Missing Lightweight Categories
Printed From: Nasgaweb
Category: Nasgaweb Forums
Forum Name: Database
Forum Discription: This forum is for discussion about the NASGA on-line database.
URL: http://www.nasgaweb.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15535
Printed Date: 3/26/26 at 3:41pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.11 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Missing Lightweight Categories
Posted By: McSanta
Subject: Missing Lightweight Categories
Date Posted: 7/21/12 at 12:47am
|
To the powers to be --
Could you please bring back the Lightweight, <200 and Lightweight, <190 throwing divisions for the database. This will become very neccesary after this year in the selection of throwers to be invited to the Lightweight National Championship.
BTW, Lightweight A, Lightweight B, and Lightweight C appear to be new this year and have not been used in 2012. Perhaps while kindly restoring Lightweight, <200 and Lightweight, <190 categories, you could consider removing those (just a suggestion).
Thank you in advance,
Mark McVey
Athletics co-Director
Celtic Highland Games of the Quad-Ciites ------------- Mark McVey "The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." -John Ruskin |
Replies:
Posted By: admin
Date Posted: 7/23/12 at 4:49pm
|
I don't recall ever changing the class names or deleting the < 190 and < 200 classes. In any case can't we just commonize on one definition for "lightweight"? Why only have a 10# difference? Are there not different level of lightweights or are they always lumped together? ------------- -Admin |
Posted By: McSanta
Date Posted: 7/23/12 at 6:56pm
|
Are there not different level of lightweights or are they always lumped together?
I have not seen a games that had enough lightweights to go Lightweight A, B, or C.
However, I could see perhaps one instance where Lightweight A/B/C may be needed. If a games is running a LW championship and has several regional LWs who could not make the championship division but still wanted to throw, then the AD may consider running a second flight. This is a real lonnnng shot.
Often the LWs are paired up with another division in a combined flight to save space on field and judging costs.
I don't recall ever changing the class names or deleting the < 190 and < 200 classes.
Just a bit of history for those reading as I am sure you know the following: Although Lightweight, < 190 and Lightweight, <200 is not an option on the main menu when selecting database classes, in 2011, the option was there as games are in the database under those categories.
Why only have a 10# difference? This is a tough question to answer with out getting political. I do not want that.
The weight limit is a line-in-the-sand. Because of this, it will be an endless debate.
There is probably nothing that a supporter of the 190 limit can say to convince a supporter of the 200 limit to change their mind; and vice-a-versa. Thus, the complications introduced by SAAA's choice of their weight limit.
In any case can't we just commonize on one definition for "lightweight"?
I do not believe so. Besides records, this is why:
<side note: fairness usually means complications in rules>
The AD running the < 190 championship (A.ka. The Lightweight National Championship) needs to select the top throwers U190. (That AD is currently me, but we need to think down the road)
If NASGA commonized the limits, there would be an advantage given to those who throw under SAAA rules (U200)
-- Assume thrower A who naturally weighs 206 but can cut weight and produce championship caliber numbers at 199.9 pounds. He also has thrown in some U190 competitions, cutting his weight by 16lbs, producing results that are borderline championship level.
Add Thrower B to the mix: Thrower B who weighs 186lbs, and is ranked just ahead of Thrower A when U190 numbers are used. With out the Lighweight, < 190 and Lightweight, < 200 categories and assuming NASGA set the limit for their database at U200, Thrower A would get the nod over thrower B as he would be selected using a combination of U200 and U190 numbers. However, throwing < 190. thrower B is the better thrower.
--- Essentially Thrower B would have gotten screwed by not having the seperate categories.
-------------------------
There is more to the reasons why I would like to see Lightweight, < 190 and Lightweight, < 200 back as options for the database. However, I have only gotten limited feedback from LWs on their views on how the selection process for their Championship should work. So I will not elaborate.
I tried my best to answer your questions without bringing in politics. I hope I succeeded and this does not turn into a circus.... It is to dang hot! ------------- Mark McVey "The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." -John Ruskin |
Posted By: vonguinness
Date Posted: 7/24/12 at 8:07am
|
fwiw, the nasga database is a privilege and not a right. if you'd like a specific amount of data the necessitates making programing changes, I'd suggest that you extrapolate that data yourself if its that important to you. At least if something was that important to me, thats what I'd do. Especially or the LW class, something only LW's care about. Most games I've done this year are cool with me throwing at 200. Those games have also enjoyed a growth in the class. Its only common sense that if AD's want more athletes in a class and they can achieve that by upping the class 10lbs, they will. I believe this will take care of itself in a few years with the way its trending. There will never be a need for A,B,C. Thats just silly. Unless Crossfit starts turning cabers for time, I just dont see a max influx or wiry dudes. I can understand that you want to get the best possible roster for your games. But maybe the time spent crushing numbers could be better spent by reaching out to the athletes themselves. Of the top 20, only ten will (can) probably come. So just keep inviting backwards on the database until you get your desired number of athletes. Thinking less almost always results in doing more. ------------- jammin on the one. |
Posted By: C. Smith
Date Posted: 7/24/12 at 8:28am
|
JVG with some sense. If the 190 limit is so important, just don't count any 200 games. If you want to throw at the 190 champs, make sure you get in a 190 game. Just like with us Pros, if you want to throw at Celtic you better find a game(s) with all the events or you'll never qualify. It will work itself out, and one of the classes should dissolve into the other one. Again, if you are cutting weight to make a lightweight highland games limit, may God have mercy on your soul. ------------- |
Posted By: vonguinness
Date Posted: 7/24/12 at 8:47am
every time I read/hear that, this is all I can think of. I've worked my ass off to become one of the top LW's, but its not by design, its by default. If I could grow 6" and take the proportionate amount of strength/speed/skill with me and bang it out with some top AMs, you bet your ass I would. ------------- jammin on the one. |
C. Smith wrote:Posted By: McSanta
Date Posted: 7/25/12 at 8:11am
|
The weight limit is a line-in-the-sand. For every argument supporting one side there is an equally valid counter argument on the other side. Keep it simple stupid (KISS) principal would be best applied in all situations. Yes there are a limited number of LWs that put up numbers worthy of invites, and yes it would be simple to just walk it backwards. However, what happens if the LW division grows and there are double that number? I am not thinking of the moment, but more of the future A clear, transparent, objective method of selecting those who are invited to a Championship is a desirable thing in any sport. On the other side of the KISS coin is fairness, and that complicates everything. It may not matter to anyone who or how the selection process works except that one or two people sitting on the outside looking in. By restoring the Lightweight, <190 and Lightweight, <200 categories, the database will be given flexibility to address some issues until (if ever) the weight limit becomes one. To the point of letting LWs get the scores in a U190 game if they want an invite. I put forth the following: **Why should throwers who happen to live in an area where the majority of the games are U200 be punished because SAAA drew the line at 200 rather than 190? **If they weighed in U190 and throw in a LW games, why shouldn't their scores count? **If they broke a record throwing in U200 game, wouldn't that record count (BTW it does as as Jacob Nicol set the LW Stone record in Las Vegas in U200 game). Thus, in the situation using just U190 games, a thrower can set a LW record but not have his scores count towards the selection of that divisions championship. Not a very good way of running anything, but this is Highland Games?! The ability to get more games in the database generally improves your ranking or at least removes the bias of having an off day. By having the Lightweight, <190 category, an AD who runs a LW U200 games could enter the scores for U190 throwers in that category and U200 for the rest. Onerous and a headache for the AD? The AD has to weigh in the throwers and he needs to make note of those who are U190 for record purposes. Yes, it is more complicated as fairness is almost always more complicated. Would AD of U200 games do this? I am not going to question the professionalism of a volunteer who gives so much in a sometimes-thankless role. However, if he is going to put in the effort to run a games and the effort to run the LW division, I would think there is motivation to support the athletes who come to his event. I don't know what the buy-in will be, but unless the option is there, the buy-in is zero%.
We all know there is no national sanctioning organization; there is nothing to make ADs enter scores in the database at all. I have too much on my plate to put much thought into this. If the division grows, I see a need (perhaps future need) to distinguish the Lightweight, <190 and Lightweight, <200 even thought they may throw at U200 event. Thus, my simple request. ------------- Mark McVey "The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." -John Ruskin |
Posted By: C. Smith
Date Posted: 7/25/12 at 8:26am
Because those are the rules of the 190 Champs? It happens in the Pros and works just fine. No games in my area throws a light hammer (or sheaf, or braemar, etc...) , but since I want the invite to the championship, I go find a game with that and do it. It's worked for the Pros for many years with no issues.
They should. My understanding is that all the LW athletes are weighed in anyway. So if you are <190lbs, it should count. Hell, if you are legitimately weighed in by the AD, any Am game should count for that imo.
Huh? It only wouldn't apply to the championship selection if the athlete was > 190lbs. ------------- |
Posted By: admin
Date Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:41pm
|
I recall how this was supposed to work now. The weight limit is supposed to be entered in the criteria box for a lightweight class when entering a games or updating a games. This weight limit then shows up in the name of the class when viewing results. I don't see how it could have been part of the drop-down list when enting results. I used the criteria data originally so any weight or age class could be used for the lightweight or masters classes. For instance you could have three different weight classes at one games and use the lightweight A,B,C class each with its own weight class to enter the results. ------------- -Admin |