ACM proposal:comparable ranking system for Vets
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
As a 2/3 vet there is only one change, a divisor by 1.1, but unless thus goes through the prem 1 vets are very lonely and not competing against anyone (rememebr Spiderman being unhappy as he WAS the vet class, and did not get a bit of paper with his result?)
This introduces a similar system in Prem/1 as currenly happens in 2/3.
Firstly, I am worried that all you 1000 point boys in 2/3 will have even more maximum points if they bring in the divisor, just to help the few at prem/1 get comparible results.
Secondly I am a little concerend that a trophy donated specifically for the Division 2/3 vets may get diverted (without fiull disclosure/agreement) to either vets division overall, or 'masters' which excludes the original recipients. But that is paranoia, creeping in.
This introduces a similar system in Prem/1 as currenly happens in 2/3.
Firstly, I am worried that all you 1000 point boys in 2/3 will have even more maximum points if they bring in the divisor, just to help the few at prem/1 get comparible results.
Secondly I am a little concerend that a trophy donated specifically for the Division 2/3 vets may get diverted (without fiull disclosure/agreement) to either vets division overall, or 'masters' which excludes the original recipients. But that is paranoia, creeping in.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
I can see benefit to allowing a similar system for Prem/1. Points against the K1M, just like you to in 2/3, rather than leaving a coouple of people trying to get enough for sensible ranking.
So my take is yes BUT modifiy it to remove the multiplier before agreeing it. BUt that is just my personal view.
So my take is yes BUT modifiy it to remove the multiplier before agreeing it. BUt that is just my personal view.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Its very interesting, the only people wanting to change the 2/3 Vets, are those not involved!
When the Slalom Exec had the working party, of which I was part, the debate was all focused on Prem/1 and whenever I spoke on behalf of 2/3 Vets (most of which don't take part in Chatter) their views were ruled rough shod over and in one case was positively abusive to all 2/3 Vets. Hopefully this time we can have a more constructive debate!
The affect of the multipler will be to destroy the 2/3 Vet competition, this will have the affect that the people like Terry, myself and others who are towards the upper end of div 2, the winner of the annual trophy will be the person doing the earlier races of the season as we will all get very high or max points so the first to 4000 will win - thats no way to run any competition!
I am happy in div 2 Vets and the only change I would make is scrap a prize for top Vet and top DV in a division. I take no pleasure being the first Vet, but I do if I'm the first Vet or DV and when I was a DV I also took no pleasure in winning the DV prize when I was 2nd to last or some such place. I'm also sure a "Master" will take little pleasure winning their class when they were actually beaten by a proper VET! Otherwise leave things alone - listen to the people this affects and stop one or two very vocal people completely unaffected by this demanding change.
The other factor that I raised in the other thread was that the proposed change makes no allowance for women and C1 Vets. Whilst they have not been any for sometime there are people I have spoken to that are seriously thinking of becoming Vets next year. This needs to be built in to any change!
Lets improve the competition not destroy it, that way hopefully we can build this class back up rather than getting rid of it a step at a time
When the Slalom Exec had the working party, of which I was part, the debate was all focused on Prem/1 and whenever I spoke on behalf of 2/3 Vets (most of which don't take part in Chatter) their views were ruled rough shod over and in one case was positively abusive to all 2/3 Vets. Hopefully this time we can have a more constructive debate!
The affect of the multipler will be to destroy the 2/3 Vet competition, this will have the affect that the people like Terry, myself and others who are towards the upper end of div 2, the winner of the annual trophy will be the person doing the earlier races of the season as we will all get very high or max points so the first to 4000 will win - thats no way to run any competition!
I am happy in div 2 Vets and the only change I would make is scrap a prize for top Vet and top DV in a division. I take no pleasure being the first Vet, but I do if I'm the first Vet or DV and when I was a DV I also took no pleasure in winning the DV prize when I was 2nd to last or some such place. I'm also sure a "Master" will take little pleasure winning their class when they were actually beaten by a proper VET! Otherwise leave things alone - listen to the people this affects and stop one or two very vocal people completely unaffected by this demanding change.
The other factor that I raised in the other thread was that the proposed change makes no allowance for women and C1 Vets. Whilst they have not been any for sometime there are people I have spoken to that are seriously thinking of becoming Vets next year. This needs to be built in to any change!
Lets improve the competition not destroy it, that way hopefully we can build this class back up rather than getting rid of it a step at a time
-
PaulBolton
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:30 pm
- Location: Lincoln
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
There does seem to be a bit of myopia as with PP, who talks with Mike, 'the vet Bib officer', weel actually he is only teh Div1/Prem bib officer, div 2/3 is Keith in Peterborough.
Think we might have some discussion on this at the ACM. Not sure if there is a concensus, but I agree with Terryg, do not change 2/3, but allow prem/1 to get points in the same way.
Then we only have to worry about the idea of half points and 1/3. This may be a way for vets to get points at divisions below their ranking, comes form thinking of them as combined divisions, not just parallel divisions. We do not have 2/3 vets we have div 3 vets and div 2 vets, and prem/1 vets.
Think we might have some discussion on this at the ACM. Not sure if there is a concensus, but I agree with Terryg, do not change 2/3, but allow prem/1 to get points in the same way.
Then we only have to worry about the idea of half points and 1/3. This may be a way for vets to get points at divisions below their ranking, comes form thinking of them as combined divisions, not just parallel divisions. We do not have 2/3 vets we have div 3 vets and div 2 vets, and prem/1 vets.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Munchkin - I guess the other 2 are Dave and Frederico in Scotland - sorry don't know their thoughts.
As for half points, not sure how fair this might be for div 3 vets (or div 1 vets). Think it might be a way of folk competing at lower events (which they can now) and earning points (which they can't). I don't have any strong thoughts but then I'm not div 3 so perhaps we should ask Keith as he's the only one it truly affects.
As for half points, not sure how fair this might be for div 3 vets (or div 1 vets). Think it might be a way of folk competing at lower events (which they can now) and earning points (which they can't). I don't have any strong thoughts but then I'm not div 3 so perhaps we should ask Keith as he's the only one it truly affects.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
99% of this was withdrawn at the ACM.
The bit that was not withdrawn was changing the rule so that to be a vet your 35th birthday must be in OR BEFORE the year in question, not in or after (Oops, my sort of tryping error!)
BUT
I have been tasked with thionking this though more fully, so would welcome views from anyone (especially the 'wiser' heads over 35) on the current system. Specifically:
- Most of the 2/3 vets are div 2. Is there merit in allowing them to compete and get half points at div 3?
- Is there a need for a multiplier of 1.1? (I'm over 35 and I think not)
- Is the prem/one system so broker that we need to fix it (I think so, but have not talked to anyone, except spidy through this board)
- Do we need to cater for C1/C2/K1W/C1W either in the same ranking list, or seperately?
So please talk to me, either here, or by PM, or on a river bank
such as (
)
(you knew it was coming )
{ADVERT ALERT}
The PROTEUS , Peterborough Winter Slalom on December 13th! :laugh:
{Advert over}
The bit that was not withdrawn was changing the rule so that to be a vet your 35th birthday must be in OR BEFORE the year in question, not in or after (Oops, my sort of tryping error!)
BUT
I have been tasked with thionking this though more fully, so would welcome views from anyone (especially the 'wiser' heads over 35) on the current system. Specifically:
- Most of the 2/3 vets are div 2. Is there merit in allowing them to compete and get half points at div 3?
- Is there a need for a multiplier of 1.1? (I'm over 35 and I think not)
- Is the prem/one system so broker that we need to fix it (I think so, but have not talked to anyone, except spidy through this board)
- Do we need to cater for C1/C2/K1W/C1W either in the same ranking list, or seperately?
So please talk to me, either here, or by PM, or on a river bank
such as (
)(you knew it was coming
){ADVERT ALERT}
The PROTEUS , Peterborough Winter Slalom on December 13th! :laugh:
{Advert over}
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Do not see any need half points, this would place Div 3 paddlers at a disadvantage.
Do not wish to see a multiplier for 2/3. Do not know if a multiplier for P/1 would help.
Women have been listed separately in ranking lists in the past. Not sure if this has ever happened for Canadians. This may be the way to deal with it, unless numbers of competitors increase.
Do not wish to see a multiplier for 2/3. Do not know if a multiplier for P/1 would help.
Women have been listed separately in ranking lists in the past. Not sure if this has ever happened for Canadians. This may be the way to deal with it, unless numbers of competitors increase.