SilverSurfer - to answer the question you posed earlier. Have you seen http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/committee/ ... Detail.pdf. Total paddled races for div 1 in 2012: 1887, in 2013: 1961, 2014: 2512. These will be those that actually turned up I think (we all know that there will be some no-shows). Whilst they don't include 2015 they certainly show an increase in the last three years. Other divisions show increases too. So whilst it may be a bit soon to compare 2015 it is not unreasonable to expect a continuing trendSilverSurfer wrote:The majority of comments in this thread are in favour of increasing capacity of the divisional system due to the perceived increase in divisional 1 entries. I say perceived as I don't believe anyone has yet captured, analysed or issued any real data based on this years entries. ........
If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Maybe, but I think div 2/3/4 events are a different kettle of fish from div 1. They are both harder and easier - more entries on the day (traditionally), doubling up in shared boats, but generally happening in warmer months when people are more willing to sit outside, perhaps a little less competitive (not in a bad way).Nick Taylor wrote: BUT I don’t think judging is the big issue for us. I reckon we’d get judges if we ran more race slots….
It probably comes down to being more organised. So I guess I’m taking this thread in the direction of: “How can the slalom community help event organisers be more organised so that that they feel confident in providing race slots per weekend” or even running another event (Shepperton) the weekend after the last event....
Also what we need are more events on harder water which, with respect, Cardington isn't (Not that you'd get me down it
)PS I think we are going to request two adjacent double events (double div 1 one weekend then double div 2 the next) though we are yet to find out if we will be allowed them! Shepperton can class as hard water some years, but we do recognise that it is not always so.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
-
SilverSurfer
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: Nottingham
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Yes I have seen those stats before, but like all stats they can depict one of many views, and without full analysis, you end up with perceptions and assumptions, neither of which changes should be based upon.
There is no narrative to the stats, there are venues where the race numbers have gone up but equally there are races where numbers are very similar - and number of paddlers per class vary across all races. So a conclusion can not be drawn based on numbers alone, without understanding why there are variances.
This year there has been (why I don't know) a knee jerk reaction to getting entries in early, yet I still see the Pinkston race is not full, which is surprising given its on the agenda to be a venue for Junior Selection next year.
The demand for races is not just based on actual entries received, but on the number of paddlers who sent an entry in but were rejected, and those who didn't send an entry in because it was too late. Do we record that, no we don't, have we asked those impacted (div 1 paddlers) no we haven't. Have we consider how best to capture and analyse the data, no we haven't.
Assuming paddlers this year had not sent their entries in so early, the races would have filled up just the same, but I doubt we would have this post.
There is no narrative to the stats, there are venues where the race numbers have gone up but equally there are races where numbers are very similar - and number of paddlers per class vary across all races. So a conclusion can not be drawn based on numbers alone, without understanding why there are variances.
This year there has been (why I don't know) a knee jerk reaction to getting entries in early, yet I still see the Pinkston race is not full, which is surprising given its on the agenda to be a venue for Junior Selection next year.
The demand for races is not just based on actual entries received, but on the number of paddlers who sent an entry in but were rejected, and those who didn't send an entry in because it was too late. Do we record that, no we don't, have we asked those impacted (div 1 paddlers) no we haven't. Have we consider how best to capture and analyse the data, no we haven't.
Assuming paddlers this year had not sent their entries in so early, the races would have filled up just the same, but I doubt we would have this post.
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
I agree a lot of the info is annecdotal and we are not really capturing the data we need. The "knee jerk" reaction could be caused by people missing out last year, but as you say no proof of that. However, we are currently turning paddlers away; we don't know how many, but we know there are some. So do we stop and find a way to gather data and compare it with previous years when we didn't gather details; potentially loosing paddlers to other sports in the meantime. Or do we act on the "evidence", however poor that is, and simultaeously come up with ways of conducting future measurements so that next time around we'll have the data we need.SilverSurfer wrote:...
This year there has been (why I don't know) a knee jerk reaction to getting entries in early, yet I still see the Pinkston race is not full, which is surprising given its on the agenda to be a venue for Junior Selection next year.
The demand for races is not just based on actual entries received, but on the number of paddlers who sent an entry in but were rejected, and those who didn't send an entry in because it was too late. Do we record that, no we don't, have we asked those impacted (div 1 paddlers) no we haven't. Have we consider how best to capture and analyse the data, no we haven't.
Assuming paddlers this year had not sent their entries in so early, the races would have filled up just the same, but I doubt we would have this post.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
-
Nick Taylor
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:31 pm
- Location: Bedford
- Contact:
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
To add to the anecdotal 'evidence':
With 4 weeks to go before Cardington div 2/3/4 we were oversubscribed by about 20 entries each day
Hence my interest in exploring ho we could provide more race slots per day
With 4 weeks to go before Cardington div 2/3/4 we were oversubscribed by about 20 entries each day
Hence my interest in exploring ho we could provide more race slots per day
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Easy answer for Cardington - cut out the div 2 thus opening up more space for div 3's & 4's for whom the water is more suited. Taking out Div 2's will probably also attract more of these divisions as they will not be put off by the thought of paddling water especially those that don't know the course 
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
But of course with portable points and a single division that opens up a can of worms - does the host division have priority if so this may solve a lot of the problems or is it a free for all and all hell breaks loose.... 
-
SilverSurfer
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: Nottingham
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Maybe it's my business background, but to make a decision for the sport as a whole based on anecdotal or partial Information is fraught with risk. If clubs and event organiser can and are willing to support additional races, then great, no one is going to object - but putting on an additional event is one thing, proposing changes to the sport is another.
First ascertain what the actual issue is, then and only then put forward possible solutions. Don't forget we have (assuming the rules are updated and agreed) portable points coming in next year, who knows what impact that will have.
As to Cardington being a combined division 2, 3 and 4 race is ludicrous. It should not be a Division 2 venue. The grading of race venues is clearly in need of a re-think.
First ascertain what the actual issue is, then and only then put forward possible solutions. Don't forget we have (assuming the rules are updated and agreed) portable points coming in next year, who knows what impact that will have.
As to Cardington being a combined division 2, 3 and 4 race is ludicrous. It should not be a Division 2 venue. The grading of race venues is clearly in need of a re-think.
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
In an ideal world , we would have Divisions and then find the right water to suit. However, we don't, so we make the best use of the water we have.
I have no objection to Cardington being a Div 2. If provides a Div 2 race in that area of the country and if the Div 2 paddler don't like it, they won't enter.
The purpose of Canoe Slaloms is to allow people to race at whatever level they are at, and progress from flat water up to Lee Valley, stopping at the level where they feel comfortable or able over as many years as they want. Divisions are not an exact science.
So what we want is a flexible enough system
- to allow those from those with GB team aspirations to have a domestic race season that supports this aim
- to allow those who compete just for fun a couple of times a year the opportunity to race locally and nationally
- to allow all those between the above to to be able to race
We want the sport to grow to enable all those that want to race to be able to race.
We want enough events run across all areas of the country at all levels to enable paddlers to come into the sport and remain in the sport. For this we need willing clubs and organisers to run events.
We want clubs not participating in slalom to run a Division 3/4 slalom to encourage their club to try it out. (This year, the abolition of levies at Division 3 is an incentive for clubs to run Division 3 events).
It takes time , effort, money and resources to get there and we need more people to get involved as those already involved cannot do more than they already do.
I have no objection to Cardington being a Div 2. If provides a Div 2 race in that area of the country and if the Div 2 paddler don't like it, they won't enter.
The purpose of Canoe Slaloms is to allow people to race at whatever level they are at, and progress from flat water up to Lee Valley, stopping at the level where they feel comfortable or able over as many years as they want. Divisions are not an exact science.
So what we want is a flexible enough system
- to allow those from those with GB team aspirations to have a domestic race season that supports this aim
- to allow those who compete just for fun a couple of times a year the opportunity to race locally and nationally
- to allow all those between the above to to be able to race
We want the sport to grow to enable all those that want to race to be able to race.
We want enough events run across all areas of the country at all levels to enable paddlers to come into the sport and remain in the sport. For this we need willing clubs and organisers to run events.
We want clubs not participating in slalom to run a Division 3/4 slalom to encourage their club to try it out. (This year, the abolition of levies at Division 3 is an incentive for clubs to run Division 3 events).
It takes time , effort, money and resources to get there and we need more people to get involved as those already involved cannot do more than they already do.
-
Arrowcraft
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:46 pm
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Electronic entries is a no brainer. I do not own a chequebook and have not owned a chequebook for about 6 years. Make it online, dead easy.
Last edited by Arrowcraft on Wed May 20, 2015 12:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Arrowcraft
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:46 pm
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Paddle ups....if you have 20 judges runs, these could be repalced by paddle ups. Make the paddle ups judge other classes. So K1M paddle up Judges K1 Ladies and so on. This would also be 20 extra paddle up entry fees for the organiser. The judging would probably be done by the parents of paddle up kids anyway.
Plus. there are always no shows at races, so if you want to race at a div 1 and are prepared to judge, then the organiser should be able to accept replacement entries on the day if you are there with a card and an entry fee on the morning of the event without the need to offer the place to the notional waiting list as they would not be able to take the place. The "waiting list" is only useful if drop outs notify the organiser in advance of the race. So it should be given to the first people in line on the morning of the event.
Plus. there are always no shows at races, so if you want to race at a div 1 and are prepared to judge, then the organiser should be able to accept replacement entries on the day if you are there with a card and an entry fee on the morning of the event without the need to offer the place to the notional waiting list as they would not be able to take the place. The "waiting list" is only useful if drop outs notify the organiser in advance of the race. So it should be given to the first people in line on the morning of the event.
Last edited by Arrowcraft on Wed May 20, 2015 12:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Arrowcraft
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:46 pm
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
John makes a valid point. Possibly the most valid point.
It is not just more races that we have to consider. The question is what do we want to achieve as a sport and why do we do it? So we need to phrase a set of quotations that define our sport.
Since the revival of the sport we have seen HPP, Stone, TID, Lee Valley, Midland and other clubs pushing reasonable quantities of new paddlers through the divisions. They have passed rapidly through the divisions because they are organised, provide consistent coaching and instil a competitive component into their paddlers. Without these paddlers the divisions would have been empty as they had been in previous years and events would be much smaller.
These paddlers are pushing through the divisions in all classes and have now reached Division 1 which is full of talented, well trained and motivated kids under 16. (Great news for the future of the sport) These clubs have also developed a second and third wave of paddlers that are racing through the lists. When these guys pass through, the paddlers left in Div 3 and 2 are probably the same ones that were there previously…which is great for these paddlers that are at the level they want o be at and race on water they want to race on. BUT…we will soon end up with 500 in div1, 100 in div 2 and 200 in div 3 which is top heavy. Sooner or later it will fall over. We have been here before.
So we need to decide if these new paddlers are the equivalent of the Australian Kane Toad. A great idea at the time but with hindsight, they are taking over. Or are we doing it right by growing the junior base and expanding the sport to produce more paddlers, more competition and therefore better international teams. So that could be question 1.
More members means more national memberships and more club memberships, more competition fees, more equipment sales, more coaches and generally more fun and healthy participation in sport which is a Government overriding objective. Better competition means better athletes which means more medals which in turn attracts more funding, private sector sponsors and media and therefore more paddlers and o the circle builds.
However, another question may be… How do we accommodate all of these new paddlers? If we get this right then we have a great sport with a golden future. If we get this wrong we end up with a handful of events with 40 paddlers racing and a declining sport. We have been there and it was not fun.
The model as it is will fail. In a free market (for the want of a better term) if demand outstrips supply then prices rise and new suppliers are attracted into the sport because of the large market and the profits that can be made. The same applies in slalom competition. At the moment we see racers that cannot race because of poor supply. They will eventually leave the sport and take up another sport where they can race and achieve what they want to achieve...which means less memberships and less entries and fewer medals.
The fees levied on the slalom organisers are quite prohibitive. They are actually a barrier to clubs putting on events and sap funds from the existing system which are directed towards the elite structure. ( separate argument). If clubs have more money they can get more members etc etc.
So a question may be…Should we reduce the costs of putting on a slalom by reducing the BCU Levy? Because if we reduce the financial risk of putting on events, clubs will put on more events which may help to meet the demand for races, from which they may make more profits for the club, build better membership and introduce more competitors to the system…etc etc
The divisional system is fit to burst so a question may be…How do we accommodate all of these new paddlers to compete at races at a level that they want to race at, on water that they want to race at? This is connected with the questions above. It is “The Product” in a very real sense. It is why we do what we do. So should we reconstruct our divisional system? A simple way to achieve this is to have fewer divisions, maybe 3 divisions, based upon a paddlers points obtained in a portable points style system. Competition, National and Elite (for example or A B C). Paddlers can enter any race that they want to enter. New paddlers are unlikely to be willing to enter HPP or Lee Valley races and Elite Paddlers are unlikely to enter races at Frome or Duck Mill. Paddlers can race on water that they are comfortable to race at and as they get more experienced will move up the water levels. In addition to this, run 5 GB Cup races and invite the top 10 paddlers in each class (and age group) to attend and pick the top 3 boats from each class (K1, C1 etc) to represent GB in the following season. AND televise these events. The remaining list of paddlers can be categorised by their best 5 results in the year to form a single ranking list which can be divided into the three divisions for next season on a scale. This means that there is a truly fluid scale of paddlers and my position in the list is based upon my races rather than my starting division for the season. ( there are a lot of people in 1 and Prem that are doing just enough to stay there and therefore blocking faster advancing paddlers in the division below)
Any race may be nominated a grade ABC as above and anyone can race at it. So at Darley Abbey (Grade C ) we may see 80 Competion Paddlers, 40 National Paddlers and 10 elites in the K1 Men whereas at HPP (Grade A) we may see 100 Elites and 20 Nationals and 2 Competition paddlers. In the middle we may see Mile End Mill (Grade B) with 20 Competition Paddlers, 80 National Paddlers and 20 Elites. Points could be scaled by the quality of the competition, by paddler in each division and the quality of the venue so that an Elite winner at HPP would attract more points than an Elite winner Mile End Mill. But if there were sufficient elite paddlers at Mile end Mill the points would be worthwhile points for an elite paddler to obtain. Thereby attracting the elite paddlers to these races.
This would mean that paddlers would have a race or choice of races to go to every weekend if they wanted to and because of this, there would be more competitions offered as any race can attract a lot more potential paddlers. There may be scaling or initial Paddler offerings for elite races to paddlers ranked in the top 50% of that appropriate division…so they may have to enter by 8 weeks in advance, with the race open to the public for any unfilled spaces from 8 weeks in advance. This might work, or there may be better ways of letting paddlers paddle more races and putting on more races at all levels.
So these questions boil down to…
1. Do we want to grow the sport or keep it small?
2. If having attracted new paddlers, then how do we retain them?
3. How do have more races for paddlers to race at?
4. How do we make it more appealing for clubs to put on more races?
5. Should the BCU levy be reduced to improve the profitability of races in order to encourage the growth in the sport?
6. How can the divisional system be amended to broaden the spectrum of races available to any paddler of any ability?
7. How do we select our International Teams?
8. Are we an inclusive sport or an exclusive sport?
Otherwise we may as well have a dead man's shoes system because if there are waiting lists for race entries and as I only join the BCU in order to enter ranking races you might as well have waiting lists for BCU memberships too…Like Golf Clubs or Tennis Clubs. I am certain that the BCU would rather have lots of memberships.
It is not just more races that we have to consider. The question is what do we want to achieve as a sport and why do we do it? So we need to phrase a set of quotations that define our sport.
Since the revival of the sport we have seen HPP, Stone, TID, Lee Valley, Midland and other clubs pushing reasonable quantities of new paddlers through the divisions. They have passed rapidly through the divisions because they are organised, provide consistent coaching and instil a competitive component into their paddlers. Without these paddlers the divisions would have been empty as they had been in previous years and events would be much smaller.
These paddlers are pushing through the divisions in all classes and have now reached Division 1 which is full of talented, well trained and motivated kids under 16. (Great news for the future of the sport) These clubs have also developed a second and third wave of paddlers that are racing through the lists. When these guys pass through, the paddlers left in Div 3 and 2 are probably the same ones that were there previously…which is great for these paddlers that are at the level they want o be at and race on water they want to race on. BUT…we will soon end up with 500 in div1, 100 in div 2 and 200 in div 3 which is top heavy. Sooner or later it will fall over. We have been here before.
So we need to decide if these new paddlers are the equivalent of the Australian Kane Toad. A great idea at the time but with hindsight, they are taking over. Or are we doing it right by growing the junior base and expanding the sport to produce more paddlers, more competition and therefore better international teams. So that could be question 1.
More members means more national memberships and more club memberships, more competition fees, more equipment sales, more coaches and generally more fun and healthy participation in sport which is a Government overriding objective. Better competition means better athletes which means more medals which in turn attracts more funding, private sector sponsors and media and therefore more paddlers and o the circle builds.
However, another question may be… How do we accommodate all of these new paddlers? If we get this right then we have a great sport with a golden future. If we get this wrong we end up with a handful of events with 40 paddlers racing and a declining sport. We have been there and it was not fun.
The model as it is will fail. In a free market (for the want of a better term) if demand outstrips supply then prices rise and new suppliers are attracted into the sport because of the large market and the profits that can be made. The same applies in slalom competition. At the moment we see racers that cannot race because of poor supply. They will eventually leave the sport and take up another sport where they can race and achieve what they want to achieve...which means less memberships and less entries and fewer medals.
The fees levied on the slalom organisers are quite prohibitive. They are actually a barrier to clubs putting on events and sap funds from the existing system which are directed towards the elite structure. ( separate argument). If clubs have more money they can get more members etc etc.
So a question may be…Should we reduce the costs of putting on a slalom by reducing the BCU Levy? Because if we reduce the financial risk of putting on events, clubs will put on more events which may help to meet the demand for races, from which they may make more profits for the club, build better membership and introduce more competitors to the system…etc etc
The divisional system is fit to burst so a question may be…How do we accommodate all of these new paddlers to compete at races at a level that they want to race at, on water that they want to race at? This is connected with the questions above. It is “The Product” in a very real sense. It is why we do what we do. So should we reconstruct our divisional system? A simple way to achieve this is to have fewer divisions, maybe 3 divisions, based upon a paddlers points obtained in a portable points style system. Competition, National and Elite (for example or A B C). Paddlers can enter any race that they want to enter. New paddlers are unlikely to be willing to enter HPP or Lee Valley races and Elite Paddlers are unlikely to enter races at Frome or Duck Mill. Paddlers can race on water that they are comfortable to race at and as they get more experienced will move up the water levels. In addition to this, run 5 GB Cup races and invite the top 10 paddlers in each class (and age group) to attend and pick the top 3 boats from each class (K1, C1 etc) to represent GB in the following season. AND televise these events. The remaining list of paddlers can be categorised by their best 5 results in the year to form a single ranking list which can be divided into the three divisions for next season on a scale. This means that there is a truly fluid scale of paddlers and my position in the list is based upon my races rather than my starting division for the season. ( there are a lot of people in 1 and Prem that are doing just enough to stay there and therefore blocking faster advancing paddlers in the division below)
Any race may be nominated a grade ABC as above and anyone can race at it. So at Darley Abbey (Grade C ) we may see 80 Competion Paddlers, 40 National Paddlers and 10 elites in the K1 Men whereas at HPP (Grade A) we may see 100 Elites and 20 Nationals and 2 Competition paddlers. In the middle we may see Mile End Mill (Grade B) with 20 Competition Paddlers, 80 National Paddlers and 20 Elites. Points could be scaled by the quality of the competition, by paddler in each division and the quality of the venue so that an Elite winner at HPP would attract more points than an Elite winner Mile End Mill. But if there were sufficient elite paddlers at Mile end Mill the points would be worthwhile points for an elite paddler to obtain. Thereby attracting the elite paddlers to these races.
This would mean that paddlers would have a race or choice of races to go to every weekend if they wanted to and because of this, there would be more competitions offered as any race can attract a lot more potential paddlers. There may be scaling or initial Paddler offerings for elite races to paddlers ranked in the top 50% of that appropriate division…so they may have to enter by 8 weeks in advance, with the race open to the public for any unfilled spaces from 8 weeks in advance. This might work, or there may be better ways of letting paddlers paddle more races and putting on more races at all levels.
So these questions boil down to…
1. Do we want to grow the sport or keep it small?
2. If having attracted new paddlers, then how do we retain them?
3. How do have more races for paddlers to race at?
4. How do we make it more appealing for clubs to put on more races?
5. Should the BCU levy be reduced to improve the profitability of races in order to encourage the growth in the sport?
6. How can the divisional system be amended to broaden the spectrum of races available to any paddler of any ability?
7. How do we select our International Teams?
8. Are we an inclusive sport or an exclusive sport?
Otherwise we may as well have a dead man's shoes system because if there are waiting lists for race entries and as I only join the BCU in order to enter ranking races you might as well have waiting lists for BCU memberships too…Like Golf Clubs or Tennis Clubs. I am certain that the BCU would rather have lots of memberships.
-
SilverSurfer
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: Nottingham
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
An interesting and long email, but one crucial fact has been missed. As it stands the divisional system will change next season with the introduction of portable points.
However, until the Slalom Committee issues the rules/changes for review on how portable points will actually be executed, it's all a bit of an unknown as to how it will really work, and the impact it will have - so discussions around any other additional changes are a bit premature.
Discussions around identifying if there is an issue is valid, putting forward solutions at this stage isn't. If the demand is there, then why isn't the Pinkston Division 1 race full? Is the demand perception or fact?
However, until the Slalom Committee issues the rules/changes for review on how portable points will actually be executed, it's all a bit of an unknown as to how it will really work, and the impact it will have - so discussions around any other additional changes are a bit premature.
Discussions around identifying if there is an issue is valid, putting forward solutions at this stage isn't. If the demand is there, then why isn't the Pinkston Division 1 race full? Is the demand perception or fact?
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
See my thread on this. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2536Arrowcraft wrote:Electronic entries is a no brainer. I do not own a chequebook and have not owned a chequebook for about 6 years. Make it online, dead easy.
I'm still waiting for answers to my specific questions
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
Re: If the Answer is 42, what is the Question?
Sounds like you are wasting your time Dee, Arrowcraft says its dead easy so I look forward to them bringing forward a fully working system for next year 