|
Post by michaelmeador on Aug 10, 2013 11:07:12 GMT -5
I was just poking on the team a bit, just messing around.
I'm all for seeding the brackets, whether it be on skill level or to keep teammates from pulling in the first round.
But....
However....
90% of the time the final 3 are just better that particular day and would end up there nomatter how you seed it (which is also why I'm in favor of teammates not pulling in round uno)
I always liked your style of running sh!t
|
|
|
Post by Karen Bean on Aug 10, 2013 11:09:33 GMT -5
"But the old timers are having heart failure even thinking this concept."
"I would imagine the powers that be that collect our money are shivering in thier boots and grabbing pitch forks..."
Todd ~ you should learn your armwrestling history (the dreaded word). ALL of us OLD TIMERS and POWERS THAT BE THAT COLLECT MONEY (not yours as you never travel and compete anywhere) pulled this way!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We went through the seeding era of the sport. There were good and bad points to it but nothing that would ever cause any of US to get that excited about it one way or another.
Back when the OLD TIMERS pulled with seeding brackets, the seeds were based upon one year of competing within the organization that was doing the seeding. Results from those specific events were used for seeding. None of this "if" so and so were there then X would not have placed wherever and other opinionated rankings. Strictly based upon performance or lack thereof.
After the first year, you were ranked within the organization based upon your placements and from there you were seeded at future events. And it kept going year to year.
Plus side ~ it made you bust your a$$ training, made you give the POWERS THAT BE your money for entry, made you spend money for travel, etc all to earn the top slots.
Down side ~ there were some but the main thing was after a few years, the placements didn't seem to matter much and the same folks - no matter if they hadn't competed the last year, two years, three years, etc were still given the top slots over the pullers that were competing.
Good thinking Rob. This kind of thinking is constructive.
|
|
|
Post by TK on Aug 10, 2013 11:53:12 GMT -5
"But the old timers are having heart failure even thinking this concept." "I would imagine the powers that be that collect our money are shivering in thier boots and grabbing pitch forks..." Todd ~ you should learn your armwrestling history (the dreaded word). ALL of us OLD TIMERS and POWERS THAT BE THAT COLLECT MONEY (not yours as you never travel and compete anywhere) pulled this way!!!!!!!!!!!!! We went through the seeding era of the sport. There were good and bad points to it but nothing that would ever cause any of US to get that excited about it one way or another. Back when the OLD TIMERS pulled with seeding brackets, the seeds were based upon one year of competing within the organization that was doing the seeding. Results from those specific events were used for seeding. None of this "if" so and so were there then X would not have placed wherever and other opinionated rankings. Strictly based upon performance or lack thereof. After the first year, you were ranked within the organization based upon your placements and from there you were seeded at future events. And it kept going year to year. Plus side ~ it made you bust your a$$ training, made you give the POWERS THAT BE your money for entry, made you spend money for travel, etc all to earn the top slots. Down side ~ there were some but the main thing was after a few years, the placements didn't seem to matter much and the same folks - no matter if they hadn't competed the last year, two years, three years, etc were still given the top slots over the pullers that were competing. Good thinking Rob. This kind of thinking is constructive. So you're ok with seeding. Good.
|
|
|
Post by TK on Aug 10, 2013 11:55:45 GMT -5
I was just poking on the team a bit, just messing around. I'm all for seeding the brackets, whether it be on skill level or to keep teammates from pulling in the first round. But.... However.... 90% of the time the final 3 are just better that particular day and would end up there nomatter how you seed it (which is also why I'm in favor of teammates not pulling in round uno) I always liked your style of running sh!t You're right! It maybe better than 90%?? lol The folks who don't take the time to separate team mates( especially if they've traveled far) don't have have respect for the pullers. And thanks buddy. TK
|
|
|
Post by TK on Aug 10, 2013 11:58:20 GMT -5
Same powers that be.... That put 2 nations within a month apart...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Davis on Aug 10, 2013 15:37:59 GMT -5
Anything would be better then the current ranking system it's a laugh out loud joke right now. It's.no more than someone opinion and there opinion imo is far from accurate, I always thought it was fairly close till the most recent ranking again imo It lost all credibility there are a couple people there that shouldn't be close to ranked but it pays to know the rankmaker haha and the fact Luke k. Wasn't even top 10 shows they don't know how to rank a.w. who else in this country has wins on Roman,Allen,cobra, c. Miller,vazgen,Ethan f,Brandon d. Rj, Jake s, and countless more. And not top 10?? Plz it will not be legit til there's one league that pays so all top guys get paid and have to make every tourney and the ranking comes down to number s not opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Freeland on Aug 11, 2013 15:53:30 GMT -5
I offered to use the current chess rating system, which is a proven mathmatical formula to rate performance. After 20 matches it's very accurate and after 50 matches it would be the most accurate rating available. The problem is getting the finished brackets from the tournaments. I made several offers to do it for free and never received a single bracket sheet, let alone the hundreds necessary to establish a base. The full, completed bracket sheet is the key factor in an accurate rating system.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Freeland on Aug 11, 2013 15:58:53 GMT -5
Basicly it's exactly what you are suggesting but using numbers instead of letters. 0-1200 =novice 1200-1600=amature 1600-2000=expert 2000-2200=pro 2200-2400=world class 2400-2800=elite
Of course if an elite beats a novice there would only be a 1-2 point swing (elite gains a point, novice looses a point) but if the novice beats an elite there could be a 200+ point swing etc...
|
|
|
Post by Rob Vigeant Jr. on Aug 11, 2013 17:47:32 GMT -5
Similar idea... I love it A number is Rock solid and performance based. Plus... a number would be fun to see... Like at his time bobby Fischer had the highest number ever, but people debate who's the best ever because of technology changes that enabled players to attain higher numbers. Anyhow... It'd for sure solve ranking and tournament issues to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 11, 2013 18:14:53 GMT -5
I think this would be a lot of fun to try along the lines of what Giles Russell just did. He used weight, but the same approach could apply to a numeric value. You could have one giant class and set up the brackets based on score. In other words, what Rob already said in the original post, LOL.
I'm all about trying something new. Having classes every 5kg hasn't exactly done wonders for the sport, but it was worth a shot just like any idea. If something works, great. Keep it. But after the idea hasn't panned out after a million tries (staggered elbow pads, hard flat elbow pads) you chalk it up to "we gave it a shot, it didn't improve anything" and you drop the idea and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Jake Smith on Aug 11, 2013 19:06:04 GMT -5
I dig it and yes having 2 elite guys battling in the first round sets the stage for the rest of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Freeland on Aug 12, 2013 23:08:37 GMT -5
Similar idea... I love it A number is Rock solid and performance based. Plus... a number would be fun to see... Like at his time bobby Fischer had the highest number ever, but people debate who's the best ever because of technology changes that enabled players to attain higher numbers. Anyhow... It'd for sure solve ranking and tournament issues to some degree. I was going to throw it into effect but just couldnt get the finished brackets from the promoters. Without the data, it's a matter of opinion. With the data, active pullers would have a true performance rating and would keep pro rated pullers from jumping into the amature class just to get a national or novice "national title" which happens regularly. There would be too much to lose because you need a certain rank before you can enter the money class (pro). One loss and you could have to spend 3-4 tournaments re-gaining the lost points to be eligible for the money class.
|
|
|
Post by Brent Norris on Aug 15, 2013 0:10:12 GMT -5
Hey baby, you lookin good! How bout some seeding later?
|
|
|
Post by Brent Norris on Aug 15, 2013 0:15:35 GMT -5
"But the old timers are having heart failure even thinking this concept." "I would imagine the powers that be that collect our money are shivering in thier boots and grabbing pitch forks..." Todd ~ you should learn your armwrestling history (the dreaded word). ALL of us OLD TIMERS and POWERS THAT BE THAT COLLECT MONEY (not yours as you never travel and compete anywhere) pulled this way!!!!!!!!!!!!! We went through the seeding era of the sport. There were good and bad points to it but nothing that would ever cause any of US to get that excited about it one way or another. Back when the OLD TIMERS pulled with seeding brackets, the seeds were based upon one year of competing within the organization that was doing the seeding. Results from those specific events were used for seeding. None of this "if" so and so were there then X would not have placed wherever and other opinionated rankings. Strictly based upon performance or lack thereof. After the first year, you were ranked within the organization based upon your placements and from there you were seeded at future events. And it kept going year to year. Plus side ~ it made you bust your a$$ training, made you give the POWERS THAT BE your money for entry, made you spend money for travel, etc all to earn the top slots. Down side ~ there were some but the main thing was after a few years, the placements didn't seem to matter much and the same folks - no matter if they hadn't competed the last year, two years, three years, etc were still given the top slots over the pullers that were competing. Good thinking Rob. This kind of thinking is constructive. This commendable!!! Karen, you must really be into this arm wrestling stuff
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Skinner on Aug 16, 2013 9:47:22 GMT -5
I like the feel of this and like others believe it is a good step or three in the right direction.
I think an important early realization promoters and arm wrestlers alike would need to realize is no matter what Everyone will not be happy. Accept that and move in the right direction. They'll say it's unfair and X, Y, or Z is getting special "undeserved" seeding. They'll say they should be seeded higher, or some would even want to be lower with easier competition early. So as a promoter/organizer one would need to determine before hand this is how we're doing it and let that jawing(that will happen) role off your back. Don't ignore claims or input, that's not what I'm saying, but give them what weight they deserve. Life is opinion mixed with perspective and a much less sampling of absolutes.
As I said, I would very much like to see this or something similar be implemented.
|
|