State, Regional, and National weight classes

[Jeff Janes]

TAA updated our rankings to align with UAL weight classes. With so many signed pullers and affiliates around the country it made sense to change our rankings to align with UAL so that it's easier to rank the signed pullers, there is power in unity, and if we want to be accurate based on UAL tournament outcomes I don't see any other way. What do you think?

I'm not suggesting everyone change their weight classes that work for them at every tournament but we will likely use UAL weight classes for the pro classes at our tournaments moving forward.

[Mike West]

Jeff, you do know that you don't have to use UAL classes to be affiliated. There are going to be many more tournaments out there that are not UAL classes.

[Jeff Janes]

Dec 14, 2013 7:50:23 GMT -5 Mike West said:

Jeff, you do know that you don't have to use UAL classes to be affiliated. There are going to be many more tournaments out there that are not UAL classes.

Yes, I am aware and understand that there are more that don't have UAL weight classes but I think that may change in the future.

[Jeff Janes]

Dec 15, 2013 1:21:12 GMT -5 Nick Postel said:

The traditional weight classes are good because they can be easily converted to the metric system which is used around the world. 154 (70 K) 176 (80 k) 198 (90 k) 220 (100 k) 242 (110 K) and unlimited. However, there seems to be an extra weight class, so maybe its a good idea to jump from 198 (90 k) straight to 231 (105 k) and skip 220 (100 k), then from 231 the next class would be 232+. This would make 5 classes instead of 6 and would solve the problem of paying an extra class and would be universally friendly still.

I'm not too concerned with the rest of the world to be completely honest. I have no desire to compete internationally. The UAL seems to be gaining momentum similar to how the UFC did in MMA and I know UFC could change their weight classes tomorrow and it wouldn't effect the popularity of their sport or brand.

[Mike West]

Jeff, you may not be interested in international events, but your talking about rankings, other people do care internationally, and I can tell you the WAF isn't going to change their classes to match UAL, and WAF are the classes everyone else is using.
Change TAA rankings if you want, but the US and international rankings need to stay the same.

[Josh Handeland]

Dec 15, 2013 1:21:12 GMT -5 Nick Postel said:

The traditional weight classes are good because they can be easily converted to the metric system which is used around the world. 154 (70 K) 176 (80 k) 198 (90 k) 220 (100 k) 242 (110 K) and unlimited. However, there seems to be an extra weight class, so maybe its a good idea to jump from 198 (90 k) straight to 231 (105 k) and skip 220 (100 k), then from 231 the next class would be 232+. This would make 5 classes instead of 6 and would solve the problem of paying an extra class and would be universally friendly still.

I always thought since some tourneys have 220 and some have 242 that a 231 class after 198 and then 231+ at all tourneys would be a good idea. But it prolly doesn't happen because 231 isn't a "normal class" (nationals and some other big tourneys offer 220 and 242 both but never 231). Anyways rank whatever classes you want. I like ranking 54/76/98/42/43+ as long as more tourneys offer those classes vs 65/85/05/35/+

[Bill Cox]

I agree with Mike. WAF will never change their c;lasses and USAF being the only recognized assoc by WAF there is no way that USAF will change either. So unless you are doing two separate rankings to cover UAL I would say just leave them the way they are now.

[Mike West]

Isn't the UAL sort of doing their own rankings anyway?

[TK]

UALs seems to be the best looking.

[Jeff Janes]

UAL doesn't have a ranking system that I've seen other than #1 and #2 contender for the title.