Numbers of paddlers historical data?

Iain Bethune · Post by **Iain Bethune** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:57 am

I vaguely remember that someone one posted a study of how many paddlers were in each division over the last few years, but I can't find the post on this forum. Can anyone with better memory point it out to me? Or does anyone have this information themselves?

Thanks,

- Iain

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:26 pm

If no one can remember the information, I have yearbooks going back aways. How far back do you want the numbers, and for which classes, I could be convinced to look at highest bib in each class for a small fee

. Nothing too extravegant a cup of coffee at a salom when I have not managed to blagg one would be ample. . . Not that there are many events where I cannot blag cups of coffee, comes of being old fat and smeaky!

ps 2006
K1M P-72, 1-129, 2-140, 3-223
K1W P-38, 1-52, 2-80, 3-83
C1 P-24, 1-28, 2-39, 3-34
C2 P/1-21, 2/3 107
Vet (paddled 2005) P/1-5, 2/3- 11

But you knew that. . .

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:19 am

These figures include in each Division, those who were promoted to it during the season (even if they did not race) and those who were demoted from it after the end of the season; and not those given Ranking Status for the next season, or getting end-of-season promotion.

Beware of using them as they are to measure participation in the sport: c. 75% of those ranked in C1 are also ranked in KI; and some paddlers appear 6 or more times in different C2 combinations as well as being ranked in K1 (and sometimes C1 ...)

I have excluded and dogs ranked in C2 that I know of ...

Part of the problem is that the sport has always counted entries rather than participants ...

KIM KIL C1 C2
2005
(from 2006 yearbook) Prem 75 41 25 19
Div 1 118 54 24
Div 2 125 71 39 106
Div 3 220 83 33
Div 4 294 106 37 69
Totals P-3 P-3 539 249 121 125
1034
Totals P-4 P-4 833 355 158 194
1540

KIM KIL C1 C2
2004
(from 2005 yearbook Prem 68 35 21 17
Div 1 129 44 32
Div 2 123 55 28 83
Div 3 217 90 28
Div 4 292 108 25 58
Totals P-3 537 224 109 100
970
Totals P-4 829 332 134 158
1453

KIM KIL C1 C2
2003
(from 2004 yearbook) Prem 70 33 21 23

Div 1 120 46 27
Div 2 129 52 27 70
Div 3 189 74 31
Div 4 235 103 35 51
Totals P-3 508 205 106 93
912
Totals P-4 743 308 141 144
1336

KIM KIL C1 C2
2002
(from 2003 yearbook) Prem 66 29 22 21
Div 1 109 44 26
Div 2 138 45 26 69
Div 3 204 63 34
Div 4 251 70 14 35
Totals P-3 517 181 108 90
896
Totals P-4 768 251 122 125
1266

KIM KIL C1 C2
2001
(from 2002 yearbook) Prem 62 25 15 17
Div 1 106 40 25
Div 2 122 45 34 55
Div 3 147 61 24
Div 4 214 61 23 30
Totals P-3 437 171 98 72
778
Totals P-4 651 232 121 102
1106

KIM KIL C1 C2
2000
(from 2001 yearbook) Prem 60 29 16 24
Div 1 125 43 22
Div 2 152 69 26 54
Div 3 191 75 38
Div 4 251 81 20 41
Totals P-3 528 216 102 78
924
Totals P-4 779 297 122 119
1317

KIM KIL C1 C2
1999
(from 2000 yearbook) Prem 69 27 18 18
Div 1 132 54 31
Div 2 171 70 38 58
Div 3 256 85 53
Div 4 257 77 32 39
Totals P-3 628 236 140 76
1080
Totals P-4 885 313 172 115
1485

KIM KIL C1 C2
1998
(from 1999 yearbook) Prem 76 22 18 22
Div 1 133 50 33
Div 2 139 57 34 96
Div 3 379 146 96
Div 4 271 95 28 60
Totals P-3 727 275 181 118
1301
Totals P-4 998 370 209 178
1745

KIM KIL C1 C2
1997
(from 1998 yearbook) Prem 73 28 24 28
Div 1 153 70 56
Div 2 176 64 42 28
Div 3 187 63 42
Div 4 243 93 67 94
Div 5 304 122 52 88
Totals P-3 832 318 231 150
1531
Totals P-4 1136 440 283 238
2097

KIM KIL C1 C2
1996
(from 1997 yearbook) Prem 83 31 28 29
Div 1 161 62 56
Div 2 195 69 53 38
Div 3 218 57 44
Div 4 266 87 65 98
Div 5 300 105 40 66
Totals P-3 823 306 246 165
1540
Totals P-4 1123 411 286 231
2051

KIM KIL C1 C2
1995
(from 1996 yearbook) Prem 89 26 27 30
Div 1 180 67 44
Div 2 232 69 47 34
Div 3 242 64 48
Div 4 279 85 64 93
Div 5 335 105 43 57
Totals P-3 1022 311 230 157
1720
Totals P-4 1357 416 273 214
2260

KIM KIL C1 C2
1994
(from 1995 yearbook) Prem 86 33 27 35
Div 1 196 63 46
Div 2 265 77 47 43
Div 3 290 74 49
Div 4 314 114 69 104
Div 5 388 116 48 73
Totals P-3 1151 361 238 182

Totals P-4 1539 477 286 255
2557

KIM KIL C1 C2
1993
(from 1994 yearbook) Prem 94 31 28 27
Div 1 190 61 67
Div 2 301 81 56 60
Div 3 328 82 53
Div 4 359 126 58 75
Div 5 470 144 53 77
Totals P-3 1272 381 262 162
2077
Totals P-4 1742 525 315 239
2821

KIM KIL C1 C2
1992
(from 1993 yearbook) Prem 91 40 27 15
Div 1 190 55 56 17
Div 2 312 76 58 12
Div 3 368 92 58 41
Div 4 393 122 81 79
Div 5 498 165 57 99
Totals P-3 1354 385 280 164
2183
Totals P-4 1852 550 337 263
3002

KIM KIL C1 C2
1991
(from 1992 yearbook) Prem 85 29 31 16
Div 1 192 60 57 23
Div 2 319 78 47 19
Div 3 412 113 68 40
Div 4 499 144 104 111
Div 5 548 176 104 101
Totals P-3 1407 424 307 209
2347
Totals P-4 1955 600 411 310
3276

KIM KIL C1 C2
1990
(from 1991 yearbook) Prem 88 32 32 15
Div 1 187 47 60 22
Div 2 332 79 49 15
Div 3 428 119 83 46
Div 4 534 150 95 90
Div 5 no figures for Div 5
Totals P-4 1569 427 319 188
2503

KIM KIL C1 C2
1989
(from 1990 yearbook) Prem 87 30 27 12
Div 1 217 54 63 21
Div 2 345 82 55 24
Div 3 495 126 63 33
Div 4 585 156 116 108
Div 5 no figures for Div 5
Totals P-4 1729 448 324 198
2699

KIM KIL C1 C2
1988
(from 1989 yearbook) Prem 84 26 21 11
Div 1 212 57 57 24
Div 2 402 81 58 23
Div 3 612 142 76 40
Div 4 646 155 136 125
Div 5 no figures for Div 5
Totals P-4 1956 461 348 223
2988

KIM KIL C1 C2
1987
(from 1988 yearbook) Prem 87 24 20 14
Div 1 220 61 50 20
Div 2 417 85 52 25
Div 3 654 147 83 49
Div 4 785 177 150 136
Div 5 no figures for Div 5
Totals P-4 2163 494 355 244
3256

KIM KIL C1 C2
1986
(from 1987 yearbook) Prem 74 25 18 10
Div 1 198 54 39 17
Div 2 399 72 37 20
Div 3 643 150 70 34
Div 4 835 179 171 152
Novice no figures for Novice Div
Totals P-4 2149 480 335 233
3197

KIM KIL C1 C2
1985
(from 1986 yearbook) Prem 57 17 11 6
Div 1 190 48 38 19
Div 2 416 72 32 22
Div 3 642 131 45 25
Div 4 846 188 138 121
Novice no figures for Novice Div
Totals P-4 2151 456 264 193
3064

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:21 am

Sorry - I forgot that that would take out the table formatting - but you should be able to get it into columns - remember that where thereappear to be missing figures for C2 it is because the Div 1 figures are inluded in Prem and the Div 3 figures are included in Div 2

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:55 am

Rats, John and I were doing the same thing last night. but we get different numbers, e.g. the number of Prem K1M in the 2006 yearbook. I took the start of year rankings, e.g. including promotion excluding demotion.

Web page of my results and %ages or (if it will download for you (Excel 2003 page of my results and %ages ENJOY)

The dpressing thing is teh slide from 3,270 odd ranked paddlers in 1988 to the 790 in 2002. It has climbed to the dizzy heights of over a thousand now.

Also gives credence to my cries that Div 1 is the equivalent of teh old div 2. We have 15% of ranked padlers in premier. in the days of yore (when I was semi serious i.e late 80s) Prem was about 6% and Div 1 9%! so div 1 paddlers now would have been in Div 2 then.

In terms of numbers to get competitive events, in 1988 there were more paddler sin Prem, 1,2 than we have now. Perhaps this gives more weight to the idea of reducing the number of divisions. . .

Best bit was spotting old year books with 'Timothy Baillie' and other youngsters whose names have shortnede as they got older, and remembering the old faces no longer around/paddling. . . (drifts off into a musing of 'even nostalgia isnt what it used to be!!)

.

Iain Bethune · Post by **Iain Bethune** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:46 pm

Thanks guys! You saved me a fair bit of time!

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:11 pm

I used the 2006 yearbook to get 2005 figures because I was interested in the number who actually paddled in 2005 not the number who could paddle in 2006.

I have to say I think the Division size thing is a bit of a dangerous red herring. We are the only country I can find that uses Ranking like that to stop people racing at particular races. Apart from the French - who use it for some races - none of the major Slalom nations - Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, maybe Poland - do that. At all major races in Czech and Slovakia you will find Div 1, Div 2, Div 3, and unranked paddlers aged 9-60 on the results sheet.

So their ranking systems just do what it says on the tin: tell padlers how good they are compared to other paddlers. None of this nonsense about 'not being ready for Div 1'.

And in Germany Juniors race in age-classes only apart from a few who are ranked in order to qualify for Senior Selection races.

To see what I mean, Google some of their results - or e-mail me on ECSTCoach@jsturgess.freeserve.co.uk and I will send you samples.

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:35 am

Which ever way you look at it numbers have dropped quite significantly over the last 20 years by about 1/2.

So what could be the cause of this, increased fuel costs, entry fees, boat prices, other aspects of the sport becoming more popular or just lack of interest?

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:16 pm

I think the main causes could be something more to do with the general changes in society resulting in less time available to run clubs and charge around the country with roof loads of kayaks, eg
more families with two working parents
more single parent families
the "middle classes" ie those who can afford it, working longer hours
students running part-time jobs whilst studying for degrees

The increase in playboating will also have attracted some potential competitors away from slalom. Don't know when playboating started but I'd never heard of it 25 years ago.

The good news is that over the last five years the trend has reversed and number of participants is increasing. Long may it continue!

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:50 pm

One factor that may have affected participation is the change in boat design. When I initially became onvolved in slalom a GP boat that you learnt in was also used as a slalom boat! Now slalom boats are very specialised pieces of equipment and club boats etc tend to be bulky and plastic!

alanadams · Post by **alanadams** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:42 pm

I have yearbooks from 1971 - so if you want really old data...

Interestingly the number of paddlers then was around 800, so we're almost back to that point. There were however a LOT less events.

I believe there are a number of factors contributing to the reduction in numbhers since the '80s.

First was the increasing number of divisions, and the rule changes which meant it was necessary to compete in a lot of events to achieve promotion. This killed off the system where a club would go en masse to an event. Instead each paddler went to his/her own division's events. Shortly afterwards they stopped seeing the need to pay club memberships, and went independent. This removed the role models from a lot of clubs, so nobody started paddling slalom.

Second was the opening of HPP and Tryweryn as pay and paddle sites. Until then, the only way to paddle whitewater without having to arrange a group with two cars, for the shuttle, was to enter a slalom. Now you can just turn up and paddle, without even needing to enter in advance. (Remember that in those days you needed to enter about 4 weeks ahead, or your entry would be rejected as the entry limit was reached).

Third was the introduction of boats like the Dancer, plastic, and not allowed to compete in slalom as it was too short. Rectifying that occurred about ten years too late.

Fourth was the realisation that you could pay ten quid for 5 runs in a Div 1 slalom, and need a whole weekend, or you could pay 5 quid and paddle all day.

Finally the 1981 and subsequent rule changes changed slalom from a skill sport to a speed sport. Elapsed times dropped from an average of 4 minutes to the current 2. Penalties dropped, so accuracy was less important than speed. This meant that paddlers needed to commit lots of time to training, even in the lower divisions. The fun had gone.

These factors caused the casual element to depart from slalom, leaving those whose aim was to win. (Lots of Div 2 paddlers for example had been there for the "craic" - the paddling and the social side, not particularly wanting or expecting to win.) This change resulted in slalom being seen as elitist, and the atmosphere was off-putting to recreational paddlers. This perception still persists, and needs attention, although the reality is that the atmosphere is closer to the cameraderie of the early '80s

I can't see an easy way back. There does seem to be a boost each time Olympic slalom is shown on TV - it seems to be one of the most popular sports to watch. Unfortunately the boost doesn't seem to last. Maybe it needs a propotional campaign planned and delivered to coincide with the TV coverage.

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:59 am

I think that Alan's first point is particularly important, and relates directly to the current Competitions Review. Aprt from the French, no major Slalom nation uses its Ranking Sytem to prevent paddlers competing in particular races. If you look at Results Sheets from races in the Czech Republic and Slovakia you will see paddlers' Divisional status quoted; but races won by Czech Team members have 9-year-olds racing in them (except for Troja - under-10's are not allowed to race there). Some races are ranking for particular age-groups; but that just means that only paddlers in those age-groups get ranking points. Therefore Clubs can and do attend events en masses.

I agree with virtually all that Alan writes; a point that Alan does not mention, however, is a shift in the nature of Slalom sites. When I first raced in Britain (1978) virtually all Slaloms took place at sites where you camped on site - right by the course. Why was this important? All the research into why children and young people do sport quotes 'to be with my mates' as one of the top two motivations in all age-groups. Anyone who was at West Tanfield last week will have seen what an enormously social event it was - both within Clubs and between Clubs. Whereas even at events like Matlock and Sowerby Bridge socialising can only take place on the river-bank (Sowerby Bridge) or on the pavement (Matlock). I am sure that is why West Tanfield still pulls big entries despite old-fashioned water and courses.

But it would be hard to argue with the perception that the 20-year decline started when we changed the rules. And a lot of people predicted that at the time.