Howdy,
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, miket wrote:
> I'm not sure why so many people feel so compassionate about doing away with
> ladies classes. Can anyone put forth an specific example a time when having
> ladies classes had a negative effect on an event that you attended??
Since I think it was me that orginally opened up the can, I'll give it a
shot.
In my mind, having extra low-subscription classes (ladies or otherwise)
causes a few problems.
1. It adds overhead to the event. Extra classes to keep track of, extra
trophies to present.
2. It potentially de-values "competitive" wins in other classes.
3. It potentially dillutes the sponser/contingency pool.
4. Low subscription classes that are clearly artificial bother me in
theory.
Let me give you an example of #2. This year I ran 2 pros in DS, got
sick of getting my ass handed to me and decided that if I was gonna suck I
was gonna do it in a car that was more fun to drive. So I jumped into CP
for Harrisburg and the Finale. In Harrisburg I drove a buddy's car and I
ran the finale in my (still building it) car for seat time. Both times I
was bumped to CM, but what the hell, I have fun at Pros anyway.
I went to the Pro banquet mostly 'cause everyone else was going and to
cheer for some friends. About halfway through the class championship
trophies, it occured to me to wonder if they did that for prepared
classes. To my rather large surprise, they did that and I got a "CP
National ProSolo Championship". I don't think I've ever been more
embarrased in my life. I was basically getting an attendence award while
other folks that battled all year and were excellent drivers got nothing.
Having said all that and knowing that the award is totally bogus, you can
bet your ass that I'm checking into what I need to do to get four free
Hoosiers (I never registered for contingency with them because I "knew" I
wasn't gonna qualify for anything). While having to go up on stage for
what _everyone_ knows is a bogus award was highly embarrassing, its
awfully hard to ignore $900 worth of tires.
> 3) Will win the set of tires (or insert your favorite $ award) for winning
>the
> championship: I doubt that the company putting up the prizes will offer a
>set
> of tires to the 1st AND 2nd place in open if ladies disappears.... Besides,
> you might be in the wrong sport if a big motivation is winning $ & tires &
> stuff.
But contingency _does_ play a big part of decisions at the divisional and
up levels. If we reduce the number of classes by half, I agree that the
contingency probably won't go twice as deep. But it wouldn't surprise me
if it went 1.5 times as deep or paid 1.5 times as much.
> I guess I can't figure out how having ladies classes degrades, detracts, or
> minimizes the open classes. On the other hand there are some definite
> advantages - including increased participation and support for familes where
> the female members are not comfortable running against blood thirsy,
> adreneline junkie, testoserone fueled competitors.
I submit that at divisional and up stuff, the people winning in _any_
class more fit the "blood thirsty, adreneline junkie" mold than the "I'm
doing this for the hell of it" mold. At regional levels I wholeheartedly
agree with you however.
> Everyone has different motivations for showing up and driving - and I
> guarantee that I don't understand everyone's reason - but I can still respect
> their reasons and support a system that does as well.
I do as well. If everyone thinks that ladies classes have a place at
divisionals and up, well, then we oughta have ladies classes despite what
I think. I certainly don't take anything away from the women running
ladies. As a competitor, its _awfully_ hard to ignore a softer class with
the same contingency and awards as a harder class. That's the nature of
picking classes to run. However, with my "rule maker" hat on, I'd prefer
to not have soft classes for the reasons stated before.
Mark
|