C2 - Promotion from Div 4

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Mon May 29, 2006 11:37 pm

Firstly I put my hand up and admit that i got it wrong on the day. I only went and issued promotion certs to a Div 4 C2 pairing on the basis the event was quorate and they had won.

However subsequently during Post event Admin and Results processing noted my error. However the calculations threw up some interesting points.

Applying the 1.25 factor to the C2 placed them 2nd in the K1M and hence well within the promotion zone.
The winner of the K1M is a local lad who started last year and this was his first real event. however he has paid attention and spent a little time practising during Club sessions. Not only did he win Div 4 his result would have won Div 3 (something he went on to undertake on the Sunday).

So we have an anomaly, if we only use the winning K1M to establish promotion then some who could cope with promotion are held back.

Should we consider and amendment and look if the adjusted result falls within the promotion range of K1M then the pair are promoted ?

This was your baby CP so interested to see your response.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Tue May 30, 2006 9:08 am

I thought about where to apply the 125%, to first promoted, or last. But when I did the calculations it seemed that the last promoted was a much more variable standard, with only a small number of super fast speedy winners.

I did not even think of adding in the proviso that if the crew would have been promoted in the Men's kayak, they should be promoted. Seems eminently reasonable, and I would support such an amendment, especially as it looks as though we have to reduce the 125% to separate the Prem C2s, OR do we use different multipliers for Prem/1 and 'the rest', i.e. 125% up to Prem/1 and 1 at Prem/1. Oh dear, looks like more boring result analysis needs to be done.

Then we maybe have to think about Ladies/C1s. Are the classes large enough and consistent enough to warrant points calculated independantly? The 'Jeffs Friend' debate indicates probably not. Anyone want to make any suggestions?

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:55 pm

To confuse further I had another look and realised I was too dismissive on the Sunday results. There were only 2 C2s and the winning C2 stormed home ahead of the K1M so no problem there (there may be an argument that even though neither party had paddled slalom for a few years perhaps they should have been ranked - but with a clear win natural justice was dispensed in an inquorate field).

However I was checking stuff today and realised that the 2nd C2 qualified for promotion under the 125% ruling. This C2 was also 2nd on the Saturday by a significant margin.

So we had quorum on Saturday and No promotions, inquorate on Sunday and all promoted! Should we also limit to 125% of K1M up to a maximum of 1 in 5?

Before you delve too deep in the K1W and C1 category beware, Martikaan posted a winning time in his C1 that outpaced the K1M in Athens last weekend - which category should we use as a yardstick ?

frontman2 · Post by **frontman2** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:16 am

CP- I have mentioned this before but why not base C2 points on a percentage of the maximum K1M points? i.e C2 gets 125% of winning K1M, they get 100 - 25 = 75% of the points, 110% gives them 90% of the points etc. That way you avoid the situation we had at Tully prem where the top 3 C2s all got the same points (because they all went under 125%), despite there being a signifcant gap between 1st and 3rd time wise! This would work in all divisions as well. In lower divisions, getting a certain number of points might get you promoted or could build up the points through the season.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:21 pm

Nostalgia trip coming on . . . . AAh percentages I remember those, back when I started it was all modified percentages, deep joy, no one ever knew how they had done until the results came out.

FM2, happy to consider any solution that keeps things working, and rewards crews appropriately.
I am worried about just a straight percentage of winning Men's score giving points at lower divisions, just gut feel, no analysis, will have to think about it. Having only just changed the system, I have a natural bent to giving it chance to prove itself, and will do some more analysis of this seasons results for backup/proposals at next ACM.

My current feeling is that 125% is OK at lower divisions, but is wrong at Prem (/1?). So subject to reviewing numbers, and in the light of the excellent C2 results this year, I am minded towards Prem - either
OPTION a
all classes judged together, and points allocated on position,
OR
All points for C1/C2/K1W allocated as now, but with NO factor.
For example
Time Class Points_a Points_b
101 K1M 1000 1000
102 C1 900 1000
103 K1M 800 800
104 K1M 700 600
105 K1M 600 400
106 C2 500 400
107 K1M 400 200
108 C1 300 200
109 C2 200 200
110 K1W 100 200

At lower divisions, retain the 125% factor so as to differentiate those finishing well off the botom of Men's kayak, with the added promotion in div 4 for any C1/C2/K!W who would have been promoted in the kayak event (or just go to superclass overall. . . , or return to percentage calculations. . . )

Despite the rumours, I do not claim all the answers, and would love to end up with something simple, that Tony can program into Slasoft without it taking him forever - I would be suprised if he even covers the costs of software licences from selling slasoft. As long as it holds back crews/paddlers not up to promotion and rewards those ready for it.