|
Post by Messup434 on Mar 10, 2017 18:56:33 GMT -5
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. Thanks, but aren't the five women spots separate from the top 30? That's how I read the posts, at least.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Mar 10, 2017 19:01:11 GMT -5
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. Thanks, but aren't the five women spots separate from the top 30? That's how I read the posts, at least. Only if you don't clear -- any women who clear are in the top 30 and among the top five women's results. So if 3 women are in the Top 30, that means only 2 women who didn't finish but were among the top five women advance. Which is similar to the general top 30 with regards to furthest the fastest.
|
|
DonalM
Nakata Daisuke
Posts: 953
|
Post by DonalM on Mar 10, 2017 19:34:38 GMT -5
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. If 5 women clear the course and a 6th woman fails the WW but places in the Top 30, she moves on to city finals right?
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Mar 10, 2017 19:40:41 GMT -5
For what it's worth, my source has doubled down on the idea that women who didn't make the top 30 can't be included in the top 15, although they're checking into it just to be sure. 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. If 5 women clear the course and a 6th woman fails the WW but places in the Top 30, she moves on to city finals right? Correct
|
|
|
Post by c0balt on Mar 10, 2017 22:38:42 GMT -5
If NO women make top 30 the fastest 5 go to city finals if NO women make top 15 the 2 fastest go to vegas.
If any girls qualify legitimately it reduces the number of female spaces given out.
|
|
|
Post by gtoneko on Mar 12, 2017 3:52:22 GMT -5
On one hand, this is going to be good as far as having more women to be featured in the finals who are actually good but get knocked off for their chance/opportunity from the males. However, to knock off the whole wild card shot feels a little odd as far as being able to invite back both men and women competitors who have impressed, but again, came up just short for their chances. All in all, I'm down with the change, just will feel a little off, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Tobbizz on Mar 12, 2017 5:37:59 GMT -5
Wait, does this mean we won't see Kacy in Vegas as she will probably fail early in qualifying based on her earlier runs??
|
|
|
Post by lightningmatt on Mar 12, 2017 7:15:17 GMT -5
If she can't compete within her region then yes. But I still can see her getting to Finals, might not have ANY females in top 30 in San Antonio or whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by danielnc on Mar 12, 2017 9:18:52 GMT -5
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. This doesn't particularly bother me. If #15 woman goes farther on the course than #16 man, then she actually earned the spot, even though she was given the chance to earn it.
|
|
arsenette
Administrator
Rambling Rican
Posts: 16,616
Staff Member
|
Post by arsenette on Mar 15, 2017 23:02:42 GMT -5
I don't like the rule for the reasons that others have mentioned but I think NBC painted themselves in a corner. The mystique is gone for anyone qualifying now as people will just think they were gifted into that spot that could have gone to a male that was in the bubble. It's causing more hate against the women that shouldn't be there. It also implies that they were planning on having wildcards only for women.. again.. Given the backlash against that from last season you would think they would award that spot to people who were in the bubble regardless of gender.. now it's clear that they need women to get that rating. It ultimately cheapens all of the other legit women who qualified on their own the previous seasons. I don't see any good from this. They should have just gotten rid of wildcards completely given that they never held to the 100 rule anyway. Now they make it 10 times worse.
|
|
|
Post by Deadpool on Mar 16, 2017 8:00:57 GMT -5
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. This doesn't particularly bother me. If #15 woman goes farther on the course than #16 man, then she actually earned the spot, even though she was given the chance to earn it. Oh no, that wouldn't bother me either. What would bother me is if #35 female (someone who should not have moved on to the finals, but was moved on because of this new rule) barely beats out #15 man. This would push the #15 man into #16 and he would lose his spot in Vegas.
|
|
|
Post by vaughngk on Mar 16, 2017 18:18:27 GMT -5
To be honest all this new rule does is formalize what has been an informal system for years. What interests is how ANW will explain the new system!
|
|
|
Post by issach99 on Mar 17, 2017 15:41:18 GMT -5
To be honest all this new rule does is formalize what has been an informal system for years. What interests is how ANW will explain the new system! Yeah it's not really going to change much. I'm certainly against it, but they were doing this before.
|
|
|
Post by ninjapodcast on Mar 27, 2017 20:57:39 GMT -5
Sorry for being so late to the discussion, but I think this is a great change.
Here are the arguments I see against it here:
1) Takes away from accomplishments of women who did qualify
I don't see any evidence of that potentially happening at all. We had lots of women given wildcards to Vegas the last two years. Did anyone think less of Jessie Graff's performance because of it? The two are unrelated.
2) Teaches girls that they will just be gifted opportunities
This isn't a free trip to Vegas. Assuming the worst case scenario, they STILL need to make top 5 of the women to move on to Finals and need to make Top 2 women to move on to Vegas. How is that a gift? They are ensuring that only the best women go to Vegas, which is great.
3) Divides the sexes of the show
I'll agree that it isn't the ideal situation. In a perfect world, the top competitors would be a balanced mix of men and women. We aren't quite there yet, and many of us enjoy seeing the best women compete in Vegas each year, however they got there. It also gives them a chance to get used to all of the other factors in Vegas (heat, sand/dust, lights, crowds).
There is no division or special treatment in Vegas, which is ultimately what matters. Everyone competes on the same course, just as before.
4) No longer competing against the men (on the same level)
They are still competing against them on the same course, and the only way to guarantee a spot is to make top 15.
Yes, they have a fallback position, but they need to beat out the best women in the sport to get it. Nobody will be coasting through and everyone still needs to do their best.
5) Extra chance for women to kick out others who should have qualified.
They seem to be indicating that won't happen, as far as a woman who was 30+ bumping out a man in position 15 in the Finals. But even without that rule, the only way that would happen is for the woman to go further/faster than the man in the Finals course and make it legitimately into the Top 15. I don't think I would really take issue with that.
Jessica Britten did great last season, but came up just short in the Qualifiers. My guess is that she was the 5th placed woman (behind the record-breaking 4 women in Finals). If this rule were in place, and she went to city finals and did as well as Jessie Labreck or better, I wouldn't begrudge her one of the spots at all.
6) Women can hold their own now and don't need it
Perfect! So the 2 women from each city will be the ones that "legitimately" qualified for both city finals and Vegas and there won't be anything for people to complain about. :-)
7) Wild cards were for popular people before, both men and women
That has never made any sense at all for this competition. The OLD system was divisive and infuriating, because you didn't even know who was going to get picked or not. People ALWAYS complained about who was/wasn't picked and it definitely led to bad feelings towards the women that were selected to move on.
I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen people complain about Kacy getting special treatment. Here is a system that will only allow her to go to Vegas if she EARNS it.
This solution ticks all the boxes for me. - men and women still on the same course - women will continue to be featured in Vegas course - no more popularity contest (wild cards). spots for Vegas are earned.
|
|
arsenette
Administrator
Rambling Rican
Posts: 16,616
Staff Member
|
Post by arsenette on Mar 27, 2017 22:54:34 GMT -5
I still think to avoid any problems they should just get rid of wildcards entirely. It's a old carryover from Sasuke and they deal with it sooooo differently in ANW. Always have. I just see this whole move as affirmative action for women. They are under fire already for being "gifted" spots and those who legit qualified to Vegas on their own were hailed as heroes. Now.. not so much because as soon as someone is bumped off a spot for a woman it's going to be a nightmare for whoever that woman is. It shouldn't be that way but it will be because ANW fans have proven as such. For those who purely want results based entries to Vegas won't get this via this system because it had to be altered for someone of the opposite gender. That is not being "equal".
|
|
|
Post by c0balt on Mar 28, 2017 17:27:15 GMT -5
I think we just witnessed when this rules goes wrong. In Texas 2 of the 5 girls to move to finals fell on second obstacle... That is kind of ridiculous at that point imo. Top girl in region got 30th spot so first girl to move on legit to finals so far.
|
|
|
Post by thebra on Jun 13, 2017 12:28:15 GMT -5
Video from ANW Nation explaining the rule changes. Most people from the FB comments don't seem to like them. link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 22:25:00 GMT -5
I honestly dislike that rule since it gives someone who doesn't qualify for the finals to sneak in
|
|
gt4dom
Jessie Graff
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by gt4dom on Jun 14, 2017 9:12:31 GMT -5
I hearby declare this the "Let's make sure Kacy makes it to Vegas legit this time" rule
|
|
arsenette
Administrator
Rambling Rican
Posts: 16,616
Staff Member
|
Post by arsenette on Jun 14, 2017 9:46:30 GMT -5
Video from ANW Nation explaining the rule changes. Most people from the FB comments don't seem to like them. linkYep. Saw this coming..
|
|