:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Fup Duck wrote:Still if you can look forward to a conversation about vampyres of a certain persuasion at the end of it, WHO CARES?
I have the DVD and could bring it to Howsham!
:p
Slalom Struture - The structure of doemstic competition
My mind is just a bit slower :;):andya wrote:Munchkin wrote:How far north does south go?
Indeed .. that was my question on the first reply in the thread .. great minds....
Orton Mere = South ?
Matlock = North ?
HPP = ?????? (n?)
Stone = ???? (n?)
Orton Mere, Matlock, HPP and Stone are all in the middle as far as I can work out, but Orton Mere is in the Eastern Region and has been mentioned a few times already and me being a loyal member of Proteus I thought I would mention it again
Agreed!Carlr wrote:Surely the following are in the midlands!!!
Matlock = North ?
HPP = ??? (n?)
Stone = ? (n?)
But the strategy paper we're discussing divides England into North/South .. and IMHO where you draw that line has a HUGE impact on the results. Some of the more used sites, are as you say, "in the middle".
Hence I now see the value of the super regional approach ... not country approach.
Andy
(D1 K1 1981, D2 C1&C2 2010)
(D1 K1 1981, D2 C1&C2 2010)
OK, are we talking two calendars, N/S
or more calendars e.g.: Scot/N/Wales/Mid+East/London+S
This sort of thing needs to be left to the choice of the active clubs that organise events. But is sounds like London+SE+S could combine a calendar, and then its up to E (Proteus) if they want to work with this group or with Midlands, and likewise Frome could go with this group or with Mid or Wales. Depends on what suits them best locally, no probs.
All paddlers can anyway go to their divisional events in any region, no prob (in fact it's encouraged), but there's enough in each "region" to allow them to develop their skills locally.
If a "region" like London-S-SE has got a real shortage of sites with lumpy water then we need to avoid D2 paddlers getting to D1 without ever handling anything more scary than Nene. No prob. Just have a rule that at least one of the points scored in D2 or D1 must come from an event approved by the National Committee. Then they can nominate HPP, Tryweryn, Tully or whatever. No promotion to D1 without proving your skills are ready, no matter how many points you've logged on 2b's
Purple Flipper
or more calendars e.g.: Scot/N/Wales/Mid+East/London+S
This sort of thing needs to be left to the choice of the active clubs that organise events. But is sounds like London+SE+S could combine a calendar, and then its up to E (Proteus) if they want to work with this group or with Midlands, and likewise Frome could go with this group or with Mid or Wales. Depends on what suits them best locally, no probs.
All paddlers can anyway go to their divisional events in any region, no prob (in fact it's encouraged), but there's enough in each "region" to allow them to develop their skills locally.
If a "region" like London-S-SE has got a real shortage of sites with lumpy water then we need to avoid D2 paddlers getting to D1 without ever handling anything more scary than Nene. No prob. Just have a rule that at least one of the points scored in D2 or D1 must come from an event approved by the National Committee. Then they can nominate HPP, Tryweryn, Tully or whatever. No promotion to D1 without proving your skills are ready, no matter how many points you've logged on 2b's
Purple Flipper
I think that a number of recent posts are trying to address a perceived problem that is not really there - that of people getting promoted too early before they are ready to handle the water/courses of the higher division.
Is there any empirical evidence of this? I don't think there is. Most in-season promotees seem to be having little or no problem holding their own in the higher division as far as I can see. And if you look at the results from most div 1/2s so far this season, there has been a significant overlap in results for the two divisions.
Thus can we please stop trying to plan the divisional structure to slow down promotion - it is not neccessary.
Is there any empirical evidence of this? I don't think there is. Most in-season promotees seem to be having little or no problem holding their own in the higher division as far as I can see. And if you look at the results from most div 1/2s so far this season, there has been a significant overlap in results for the two divisions.
Thus can we please stop trying to plan the divisional structure to slow down promotion - it is not neccessary.
Agreed, JamesH
We encourage the kids to look at their times against the division above, they all know when they've reached the "overlap", makes them even hungrier for success.
Case in point at Washburn. Lad who was a D2 winner on Saturday was thus promoted, paddled Open Sunday and posted faster time than several D1 men paddling Open and judges. Even though I baulked his second run as I blundered around ! This particular kid started D4 last season and trains on a weir. Who's to say when he's ready for promotion? The results, that's what. So "Let the paddling do the talking" (Thanks to Joel for that bit of philosophy). This is not an exceptional example, I've seen a few like this in my short experience with the sport, but never seen kids "put off" or "unable to cope". The joy of being young is that no-one has told you you can't walk on water, so you believe and just go and do it.
We encourage the kids to look at their times against the division above, they all know when they've reached the "overlap", makes them even hungrier for success.
Case in point at Washburn. Lad who was a D2 winner on Saturday was thus promoted, paddled Open Sunday and posted faster time than several D1 men paddling Open and judges. Even though I baulked his second run as I blundered around ! This particular kid started D4 last season and trains on a weir. Who's to say when he's ready for promotion? The results, that's what. So "Let the paddling do the talking" (Thanks to Joel for that bit of philosophy). This is not an exceptional example, I've seen a few like this in my short experience with the sport, but never seen kids "put off" or "unable to cope". The joy of being young is that no-one has told you you can't walk on water, so you believe and just go and do it.
Back to the Strategy paper. What is this fix on regions? Is that an aspiration to have regional slalom or is it what you think happens now? Clearly paddlers will travel further afield the higher up the divisions they get but there should be no artificial boundaries.
I am a member of the organising club for Langham Farm. With Shepperton lost (yes I know there's a summer 3/4 but that's the thin end of the wedge) and now Loddon we might as well go the whole hog and abandon Langham Farm as well. We might just as well abandon slalom in the south of the country altogether. One event doesn't make a season's slalom programme for my club.
Now that would be really sad. We don't run it to make money (it would be a lot easier if we just ran more taster sessions instead). We don't just run it for the opportunity for our club members to work together. We run it to promote (slalom) canoeing within our area and the few events we go to as some sort of programme, not to forget the training we do which is probably more important, is really beneficial to our paddlers in their development.
This talk of Regions is a nonsense.
PS. I drafted this without internet access yesterday, and before sight of Flipper's posts, but whatever, we need more events in the south of the country not less.
I am a member of the organising club for Langham Farm. With Shepperton lost (yes I know there's a summer 3/4 but that's the thin end of the wedge) and now Loddon we might as well go the whole hog and abandon Langham Farm as well. We might just as well abandon slalom in the south of the country altogether. One event doesn't make a season's slalom programme for my club.
Now that would be really sad. We don't run it to make money (it would be a lot easier if we just ran more taster sessions instead). We don't just run it for the opportunity for our club members to work together. We run it to promote (slalom) canoeing within our area and the few events we go to as some sort of programme, not to forget the training we do which is probably more important, is really beneficial to our paddlers in their development.
This talk of Regions is a nonsense.
PS. I drafted this without internet access yesterday, and before sight of Flipper's posts, but whatever, we need more events in the south of the country not less.
John Kent
JKE I dont think it is a fix on regions, more that there is a realisation that a) some regions are lacking in Division 3/4 events which are needed to attract more people into the sport and b) (as stated in the strategy paper and in your message) people will only start travelling longer distances as and when they get more involved in the sport.jke wrote:Back to the Strategy paper. What is this fix on regions? Is that an aspiration to have regional slalom or is it what you think happens now? Clearly paddlers will travel further afield the higher up the divisions they get but there should be no artificial boundaries.
There is a general need to increase the number of Division 3/4 events and to ensure that all regions are catered for. Flipper et al have identified that the south needs more events and I have identified that the East needs more events. There is nothing stopping people travelling to these events if they want to as they will be, as they currently are, national events open to all. The talk of regions is merely a tool for co-ordination.
At least, that is my understanding...
Flipper wrote:Case in point at Washburn. Lad who was a D2 winner on Saturday was thus promoted, paddled Open Sunday and posted faster time than several D1 men paddling Open and judges. Who's to say when he's ready for promotion? The results, that's what.
The example given here appear to support the view that a requirement to win points at a "2a" shows that a paddler is ready for promotion.
This paddler got some of his promotion points from 2 results at Div 1/2 events at HPP i.e. he would have been promoted under the 2a/2b system.
This contrasts with a younger paddler who was promoted on the same day. The difference here is that it is highly debateable whether this paddler is ready for Div1 water (especially if the standard of water next year is going to get higher). Under the suggested system of 2a/2b this paddler would not have got promoted as all his promotion points have come from "2b" events.
It seems we have a few different arguments/threads going on at the moment.
1. Sites hosting races for the correct division to the standard of water available. Attached to that the need to
2. Increase the number of opportunites for lower division events accross the board but especially in target areas(London/South East/West).
3. Look at whether the calendar for Div 1 & Prem should be treated as a national issue, and how many races should be run over the season for these divisions.
A lot of this thread relates to the loss for next season of the only site in the South which is remotely capable of hosting a div 1(shep). I kinda think that its only one race out of 13/14? if your gonna travel to the rest whats the big deal about one more? Alot of people train on sites that never run high level races, (i used to train full time at Matlock which will never run a div1) those who do get home advantage are the lucky ones but thats life. Its seems to me just to be a fact that there are not many sites in the country capable of running Div 1 & Prem races so we all need to get used to traveling to the ones that we do have. It would be great if everyone had a div 1 standard training/race site within and hours drive but its just not gonna happen.
I have no idea where each of the different topics coming from this discussion are going to lead but i don't see access to all as an acheviable aim once you reach the higher end of the sport, you simply have to travel to get access to decent race sites. Maybe that is one reason why the South is not as thriving as it used to be, people aren't willing to travel as much. Some of the once thriving southern clubs still exist but a lot seem to now do polo or other canoeing diciplines which don't necisarily demand you have to travel further as you get better at the sport.
Don't get me wrong I love slalom and i'll travel as far as i need to to get good races on good water, but they have to be good.
1. Sites hosting races for the correct division to the standard of water available. Attached to that the need to
2. Increase the number of opportunites for lower division events accross the board but especially in target areas(London/South East/West).
3. Look at whether the calendar for Div 1 & Prem should be treated as a national issue, and how many races should be run over the season for these divisions.
A lot of this thread relates to the loss for next season of the only site in the South which is remotely capable of hosting a div 1(shep). I kinda think that its only one race out of 13/14? if your gonna travel to the rest whats the big deal about one more? Alot of people train on sites that never run high level races, (i used to train full time at Matlock which will never run a div1) those who do get home advantage are the lucky ones but thats life. Its seems to me just to be a fact that there are not many sites in the country capable of running Div 1 & Prem races so we all need to get used to traveling to the ones that we do have. It would be great if everyone had a div 1 standard training/race site within and hours drive but its just not gonna happen.
I have no idea where each of the different topics coming from this discussion are going to lead but i don't see access to all as an acheviable aim once you reach the higher end of the sport, you simply have to travel to get access to decent race sites. Maybe that is one reason why the South is not as thriving as it used to be, people aren't willing to travel as much. Some of the once thriving southern clubs still exist but a lot seem to now do polo or other canoeing diciplines which don't necisarily demand you have to travel further as you get better at the sport.
Don't get me wrong I love slalom and i'll travel as far as i need to to get good races on good water, but they have to be good.
Conflicting demands.
1. Regional event calendar, comprehensive enough to encourage and support developing paddlers Divs 4-3-2 and into 1
2. Graduated water levels to support progressive development.
So if we have to compromise, which do we choose?
Seems that if we are rigid about 2) then the sport will ebb away in regions that can't match exacting criteria.
If we compromise 2) and "do the best with what we've got" then we risk compromising youngsters development. But at least we have a sport, and my observation is that lots of them get through well anyway. Talent shows, the ones with commitment and self belief don't seem to turn a hair when they step up from Nene to HPP.
We just need to be pragmatic, careful about putting the best practicable structure in place, and rely on the coaches to do their bit to develop the kids. A bit like river-running really, coaches know how to develop kids using what they have, and compensating for shortcomings. Like running boot camps in the Alps.
There may well be a future world champion somewhere in the suburbs of London. I'd go recruiting amongst 12-year old parkour enthusiasts, dance troupes, skateboarders and gymnasts. But without a motivating "ladder" in front of them they'll quickly go somewhere else.
1. Regional event calendar, comprehensive enough to encourage and support developing paddlers Divs 4-3-2 and into 1
2. Graduated water levels to support progressive development.
So if we have to compromise, which do we choose?
Seems that if we are rigid about 2) then the sport will ebb away in regions that can't match exacting criteria.
If we compromise 2) and "do the best with what we've got" then we risk compromising youngsters development. But at least we have a sport, and my observation is that lots of them get through well anyway. Talent shows, the ones with commitment and self belief don't seem to turn a hair when they step up from Nene to HPP.
We just need to be pragmatic, careful about putting the best practicable structure in place, and rely on the coaches to do their bit to develop the kids. A bit like river-running really, coaches know how to develop kids using what they have, and compensating for shortcomings. Like running boot camps in the Alps.
There may well be a future world champion somewhere in the suburbs of London. I'd go recruiting amongst 12-year old parkour enthusiasts, dance troupes, skateboarders and gymnasts. But without a motivating "ladder" in front of them they'll quickly go somewhere else.
Like Pete, I feel like shutting the door would be akin to saying only certain areas can produce paddlers with any future. That is clearly a load of old toss!
If the sport wants to maximise it's success in the future then surely it should look far and wide in the spirit of equality. Closing the door on local opportunities for these athletes is shameful and smacks of abandonement; these kids are committed and deserve an equal chance.
I'm sure there are people out there who will have something to say about that. I 'd love to be able to travel 2 and a half hours to paddle but I wouldn't be anywhere worthwile - In reality I'd still be on the M1, A34 or some other #### strip!
This ain't exactly your average sport i.e something where you can drive 20 mins and do it at the same level as anyone else.,
Grrrrr!
If the sport wants to maximise it's success in the future then surely it should look far and wide in the spirit of equality. Closing the door on local opportunities for these athletes is shameful and smacks of abandonement; these kids are committed and deserve an equal chance.
I'm sure there are people out there who will have something to say about that. I 'd love to be able to travel 2 and a half hours to paddle but I wouldn't be anywhere worthwile - In reality I'd still be on the M1, A34 or some other #### strip!
This ain't exactly your average sport i.e something where you can drive 20 mins and do it at the same level as anyone else.,
Grrrrr!
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
With apologies for the length but hope it makes some sense:
Comments on the Strategy Document
#1 It fundamentally fails in addressing the basis of slalom, it is not about why organisers take on events or the current divisional structure. We need to consider our Clients or Customers – the slalom paddlers.
In my experience (>30 years as paddler, coach & Organiser) we can identify 3 groups of paddler:
Participant – May be entrant to the sport, casual participant or someone who is happy with their situation and is looking for a series of tests by which they can assess their progress or status.
Developer – a paddler that is looking to move up the ranking structure, improve their skills, speed and status.
Performer – a paddler that is all about the competition, focus is on being the best, spending time, money and effort to achieve that
A Paddler may move between these groups starting as a participant, getting the bug pushing into a developer. Years as a Performer chasing the Holy Grail, then backing down to a participant, still competing but at selected venues and without the same effort in training or indulgence in getting the latest go faster kit.
If we consider that in alignment with the current Divisional structure: (Please can we stop making the continual error of assuming that because we got rid of Division 5 all the other Divisions remained the same. Division 5 became Division 4; Divisions 1, 2, 3 & 4 were concentrated and redistributed between Divisions 1, 2 & 3. The past is the past Strategy concerns the current and the future, the learning from the past is that if we grow we can expand the divisions and re-establish past participation.)
Division 4 – Entry level primarily participant paddlers
Division 3 – includes a slightly higher level of participant than mere entrant but will be largely participant with some developer
Division 2 – has a high level of developer, progressing from flat water entrant slaloms onto more challenging rapids, yet retains a strong participant level of those who enjoy slalom but don’t want to (or can’t afford) time and expense to travel widely to participate.
Division 1 – transition point with strong developers seeking to move up, some participants that wish to maintain a strong personal challenge and some performers (particularly Junior and Veteran).
Premier – primarily a performer based division.
What are the characteristics of the various groups?
Participant – often opportunistic (particularly at entrant), limited willingness to travel or expend expense and time to continue. May consider local events but unlikely to travel great distances to participate. Will make value judgement on entry fees and costs. Has loose and limited objectives (i.e. a clear run, not to be last, etc.)
Developer – remains home focussed planning development through local events, will travel a further as they progress. More accepting on costs but retain a consideration of return value aligned with objectives. Tend to have more defined objectives (i.e. overall ranking in the top half of the Division, promotion to next division before the end of season, etc.)
Performer – will plan season with training on key sites and travel as required. Less concerned with entry costs and values more with clear objectives (i.e. squad selection, top youth, top 5, champion).
What is our vision – growth of the sport, development of future Champions at World and Olympic levels?
If we want to grow the sport why restrict opportunities to participate? If we want future Champions we need a method of developing them and then testing them at the performance end.
I would agree that at Premier there is validity in defining a fairly strict series of races. This ties in with current issues and clashes with International calendar and performance. I know that many of our top paddlers already struggle to compete throughout the series and it always raises the question of who is really the best – our top International Performer or the winner of the Domestic Series? So 9 races would seem a reasonable target. However cost to the paddler will play a part and there is potential to consider that extremities (Grandtully; Cardiff; Lee Valley) could provide potential double events and hence mitigate costs. There is also a requirement that is limiting the series to encourage full participation then the series cannot conflict with alternative international events – e.g. the clash between Cardiff and the World Junior Championships would not be acceptable.
Division 3 & 4 events are the bottom of the funnel and need to be as accessible as possible. Multiple events with ease of local entry, low costs (including transport), limited pre-event bureaucracy including side shows and fun events (e.g. handicaps, topo duo, night races, BBQs, etc.) to encourage participation. Active Clubs should be encouraged to consider these events as a means of growing participation.
Division 2 events are certainly a step up and should involve Regional collaboration; I believe that we could still keep as high a number of events as possible. Much will be down to the Organiser to determine if an event is viable.
Division 1 events are a transition between Participation and Performance, we need to keep a strong regional network to provide the high end participation venues and retain former performers within the sport to act as peers, mentors and coaches. There is also an element of performance so it is correct that National Organisation should be involved in perhaps identifying a series within the series. i.e. Have as many Division 1 events as organisers are willing to propose, retain a strong regional element in their distribution. However BCU Slalom (in association with National Organisations) to identify a sub series of key events at Premier sites (e.g. Grandtully; HPP; Tryweryn etc.) to host combined Div 1 and national style events – e.g. British Vet and Junior Champs.; Celtic Cup series; junior and U23 selection.
Currently performers in Premier are fairly static, we should deal with the issue of increased growth when it happens – that may mean greater demotion from Premier and increased levels of Performance paddling in Division 1. That would be regarded by most as development and growth.
So in summary:
Our strategic objective should be for growth and development not restrictions on practises and opportunities.
Our strategy should be based on customer or client focus, not organisation and pyramid structures.
Restrict Premier to a meaningful series for the elite performers.
Retain all current events from Division 1 – 4, look for opportunities to enhance and expand.
Division 1 is a transitional division and needs to be inclusive throughout the Division until organic growth will allow the creation of a more sustainable supply base.
All slaloms provide a challenge and the best should still out perform, including the less able promotes participation and future development.
From other sports – it is far easier to convert a competitive Performer with coaching and experience than to change the psychological profile of a recreational participant to become a performer. i.e. Provide the path for performer/developers to get white water experience within the overall structure and you will develop performers. Block the path with a requirement to be able to compete on the toughest water, then be prepared to see performers depart onto other sports and disciplines.
Finally on the other thread there is a list of lost sites, as a former assistant and organiser for events at: The Awe; Netherton Bridge; Comrie; Potarch and Cairnton. Once you break the habit and lose the site it will take 10 times as much effort to bring it back. It will take a summer of exceptionally long dark nights before I resurrect the Cairnton slalom, and yes I still have all the files!
Craig Douglas
PS Yes Anne I have been there and got the T-shirt, family comes first now!
To those ready to launch on about travelling from Scotland to Notts - I share your grief as I am 2 hours further North than Grandtully. So a participant that judges my performance but seeks to remain in Div 2 as it provides a sufficient range of local (i.e. 2 - 4 hours travel) sites to participate in throughout the year. I prefer the challenge of Div 1 style courses but that is limited to 2 weekends and a single venue!
Comments on the Strategy Document
#1 It fundamentally fails in addressing the basis of slalom, it is not about why organisers take on events or the current divisional structure. We need to consider our Clients or Customers – the slalom paddlers.
In my experience (>30 years as paddler, coach & Organiser) we can identify 3 groups of paddler:
Participant – May be entrant to the sport, casual participant or someone who is happy with their situation and is looking for a series of tests by which they can assess their progress or status.
Developer – a paddler that is looking to move up the ranking structure, improve their skills, speed and status.
Performer – a paddler that is all about the competition, focus is on being the best, spending time, money and effort to achieve that
A Paddler may move between these groups starting as a participant, getting the bug pushing into a developer. Years as a Performer chasing the Holy Grail, then backing down to a participant, still competing but at selected venues and without the same effort in training or indulgence in getting the latest go faster kit.
If we consider that in alignment with the current Divisional structure: (Please can we stop making the continual error of assuming that because we got rid of Division 5 all the other Divisions remained the same. Division 5 became Division 4; Divisions 1, 2, 3 & 4 were concentrated and redistributed between Divisions 1, 2 & 3. The past is the past Strategy concerns the current and the future, the learning from the past is that if we grow we can expand the divisions and re-establish past participation.)
Division 4 – Entry level primarily participant paddlers
Division 3 – includes a slightly higher level of participant than mere entrant but will be largely participant with some developer
Division 2 – has a high level of developer, progressing from flat water entrant slaloms onto more challenging rapids, yet retains a strong participant level of those who enjoy slalom but don’t want to (or can’t afford) time and expense to travel widely to participate.
Division 1 – transition point with strong developers seeking to move up, some participants that wish to maintain a strong personal challenge and some performers (particularly Junior and Veteran).
Premier – primarily a performer based division.
What are the characteristics of the various groups?
Participant – often opportunistic (particularly at entrant), limited willingness to travel or expend expense and time to continue. May consider local events but unlikely to travel great distances to participate. Will make value judgement on entry fees and costs. Has loose and limited objectives (i.e. a clear run, not to be last, etc.)
Developer – remains home focussed planning development through local events, will travel a further as they progress. More accepting on costs but retain a consideration of return value aligned with objectives. Tend to have more defined objectives (i.e. overall ranking in the top half of the Division, promotion to next division before the end of season, etc.)
Performer – will plan season with training on key sites and travel as required. Less concerned with entry costs and values more with clear objectives (i.e. squad selection, top youth, top 5, champion).
What is our vision – growth of the sport, development of future Champions at World and Olympic levels?
If we want to grow the sport why restrict opportunities to participate? If we want future Champions we need a method of developing them and then testing them at the performance end.
I would agree that at Premier there is validity in defining a fairly strict series of races. This ties in with current issues and clashes with International calendar and performance. I know that many of our top paddlers already struggle to compete throughout the series and it always raises the question of who is really the best – our top International Performer or the winner of the Domestic Series? So 9 races would seem a reasonable target. However cost to the paddler will play a part and there is potential to consider that extremities (Grandtully; Cardiff; Lee Valley) could provide potential double events and hence mitigate costs. There is also a requirement that is limiting the series to encourage full participation then the series cannot conflict with alternative international events – e.g. the clash between Cardiff and the World Junior Championships would not be acceptable.
Division 3 & 4 events are the bottom of the funnel and need to be as accessible as possible. Multiple events with ease of local entry, low costs (including transport), limited pre-event bureaucracy including side shows and fun events (e.g. handicaps, topo duo, night races, BBQs, etc.) to encourage participation. Active Clubs should be encouraged to consider these events as a means of growing participation.
Division 2 events are certainly a step up and should involve Regional collaboration; I believe that we could still keep as high a number of events as possible. Much will be down to the Organiser to determine if an event is viable.
Division 1 events are a transition between Participation and Performance, we need to keep a strong regional network to provide the high end participation venues and retain former performers within the sport to act as peers, mentors and coaches. There is also an element of performance so it is correct that National Organisation should be involved in perhaps identifying a series within the series. i.e. Have as many Division 1 events as organisers are willing to propose, retain a strong regional element in their distribution. However BCU Slalom (in association with National Organisations) to identify a sub series of key events at Premier sites (e.g. Grandtully; HPP; Tryweryn etc.) to host combined Div 1 and national style events – e.g. British Vet and Junior Champs.; Celtic Cup series; junior and U23 selection.
Currently performers in Premier are fairly static, we should deal with the issue of increased growth when it happens – that may mean greater demotion from Premier and increased levels of Performance paddling in Division 1. That would be regarded by most as development and growth.
So in summary:
Our strategic objective should be for growth and development not restrictions on practises and opportunities.
Our strategy should be based on customer or client focus, not organisation and pyramid structures.
Restrict Premier to a meaningful series for the elite performers.
Retain all current events from Division 1 – 4, look for opportunities to enhance and expand.
Division 1 is a transitional division and needs to be inclusive throughout the Division until organic growth will allow the creation of a more sustainable supply base.
All slaloms provide a challenge and the best should still out perform, including the less able promotes participation and future development.
From other sports – it is far easier to convert a competitive Performer with coaching and experience than to change the psychological profile of a recreational participant to become a performer. i.e. Provide the path for performer/developers to get white water experience within the overall structure and you will develop performers. Block the path with a requirement to be able to compete on the toughest water, then be prepared to see performers depart onto other sports and disciplines.
Finally on the other thread there is a list of lost sites, as a former assistant and organiser for events at: The Awe; Netherton Bridge; Comrie; Potarch and Cairnton. Once you break the habit and lose the site it will take 10 times as much effort to bring it back. It will take a summer of exceptionally long dark nights before I resurrect the Cairnton slalom, and yes I still have all the files!
Craig Douglas
PS Yes Anne I have been there and got the T-shirt, family comes first now!
To those ready to launch on about travelling from Scotland to Notts - I share your grief as I am 2 hours further North than Grandtully. So a participant that judges my performance but seeks to remain in Div 2 as it provides a sufficient range of local (i.e. 2 - 4 hours travel) sites to participate in throughout the year. I prefer the challenge of Div 1 style courses but that is limited to 2 weekends and a single venue!