If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?

[John Sturgess]

The Mega- Computer Deep Throat took 7 million years to calculate that the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. However it was not large enough to be capable of saying what the Question was … that required a much bigger computer to be built.
Slalom, particularly in relation to what is happening in Division 1 this season, is in the same situation. Lots of people are suggesting answers to the problem … but nobody seems to be defining the problem.
Try this one: the problem is that there are more people who want to race, and are capable of racing, on rough water (say, the Washburn upwards) than there are race slots available for the number of races they want to do. In other words, we have TOO MANY CUSTOMERS.
The response to this in business, and in well-run sports (cycling, for instance), is to say ‘good’, and set about creating the necessary capacity.
Whereas Government and its offshoots, and some sports, tend to look for ways to reduce the number of customers.
Of the suggestions being floated on the various strands of this website, some would increase capacity, some would decrease the number of customers, and some would be neutral.
And so there are three things that need to be done before we can find a solution – or, probably, solutions:
Firstly, we need to decide whether as a sport we want to accommodate all those who wish to take part, or whether we want to find ways of reducing numbers in the sport so that the present capacity can handle them.
Secondly, we need to put together a long list of the solutions being suggested, and define whether they would increase capacity, or reduce customer numbers.
Thirdly, we need to look at all the possible solutions in line with our decision above, without dismissing solutions for reasons to do with the status quo.
And remember how many paddlers we were able to accommodate thirty years ago …

[PeterC]

Simple answer not possible John.

I want to see as many paddlers on the water and competing as we can manage and I would absolutely agree we have got a problem in Div 1 at the moment but it is a good problem in that as you note it is too many customers.

There are however issues:
- we cannot race more than a certain number of paddlers in any one day, it's limited by daylight let alone the resilience of the volunteers organising, timing and judging.
- there does appear to be an increase in paddlers entering multiple classes and in some cases not taking all their booked runs which does limit entry for others.
- while the slalom committee does organise some races we are primarily dependent on clubs undertaking the not insignificant effort to put on races.
- there are only so many weekends in a year and it would not I think be good to have Div 1 races competing with each other.
- doubles are more attractive at Div 1 and above because of the costs of travel and a case of more racing per £ for a double, particularly for the remoter sites.
- calendars are decided a long time in advance and for example are already largely planned for next year.
- there are some who are not able to plan their attendance at races in advance and are now limited as races are filling up and closing long before they would normally have closed. I do think we may have to think about race opening dates...

I did post an opening date for the October Tees Race of the 1st May which to be fair is ages before the race but even so as a Prem single and unlikely to be over subscribed I have still seen many early entries which are not going to have any priority over ones arriving on the 1st May.

Lastly I would note that while the majority are very understanding there are some who choose to try and take chunks out of organisers - this is not acceptable...

[harratts]

I for one can't see how an Entry Open By date would work?

At the moment entry cards (with payment) need to be sent by Royal Mail. How then can people judge when to drop their envelope into the post box?

If it arrives a day too early is it discarded as if it were never submitted?

If it arrives a day late will all of the available spaces have been allocated?

When is this made clear to the entrant? Some start lists do not appear until very close to the actual date of the event by which time accommodation may have had to have been booked and travel plans made.

If Div.1 practise time could be removed then 50% ish more available capacity has straight away been created at every race where this year there seems to be the main problem.

Would anyone in an official capacity like to pass comment if such a decision could be discussed, considered and acted upon if considered the most appropriate course of action to follow mid season?

Steve

[Neil H]

I am always interested to read comments on here on emotive subjects. Leaving aside any personal views I may have, at least at this point, I wonder how we can utilize this forum as an effective tool for change, or do comments on here just languish in the ether after people have aired their views. I believe that everybody has something to contribute in all matters, young, old, established or not; then you just have to filter out the unworkable and proceed to a better system, doing nothing is always a possibility but that doesn't mean it is the best possibility but it might be. There will always be people reluctant to change, it can herald loss of power, but we shouldn't shy away from change, therein lies the path of degradation. An effective, democratic, way of extracting relevant ideas from here needs to be established involving a diverse demographic

Steve Harratt's suggestion on another post regarding no practice at Div 1 - it would open up the entry and prepare promotes for Prem and as Steve says most ready for promotion should be able to do without it. It would also level the field somewhat for locals et al, et al who might not arrive until the morning of a race i.e. not benefitting from a previous evenings practice. This is an example of something may get lost in the mist

Lastly, I would like to add and this is from memory so I could be wrong, Deep Thought. Or it is a different book, or indeed film, which I have obviously never watched and obviously do not have a copy on the second shelf of a locked cupboard in my spare room which I could lend you.

[John Sturgess]

Neil

You are of course right: Deep Throat was the insider source in the Watergate affair

[djberriman]

Personally I'd hate to see practice removed, in most cases we paddle courses once per year and often the offical practice might be the only one we can make, or in most cases is the only practice which is worthwhile. Sure there are those who will make it to prem but they can if they wish to 'train' for that eventuality and forgoe their practice. Similarly if you want to 'level' the playing field then ban 'free' practice once the course is errected. Locals will always have an advantage whether the course is built or not.

Any reduction in practice means the sport is even more expensive and means those working their way up gain even less big water time.

n addition for the the rest of us who will sit in or around div 1 for many years and do it for the enjoyment as we have no hope of making prem it will be a serious question as to whether it is worthwhile, the knock on effect of that is a potential loss of coaches, helpers etc. Still I guess it would reduce the number of paddlers in Div 1.

Would I bother if all I could do is turn up on the day (Bala, Llandysul, Pinkston and the like for me) and do 2 runs, probably not. I much prefer to take a day or two off go and get some time on the water, hopefully with the course up with some like minded paddlers and have some fun before the serious racing starts.

[BaldockBabe]

I believe that things on this board just "languish in the ether after people have aired their views" unless people actually produce a proposal for the ACM. Thus, if there is a change required you need to put together a poposal and submit it to the Secretary of the slalom committee prior to the deadline in readiness for it to be discussed and voted on at the ACM.

[Neil H]

I believe that things on this board just "languish in the ether after people have aired their views" unless people actually produce a proposal for the ACM. Thus, if there is a change required you need to put together a poposal and submit it to the Secretary of the slalom committee prior to the deadline in readiness for it to be discussed and voted on at the ACM.

Welcome back

I suspect you are correct and that some sound ideas are lost after they receive a slagging off on here and people lose the will, I wonder if there is a stat on what starts here and goes further.

[Neil H]

Personally I'd hate to see practice removed, in most cases we paddle courses once per year and often the offical practice might be the only one we can make, or in most cases is the only practice which is worthwhile.

Locals will always have an advantage whether the course is built or not.

Any reduction in practice means the sport is even more expensive and means those working their way up gain even less big water time.

n addition for the the rest of us who will sit in or around div 1 for many years and do it for the enjoyment as we have no hope of making prem it will be a serious question as to whether it is worthwhile, the knock on effect of that is a potential loss of coaches, helpers etc. Still I guess it would reduce the number of paddlers in Div 1.

Would I bother if all I could do is turn up on the day (Bala, Llandysul, Pinkston and the like for me) and do 2 runs, probably not. I much prefer to take a day or two off go and get some time on the water, hopefully with the course up with some like minded paddlers and have some fun before the serious racing starts.

I would agree that official practice is more worthwhile, the free practice can turn into a melee and benefit those driven/selfish enough to put themselves before everyone else and hog features. Banning free practice could also lengthen a day.

Locals will always have an advantage on knowing the water that is a given, one true leveller might be have someone from another club design a course and turn up and erect it the afternoon before race.

The comment on expense is a sound one indeed. It's something everyone must face and whether at Div 1 or Prem. We should certainly look to encourage people and alleviate expense, Prems will obviously turn up for two runs, but as you say why would you bother, and if you take into account a single race it is a ludicrous expense.

I don't suggest banning practice is the answer, it's one partial answer.

[Dee]

It seems to me that the time has come to return to five divsions, largely by dividing prem and div1 into 3 divisions.
The new divisions then become:

• prem - as is currently less a few off the bottom end
• div 1 - the bottom few from prem + top 2/3ish of current div 1
• div 2 - the bottom third of div 1 and top few from div 2
• div 3 - the rest of div 2
• div 4 - the existing div 3
• div 5 - the existing div 4

To make this work

• div 2s will need to be on much more challenging water than they are currently - equivalent to the current div 1 races
• the new div 2 would be much smaller than the current div 1, this could mean more time for free practice on challenging water, but in return div 2 costs will rise significantly (to current div 1 levels at least and possibly higher) to make running div 2s a more attractive proposition to clubs
• to reflect the new div 2 status (cut down) support from the section judges/timing teams would be needed, perhaps to act as jury chair and cover the more difficult sections of the course. (see below)
• div 1 could then be seen much more as the prem stepping stone and as such it would be more appropriate to drop free practice and make official practice an optional extra based on organisers decision. This could open the way for running some div 1 races on course currently only available to prem. Div 1 fees will have to rise to reflect the costs.
• prem costs will rise to cover the cost of the more expensive venues (as in the case of Lee Valley). They should not be subsidised by the levies from the lower division

We will also need to encourage div 1 sites/organisers to run almost twice as many events to cater for the new division. Some ideas to help with this

• a change in attitude across all divisions so that paddlers come expecting to do a judging stint (this will help reduce organiser stress)
• an on-line booking system (again will hopefully make it easier for organisers)
• regional assistance (see below)
• Allow races to be added to the calendar later in the season and even during the season

Regional assistance/Section Judges/Timing:
These days we need more and more "qualified" people to attend and be present at races. This is going to make it harder to run races without breaking the rules and will discourage organisers from running races. Don't shoot me but I wonder whether we could reorganise the section judges and timing teams perhaps so that some of the qualifications could be covered by these people. To do this the size of these teams would need to be increased, I wonder whether this could be achieved by having regional teams under the umbrella on the main teams - the regional team members would only be committing to attending races in their region and could also include some "trainee" section judges. This might mean that more people come forward making support of the new div 2s more practical.

[BaldockBabe]

[*]to reflect the new div 2 status (cut down) support from the section judges/timing teams would be needed, perhaps to act as jury chair and cover the more difficult sections of the course. (see below)
[/list]

• a change in attitude across all divisions so that paddlers come expecting to do a judging stint (this will help reduce organiser stress)

Hi Dee,

I agree with the suggestion of a new division between the current Div 1 and the current Div 2. The only query I have is whether this new division needs section judges/ timing team rather than being run as the current Div 2 and below? Is there a reason behind your thoughts on this?

I agree that paddlers should expect to do judging stints - you know I have enforced the rule at events I have run. To be fair on the paddlers I only had one complaint/ refusal and that was a parent who said "little "precious" doesn't do judging" and that was a parent who should know better. No word of complaint from the international paddlers down to the new promotees that were also made to judge!

[John Sturgess]

Sorry, but almost all of these responses illustrate the reason I quoted for opening this thread

Everyone is talking about detailed answers without committing themselves on what the problem is, or which side of the basic yes/no question they are on

Could responders at least declare which side they are on: expand capacity, or reduce the number of customers. Otherwise I am goingto have to try to set up a poll.

[Mummsie]

At present we are already restricting numbers by turning paddlers away surely we must be looking at increasing capacity by altering the ranking system to enable it to cope with the demand!

[BaldockBabe]

Increasing capacity, hence supporting the idea of another division.

[stevepearson]

At present we are already restricting numbers by turning paddlers away surely we must be looking at increasing capacity by altering the ranking system to enable it to cope with the demand!

Increasing capacity, hence supporting the idea of another division.

Agreed - increase capacity