Let me ask another question relating to Nationals and ladies classes
that perhaps hasn't been looked at. Ladies classes, due to their small
sizes (relatively), make nice fillers to even out the sizes of the
heats. If ladies classes were to be done away with, and assuming all
the ladies ran in the respective open class, can the heats be arranged
to approximately the same size? This would require a little work (which
I don't want to do), but I just thought I'd throw out the question.
George Ellingson
> From: Mark J. Andy [mailto:marka@telerama.com]
> Howdy,
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, James Rogerson wrote:
> > This whole discussion started with eliminating marginally subscribed
> > classes and along with that changing the definition of what number
> > would constitute an under subscribed class, just too make the awards
> > dinner shorter.
> >
> > That led to leave "my" class alone and get rid of all those slow
> > undeserving women.
>
> Since I'm the one that started the discussion, let me
> catagorically say
> "you're wrong".
>
> What happened was that people were talking about eliminating
> marginally
> subscribed classes and I looked at national results and
> discovered that 27
> of 30 ladies classes had less than 12 competitors. I then asked the
> question / proposed that we should look at eliminating those classes
> rather than raising the number of participants bar.
>
> If anyone has gotten the impression that I think women are slow and
> undeserving, please accept my apologies. I expressely DO NOT believe
> that. That belief, in many ways, leads me to my current position of
> thinking the Ladies classes should be either eliminated or made into a
> "Novice" set of classes open to men as well as women.
>
> Mark
>
|