless.  Little Red Willy, you're a butthead. 

HB3

I have to admit some offense at the notion to lighten an implement with a focus on throwing it another inch...

While I'm probably the worst stone thrower out there - it's memorable to have participated in games internationally and have thrown the same stone (at the same weight and awkwardness) that many athletes, amateur & professional alike, have thrown.  Some of my personal favorites are the big Pleasanton rock - that EVERYONE has a hard time holding against their neck, and the Robertson stone at Fergus - are these 22#... no they're both several #'s more and that's likely not going to change to accommodate the 22# club.  Other stones like the Portland stone (which are well beyond a typical Braemar), bring authenticity and tradition to the games.

My personal advice... don't lower yourself into needing to (partially) destroy a stone just to throw it - kind of implies you can't throw it the way god made it .  If that's the case, the definitition of clachneart (stone of strength or manhood stone) should be re-thought...

Dave

 

wow - critical remarks from everyone..

thanks all for the "personal offense" criticism.   clearly .23 ounces wont make a difference if its there or not. THis is actually a stone I picked up out of a creek and has never been tossed ever - so no "ruining" the historical element of the stone.  I don't think making an implement a little bit lighter is an ethical issue simply because every one gets to throw it whos at the comp and the stone is still at the legal weight that is accepted and at the weight that everyone wishes their braemar would be - not just the person making it lighter. soooooo....as much of a waste of time as this truly would be - would every one have the same reaction if I were to try and shape the ultimate stone out of a 30 pounder? - granted, equally as dumb

and west coast Dave B, I personally vow to never lose a bramaer stone comp to you ever

Edited by will barron

dave brown wrote: I have to admit some offense at the notion to lighten an implement with a focus on throwing it another inch... While I'm probably the worst stone thrower out there - it's memorable to have participated in games internationally and have thrown the same stone (at the same weight and awkwardness) that many athletes, amateur & professional alike, have thrown.  Some of my personal favorites are the big Pleasanton rock - that EVERYONE has a hard time holding against their neck, and the Robertson stone at Fergus - are these 22#... no they're both several #'s more and that's likely not going to change to accommodate the 22# club.  Other stones like the Portland stone (which are well beyond a typical Braemar), bring authenticity and tradition to the games. My personal advice... don't lower yourself into needing to (partially) destroy a stone just to throw it - kind of implies you can't throw it the way god made it .  If that's the case, the definitition of clachneart (stone of strength or manhood stone) should be re-thought... Dave

With the ranking system (to go to the big show), this is not a good way to think.

don't worry - it was an empty threat...good battles to come though

Dave may struggle throwing the smaller one but he moves the big rock from a stand like a rocket

dave brown wrote: It's memorable to have participated in games internationally and have thrown the same stone (at the same weight and awkwardness) that many athletes, amateur & professional alike, have thrown.

I agree with you Dave. Remember the Skye WOB, and the Inverkeithing weight? I really like the idea of keeping field records with the same implement, and knowing how far others have thrown it. Somebody posted a picture from the 70s the other day of Fred Vaughn with the "baseball bat" hammer from Fair Hill that I threw my first two years there. It didn't go far, but it was fun to throw, and it never broke!

But Roy is right - it used to be we all knew who was the best, because they were the people who won the event. But now, rankings have become so important it matters much more how far you actually throw, right down to the last inch. Especially for people on the bubble, the difference between throwing a "classic" implement and a flyer could mean getting invited to Bethlehem, Utah or Enumclaw.

 

Interesting idea DB, taking the top "qualifiers" based on how they finish. Maybe have a series of qualifying games, taking the top 2-3 from each?

I remember debating this at the Portland meeting a few years back. Ryan defended the rankings as being the “fairest” method of determining the best athletes, and at least on paper he’s right. It’s totally objective, mathematical and precise. It takes the guesswork out of deciding who’s thrown the farthest. But it’s also devoid of context, which is key.

Dave Lyttle is a great athlete and a heckuva guy who bought me many beers at a certain, um, gentlemen's establishment – but he happens to have a 16 lb stone with magical powers that seems to give everyone a 10% PR. The stainless steel Saline weights and the Utah light hammer with the schedule 40 PVC and smooshed head go really really far. Not everybody gets a chance to throw them. There’s also the whole issue of throwing downhill – throwing at Estes Park is a lot more forgiving then it is at flat-as-a-pancake Glasgow. Then there’s how firm the ground is, is the grass long or short and so on. ALL of this is well and good, and is part of the variety that is the Highland Games, but it’s a bit like comparing apples and, well, twinkies. If I win a games throwing crap implements uphill in the rain, and Thrower X throws perfectly calibrated aerodynamic titanium-lead alloy weights two inches further into a ditch, then who’s the better athlete? On paper, at least, it’s Thrower X (man I hate that guy), and he’s ranked higher and gets invited to more games and wins that awesome Tag Heuer contract while I’m still living in a van down by the river.

Ban the boots!

Edited by david barron

Hmmmm - The conversation has shifted.  That seems to happen quite often on this board!  OK, here's the thoughts of one who uses the ranking system.  One who's experience goes beyond "just" heavy events.

I think that the idea of regional qualifier competitions is great , BUT, entry would probably have to be limited to persons living in those areas.  Otherwise we could possibly see most of the same people winning the qualifying spots, i.e. Ryan Vierra could possibly become a "Qualifier" at every meet!  I can invision 8 athletes winning the top 8 spots and a ton of athletes vieing for those spots remaining.  Then what?  Back to the ranking list??  How many Games will want to host an event that limits them to only inviting "neighborhood" competitors?  And how many of you want to be told that you can't compete at a Games in, say, Florida because you're from New England or the West Coast?

In my mind (you don't want to go there!), A.D.s aren't trying to have dead-on implements, or "fliers" for that matter, so that athletes can place higher on some ranking list.  They're hoping that someone will set a national record at their meet.  It didn't escape my attention that after Terry Shanley set a new National Amateur WOB record at the Pac NW Games in Washington back in '85, we started attracting competitors from much greater distances, Like Calif. Utah and even further!!  Amateurs like Vierra, Phillip Martin, Greg Bradshaw and Bryant Harris are a few that come to mind.


Edited by wallyworld

It's funny how quick topic's migrate to another...  from ideas on how to shave a stone... to Volvic commericals... to the concept of actual 'games' changing implement... rankings... and twinkies .

Didn't mean to really talk about the ranking system, as much as the concept that I'll go to probably 10 games prior to the ones that require rankings - and at those 10, everyone is talking 'points', 'moving up on the board', and what they need to move up.  Maybe I'm just missing the days of enjoying a particular games for that particular games.  Enough said... back to twinkies - which brings up a whole different discussion on how to chip off some weight (maybe this is the next topic - isn't it interesting how may different body types throw in the games... the discussions of mass moving weight where I should have an advantage - and then the Greg Hadleys and Will Barron's - just to mean I've got them by 100#, or 300 twinkies, or by 400 chippings... and in some cases, they still kick my butt).

I'll stay with my original post - get some Boots!

Dave