Proposal 6.7 - Changes to Women's Points

[Munchkin]

DJ - that is the approach I would like to take or something such as a "bonus" 5 points if it is a bigger water event. As said above it needs thought but I am sure we could come up with something.

[Nicky]

just a couple of my thought really..

Should anyone (not just a girl, but a K1M or a C1) be able to get promoted to the next division if they are unable to complete the course at the event that they are gaining points? Should there be a maximum points total acheivable by those people who don't complete the course? Would this encourage people to improve, or put people off?

I agree that there are big concerns for many paddlers who gain promotion and are forced to race on bigger water. I'm not sure that restricting promotion is the way forward. should there be more races on bigger water for div 2? Should the individuals take more responsibility for their own progression, acknowledge a weakness and work to improve this?

The next question is how do inexperienced paddlers gain experience on the bigger water before they get promoted? Judging was the old fashioned method which seems to work, but how do we encourage more people to go and judge rather than race, especially when individuals aren't necessarily attached to a club or coached?

[Mark Shaw]

I quite like John Sturgess' idea of inviting paddlers of a required standard from the next lowest division to 'guest' at races and only when they are good enough within the division they aspire to be allowed to be promoted to it.

It requires a bit more thought and is too late for this year's ACM I expect but has a lot of merit going for it.

You could even stipulate the 'guest' races so that they are on the more difficult courses within the next higher division so that no one could accuse anybody of having gained promotion on easy water.

However, getting back to this years proposal, I also have my doubts now on whether it will produce the required result of rewarding ladies who can get close to the men's times on the more challenging courses.

It will be interesting to see how the voting goes on this one.

[seofwman]

I have seen these sort of motions come up for the last 30 years. Normally from Manchester CC or Stafford and Stone CC.

It's Elite protectionism!!!!!

I expect the members at the AGM will be sensible enough to dismiss them.

Anyway why don't they have the guts to just say:

" Girls you have got to WIN 5 events to get promoted"

I think 475 points is tough enough already!

[Munchkin]

I have seen these sort of motions come up for the last 30 years. Normally from Manchester CC or Stafford and Stone CC.

It's Elite protectionism!!!!!

I expect the members at the AGM will be sensible enough to dismiss them.

Anyway why don't they have the guts to just say:

" Girls you have got to WIN 5 events to get promoted"

I think 475 points is tough enough already!

I hope you are right and it is dismissed for further discussion next year but the two clubs proposing the motion have lots of votes between them and I fear that it might go through ???

[chauffeur]

ICF are keen to promoted women:

ICF

You might just recognise the paddler at the bottom of the report too.

[Non paddler]

if the aim of the proposal is to ensure that people (and this should apply to men and Women) are not promoted if they cannot not negotiate the course than why not target the proposal at that objective. E.g. discarding runs with 50s from promotion counting, take 10 ranking points from runs with 50s etc.

Why have a rule that just really really complicates the assignment of ranking points and as others have said could discourage people from going to the bigger water races.

Also all the proposals need to be looked at as a set. If this and 6.5 both get passed I think you can see a lot of women be so demotivated that numbers and standards will drop. Imagine winning Div 1 at HPP against a strong and big K1W field to find due to a really strong mens field you only get 93 points, say, then that effort and great win does not count towards promotion (as it will be 500 points from 5 races or an end of season secret squirrel lottery).

[Nick Penfold]

I think the issue here is about getting white water experience before you reach Div 1. It's possible to get from nowhere to Div 1 within a year in any of K1M, K1W and C1, and a handful of paddlers do. But while many Div 2 races are run on fairly flat water it will always be possible to get to Div 1 with no whitewater experience. The simple reality in all classes is that many paddlers only really get to grips with fast water after they get into Div 1. The only things we could do about that would be to be much more restrictive about where Div 2 races can be run, or to introduce widespread coaching on white water - but (as pointed out above) paddlers can tackle the issue for themselves.

[FatBoy]

Still nobody has answered why this is ok for C2's and not for K1W. I also see nobody complaining about 6.9 for C1M or 6.6 for C1W or 6.4 for P/1 vets, all proposing to factor from K1M.

I think the original proposal was for this to only apply for K1W in Div 2 and 3, and I think this is how it will be argued at the weekend. Numbers at Div 1 and Prem are consistently high enough to have "correct" scoring by position in their own class. Actually I think C2 in Prem (only) is as well and we should consider changing this back.

As I said before you wont stop (and rightly so) superstars from flying up the divisions, but you can go some way to stopping freak results, and I believe this proposal does this. I think it does it more so than moving to 3 wins from 2 which was aimed at the same reason. OK this was also to stop poor K1M fields as well, but generally these happen less as generally higher numbers.

I don't accept that this could have a really bad effect either way on promotion levels, as we know from C2's that it works, and the multiplication factor is about right in relation to that. If after a year we would rather see a few more or less promoted we can tweak the factor, as we have in C2 and no doubt will continually over the first few years in C1W.

I also don't accept software problems as a reason for not changing. While I don't want to force more work on volunteers, we cannot let software restrictions drive the shape of our sport! I would consider agreeing the motion but defer implementation until 2010 (I can sympathise - there are probably thousands of IT people currently running around like idiots trying to implement a new VAT rate in a week...).

As for this being elitist or somehow not promoting women this was proposed by a Div2 K1W, seeing events first hand with fields of varying numbers and quality.

If the motion is defeated, I would consider the second motion as a not quorate event, but I would like to see the level for quorum raised to higher than 3. Winning a race with only 3 boats could easily be worthy of 100 points, or it could just as easily be only worthy of 20. It's these low attendance races we need to sort out one way or another.

And finally, one idea for future I had after reading the C1W proposal. Put all the boats in a division into one big set of results with the current K1M scoring system. Then set promotion levels for each class within that division. E.g. K1M 4750, C1M and K1W 4250, C2 4000, C1W 3750.

[Munchkin]

Still nobody has answered why this is ok for C2's and not for K1W. I also see nobody complaining about 6.9 for C1M or 6.6 for C1W or 6.4 for P/1 vets, all proposing to factor from K1M.


As I said before you wont stop (and rightly so) superstars from flying up the divisions, but you can go some way to stopping freak results, and I believe this proposal does this. I think it does it more so than moving to 3 wins from 2 which was aimed at the same reason. OK this was also to stop poor K1M fields as well, but generally these happen less as generally higher numbers.

As for this being elitist or somehow not promoting women this was proposed by a Div2 K1W, seeing events first hand with fields of varying numbers and quality.

If the motion is defeated, I would consider the second motion as a not quorate event, but I would like to see the level for quorum raised to higher than 3. Winning a race with only 3 boats could easily be worthy of 100 points, or it could just as easily be only worthy of 20. It's these low attendance races we need to sort out one way or another.

In answer to point 1, the reason that discussion has not been had is because this thread was not about Canadian points!!!

How does a freak result allow someone to be promoted? They would need to have at least 3 "freak" results to be promoted so would the results then be freak? Nobody who has been pro this motion has yet come on here and explained how this can be a good thing when it discourages people from participating at bigger water venues by removing the chance for them to get 100 points (see my earlier posts). Is the reason that they have not responded because they did not think of that before making the proposal?

That same proposer has also admitted that one of the reasons she proposed this was because of her daughter's progression. I note that if I am now correct (having been dappy in my original posts about not recognising the poster) her daughter was then demoted and re-promoted. These changes would not have stopped her from going up again.

I am also a Div 2 woman who has been to most of the events this year (I think I missed around 7 because of holidays so am probably one of the most regular participants). Of those 7 I admit I missed Tully (it is a long way away and is at the same time as one of the International Canoe Polo Tournaments) and one HPP event. I too have seen the girls on the start line and the mix of numbers and genuinely think that those girls that were promoted this year either did it in large fields on flatter water (which this proposal will not stop) or truely deserved to have been promoted and would have done even if the fields had been larger. The other girls I have spoken to in Div 2 (which is clearly a limited number as the proposal was made public AFTER the end of the season) and some of the parents agree with me.

I do agree with increasing quorum for the events for men and women in both categories.

P.S. Clearly on the basis of this proposal the females in the Olympics are not of a good enough standard. I hope one of the proposers will be writing to the IOC and requesting that the medals are handed back. If you cant get 100 points in an event you clearly do not deserve the medals*

*said a bit tounge in cheek but the point was made!

[Munchkin]

Pps. In the event of the c1 the multiplier is only used if the event in not quorate this proposal would apply no matter how many girls enter. I would also suggest that if c1w is a reality they should be measured against the girls. As for c2, I was told by a prem c2 paddler that it was acknowledged in their division that 1000 opints was virtually impossible. Perhaps not a problem when you have no where to be promoted but otherwise a demoralising propspect.

[Canadian Paddler]

Sorry Munchkin but the 1000 points is and has been achieved. It is harder in Prem/1 but the factor was reduced at the request of the prem C2s. They thought that it was too easy to get 1000 in 2007.

I am very opposed to measuring C1W against women, until we get good quorate classes the idea of measuring a div 2/3 C1W class against a div 3 event with 2 ladies is just a nonsense and I would have thought even more demoralising

[Munchkin]

CP - with regard to the C2 I was only repeating what one of the prem guys was saying to me.

With regard to the C1W I agree with your point and have already said that quorum needs to be increased. Actually, I think that may be the one thing that most people agree on!:)

[FatBoy]

One last post, then I'll leave it alone. Sorry if this seems argumental, I would call it analytical which is my job/nature.

One freak result can get you promoted, if you have 2 or 3 hard earned results. OK so you're not far off the level to achieve it but technically this is a promotion that shouldn't have been.

In regard to the daughter in question, I would probably agree it wouldn't have changed much, that's not why I'm in favour. She's somebody who has a talent for slalom who doesn't like big water, not much you can do about that! However she did get promoted to Div 1 first time round in a small field at the last Div 2 of the year. With the proposed system it would've delayed another 6-8 months.

The olympics is also a funny one to quote. First things is that coming 15th in the olympics (men, women, canadian) does not make you 15th best in the world, as one only boat per nation. This seemed (with no fact or research) more apparent in the K1W than K1M or C1, and even more apparent in C2 - was it only 8 nations qualified for the games? Even coming 15th in the worlds probably not so as only 3 per nation. Also you are not trying to make a comparison from event to event (to get points), you are trying to award medals. Also a single event could produce a larger difference between men and women for some particular reason - as a non-expert couch pundit I think Bejing seemed to be a course for the heavier paddler (Campbell eat more pies...). I suppose a freak result the other way, it wouldn't be a perfect system I admit, nor would any. It could be an interesting exercise to take top x from K1M and K1W at world champs over the last few years to come up with a factor, but I suspect it will be about 10% or thereabouts. It should be about 10% as that's a generally accepted rough figure for most sports of the difference between women and men's physilogy.

I doubt any factual answer can be obtained, but we haven't addressed why it should be so that women are further behind men on bigger water in Div 2? I only tend to see the bigger div 2's and even the competent looking paddlers seem to be very catious. Is this because they know they can get good points if they don't make a mistake?

[Nick Penfold]

"Still nobody has answered why this is ok for C2's and not for K1W."
Because the numbers racing in C2 are tiny. Working out points for non-quorate events by factoring from K1M results makes lots of sense.
At recent Div 2s we've seen 20 or more women racing. That's more than enough to be treated as its own baseline.
And I think views on the proposals for C1 are probably much the same as for K1W.