Proposal 6.7 - Changes to Women's Points

FatBoy · Post by **FatBoy** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:22 am

Paddlemum wrote:Hmmm - this is bordering on the very impolite.
I think your comment regarding "... they know they can get good points if they dont make a mistake" is ridiculous. Is white water slalom not also about the technical discipline of the sport and not just brute strength and speed?

Getting through a tricky gate cleanly to my mind is more skilful than bombing down a course at mac 5 whalloping every gate!

I think we must have been at different Div 2 events on big water last season. The women I saw on these courses showed skill and determination. Yes some of them initially were nervous of the big water which makes their achievement even more impressive. By the same token I observed, albeit with an untrained eye, div2 men swimming on bigger water because they hadn't been "cautious" enough on occassion!

I certainly didn't mean to be impolite, so apologies if that appeared the case. It wasn't a slur on women, just a question. I would agree it is more skifull to negotiate clean than to hit lots of gates (I tend to be clean and slow myself...), but slalom is about speed as well, one without the other is just as bad. I would commend those who overcome fear to get down a course, but doesn't make my speculative answer wrong. You don't propose an alternative answer to my question either.

Anyhow, water under the bridge now. I think probably a majority of posts on this have been useful for the discussion. I wasn't there but find it dissapointing if it was defeated purely for the purposes of organisers/ranking people. Obviously they (we) are all volunteers, but who runs the sport for whom? I would be quite happy if it was defeated because more people disagreed with the principal! I've argued for it because I think something should be done about ranking points for those events with poor attendance (probably applies to some K1M too), and with my analytical head on purely because somebody needed to provoke debate from the other side (they must hate me at work...). I hope that we all have a think this year, and reflect on events we go to, and maybe somebody will put together some thoughts about a way forward.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:36 am

Their was a fair bit of debate, with some discussions of paddler motivation, and teh size of the K1W entires as well, nit just for organisers and ranking compliers.
From my point of view, this deabte was useful, pitty there were so few players though.
The issue of allocating points fairly with low entries remains an issue, OK if there are 20 in any class the points are probably OK, but if ther are 3, is the 100 earnt? and if the difference between 1 and 2 id .1 second (we can time div 3/4 to .1 secs now!) is the 67 points really fair.
So (IMNSHO) we need to have some kind of debate regarding quorum levels and points for small classes. Or another approach to divisions and ranking. . Hi feel a father chrismas impersonater over my shoulder. . .

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:31 am

Did the proposal to increase quorum to 5 get passed?

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:20 pm

There was no motion to increase the quorum, so nothing changed it is still 3.

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:43 pm

The issue of allocating points fairly with low entries remains an issue, OK if there are 20 in any class the points are probably OK, but if ther are 3, is the 100 earnt? and if the difference between 1 and 2 id .1 second (we can time div 3/4 to .1 secs now!) is the 67 points really fair.
So (IMNSHO) we need to have some kind of debate regarding quorum levels and points for small classes. Or another approach to divisions and ranking. .

But this has always been the case with the points system, the benefit is that it is easy to compute and hence competitors; coaches and organisers can provide quick guidance on likely points.

There was a system that was far better at rewarding the high fliers paddling below natural ranking status, provided closer points for tighter results. However it was dispensed with ???

I have yet to hear a real and logical argument that supports the current points system over the old modified percentage system or a further modification thereof! The usual is that the maths are easier to understand! The maths wasn't actually that difficult and in this day of computer supported events, results tables etc. it would not take much to develop the software to ease the burden. But it worked very well in the halycon days of yore, allowed progression, restricted those who were not quite so able.

I managed to work it all out by hand for slalom entries in the 80s that are considerably larger than comparable slaloms today. So a wee excel spreadsheet should be a whiz!

Unfortunately not Father Christmas lookalike :p

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:35 pm

What about one big division and race where you fancy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm off to Orton Mere! Can't even stay upright there though!

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:22 am

See you there - don't forget your winter woolies!!

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:11 pm

Orton Mere this weekend what a wonderful idea, I think I will go there as well. .

Hm one big division with points only awarded when you paddle in your division or higher, and divisions all done at end of season on a percentage basis. . . drawbacks and advantages . . . have to think about that and maybe don flameproof clothes and post something. . .

(Bring back modified percentages I managed them, and ran events calculating it on my fingures, so spreadsheet driven is easy, and C2/inquorate percentages could be from a modified, modifed average that all should understand). BUT if I were a div 3 compiler would I want to recalculate the modified percentage for two or three double events every weekend. . . Not unless I was wired up and got al resulst electronically.