My proposal to the BOD for Weight Class definitions-final input here

[styx]

Originally Posted by WEIRDWOLF

Honestly, I don't care what names we put to it. Its the definitions that matter.



This coming from the guy who owns everything the hobby has to offer!!
I'm actually working on something with the people that produce the Pine Car weights. If all goes well the MFCA may be able to offer a weighting system. In the mean time, I'll happily give you a roll of lead tape complete with useage instructions, since you are so financially and weighted challenged!

i'll take one roll wolf

[RavennaAl]

I thought we were simply trying to establish weight classes, not figure classes. 3.3 is 3.3. It shouldn't matter how you get there or what figures you use. The whole 3.3 issue is simply an attempt to keep 'certain' figures out of play because those who made their rules don't like them. Seperating 'certain' figures from other 'certain' figures is tantamount to discrimination, and that is not a good thing...

[Bluegnuoy]

Where does figure placement fall into? I have a number of stock figures that I move the location on the platform to get a better weight distrubtion. Everything is still the same just in a different location. Where would these figure come under?

[Geno H]

Originally Posted by Bluegnuoy

Where does figure placement fall into? I have a number of stock figures that I move the location on the platform to get a better weight distrubtion. Everything is still the same just in a different location. Where would these figure come under?

Tim,
At that point they would be custom 3.3 or no longer just stock. Make sense?

Geno H

[Geno H]

Originally Posted by RavennaAl

I thought we were simply trying to establish weight classes, not figure classes. 3.3 is 3.3. It shouldn't matter how you get there or what figures you use. The whole 3.3 issue is simply an attempt to keep 'certain' figures out of play because those who made their rules don't like them. Seperating 'certain' figures from other 'certain' figures is tantamount to discrimination, and that is not a good thing...

Al,
There are classes for ALL. Simple

Geno H

[WEIRDWOLF]

Al, Sorry, I don't have anything left to say on the subject. The only rules that the MFCA has any real control over are the MFCA Rules which you are on the committee for. The statement includes that the official MFCA will be 4.0. There will be those that hate that and will pitch a fit, but we have to have something to work with and at least they will know far in advance that this is the case.

The classes that I wrote up are a general outline of what 95% of the leagues use and it is mean't to go in a book or pamphlet that will make it clearer to the new person starting out what the possibilities are and what he can expect to find. They really mean nothing beyond that. There will and always will be exceptions to any final classification that we put out there, but excluding the fact that there are leagues out there running at 3.3, for whatever reason they run it that way, is discriminatory also and incomplete.

I invite you to write up a clear proposal to present to the BOD and membership. Then they can be compared and the best possible answer put out as the final statement. Like I said, this is only my take on it. The discussion has been educational and debated very well, but I don't think there is much more I have to add.

Gosh, you would think we were discussing health care. (Don't say nothing RIP)

[jwm8592]

Its a good thing you guys aren't firemen, the house would have burnt to the ground.

Now on to the important stuff, let's get a calendar started of National's lady friends!! Yahooooooooo!!!!

[eflfanatic]

I missed a lot today. What I get for working overtime tonight. Excellent Proposal. As with any proposal still needs some fine tuning and will post my thoughts on it when I have had more time to print it out and read all the replys more closely.

Tomkat, You know I am with you on the no artificial weight and that is fine for our league but the game is moving to a higher level and to compete on that level classes are probably the answer.

The MFCA has decided to go with a 4.0 limit and that is what the Rules Committee will be working with. As Wolf said there will be those who like it and those who won't but at least we have something to work with.

[Treks1]

Originally Posted by NEW CASTLE HiTMEN

I agree with Corey. If I am a new coach and I see these classes, I will get discouraged and not even bother. We want to Unite not classify. .

Yep, what they said. We should not divide the game into weight classes. One max weight; simple easy to remember.

[eflfanatic]

We should not divide the game into weight classes. One max weight; simple easy to remember.

Treks1, I wish it were that simple. It sure would make things easier for me and the Rules Committee. We wouldn't be having these discussions if it were that simple.

I am by no means the last word and this is just from my point of view.

This is just Lynn's proposal.

Whatever is adopted will go through a vote of the Board of Directors. Unfortunately getting a reponse from all the members of the Board of Directors in a timely manner is next to impossible. I have sent many proposals to the BOD lately and it frustrates me to no end the lack of responses I get. So far only 3 of the 7 members of the BOD have even responded to this thread. Where are the rest of you????

Lynn,

Very good proposal and obviously very well thought out. In my opinion and from my study of the many rule sets there are 2 distinct classifications of figures "stock" and "custom" and 3 distinct weight limits "3.3", "4.0" and "unlimited". I think Lynn's distinctions between these and the definitions of what "stock" and "custom" are is exactly what we need.