1) I actually liked the idea of best 2 from 3, but am happy to drop it if I'm in the minority.
2) I'm happy for Div 2 to move to best 5. Including one big water venue is a nice idea in principle, but are we going to end up with certain Div 2's who aren't happy on big water deliberately staying in Div 2 taking all the top points at non big water venues? Better to promote these people and get them used to the idea of bigger water? You also have to decide what the big water venues are. For example Tully (on the list) mid-summer I would say is not as hard as Washburn (not on the list). If we're trying to raise the white water standards in Div 2, surely what we actually need to do is drop the smaller sites (sorry to pick on one but e.g. Fairnilee) down to Div 3 and have more Div 2's on bigger sites like Tees and Washburn. With 5 to count it will become inveitable that white water standard entering Div 1 will be higher.
3) I agree with the need, but would see a) as being a better long term solution. If you have best 1 from 2 then I feel the second best run should be totally discarded - even for position. If you've had a solid first run, then why not take some risks on the second - this is the spirit of best 1 from 2. If promotion becomes dependent on that second run then it changes the phiolosphy and you may as well go for aggregate times. Incedentally aggregate of best 2 from 3 would solve this problem also. If we have to go for b) to stop the immediate problem before a) is possible I guess that's what has to happen, but I do think it's an ugly solution and should be revised to a) at the earliest opportunity.
4) I agree Div 1 should go to aggregate times. At Div 1 we should really be consistent enough for this. However I don't think any of the people promoted to Prem this year don't deserve to be there - so what are we trying to solve?
5) The way I see it is that the main problem currently is the number of paddlers promoted from Div 2. Most of the above is to do with stopping that. A few years and it will settle back down again. Having said that I agree we don't demote enough people. Even though it removes the ability to manage division sizes, I would actually like to see a stated points total for demotion in each class/division. Everybody knows where they stand then. I'm sure there's quite a few paddlers feeling a bit anxious currently!
Competition review - Changes in the competition structure
-
Slow Paddler
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:21 pm
- Location: Macclesfield
It would be nice to know where we stand regarding demotion
I'm Div 2, having got up at the end of last season, I paddled a few events badly at the start of the season hence getting very few points, & have been unable to attend any more events. It would be nice to know if I'll be div 3 next season - If there was a guideline to the number of points needed to remain in Div 2, it may have enoucoraged me to paddle more to prevent the demotion
Regarding the other points
1)3 runs would be good in the lower divisions, the practice & experience is needed, it may also encourage more people who feel they don't get enough water time
2)Div 2 would be good with best of 5, to get promoted in a single weekend can't be right. Especially in the womens, some win as all others miss gates.
3)I agree with the points, but new timing system would probably be too expensive for the lower attended Div 3/4 events
4)To raise the standard, Div 1's should have both runs counting, at their stage they should not have discarded runs
5)Tell us where we stand regarding demotion
I'm Div 2, having got up at the end of last season, I paddled a few events badly at the start of the season hence getting very few points, & have been unable to attend any more events. It would be nice to know if I'll be div 3 next season - If there was a guideline to the number of points needed to remain in Div 2, it may have enoucoraged me to paddle more to prevent the demotion
Regarding the other points
1)3 runs would be good in the lower divisions, the practice & experience is needed, it may also encourage more people who feel they don't get enough water time
2)Div 2 would be good with best of 5, to get promoted in a single weekend can't be right. Especially in the womens, some win as all others miss gates.
3)I agree with the points, but new timing system would probably be too expensive for the lower attended Div 3/4 events
4)To raise the standard, Div 1's should have both runs counting, at their stage they should not have discarded runs
5)Tell us where we stand regarding demotion
Nobody has been relegated from Div 2 in the previous two seasons, so even though there is nothing in writing [that I can see] to say that they can't, I think it would be a bit 'off' to start doing so without having had a pre-season warning.
I can't agree to going from best of 3 to best 5 for promotion to Div 1. It's too much of a change in one go. What's wrong with best of 4 [or 3 wins]. This will prevent the promotion-in-one-weekend problem and there'll be a natural progression of difficulty from 3 to 2 to 1 to P, i.e. best of 3, then best of 4 then best of 5.
And why is there no talk of toughening up promotion from 3 to 2 ? As it has been proposed [and I agree with Carlr - it aint that broke, so why such a big list of proposed changes] we'll just end up with a swollen [and static] Div 2 rather than a swollen Div 1.
Demote me this season or take away my incentive in the next one by expecting me to race virtually every weekend to stand a chance getting 5 lots of 900 points and I'll be swapping the Tuscan for a WW Racer. Slalom won't just be losing a paddler but also someone who has given up many hours of spare time [and occasionally racing time] to work on start/finish, judge, erect/take down courses and train to coach.
I can't agree to going from best of 3 to best 5 for promotion to Div 1. It's too much of a change in one go. What's wrong with best of 4 [or 3 wins]. This will prevent the promotion-in-one-weekend problem and there'll be a natural progression of difficulty from 3 to 2 to 1 to P, i.e. best of 3, then best of 4 then best of 5.
And why is there no talk of toughening up promotion from 3 to 2 ? As it has been proposed [and I agree with Carlr - it aint that broke, so why such a big list of proposed changes] we'll just end up with a swollen [and static] Div 2 rather than a swollen Div 1.
Demote me this season or take away my incentive in the next one by expecting me to race virtually every weekend to stand a chance getting 5 lots of 900 points and I'll be swapping the Tuscan for a WW Racer. Slalom won't just be losing a paddler but also someone who has given up many hours of spare time [and occasionally racing time] to work on start/finish, judge, erect/take down courses and train to coach.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
What does ‘not ready for HPP/the Tryweryn/Grandtully’ actually mean?
You will find on the Competitions Review pages a photo of a 7.5-year-old (now 8.5 years old) racing at Veltrusy last year. He has been racing since before he was 7. He has been able to roll since late last year. The only thing that he doesn’t like about the Czech system is that ‘Pre-Pupils’ (Under-10’s) are not allowed to race on Troja (his home course). But he paddles the Troja course (site of this year’s World Championship) regularly ... Competition does not worry him: he is also a ranked cross-country ski-racer in his age-group.
On June 17th 2006 he raced at Ceske Budevice and finished with a score of 188% of van Rooizenburg of the New Zealand World Championship team. On July 7th 2006 he raced at Roudnice and finished on 203% of the score of Ivan Pisvejc, who won. No 50’s either time.
The Czechs have 20-25 children of that age racing at that level - this one usually finishes about half-way down his age-group.
Of the major Slalom nations, only the French (and then not to the same extent as us) use their Ranking System to stop people racing at particular races/on particular water. Is that what a ranking system is for?
How can a ranking system presume to make that sort of individual judgement? Should we not leave it to Clubs - Club Coaches - parents?
You will find on the Competitions Review pages a photo of a 7.5-year-old (now 8.5 years old) racing at Veltrusy last year. He has been racing since before he was 7. He has been able to roll since late last year. The only thing that he doesn’t like about the Czech system is that ‘Pre-Pupils’ (Under-10’s) are not allowed to race on Troja (his home course). But he paddles the Troja course (site of this year’s World Championship) regularly ... Competition does not worry him: he is also a ranked cross-country ski-racer in his age-group.
On June 17th 2006 he raced at Ceske Budevice and finished with a score of 188% of van Rooizenburg of the New Zealand World Championship team. On July 7th 2006 he raced at Roudnice and finished on 203% of the score of Ivan Pisvejc, who won. No 50’s either time.
The Czechs have 20-25 children of that age racing at that level - this one usually finishes about half-way down his age-group.
Of the major Slalom nations, only the French (and then not to the same extent as us) use their Ranking System to stop people racing at particular races/on particular water. Is that what a ranking system is for?
How can a ranking system presume to make that sort of individual judgement? Should we not leave it to Clubs - Club Coaches - parents?
Would not having to accomodate a third run at venues like Tees WWC and Washburn (Canolfan?), where water time is limited, have a serious impact on the income/ expenditure balance?
Either to reduce the limit of entries to accomodate the extra run in the same time slot, hence reduce the income OR increase the water time to accomodate the extra run, hence the costs. (Except at Tees WWC where, until they overcome it limitation, you have an inflexible tide and so will have to reduce entries)
Yes, I know it sounds rather cold and statistical, but there are bills to be paid to the site owners and as far as I am aware little profit is made already. Would these events be less viable if the bills could not be met? I would not like to see events disappear from the calendar.
Either to reduce the limit of entries to accomodate the extra run in the same time slot, hence reduce the income OR increase the water time to accomodate the extra run, hence the costs. (Except at Tees WWC where, until they overcome it limitation, you have an inflexible tide and so will have to reduce entries)
Yes, I know it sounds rather cold and statistical, but there are bills to be paid to the site owners and as far as I am aware little profit is made already. Would these events be less viable if the bills could not be met? I would not like to see events disappear from the calendar.
Dave there is no need to increase the water time on artificial sites, it is a case of being organised and ready to start on time!Dave A wrote:Would not having to accomodate a third run at venues like Tees WWC and Washburn (Canolfan?), where water time is limited,,,,,OR increase the water time to accomodate the extra run, hence the costs. (Except at Tees WWC where, until they overcome it limitation, you have an inflexible tide and so will have to reduce entries)
The BUSA slalom at Tees has more entries than the Prem/Div1 and they can manage to get through them all in the time, because they are well organised and they know it is a tight schedule, so at the release time they are ready to start practice runs and at the allocated start time they are ready.
The same thing could happen at any event as long as the organisers were on the ball, then there would be enough time left for 3rd runs.
Stopping for an 1 1/2 lunch break at some events is taking the "Michael" if you can rotate judges and timekeepers to give them a break you should be able to run an event non stop, lets face it the competitor may have 3 or 4 hours at least to kill between runs. The event would finish earlier so people would stay for prize giving and still get home at a reasonable time.
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching
Tweeking the present system will not address all of its faults, nor will raise the skill levels found wanting at some levels.
Working on the principle of re building the pyramid, here's a suggestion for discussion!
Scrap Div 4 as we know it and give the clubs/regions the scope to run as many "Qualifying Slaloms" as required. A Qualifying Slalom where new comers can enter without the formalities presently required.
Don't restrict entries to established paddlers - invite non slalom clubs, schools, youth clubs/organisations to take part. Qualifying Slaloms(or call them what you will) should be simple flat running water, possibly short course, timed only (forget penaties at this stage). This would require minimal staffing and be easy to understand and manage for clubs with limited resources and manpower.
Attendance at qualifying slaloms (say 2) would then allow a paddler to enter a Div 3 slalom as a first step to more serious racing.
From Div 3 upwards slaloms would adopt present values and should be held on graded water along specific lines. eg. (Div 3 held on grade 1 water no maximum number of events ) (Div 2 held on grade 2 water max of 3 per area) (Div 1 held on grade 2/3 water max of 2 per area ( Prem held on grade 3 + water max of 2 per area). Areas would be defined regions in the North ,Midlands ,South of England and Scotland and Wales.
Where slaloms need to be multi division, the water grade should be inclined to the higher division.
The grading of site could be via established BCU gradings or by a assessment panel when events are applied for.Promotion to be be a series of wins (2 or 3) and promotion /demotion by end of seasons results.
By defining the grades of water, over a period, the anomilies of "being out ones depth by too easy promotion" should be eliminated.
I could go on as there are a number of issues within slalom which need reddressing but I'll see what if any thoughts are forthcoming from this my first effort.
Working on the principle of re building the pyramid, here's a suggestion for discussion!
Scrap Div 4 as we know it and give the clubs/regions the scope to run as many "Qualifying Slaloms" as required. A Qualifying Slalom where new comers can enter without the formalities presently required.
Don't restrict entries to established paddlers - invite non slalom clubs, schools, youth clubs/organisations to take part. Qualifying Slaloms(or call them what you will) should be simple flat running water, possibly short course, timed only (forget penaties at this stage). This would require minimal staffing and be easy to understand and manage for clubs with limited resources and manpower.
Attendance at qualifying slaloms (say 2) would then allow a paddler to enter a Div 3 slalom as a first step to more serious racing.
From Div 3 upwards slaloms would adopt present values and should be held on graded water along specific lines. eg. (Div 3 held on grade 1 water no maximum number of events ) (Div 2 held on grade 2 water max of 3 per area) (Div 1 held on grade 2/3 water max of 2 per area ( Prem held on grade 3 + water max of 2 per area). Areas would be defined regions in the North ,Midlands ,South of England and Scotland and Wales.
Where slaloms need to be multi division, the water grade should be inclined to the higher division.
The grading of site could be via established BCU gradings or by a assessment panel when events are applied for.Promotion to be be a series of wins (2 or 3) and promotion /demotion by end of seasons results.
By defining the grades of water, over a period, the anomilies of "being out ones depth by too easy promotion" should be eliminated.
I could go on as there are a number of issues within slalom which need reddressing but I'll see what if any thoughts are forthcoming from this my first effort.
I think Kanu100's ideas for div 4 exist already to some extent - e.g.: the Llandysul river festival regularly has entrants who are first time canoeists.
As to establishing grades of water for a site, obviously there are many sites which have fluctuating water levels over the year and these are not predictable in advance (e.g. 2 or 3 years back, a Llandysul 2/3/4 had to be cancelled due to too much water - in August!). This would then make it difficult to be sure what grade of water would be running for an event and so the 'problem' could still exist as paddlers who didn't like big water would simply withdraw, or just not enter, when the water was high and only compete on easier water levels.
I think Mwilk's idea of best 4 results, or 3 wins, to count for div 2 promotion is a good one. 4 races is an obvious stepping stone balance between div 3's 3 and div 1's 5. Making it 3 wins means that 2 successes at one weekend would be insufficient for immediate promotion and thus a single weak entry weekend would not be responsible for someone reaching div 1 unprepared.
A slightly radical idea may be to make entry to div 1 dependent on doing judges runs (which would also be of wider benefit as it would increase the number of available judges) and achieving results better than, say, the bottom 10% of the division 1 times for the relevant class. I know that when I was in div 2, and my son in div 1 that I did more div 1/prems (as a judge) than I ever did div 2s (unless they were 1/2s). This meant that, before I reached div 1, I had, I think, competed at all the big water courses and thus was well aware of what div 1 courses were like. This would also mean that people who have won div 2 races, despite deliberately missing gates to avoid hard moves (I can remember a hard div 1/2 where the ladies div 2 winner made no attempt at 2 gates) would not be able to reach div 1 so easily.
On the more general idea of best 2 of 3 runs, I strongly agree with Dave Bradshaw's 9 July comments. I too feel this would actually reduce the water time available, as free practice, where many people take advantage of lengthy water time, would be drastically reduced. Also there are many paddlers who rely on this free practice as their main opportunity for training on decent whitewater as they have no easy access to such levels. The cry from many who give up slalom is that they get insufficient water time for the costs and time involved in a weekend's slalom - this idea would further reduce that time. In any case, there are many events where lunchbreaks already do not happen - whether planned or not - and so the time for a third run may well just not be available.
Equal points: The use of the second runs to tie-break the points seems obvious and I have always been a bit surprised it isn't used. However where a true tie (equal better and equal worse times), say of 2 paddlers, exists, I would further suggest that rather than both paddlers getting the same points for the higher position, that they actually get the average points for the two positions. A possible exception to this would be if there was a true tie for first place where both paddlers getting 1000/100 points may be justifiable.
As to establishing grades of water for a site, obviously there are many sites which have fluctuating water levels over the year and these are not predictable in advance (e.g. 2 or 3 years back, a Llandysul 2/3/4 had to be cancelled due to too much water - in August!). This would then make it difficult to be sure what grade of water would be running for an event and so the 'problem' could still exist as paddlers who didn't like big water would simply withdraw, or just not enter, when the water was high and only compete on easier water levels.
I think Mwilk's idea of best 4 results, or 3 wins, to count for div 2 promotion is a good one. 4 races is an obvious stepping stone balance between div 3's 3 and div 1's 5. Making it 3 wins means that 2 successes at one weekend would be insufficient for immediate promotion and thus a single weak entry weekend would not be responsible for someone reaching div 1 unprepared.
A slightly radical idea may be to make entry to div 1 dependent on doing judges runs (which would also be of wider benefit as it would increase the number of available judges) and achieving results better than, say, the bottom 10% of the division 1 times for the relevant class. I know that when I was in div 2, and my son in div 1 that I did more div 1/prems (as a judge) than I ever did div 2s (unless they were 1/2s). This meant that, before I reached div 1, I had, I think, competed at all the big water courses and thus was well aware of what div 1 courses were like. This would also mean that people who have won div 2 races, despite deliberately missing gates to avoid hard moves (I can remember a hard div 1/2 where the ladies div 2 winner made no attempt at 2 gates) would not be able to reach div 1 so easily.
On the more general idea of best 2 of 3 runs, I strongly agree with Dave Bradshaw's 9 July comments. I too feel this would actually reduce the water time available, as free practice, where many people take advantage of lengthy water time, would be drastically reduced. Also there are many paddlers who rely on this free practice as their main opportunity for training on decent whitewater as they have no easy access to such levels. The cry from many who give up slalom is that they get insufficient water time for the costs and time involved in a weekend's slalom - this idea would further reduce that time. In any case, there are many events where lunchbreaks already do not happen - whether planned or not - and so the time for a third run may well just not be available.
Equal points: The use of the second runs to tie-break the points seems obvious and I have always been a bit surprised it isn't used. However where a true tie (equal better and equal worse times), say of 2 paddlers, exists, I would further suggest that rather than both paddlers getting the same points for the higher position, that they actually get the average points for the two positions. A possible exception to this would be if there was a true tie for first place where both paddlers getting 1000/100 points may be justifiable.
kanu100 wrote: Scrap Div 4 as we know it and give the clubs/regions the scope to run as many "Qualifying Slaloms" as required. A Qualifying Slalom where new comers can enter without the formalities presently required.
Don't restrict entries to established paddlers - invite non slalom clubs, schools, youth clubs/organisations to take part. Qualifying Slaloms(or call them what you will) should be simple flat running water, possibly short course, timed only (forget penaties at this stage). This would require minimal staffing and be easy to understand and manage for clubs with limited resources and manpower.
That's exactly what Div 4 is now. The challenge is getting non slalom clubs, schools, youth clubs/organisations to take part.
John Kent
I'm sure it's been said before but the concept of best 2 of 3 for divs 3 and 4 to give more water time is a nonsense. At those divs now paddlers get as much practice as time or water permits. Having another timed run would just add to the organisers headache of arranging judges and other officials for a 3rd run.
John Kent
As much as we would all like to see water time maximised, whatever the division there is no way you can fit in three runs. We got home at almost midnight after two runs at Llandysul, although we travel a distance some travelled more.
Realistically 2 runs is all most events can fit in.
Div 2 and 3 races have to move onto bigger water where possible (climate change permitting), but some qualification races for Div 1 should be on HPP, Washburn, Tully, Tryweryn etc..... I know some organisers are thinking hard how they can up the level, eg. moving up river at Bala Mill, the water by JJ Rafting etc...........
Realistically 2 runs is all most events can fit in.
Div 2 and 3 races have to move onto bigger water where possible (climate change permitting), but some qualification races for Div 1 should be on HPP, Washburn, Tully, Tryweryn etc..... I know some organisers are thinking hard how they can up the level, eg. moving up river at Bala Mill, the water by JJ Rafting etc...........
Ray and JKE .The point on river grading I was attempting to make is that there should be different grades for different divisions. The fact that some events cover three divisions makes my point. Yes rivers will fluctuate but should we not start somewhere! plus paddlers would not be in a position to select low water sites.eg if all div 2 slaloms are held on grade 2 water it would create a level playing field.
My whole idea re scrapping Div 4 was to get away from the structured Div 4's with its rules , penalties etc. and make an event where there was lots of paddling time for new paddlers to get just a flavour of slalom. It would enable clubs to run as many such events as they felt they wanted to and not just when sanctioned by the Slalom CMTE. I agree that Llandysul Festival is a great event but how many such events are run around the UK and do they reach out to non canoe clubs.
The challange of getting new blood is not an easy one, but its also not impossible. we need ideas and new forums in order to inject new blood into slalom.
Regional paddling weekends held "up north" in recent years always attracted a whole range of paddlers to try different disciplines including some who wouldnt dream of paddling slalom but because it was so easy to access they tried it! and one of the main thrusts of paddlesport development is to get youngsters to try different paddle disciplines, but it wo'nt happen on its own.
My whole idea re scrapping Div 4 was to get away from the structured Div 4's with its rules , penalties etc. and make an event where there was lots of paddling time for new paddlers to get just a flavour of slalom. It would enable clubs to run as many such events as they felt they wanted to and not just when sanctioned by the Slalom CMTE. I agree that Llandysul Festival is a great event but how many such events are run around the UK and do they reach out to non canoe clubs.
The challange of getting new blood is not an easy one, but its also not impossible. we need ideas and new forums in order to inject new blood into slalom.
Regional paddling weekends held "up north" in recent years always attracted a whole range of paddlers to try different disciplines including some who wouldnt dream of paddling slalom but because it was so easy to access they tried it! and one of the main thrusts of paddlesport development is to get youngsters to try different paddle disciplines, but it wo'nt happen on its own.
Time for a vote ?
1) Promotion from Div3 to 2 requiring best of 4 (or 3 wins).
Yes (I agree with M Wilk)
2) Best of 3 runs for lower divisions ?
I vote No.
3) Make it harder to stay in a division (with required points defined at the start of the season).
I vote Yes.
(I might stay in Div 2 for ever, but at least I'd have to work at it)
4) Award ranking points to judges when compared to paddlers in a higher division ?
I vote yes.
(If, as a div 2 paddler I did a judges run at a div 1 event, and achieved a time in the top say 80% of div1 times, or say less than 115% of the winning div 1 time I could achieve XXX points.)
If C1, C2 can be compared with K1, why not allow comparisons between K1 divisions. You could make it harder to achieve points than in a normal race, but at least you'd feel you were racing for something.
Result=more judges and happier paddlers
1) Promotion from Div3 to 2 requiring best of 4 (or 3 wins).
Yes (I agree with M Wilk)
2) Best of 3 runs for lower divisions ?
I vote No.
3) Make it harder to stay in a division (with required points defined at the start of the season).
I vote Yes.
(I might stay in Div 2 for ever, but at least I'd have to work at it)
4) Award ranking points to judges when compared to paddlers in a higher division ?
I vote yes.
(If, as a div 2 paddler I did a judges run at a div 1 event, and achieved a time in the top say 80% of div1 times, or say less than 115% of the winning div 1 time I could achieve XXX points.)
If C1, C2 can be compared with K1, why not allow comparisons between K1 divisions. You could make it harder to achieve points than in a normal race, but at least you'd feel you were racing for something.
Result=more judges and happier paddlers
I'm 100% with Katonas;
1:yes [obviously]
2:no
3:yes
4:yes - great idea but I can understand that it would complicate things for compilers. How about a simple bonus point system for anyone who helps at a race. Say; 50 points per event to a maximum of 100 or 150 per season. This could then be added to your best of 3, 4 or 5 scores. The incentive would be that it just might make the difference if you are struggling to get those final few points.
1:yes [obviously]
2:no
3:yes
4:yes - great idea but I can understand that it would complicate things for compilers. How about a simple bonus point system for anyone who helps at a race. Say; 50 points per event to a maximum of 100 or 150 per season. This could then be added to your best of 3, 4 or 5 scores. The incentive would be that it just might make the difference if you are struggling to get those final few points.