Class E should count for the world ranking list for every division except open

[disland]

Since we aren't getting to one rulebook any time soon. This would eleviate the hassle of multiple division and different sets of rules at Regionals, Nationals and other record tournaments

[Horton]

@disland‌ you are assuming most Ballers really understand the difference. I don't. I know L is a higher standard but not sure how much higher.

 

So please spell it out.

[Wish]

what @Horton said..

[skidawg]

E counts for regional and national records, L is world record capable. Now common sense says that since only world records are recognized for pro men(36) women (34) and officially there is no 34mph "world record" for MM division. Then I say yes, class E should count for world rankings list for amateurs. My 2 cents.

[disland]

E vs L there are small rule differences. page 87 of the AWSA rule book lists them. Most significant are differences in how ties and run offs are done. There are small differences in the number and ratings of judges and the requirement for video from the boat in slalom, that cause the most difficulty for tournament organizers

[Horton]

Ok you got my vote

[thager]

Bad attitude but, DKDC!!

[Chef23]

I am not sure most people here know the difference but if the only difference is ties and run offs it makes sense.

[klindy]

@skidawg‌ only partly true. You can on set a world record (men's 36 and women's 34) in a class L tournament. That must be a class R. There are some slightly different judge requirements for class R. Most importantly is the video requirements.

 

Class E and class L are similar except, as noted, class E follows the AWSA rule book and class L follows the IWWF rule book. Most of the rules are the same as well but there are absolutely not guarantees that IWWF will follow the AWSA lead on changes. For now the requirements for class E are lower than class L and easier to run (fewer video requirements and lower rated judges).

 

For class E to count toward the works ranking list IWWF would have to accept how AWSA runs class E (including rules difference and lower judges/video requirements). That's unlikely any time soon. Alternatively AWSA can adopt the IWWF rule book and judge/video requirements as-is. That would make running a "class E" (today) more difficult and more expensive.

 

So there is a place for class E. And as long as AWSA doesn't use the IWWF rule book verbatim (which is basically written to administer the World Tournament) I don't see IWWF accepting scores from class E on the world ranking list.

[Wish]

Which requires more E or L? Where does R (record) fit in? And why the heck are E,L, and C letters used. Why skip A, B.. D.

[klindy]

@Wish‌ see above for some more details but class L requires "more". It requires following the IWWF rule book. Class R (also follows the IWWF rule book) has more requirements.

 

C = ©ompetition

E = (E)ntry Level

L = Ranking (L)ist.

R = World ®ecord

F = (F)un

X = E(X)perimental.

[LeonL]

@Klindy can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but "L" is world ranking LIST, hence "L". "R" is self explanatory. Now here comes the "I think"..... "E" is a holdover from the days where one "EP" would get you in Nationals if achieved at an "E". My beef is that at least Nationals, if not Regionals, should run 65+ as an "L". They already are equipped for it as it's done in other divisions at the same tournament.

[Wish]

@klindy looks like you typed out the answer to my question before I asked. Thanks. That should be posted in the FAQ thread. Good explanations.

[klindy]

@LeonL‌ is basically right. Where one score in a class E tournament punched your ticket to nationals. Now class E scores have higher (equal to class L) weight on the AWSA ranking list.

 

All events/divisions at nationals have been run as class L for several years. It's in the AWSA rule book. Regional are up to the regional council to decide. Sites that are capable of running class L generally have a mix of class E and class L events. In later years I've seen more and more class L events at regionals which is probably because of the expanded IWWF ranking lists and tournament formats. That tend is likely to continue and certainly should prompt a discussion whether we need class E at all any more or not.

[skidawg]

Thanks for the refresher!!

[LeonL]

@Klindy, Uhhhh, not all divisions apparently. Two cases in point. M7 skiers Greg Grusd and Dennis Longo (just two guys that I know skied Nationals), have scores from the 2013 Nationals that show up on their rankings as "E".

[Jody_Seal]

Sure Why not? However we do not need to pursue this! after all Class E tournaments are held to equal or exceed the competence and expertise of every other Class L and even some R tournaments out their in the world today.

The Great thing about Class E is it is specific to AWSA as many rules go, especially tricks, Also AWSA conflict of interest rules are much stiffer than IWWSF.

For once let IWWSF adopt to our standards, If they feel so inclined!

[klindy]

@LeonL‌ I'm corrected. On page 108 of the current rule book there is a chart which outlines which divisions/events at nationals are which classification. M7-10/W7-10 are class E for slalom and jump (W6 too). For the same division for tricks class E or L is up to the skier. For tricks the technical requirements and officials requirements are the same but there are some important rule differences (like no practice falls allowed in Class L).

 

So again with the expanded IWWF ranking lists it may make sense to revisit this chart.

[disland]

why does IWWF get away with pushing us (AWSA) around? What if AWSA decided to host its own senior worlds with our rules. What if no USA site agree to host IWWF events

[Drago]

Well, yes. Only difference is judge ranking and gates. Make one effin gate rule and call it good!

[klindy]

@Drago‌ which gate rule? For Class E, L and R it's all the same.

[Drago]

Yep. I was thinking Old School, when "E" was for easy. E was awsa gate, and L was IWSF gate. So, "Yes"