http://flattrack.com/dc/dcboard.php?...ode=full&page=
I think there needs to be more money races in all the classes with CCS. I also don't agree with being gridded by your date of entry. There should be some sort of qualifying. Have qualifying be your practice times. If you run the fastest times in practice, you get gridded at the front. I think it's horse shit some slow fuck is gridded at the front because he preregistered 2 months before the race weekend. I'm not saying I've never been that slow fuck but I still don't agree.
CCS should run it more like a flat track event is run. Heats or qualifying should be the equivilant of our practice time and for Christ sake put some money out there to be won. It'll make it more interesting and more competitive.
I just wanted to bitch about that briefly. Thank you for reading.
Oh boy, this will be an interesting thread :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh:
Quote from: EX_#76 on August 14, 2007, 05:21:16 PM
Oh boy, this will be an interesting thread :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh:
Yea, I thought about it after I hit send.
DARN IT! More smites for me. LOL!!
Do more money prices mean more entry fees?
I'm thinking some of you are already spending grocery money.NO
Well more money races mean higher entry fees. As for qualifying........no time. As for using practice times for grids that would be a logistics nightmare as bikes run together in practice that don't run together in races.
go faster and win factory contingency.
Quote from: grasshopper on August 14, 2007, 05:11:51 PM
I think it's horse shit some slow fuck is gridded at the front because he preregistered 2 months before the race weekend.
Hey now. That hurt my feelings.
Hello Barb, I am only going buy Your picture on the post. I was at Barber over the weekend and working with the Chechs & Slovaks. I noticed a gal walk in with a sling on her arm and she kinda looked like the post photo. If that was You I hope that You are going to be good with that broken arm! If the gal that I am refering to is not Yourself, please excuss me.
Thanx
Dan
Ok which classes to cut so they can have 2 sessions of practice (ya know if they cut it down to 1 session people bitch), qualifying for every race (have to have each separate or else people bitch) and then maybe have time left for 5 or 6 races a day. Consider track rental, insurance, staff, purse money. Should make entry fees around $500ish/race. :biggrin:
And how do you keep SS guys from running slicks for practice? Or hell how do you keep 600 guys from running their 750 in practice for "qualifying". It doesnt work, lots and lots of smart and experienced people have proved that it doesnt work. pre-enter, learn how to start better, or go race with WERA and collect some points then you can start from the front.
'I bet it 'costs' a lot less to run a flat track race. Hmmm a circle of dirt usually vs. a 2 mile road course.
CCS has had more purse paying races in the past.
I think the schedule is bloated with races. I'm a racer, and, at times, the number of events makes the day drag on.
Purse paying races do cost more, but racers enter them.
Oh, qualifying...
Yeah, it would be neat. But would it be absolutely necessary? I think that for a regional club organization, gridding by points is a good way to generate a grid based on some customer loyalty.
Quote from: Super Dave on August 15, 2007, 08:36:11 AM
I think that for a regional club organization, gridding by points is a good way to generate a grid based on some customer loyalty.
+1
Forget about paying out in races. I am sure that Kevin had to finance everything he owned to purchase CCS. He probably would like to earn more cash, so he can pay the mortgage and maybe eat better food? LOL
If you want pay out, you and your friends can throw you money in a hat and the best finisher can can have the prize. This way my entry fees will not go up just to fatten up Ed Key's or Hall's wallet.
If we really need to change the way we grid then, grid by finshing position of the last race that was held at that track. If you were not there at the last race go to the back of the grid. If you are fast you should end up near the front, earning a better grid spot for the next race.
Points wont work, Ed is in second place in the region. The person wining the points race has a performance rating of like 300. Leading the points is not an indication of speed. Finishing order is.
CCS is not going to have enough man power to change what we are doing right now. What is the benefit to CCS to change? They will not make more work for themselves unless it is a good financial decision for their business.
Quote from: EX_#76 on August 15, 2007, 11:45:06 AM
Points wont work, Ed is in second place in the region. The person wining the points race has a performance rating of like 300. Leading the points is not an indication of speed. Finishing order is.
Then why not use the performance rating to determine grids?
I raced with GLRRA a number of years back, and they used the points system to determine grids. It generally worked pretty well at sorting the grids according to the riders' abilities and speed. My personal view is that it made the racing a lot safer by not having a bunch of procrastinators closing in on a bunch of pigeon-toed early birds through the first several corners.
Hey Guy - looks like you've got a pretty good feel for how people feel about you - matching your plate number to your Karma! With that kind of foresight, do ya have any stock tips for us? :cheers:
Quote from: Cyklracer on August 15, 2007, 05:21:34 PM
Then why not use the performance rating to determine grids?
I raced with GLRRA a number of years back, and they used the points system to determine grids. It generally worked pretty well at sorting the grids according to the riders' abilities and speed. My personal view is that it made the racing a lot safer by not having a bunch of procrastinators closing in on a bunch of pigeon-toed early birds through the first several corners.
Hey Guy - looks like you've got a pretty good feel for how people feel about you - matching your plate number to your Karma! With that kind of foresight, do ya have any stock tips for us? :cheers:
Performance index would work, but the likelyhood of having two people with the same index might cause a few problems.
I didn't even notice the karma and number plate thing.. that's cool. If anyone used my advice on stocks the negative number would grow logarithmically!!!
Race great plains-there are a number of money races!
Gee, I took alot of hits due to my comment...I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be so harsh. I think this should be the place for people to vent in any fashion they so choose. I apologise to anyone I may have offended by my comment.
Quote from: dan_ls on August 14, 2007, 08:36:17 PM
Hello Barb, I am only going buy Your picture on the post. I was at Barber over the weekend and working with the Chechs & Slovaks. I noticed a gal walk in with a sling on her arm and she kinda looked like the post photo. If that was You I hope that You are going to be good with that broken arm! If the gal that I am refering to is not Yourself, please excuss me.
Thanks, fortunately I haven't broken my arm. Maybe I have a twin. I hope she heals up fine!
Thanx
Dan
Quote from: EX_#76 on August 15, 2007, 11:45:06 AM
....
If you want pay out, you and your friends can throw you money in a hat and the best finisher can can have the prize. This way my entry fees will not go up just to fatten up Ed Key's or Hall's wallet.
....
ha. that's what i do with a buddy of mine. him and i are always fighting to keep from being dead last. that does seem to help take the sting out of losing to everybody else.
While we are complaining, Why was the entries the same for the Barber weekend or slightly higher than other weekends and we only had 5 lap races?? Seems like a damn rip off to me!! Or getting to the track at 8 pm friday night and being charged 35 bucks for a bracelet instead of 25 for sat and sun. I was at the track for a total of 45 min friday night for 10 bucks, its bullshit. Oh and being undercharged at registration for the 3rd consecutive weekend and later in the morning having to take them more money, i dont mind the money, its the hassle of having to go do it that bothers me all because someone doesnt know how to use a calcualtor. And thanks to the trophy people for tossing my VIR plaque in the trash when i was told at VIR that i could pick it up at Barber. Went to get the plaque and thats what they told me. I pay my entries and earned that award so now they expect me to pay for the plaque if i want it. Ok im done! Yall have a good day!
I have been preaching grid by points as long as I can remember. I race equal amounts with WERA and CCS , and gridding by points is a far more equitable system than by pre-entry. Yes a couple more money classes for experts would be good too.
Quote from: ahastings on August 16, 2007, 11:09:39 PM
I have been preaching grid by points as long as I can remember. I race equal amounts with WERA and CCS , and gridding by points is a far more equitable system than by pre-entry. Yes a couple more money classes for experts would be good too.
+1
In 2003 I was by far the slowest Expert on the track (I'm still one of the slowest Experts - though I recently decided to bring my pace back up a bit). Toward the end of that season I happened to be looking at the points and realized that I was the points leader in 9 classes - yet I was undeniably the slowest Expert out there (I actually stopped racing at that point so those faster racers behind me in the points could 'catch-up' and get the championships). By a points based gridding system I would have had pole position at every race I was going to when I was actually intentionally registering late so I would be gridded at the back. Points are not an indication of speed, they are an indication of consistency.
Performance index (P/I) is also very deceptive, it's a nail in the coffin because it punishes those who run lower entry classes. If you take a lightweight race that had 15 racers in it that saw the top 5 break away and fight the whole race long, the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 733 , in a 60 rider race the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 933. While both 5th place finishes get 21 points it doesn't take into account how close of a finish the lower entry race was, instead in penalizes the 5th place finisher in the lower entry race with a substantially lower P/I. This really comes into play when you look at the overall points which combines your points and P/I, the racer in the 60 rider race would end up with 19.60 points, the rider in the lower entry race would end up with only 15.40 points for their 5th place finish that they had to fight the whole race for. Due to this the overall championship will only be won by someone who finishes well in the larger entry classes, I predict as long as this system is in place we will only see overall champions who run middleweight classes - in fact almost all of the Top 10 will be from the middleweight classes - you will never see someone who runs only 1 bike (other than a middleweight bike) as an overall champion and they would be lucky to even get a Top 10 plate. Someone like Ed Key is mathematically eliminated from ever winning the overall championship due to the lightweight classes he's running not having as many riders as the middleweight classes, the only reason he was even able to get a Top 10 plate was because he wins so many races.
If it were a choice of points or P/I, I would definately go by points. The P/I is flawed since it's an average of both low and high turn out races and how badly a poor finish in a low turn out race could damage your average P/I. It would actually be better to not go to an event that you knew you wouldn't do well in (P/I wise) due to it's damage to ALL the points you have scored over the season. Points at least award consistency, though not always the fastest racers. The electronic scoring system is vulnerable to glitches or crashes, so depending on it to determine grid positions would be a potential nightmare in the event of problems. If the electronic scoring system was a for sure thing (consistently) then I would say we should use a 'gap' multiplier instead of the current P/I system. What I mean is as you cross the finish line the electronic system records the gap between the leader and yourself, this gap is then used as a multiplier to figure a much more accurate P/I. The total race time from start to finish is already recorded, it would be simple to have a program that figured the percentage that your gap from the leader was and use it as a P/I to be multiplied by the points you get for a finish, here's an example:
For ease of calculation in this example the leader finishes an 8 lap race in 12 minutes (720 seconds) which averages out to 1:30 (90 seconds) lap times and gets 35 points. The 2nd place finishes 3 seconds down from the leader, that's 723 seconds as compared to 720 (720 divided by 723), which equals 99.585% - multiply this by the 2nd place points of [30] points and you come up with an accurate overall performance oriented score of [29.876] (using traditional rounding up and down). Now let's say you have a racer who runs away from the pack and the 2nd place racer is 40 seconds down, the 2nd place racer would end up with 760 seconds or a 94.737% multiplier which calculates out to a score of [28.421]. In a lapped rider situation you still use the gap between the leader and the lapper at the finish line plus use the average lap time of the leader as the penalty per lap (for ease of score keeping). So purely for example if you have a 2nd place rider who is a lap down and crosses the line 20 seconds behind the leader they would be at 830 seconds (720+90+20) or a 87.805% multiplier for a score of [26.342]. All of those are examples of a 2nd place finish based on actual performance and would provide a true overall championship chase that is representative of a racers performance. In the event of a scoring system failure you could revert to points paid at full value (instead of a calculated value) based on finishing position and no performance index issued in any way, this way your previous and future performace indexes will average out that rare event of an electronic system failure. CCS could also have your P/I listed as the percentages I used in this example, that way you can see if your at a 98.564% Performance value or 72.620% - In my opinion a much more representative way of displaying a Performance Index.
With a system as I just described gridding by actual performance calculated points would be a great way to do it, otherwise you could regularly end up with mid-pack racers unding up in the front on the grid because they were consistent or the fastest racers missed some events. This would also allow the fastest racers to still have some bad finishes or DNF's and retain a good position in the points because they would regularly earn the most calculated points. 8)
Mike,
While your system would put the faster riders in front and the slower riders in back it is self perpetuating. The fast will become faster and the slow slower. You are forcing the slower riders to fight their way through traffic to get a better grid position at the next race and the faster riders need only stay in front, with clear track to ride in, to maintain their front grid postions. The rewarding of consistant, loyal participation is what championships are all about. The idea that a slower rider in front of a faster rider is unfair or unsafe doesn't hold water either, if it did then we would also want to pull riders in danger of being lapped in the name of safety.
If this was professional racing then we would have qualifying for each race, it's not and in club racing grid position is a perk that can help the organization to improve it's financial security so that there is a race next weekend. Right now that means pre-registration which let's CCS manage it's self more effeciently. With a switch to a points based system there is every reason to believe attendance will increase which will in turn increase revenue keeping costs down for all racers while also benefiting the organizations bottom line, a true win - win situation. I should point out that both of these methods reduce the manpower, hence costs, over qualifying which is the only "fair" way to grid riders. Nothing short of qualifying will be completely fair or satisfy everyone but with the number of classes there is simply no way to run qualifying sessions for everyone without raising prices through the roof. In reality one only has to pre-enter a couple weeks for most races to get into the first 2 rows, this does however increase attendance by getting the guys on the fence to commit before seeing the weather report. Simple points gets people to run more events to try to stay in the front. Both methods reward commitment and help keep the club alive.
This is club racing, we welcome all comers, we have no 110% rule, we make our money to keep the organization afloat from the racers not the gate. We do this for fun. For those that need to take it to the next level there are plenty of other levels available but let's not turn this into the AMA, that would only drive away 2/3 of our members and bankrupt the system. Then we close the playground and no one wins.
Just my 2 cents, although it may not be worth quite that much. :biggrin:
gsxr mike, the ponts system has been changed since 2003. Under the new system you don't get as many points for just finishing. If only the pre-entered riders are gridded by points then CCS will still get their pre-entry numbers. Oh, I don't ride a middleweight bike and am leading the MidAtlantic overall expert points. I do ride 2 bikes though. Gridding by points isn't perfect, yes some slower riders will be gridded up front, but it would at least give some sort of order. Gridding by PI points would put it in even better order and would be easy to impliment.
Quote from: Hawk on August 18, 2007, 12:36:06 PM
While your system would put the faster riders in front and the slower riders in back it is self perpetuating. The fast will become faster and the slow slower. You are forcing the slower riders to fight their way through traffic to get a better grid position at the next race and the faster riders need only stay in front, with clear track to ride in, to maintain their front grid postions.
I disagree that being up front makes riders faster. It's interesting speculation.
The Hayden boys weren't always the fastest on the track, and they didn't get slower.
Quote from: Super Dave on August 18, 2007, 07:18:02 PM
I disagree that being up front makes riders faster. It's interesting speculation.
The Hayden boys weren't always the fastest on the track, and they didn't get slower.
In re-reading Mikes post I find I read in something that was not there. I guess I'm not totally clear on Mikes idea. I don't understand how his system will prevent a midpacker who comes to every race from gridding in front of a faster rider that comes to just a couple races a year.
Quote from: Hawk on August 19, 2007, 12:52:00 AM
In re-reading Mikes post I find I read in something that was not there. I guess I'm not totally clear on Mikes idea. I don't understand how his system will prevent a midpacker who comes to every race from gridding in front of a faster rider that comes to just a couple races a year.
It wouldn't, a huge complaint I've read over the years has been how the fastest guys think it's crap that if they skip an event or 2 (for example to race AMA or due to injury) that they would most likely lose out on any championships they had going in CCS - that was a big reason CCS changed not only the points system, but factors in P/I to figure the overall Top 10 plates now. What it would do is allow the fastest racers to have 'no shows' or DNF's in some races and still retain their championship leads.
And since you may not know my history of opinion on this subject I will give you a brief summary. I personally compare a race season to a war, with individual battles being each event and the overall war being the overall points championships. Winning individual battles does not guarentee you to win a war, in fact you don't have to win any battles to win a war, all you have to do is achieve the goals you set out to achieve with each battle that lead to an overall win of the larger picture - the war. I personally believe that winning individual races is like winning battles, while it's an accomplishment, it's only a puzzle piece in the bigger picture (being overall class and Top 10 championships). I think CONSISTENCY is what should be rewarded as far as championships go, winning individual races is great, but competing in EVERY race the ENTIRE season is more impressive to me. The reason I was winning those 9 championships was because I went to EVERY event and ran the same classes ALL SEASON LONG and didn't miss any individual races by crashing or not attending any events, something others were apparently not able to do that season. Since the CCS rule making commitee recently felt there should be preference toward those who win races but don't compete at every event, as opposed to those who show up to EVERY event and consistently run all their races EVERY round, I've somewhat conceeded my thoughts in the 'consistency' regard and just focused on what would make the current train of thought better concerning championships and gridding. I personally believe gridding shouldn't be by qualifying, it should be by your consistency, in otherwords your points in each class. You should be rewarded for being committted to the sport and consistently running all your races EVERY event, that to me is what a championship is about (not degrading to more of a NASCAR mentality of twisted rules and regulations to make it so certain things happen in a series). POINTS pure and simple show who showed up and raced ALL their races - if you want to go for the win that's extremely admirable, but I don't believe it should 'entitle' anyone to any championships, consistency should. The same with gridding, reward those who consistently show up and run all their races at every event. This would also help to sway those who are on the fence about competing due to weather because by skipping an event that could reslut in them being a couple rows back on the grid at the following event - if you race, you benefit by better grid positions.
A super fast racer starting on the front row (due to qualifying) and running away from the entire field doesn't provide a whole lot of excitement, but that racer having to battle to get to the front because they only had enough points to be gridded on the 4th row is exciting. With the current points structure the most consistent racers would be fairly high finishers as it is (most likely Top 10), so it's not like you would have back of the pack people gridded at the front due to consistency. BUT, since it's already been decided that preference will be given to the fastest racers, I wrote my original response as I did in order to make sure the fastest racers were being rewarded (as CCS has already decided it should be).
If we're talking expert club racing, one can put the fastest experts on row five, if you like, and they move up to the top three if not higher usually by the first lap.
If you want excitement, just offer a few more purse races.
gsxr mike, Yes consinstency is still important, but why would you want to win championships just based on that and not by finishing up front. And if you miss a round or two and are gridding by points , the most you will probably move back is only one row , two at the most in grid position. This year I am chasing CCS points , but when I do run WERA I am still gridded in the first 3 rows usually and I only do about every other race with them in my region. With CCS figure top 10 in points in each class would be in the first 3 rows.
Quote from: ahastings on August 19, 2007, 10:45:51 AM
gsxr mike, Yes consinstency is still important, but why would you want to win championships just based on that and not by finishing up front. And if you miss a round or two and are gridding by points , the most you will probably move back is only one row , two at the most in grid position. This year I am chasing CCS points , but when I do run WERA I am still gridded in the first 3 rows usually and I only do about every other race with them in my region. With CCS figure top 10 in points in each class would be in the first 3 rows.
As I mentioned before, championships reward those who are consistent finishers. Winning races and winning championships require different mindsets and sets or risks to achieve. If someone wants to push as hard as it's required nowdays to win races, then more power to them, I respect that. But with that desire to win individual races comes elevated risk of crashing and loss of position in championships. Championships should reward those who do well in EVERY race, if someone wants to pursue winning every race then they will probably risk throwing away that chance of winning championships, it's a choice one has to make for themself. A true champion in my eyes is able to make a good result happen at EVERY event, look at how many years Mladin was able to not only win championships, but also win the most races of any racer in his class most of those seasons. Take Nicky Hayden as an example, how many races did he win to get the MotoGP championship? Nicky got the championship because the true performer in the series had a couple DNF's and dropped the championship, Nicky was just close enough to pick it up before it was snatched back. Yet everyone seems to be all on fire about how great it is that Nicky won the championship. Really? I think it was kinda *blah*, but he did do what it took to win the overall championship according to the MotoGP rules.
The system I proposed initially in this thread would reward those who win, in fact it rewards them even more if they were able to pull a gap on the field by lowering the points the people behind them earn, that would put an extra benefit in being the leader. But on the other hand it's not the race leaders who bring the majority of money into this sport, it's all the racers who don't win or don't have a realistic chance of it. Money is a huge factor in winning races (and championships to a degree), if your not replacing tires like mad and using crazy expensive race fuel in a fairly new bike your chances of winning are slim. Championships are something someone can strive to win without dumping as much money into consumables, it also carries with it a slightly lower risk as compared to trying to win races.
This is such a double edged sword topic because those that risk it all at every event to win individual races want to also get the championships for doing so (even if they don't race every event or every class they are chasing at every event), yet those who honestly don't have the resources available to them to win races need something they can strive for as well. I suggested something in this thread that goes along with the mentality CCS has adopted most recently that's trying to reward championships to those who win, over those who are consistent. I'm certainly not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to point out that the current system is flawwed and biased toward someone either running a middleweight bike or at least 2 different class bikes. I provided a way to more accurately reward the race winners with championship points, I hate seeing someone like Ed Key not even having a chance at an overall #1 plate due to riding in the lightweight classes with the current system in place. Gridding by points using that system would allow both the fast and the consistent good finishers to be at the front of the grid.
I realize my opinion here is somewhat confusing because I prefer doing things a different way than I initially proposed, but I also realize that the current system is already in place and desperately needs to be fixed.
I think you are wrong about Ed Key not having a chance because he is on a lightweight. Like I said I run lightweight. I also run a Duc in the big bike stuff, but I think I could still get the championship without the Duc. In fact it is much easier in the lightweights to get points. If he did every round in his region he would have a very good chance. You don't have to win races to win a CCS championship. It actually takes more financial resources to run every single round ,even midpack, than to try to do well in select rounds
Example- I am in the MidAtlantic region attempting to win the #1 expert plate. The region has effectively 13 rounds since Barber is Twin Sprints, they run from Daytona to West Virginia, a 900 mile spread. I generally run 6-7 points paying sprints per race weekend. It is not in my budget to travel to the Southeast rounds that are included in the Mid-Atlantic points, so I am not doing 4 of the rounds. Fortunately I am doing well enough in the 9 true Mid-Atlantic rounds to lead the points over some of the guys that are doing all of the rounds. By your theory they should be ahead of me just because they do all the rounds and run mid pack.
Apparently you missed the part in my 1st post about the effect that P/I has on any points you earn (as CCS uses it currently). It's the opposite of how most people assume it works, a person in a lower entry race may be able to score more points in a race, but their P/I will take points back away from them. Here was my original post about how the current system is:
Quote from: GSXR RACER MIKE on August 18, 2007, 11:16:43 AMPerformance index (P/I) is also very deceptive, it's a nail in the coffin because it punishes those who run lower entry classes. If you take a lightweight race that had 15 racers in it that saw the top 5 break away and fight the whole race long, the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 733 , in a 60 rider race the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 933. While both 5th place finishes get 21 points it doesn't take into account how close of a finish the lower entry race was, instead in penalizes the 5th place finisher in the lower entry race with a substantially lower P/I. This really comes into play when you look at the overall points which combines your points and P/I, the racer in the 60 rider race would end up with 19.60 points, the rider in the lower entry race would end up with only 15.40 points for their 5th place finish that they had to fight the whole race for.
Now if you win every race you run then the P/I won't matter, but logically most people won't. The 2 examples in the quote of low and high entry races are accurate points earned toward the overall championship. The high entry class racer gets 19.60 points toward the overall championship for their 5th place finish after incorporating the P/I as it is used currently, the racer in the lower entry race only get's 15.40 points toward the OVERALL POINTS CHAMPIONSHIP for their 5th place finish. So in other words the racer in the lower entry class only gets apx. 3/4 of the points toward the overall championship that the rider in the larger race does (while both of them had 5th place finishes).
It's very true that it's easier to earn points in a lower entry race toward that classes INDIVIDUAL CLASS CHAMPIONSHIP, but not toward the OVERALL CHAMPIONSHIP once you incorporate the P/I as it's used currently - so many people have trouble understanding this.
Gridding by performance index wouldn't do anything constructive in my point of view.
If you're going to make grid changes, make them to keep people that come do a decent number of events feel rewarded as "good customers".
Points is the easiest for that.
If you grid by PI only, well, in some cases, there are riders that will do two or three manufacturers contingency races in a region. They win, and they have a PI of 1000. Meanwhile, a racer that risks doing more events gets more points and has a lower PI even if they won every other event that the other guy didn't attend.
Just an opinion, but I think keeping it simple and using the new smaller scale points system (35 points for a win vs 65) to develop grids is a nice one.
Mike I understand the PI well. you are citing extremed examples of 15 and 60 riders. The other way of looking at it instead of a saying " riders in smaller classes are being punished "is riders in larger classes are being rewarded because it is generally more difficult to get 5th in a 30 rider field than a 15 rider field. Actually in the expert ranks, the lightweight classes are not necessarilly smaller than the middleweight classes and they are definitely larger than the heavyweight classes anymore.
Well, classes vary region to region, year to year. There are cycles that can't be predicted.