|
Post by thatoneuser on Mar 9, 2017 17:21:21 GMT -5
Wildcards are done-zo. Instead the top five women will run the city finals course and the top two women move on to Vegas. This is IN ADDITION to the usual top 30/15 and will not affect the regular competition, i.e. if a woman finishes 31st (and doesn't clear) she can't be in the top 15. Thus we'll get 12 extra women in Vegas (102 total).
|
|
|
Post by ekkerb11 on Mar 9, 2017 17:24:20 GMT -5
Was that confirmed to be replacing wild cards or just an extra way of qualifying? I know one of the women last night I THINK made the top 15, so why didn't they have 3 women moving on (2 from not top 15)
|
|
|
Post by Messup434 on Mar 9, 2017 17:24:30 GMT -5
Whoa. Not sure how I feel about this but it's big.
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Mar 9, 2017 19:11:54 GMT -5
Was that confirmed to be replacing wild cards or just an extra way of qualifying? I know one of the women last night I THINK made the top 15, so why didn't they have 3 women moving on (2 from not top 15) This is, in fact, REPLACING wild cards. If the woman you're referring to made top 15, they'll take the next two to Vegas.
|
|
DonalM
Nakata Daisuke
Posts: 953
|
Post by DonalM on Mar 9, 2017 19:14:25 GMT -5
If they were just going to continue having woman wildcards, I like this system better than the previous tbh
|
|
|
Post by blah123 on Mar 9, 2017 19:17:12 GMT -5
Cool, I like it. A step in the right direction. I wonder if/how they will handle older people again like how they used to be wildcards too.
And is this really spoilers? It's more of a structure/rules change -- doesn't pertain to any results.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Mar 9, 2017 19:31:55 GMT -5
Cool, I like it. A step in the right direction. I wonder if/how they will handle older people again like how they used to be wildcards too. And is this really spoilers? It's more of a structure/rules change -- doesn't pertain to any results. Some people like knowing everything via the broadcast -- that includes format changes. I don't mind it, I know some people will.
|
|
|
Post by Deadpool on Mar 10, 2017 8:37:46 GMT -5
Was that confirmed to be replacing wild cards or just an extra way of qualifying? I know one of the women last night I THINK made the top 15, so why didn't they have 3 women moving on (2 from not top 15) This is, in fact, REPLACING wild cards. If the woman you're referring to made top 15, they'll take the next two to Vegas. Not true. 5 women will be taken on to the city finals (the number will include the ones who actually qualify. Say 2 qualify in the top 30, the next 3 women will be brought in for a total of 33 competitors at the city finals). Subsequently, the top 2 women from the finals will go on to Vegas (so if no women qualify in the top 15, 17 competitors will be brought to Vegas. If one women qualifies in the top 15, 16 people will be brought to Vegas).
|
|
|
Post by Deadpool on Mar 10, 2017 8:47:59 GMT -5
I'm very much against this new rule. I believe it takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify without being given this kind of handout. In terms of creating a hero for young women, this is teaching them that they can just be given opportunities rather than working hard and achieving them. It also divides the sexes of the show. Instead of having the women compete alongside men, on the same level, they're now only competing against themselves.
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Mar 10, 2017 8:49:08 GMT -5
This is, in fact, REPLACING wild cards. If the woman you're referring to made top 15, they'll take the next two to Vegas. Not true. 5 women will be taken on to the city finals (the number will include the ones who actually qualify. Say 2 qualify in the top 30, the next 3 women will be brought in for a total of 33 competitors at the city finals). Subsequently, the top 2 women from the finals will go on to Vegas (so if no women qualify in the top 15, 17 competitors will be brought to Vegas. If one women qualifies in the top 15, 16 people will be brought to Vegas). OK, thanks for clearing that up. I must have misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by cole77000 on Mar 10, 2017 10:57:41 GMT -5
I'm very much against this new rule. I believe it takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify without being given this kind of handout. It also divides the sexes of the show. Instead of having the women compete alongside men, on the same level, they're now only competing against themselves. As far as the "takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify" portion, I would argue this is certainly better than before. Before, the wildcards seemed to be handed out to women a bit haphazardly but with the new system the women's spots are handed out on a merit-based system. The new spots are now to be handed out based on performance rather than personality appeal. So I would disagree that this new system is worse than the old. However, if what you are arguing is that in a vacuum we would be better off without this system and should give no handicaps to women, you then dive into a pretty old and complicated debate. Really this comes down to a tricky question of whether or not it is fair in general for women to compete against men in physical competition. Given that all sports are gender divided, it seems most of the world's answer is "no". On the flip side though, it's pretty cool how ANW is a bit different it that it doesn't separate by gender for the Vegas Finals.
|
|
Paragus
Ōmori Akira
what even goes here?
Posts: 345
|
Post by Paragus on Mar 10, 2017 11:19:06 GMT -5
I like this, the whole wild card thing never really stuck with me.
|
|
|
Post by RiderLeangle on Mar 10, 2017 11:39:05 GMT -5
I'm very much against this new rule. I believe it takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify without being given this kind of handout. In terms of creating a hero for young women, this is teaching them that they can just be given opportunities rather than working hard and achieving them. It also divides the sexes of the show. Instead of having the women compete alongside men, on the same level, they're now only competing against themselves. On one hand I do agree with that, on the other hand most sports have things divided but I think this might end up a positive because now it's guaranteed to have female competitors in vegas based on RESULTS not "Oh hey uhhm we like that backstory, OK you failed ob 2 but uhhhm yeah go to vegas" like it has been in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Deadpool on Mar 10, 2017 15:48:36 GMT -5
I'm very much against this new rule. I believe it takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify without being given this kind of handout. It also divides the sexes of the show. Instead of having the women compete alongside men, on the same level, they're now only competing against themselves. As far as the "takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify" portion, I would argue this is certainly better than before. Before, the wildcards seemed to be handed out to women a bit haphazardly but with the new system the women's spots are handed out on a merit-based system. The new spots are now to be handed out based on performance rather than personality appeal. So I would disagree that this new system is worse than the old. However, if what you are arguing is that in a vacuum we would be better off without this system and should give no handicaps to women, you then dive into a pretty old and complicated debate. Really this comes down to a tricky question of whether or not it is fair in general for women to compete against men in physical competition. Given that all sports are gender divided, it seems most of the world's answer is "no". On the flip side though, it's pretty cool how ANW is a bit different it that it doesn't separate by gender for the Vegas Finals. True. But do you realize what this potentially does? Say a woman gets gifted a spot in the city finals (she isn't in the top 30 of qualifiers) then places within the top 15 for finals. That means the guy who would have been 15th in the finals no longer gets to go to Vegas because he is pushed to 16th place by someone who should not have been in finals. Instead of being a one and done like it was before, it's giving women an extra chance at the risk of kicking out others that should have qualified. There's a good chance we have women in Vegas who never touch the warped wall in qualifiers and finals. I agree that most sports have split genders, but that was what made ANW special, it put everyone on the same level regardless of gender. It was all men in the beginning, women didn't stand a chance. Now we have a couple women demolishing the men of the region and they pull this crap. Women are getting stronger and can hold their own, they don't need to be given spots. The wild cards were more for the popular people who didn't qualify, it was understood that if you got a wild card, you were thrown a bone.
|
|
|
Post by cole77000 on Mar 10, 2017 16:22:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I would agree that that situation would be a problem.
Again, I still hold the stance that it is preferable to the wild card situation even if it is still giving women a systematic advantage.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Mar 10, 2017 17:19:32 GMT -5
"Person A does better than Person B in Qualifying but Person B does better than Person A in City Finals and thus qualifies over Person A" is nothing new to the show. If there are 5 women to clear in qualifying or 2 in city finals, no woman that was a non-finisher goes through which is the exact same caveat to the general 'win and in' policy if there are over 30/15 clears in their respective rounds.
If that person gets 16th, that's on that person for getting 16th. The risk of being in a region with more than the expected number of competitors in the city finals has been in place since ANW5. That risk is not drastically different now.
|
|
|
Post by Messup434 on Mar 10, 2017 18:33:05 GMT -5
I'm very much against this new rule. I believe it takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify without being given this kind of handout. In terms of creating a hero for young women, this is teaching them that they can just be given opportunities rather than working hard and achieving them. It also divides the sexes of the show. Instead of having the women compete alongside men, on the same level, they're now only competing against themselves. You just helped me solve my mixed-feelings! I agree with this and honestly don't understand the whole idea. What if six women qualify for Finals? Do the women even compete in Finals or do they just advance them automatically if they already have the top five Qualifying women? This is confusing me!!!!
|
|
|
Post by RiderLeangle on Mar 10, 2017 18:40:16 GMT -5
I assume the clear and advance thing applies, so if we have 6 women hit the button in the Qualifiers all 6 would move on to the finals (this is speculation though). I assume the 2 is a lock since top 15 is a lock for Finals even if 16+ people clear the finals course (Which hasn't happened since ANW4 which was the tournament before they added the clear the qualifier move on to finals rule)
|
|
|
Post by Klorel439 on Mar 10, 2017 18:44:55 GMT -5
This is better than Wildcards, but I still feel they should have to go through the same system everyone else does.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Mar 10, 2017 18:47:05 GMT -5
I'm very much against this new rule. I believe it takes away from the accomplishments of the women who are actually strong enough to qualify without being given this kind of handout. In terms of creating a hero for young women, this is teaching them that they can just be given opportunities rather than working hard and achieving them. It also divides the sexes of the show. Instead of having the women compete alongside men, on the same level, they're now only competing against themselves. You just helped me solve my mixed-feelings! I agree with this and honestly don't understand the whole idea. What if six women qualify for Finals? Do the women even compete in Finals or do they just advance them automatically if they already have the top five Qualifying women? This is confusing me!!!! If finishers are counted among the top 5, that reduces the amount of non-finishers allowed to qualify, which is the exact same style we've had in the Vegas era. Once we reach 30 finishers, all non-finishers are automatically eliminated. If we have more than 30 finishers on a qualifying course, all of those finishers move on. Based on the unofficial (it's unofficial until mentioned publicly by the official channels) wording that we're going by, if we have 5+ women clear qualifying, they all move on (since they're part of the top 30 anyways) and any women who haven't finished don't.
|
|