Unofficial UK Slalom BBS

With the committee stopping the running of 2/3/4 events next year and only allowing 2/3 and 4 short courses this is going to add time to the running of our event at Cardington next year. As we understand it we will have to run: 2/3 event then make changes to gates/start or finish position and judges and run the div 4sc.
In 2012 there was 4 events where a 2/3/4 event was held. two of which were cardington events. we have asked the slalom committee to overturn this ruling but they did not agree. Reasons have been given which include: div 4s will struggle on a div 2 course and the standard of div 2 paddlers once promoted into div 1 is poor, which means they find it hard and drop out of competing.
Now i have only paddled a few canoe slaloms in my time but in my first race i was promoted to div 3 but it was easier to see how i race when i competed on a equal course to everyone else that day.
Cardington is held by some as the best intro whitewater course in the country and as it stands to make our life easier on event days we may drop div 4 from the competition. using the stats found here: http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/info/2011entry_stats.htm to me seems like a greater concern that the numbers entering the sport are falling. of course this year will have a rise in numbers thanks to the Olympics but when the entering class is pushed to the end of the event and have a different course that doesn't look like a fair competition to me. i wouldn't care if i got a 50 on gate 3 if most of the div 4s did but at least i could see how overall i did in the competition. Plus we have a lot of boat sharing in div 4 including at least one comedy c2 entry. this all adds time if run basically as a separate event.
To me it makes more sense to say which courses can run an event rather then just a ban a class. at cardington i feel like we run a good 2/3/4 event. we would never just just a 3/4 as the number of competitors wouldn't make it viable, due to amount of time it takes to set up the course. so we will be running 2/3 and losing another div 4 event from the calendar from "the best intro whitewater course in the country" will be the only thing we are left to do.
Maybe i should also look and say as cardington curently stands we shouldn't hold div 2 events as its too easy for them. Which means that viking wouldn't run an event there. which means losing an event from the calendar and even a venue.

Just my thoughts, interested in what others think.

I agree with the slalom committee this time.

The reason?

An event should be set up for the HIGHEST division competing. Therefore if you are at a Div 1/2 the course should be set up at a Div 1 standard. If you are at a 2/3/4 it should be at a Div 2 standard. If it is not set up in that way you are devaluing the higher division and causing issues e.g the jump from div 2 to 2. If the course is really at Div 2 standard it should be difficult for the majority (though I guess not all) Div 4's.

The Nene run a 2/3/4 event without much issue. They change the start point and leave the rest very similar (though the break in below the drop I think is harder than going over the drop!), Howsham do something similar. I know that Cardington would be harder to do this on but that is the way things are sometime.

Though it would be a shame to drop the Div 4 as I think the course is more suited to a Div 4 than a Div 2!!!

Which is the point if cardington in its current form is not suitable for div 2 then it should only be a 3/4 but the numbers would not allow such an event to take place. which could mean the end to cardington weekend.

In my view, Cardington is not, never has been, and never should be, a division 2 standard slalom course

Perhaps current Div. 3 / 4 paddlers are put off entering Cardington as it currently stands as a Div. 2 / 3 / 4 race thinking that it might be too hard for them. Entry numbers for an advertised Div. 3 / 4 event at this venue may even rise proportionately. Why don't you try it and see rather than basing any decision on previous entrant information?

Do we not have some criteria for determining what venue would qualify as being a Div. anything venue. I also agree that Cardington has always been more of a Div. 3 course than a true Div. 2 even if gates are positioned to make the course awkward rather than difficult due to the water features.

I dont see the issue?

we run a SC 4 on abbey using stopwatches, no need for a big drama about altering start gates or the tutti set up.

I believe that you may even be able to run a race over exactly the same course with certain gates removed from the judging, but i dont have a rule book to hand to check.


Alternativley why not have the full div 4 but introduce a rule saying that any div 4 eligable prommotee must beat 20% of the div 3 competitors in order for the promotion to stand. this should eliminate any deliberate misses getting promoted, or at least i would hope so.

I must be missing the point of short courses then as in my mind if i had the choice i wouldn't enter a SC race. drive hours to a venue to find out that you could only be doing 12 gates and thats after everyone in the above divisions has taken both their runs and probably gone home by the time you finish. Just seems discouraging to people entering the sport at that level when at a time we want more.

Vkcmikey wrote:... thats after everyone in the above divisions has taken both their runs and probably gone home by the time you finish. Just seems discouraging to people entering the sport at that level when at a time we want more.

That would be up to the organisers to sort out.

I remember at a Shepperton 1/2 one of the moves was considered a step too far for the Div 2's so a gate was removed from the Div 2 course but remained on the Div 1 course (this was a few years ago). The Divisions ran as they normally did. That would be doable on Cardington.

Though still wouldn't address the issue that it is not Div 2 standard...

BaldockBabe wrote: Though still wouldn't address the issue that it is not Div 2 standard...

I'm sure I've ranted about this before but i wouldn't limit this to cardington, there are a lot of div 2 venues are on the easy side. but then again there are a lot of div 1 venues which are hardly more than a little splash.

Bring back the good old days!!!

If the decision to not allow combined 2/3/4 has been made on the premise than event should be set up for the highest division competing, and there are only 4 events in the calendar that are 2/3/4, I am assuming that from this fact that it is deemed that Cardington is suitable for a div 2/3 event (as we all know, it has been suitable for Interclubs for the past many years)

Using typical entry numbers, I have looked at the impact on putting on a 4SC after a div 2/3 and the finish time is getting on for 7pm, starting in the morning as soon as possible. The only way to bring ths forward would be to limit the number of entries. I have been told that the 4SC MUST run as a separate event after the 2/3.

Assuming the course is suitable for Div 2 (Inferred by the ruling), is the question whether this is too difficult for a Div 4 paddler? or that in fact it is not suitable for Div 2?

What are the guidlines for determining suitability for each division?

I agree with Mikey that Div 3/4 events at Cardington are not financially viable although I realise this is not the main reason for running a competition, It is however good to break even and not be out of pocket at each event. By advertising as a 3/4 may attract more people at this level, but doubtfull whether there are another 50 3/4 paddlers that would turn up. Also, now we have access to Duckmill Whitewater arena, it would be much easier to run a 3/4 there (as will happen in March '13)

If some money was spent on the Cardington facility to improve the infrastructure and facilities which have not really changed since 1984 then I'm sure things would be a whole lot different. But that's a topic for another discussion

Here we go. Another event lost from the South of the country. Soon there won't be any events in the South at all.

I note from the minutes of 22nd April:

"8.3 Division 2/3/4 Races
It was agreed that division 2/3/4 races will not be allowed for the 2013 season."

That's not good enough. What are the reasons for not allowing?

Is it just because of course difficulty or lack of?

The argument is that with bracketed races the course is too easy for some and too hard for others.

At Cardington the water is not heavy but the gates can be challenging. Certainly judging by the number of 50s last Saturday 1st Sept.

Llandyssul in May is a lot easier than Cardington. Are you going to stop the Llandyssul Div 2 because it is too easy? Oops there goes another event.

For div 4s just leave out some of the harder gates if you must. That's what happened at Shepperton back in July.

Quote "Paddlers are put off entering Cardington..." Whether Cardington is a 2/3/4, a 2/3 with a SC or a 3/4 won't make the slightest difference to numbers. Not having a critical mass of events makes the difference to numbers. It plays havoc with numbers.

To reiterate, Cardington may be too easy / too hard but at least it's an event. Don't mess around with the events. We don't have enough as it is.

I think that is the issue they have just banned a 2/3/4 without trying to solve what the "problem" is. if courses are to easy i would rather them say so. that way we can improve what is available. i just don't see the benefit of a SC.
As in the case of just saying don't do a gate as its to hard. i know by the time i went over the first drop i would forget and would try for all the gates. which creates an unfair disadvantage. remember at div 4 we want to encourage paddlers into the sport. so we will have to run div 4 runs back to back at the end of the day with gates removed.
Removing gates at cardington also then turns the div4 into a whitewater sprint with a few gates between. Also moving the finish means a long walk for the finisher to change the position
I personally wouldn't want to see cardington disappear off the calendar as i think alot of people enjoy it. I would rather see more events and we are adding another at duckmill next year but as an organiser its already a headache to arrange and run an event without adding more tasks to the event.

jke wrote:
Llandyssul in May is a lot easier than Cardington. Are you going to stop the Llandyssul Div 2 because it is too easy?

This kind of cements my point about Div 1 courses! if you think the place is too easy for a div 2 how do they get a double div 1 every year??

oldschool wrote:

jke wrote:
Llandyssul in May is a lot easier than Cardington. Are you going to stop the Llandyssul Div 2 because it is too easy?

This kind of cements my point about Div 1 courses! if you think the place is too easy for a div 2 how do they get a double div 1 every year??

Because when we tried to get it removed the guys at the ACM voted it back in again!

Im not sure why the no Div 2/3/4 seems to be a "surprise". I wasn't at last years ACM but during the previous ones it was stated that it would not be allowed and Cardington was warned. They were the last one to be phased out to give them time to sort it out. Other clubs have had to deal with it without the warning.

Looking at the numbers of Div 4s at Cardington I cant see how (after prizes) it makes much of a difference to the event being viable...

oldschool wrote:

jke wrote:
Llandyssul in May is a lot easier than Cardington. Are you going to stop the Llandyssul Div 2 because it is too easy?

This kind of cements my point about Div 1 courses! if you think the place is too easy for a div 2 how do they get a double div 1 every year??

Nature of our sport is that water levels vary, so what can be an easy div 2 one year can be a challenging div 1 next time around. Perhaps it is time to consider greater flexibility in our calendar eg:

- allow races for div 2, 3 and 4 (maybe even div 1) to be added to the calendar with, say, 4 weeks notice and advertised on line
- allow races to be entered in the calendar as, say, div2/3 and be downgraded to 3/4 or upgraded to div 1/2
- allow races to be entered in the calendar as, say, 1/2/3 or 2/3/4 with the proviso that one of the divisions will be cancelled based on water levels.

Not suggesting that these are necessarily the right way to go as I haven't thought through the implications but I think we do need to consider flexibility to meet our changing climate.