ACM Motion 6.4 End in season promotion from Div 1 - 'Just for Fun, to see what people think'

General slalom chatter...rant about the bad, rave about the good

ACM Motion 6.4 End in season promotion from Div 1 - 'Just for Fun, to see what people think'

For the Motion
10
40%
Against the Motion
13
52%
Abstain
2
8%
 
Total votes: 25

John
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:11 pm

Post by John » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:47 am

I'm puzzled by the very idea that promotion to Prem should be available to people who don't race often.


Nick, I think we see the divisional system very differently. I like the divisional system. It brings people of a similar standard together so they can race each other. If we didn’t have the divisional system, we could have Prem paddlers racing div 4 paddlers. That simply wouldn’t be a meaningful competition. You may as well be doing a full runs training session.

I think you see the promotional system as a good part of the divisional system, as you believe it offers paddlers a goal and motivation.
I, on the other hand, see it as the bad part of the system. I see the best part of canoeing in each individual race. A group of paddlers attempt to get from start to finish as quickly as possible. It’s simple and easy, the fastest wins.
The ranking system and in particular the promotional system undermine this simplicity. You can have paddlers jumping with joy with an 8th place, because this means they will be promoted, whereas at the same race you could have another paddler who is utterly disappointed with a 3rd place, as they needed a 2nd to be promoted. Worse still, a paddler who only requires an 8th place for promotion could choose to paddle “safe”, instead of “going for gold”. This can be damaging to the sport.

For me, the good part of the divisional system is that it brings paddlers of similar standards together for meaningful competition. So if a paddler is of Prem standard, he should be in the Premier division, no matter how often he chooses to race. However the inevitable drawback of the divisional system is that you will have to promote and demote paddlers as their standard of paddling changes.

quaker
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:54 am

Post by quaker » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:32 pm

John, your ideas on the divisonal system would require a great deal of thought and effort to implement. Maybe if you came up with a staged solution that would fit into the current system then we could look to the future.

However without moving from the thread.... I don't think that an end of season and "one-off promotion" events would work. If you take this years mid season HPP where the majority of paddlers who scored under 450 points got 50's (qualifier race). This type of event would encourage someone to "play it safe" and get promoted. So to prevent this you would have to ensure that a course designer made a very neutral course. However a neutral course such as Town Falls wouldn't necessarily show up a better paddler.... and with that comparison you get into the whole "who is a better paddler - the one whos good on moving water or the technically brillant flatwater paddler?"

The other problem with the one-off events is that presumably they would still ranked and points given. So someone could still play it safe and get extra points for the end of season. They would of course have to be a level playing field and the div1 paddlers would therfore lose free practice and a practice run... I sure that will go down well with the majority of div1-ers!

I'm all for the move to end-of-season promotion, but do believe that the ones that are excelling should be moved up. I think the only way to encourage promotion and competition is to allow promotion after 4/5 wins.

Nick Penfold
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm

Post by Nick Penfold » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:02 pm

No John, I agree with you that the main purpose of the divisional system is so that paddlers of similar ability can race against one another - and on water and courses of appropriate difficulty.
There is a problem, though, which is that the ideal makeup of each group changes quite fast. New paddlers develop quickly, established paddlers decline and some drop out of slalom. 10 ranked K1M Prems didn't race this year.
Promotion serves two purposes. It brings new blood to top up the numbers racing, and yes, it offers motivation to developing paddlers. I don't see that as a conflict, provided that the promoted paddlers are up to scratch, and promotion on points has done a pretty good job there. End of year promotion, if it's adopted, is also likely to be based on points, it's just that because an element of committee discretion comes in the target won't be fixed, and paddlers who get into obvious contention by mid-year will have to wait.
For aspiring paddlers in Div 1, promotion to Prem (whether in-season or year-end) is what races are about, and having special promotion events would strip their races of meaning.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Post by Dee » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:43 pm

This idea of having a couple of special promotion races puzzles me - if I remember correctly we had one of those at the end of each season (highest ranked div 1 paddler obtaining promotion to prem) until last AGM at which point it was decided to end the practice.

Sightly different rules I know, but.....
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!

Carlr
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire.

Post by Carlr » Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:45 pm

Well said Dee, Everyone seems to have forgotten all the Hoo Ha that went on after that race and Promotion, Promotion should either be as at present or at the end of season and no in betweens. You cant have your cake and eat it all the time.

John Sturgess
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire

Post by John Sturgess » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:45 pm

As with so much of these debates, this is only an issue because we try to use our Ranking System for two contradictory purposes.

On the one hand we use it to enable us to say how good paddlers are in relation to each other. Fine: that is what a ranking system is for.

On the other hand - and this is where the damage is done to the sport - we use it to dictate which races paddlers can race at. So paddlers cannot choose to race either on the water that they like best, or, for rapidly improving paddlers, on the challenging water they need.

And yes they can judge - but why should they have to? Almost all races in Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, the USA, Canada, etc, and a majority of the races in France are open entry. They still have divisionally-split ranking systems. No other country does it the way we do.

We will continue to have these round-and-round debates until we decide to use our ranking system only as a ranking system, and establish open entry for all races.

Nick Penfold
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm

Post by Nick Penfold » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:43 pm

But your point, John (S), is unlikely to be won until a proposal comes to the ACM for us to discuss and vote on. I thought you were going to do that this year.

John Sturgess
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire

Post by John Sturgess » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:08 am

Nick - before you can gather in a crop you need to plough the soil and sew the seed - which ought to bear more fruit as a result of James Purnell's speech on Wednesday, and the resultant resignation of Derek Mapp who ran Sport England. In case you haven't, here it is (apologies for the length):
Sport England Email newsletter 29th November 2007

Dear John

Welcome to another special Sport England East Midlands newsletter to inform you of ongoing developments following yesterday's speech by James Purnell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on community sport.
Derek Mapp resigns as Sport England Chair
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, James Purnell, has today accepted the resignation of Derek Mapp as Chairman of Sport England. This follows a change in the Secretary of State's priorities for the organisation, focusing it clearly on strengthening the grassroots sporting infrastructure and increasing participation in community sport.
Sport England will continue to play a major role in meeting the Government's target of getting two million more people active by 2012. Sport England will now be focusing purely on sports participation. Alongside that, there will be ongoing work with the Department for Health and across Government over the next few months to ensure that all relevant government departments are closely working together to deliver a physical activity strategy for all.
Sport England chief executive Jennie Price will now lead work to develop Sport England's new strategy to develop world class community sport and boost participation in grassroots sport, particularly among women and ethnic minority communities. Rugby League chief executive Richard Lewis and Youth Sport Trust Chief executive Steve Grainger will also work with Sport England on this alongside current Deputy Chair Ged Roddy.

Statement from Jennie Price Chief Executive of Sport England
Responding to the announcement that Derek Mapp has resigned as Chair of Sport England today, Jennie Price, CEO said 'Derek has made a strong and positive contribution to Sport England as Chairman. He has brought clear leadership, energy, drive and focus to the organisation, which will stand us in good stead as we take on our new role which was confirmed by the Secretary of State yesterday in his speech to the School and Sport Partnerships' Conference

World class community sport – speech by Rt Hon James Purnell, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport.

Check against delivery
28 November 2007
Today I want to talk about how we can create world class community sport in this country.
There is an odd quality to political speeches: they can make almost anything sound dull. When it comes to sport this would really be some achievement.

Will England beat Croatia next time; will your son’s basketball team win the league; will your daughter’s football side; did you see Paula Radcliffe in New York; will Andy Murray win Wimbledon? These are subjects which are about passion.
The football World Cup finals and the Olympics are amazing celebrations of internationalism. They were global before globalization. No language or religion reaches as far as sport does around the world.
Sport is many things but it’s very rarely dull. Yet I bet I could manage it.

I could say things like:

• ten years ago there was hardly any direct investment in school sport. Since then, over £4 billion of Government and Lottery funding has been spent on sport at local and national level.
• 86% of pupils are now doing at least 2 hours of PE and sport in a typical week. In 2002 it was barely 25%.

The statistics never really tell the story. Let me remind you of one of our five promises when we won the bid to host the Olympics: to create a world class sporting nation.

That means three things: a world class school sport system, a world class community sports system, and a world class elite sport system.

I like to think of it as a pyramid with school sport as the first part of that.
We have set out an ambition, which we have backed with funding, to offer at least 5 hours of sport every week, to every child. Thanks to the work of the Youth Sports Trust and your hard work we have a world class PE and school sport system within our reach.

So, I want to offer you my heartfelt thanks for the commitment and passion you have brought to your work: we are building a world class school sport system.

And despite the disappointments of the last week on the football field we are on the way to having a world class elite sports system.

But don’t just take my word for that. Last week our great sporting rivals the Australians said that Britain was making “dramatic advances” at their expense and announced that they were upping their game to keep pace.

So it’s clear that we’re on the way to having a world class school sport and elite sport system but what we now need is to create a world-class community sports system. And that can be one of the biggest legacies of that great day in Singapore: to create an Olympic generation, to make sure that over the next five years when people of all ages get inspired to take up sport, there are clubs, facilities and coaches ready to welcome them.

Today, I want to talk to you about how we intend to make that vision come alive. It depends on two important insights: first that sport matters in itself and, second, that competitive sport is a good thing.

So, first, we need to be clear why we’re all here. It is because we share a passion for sport. This isn’t necessarily true of every subject. No doubt there are plenty of people with a passion for geography but I doubt they are as many as those who love sport.

I think it is important to establish this, not just to swap compliments with you, but because too often sport is justified on the basis of its spill-over benefits.

There is, of course, a good argument that sport is important because it enhances analytical ability, leadership and teamwork: or that literacy and numeracy can all be taught with examples drawn from sport. The justification for sport is in the Education Department.

There is a good argument that sport is important because it helps us deal with crime by diverting young people at risk away from trouble. The justification for sport is with the Ministry of Justice.
We hear too that sport keeps the voluntary sector buoyant. Nearly 2 million people give at least an hour a week to sport. They sustain over 100,000 affiliated clubs in England, serving over 8 million members. The justification for sport is in the Communities Department.

And yes, sport does have all these other benefits and I’m delighted about that. But they are not the reason we love it. They are not the reason the Government is committed to it. Sport is a joy and a passion, not because we can learn about Newton’s laws through the movement of a snooker ball, but because of the beauty of sport itself.

And part of that beauty is the competitive nature of sport.

I’ve always been confused over the debate about whether sport should be competitive. Sport is competitive. It’s like asking whether dancing should contain movement.

I’m delighted we’ve put behind us the damaging notion that competitive sport is bad for children. Sport teaches children how to win magnanimously and how to lose graciously.

Sport is about playing: the fact that, in the end, it’s a game is precisely what makes sport such a great arena for learning. It teaches children how to observe a code of rules, the importance of subordinating your personal desires to a team and the role of authority. Indeed, like most areas of intense competition, sport of course teaches people how to co-operate effectively.

For a long while we lost sight of these basic points. A combination of some well-meaning theories and an ill-disposed Government led to a decline in the infrastructure of competitive sport.

We will never build a world class community sports infrastructure unless we are clear that sport is a good thing and competition is a good thing. So what do we do?
There is an old management axiom that the man who has five priorities has none. That is why I am categorically sure that the purpose of Sport England is to deliver sport in England. Call me simple-minded but surely there’s a clue in the name.

There should be a clear focus on sport development and sports participation.

We are announcing the start of this process with a review of Sport England’s strategy to focus the delivery of an excellent sporting infrastructure from the grass roots up. That means creating excellent national governing bodies, clubs, coaches and volunteers, supported by the investment we've already made in facilities.

And the sporting bodies in our country will be critical. My offer to them is clear. We want to create whole sports plans, with a single funding pot. We will free them up from the bureaucracy and bidding that they complain about today.

But, in return, they will need to commit to clear goals to improve participation, coaching and the club structure. And in particular, they will need to show how they will reach groups who do less sport today, whether women, poorer groups or some ethnic minorities.

Of course sport has a role to play in tackling wider social problems. The rise of obesity is key amongst them, which the government is taking very seriously indeed. The DCMS is playing its part in raising participation in PE and school sport. But we can’t reduce obesity by ourselves.

That is why, I have agreed with the Department for Health and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that we will work closely over the next few months to ensure that all relevant Government departments are working together to deliver a physical activity strategy for all. This work will provide absolute clarity of the roles and responsibilities for all the different organizations to meet our aim of 2 million more people being more active by 2012.

But sport can only play its full role in tackling social problems, if we invest more in community sport.
I want to make it clear that there isn’t a contest here between the elite and the grass-roots. This is about making sport excellent for everyone who wants to take part.

I genuinely believe sport could be on the threshold of a heralded era in this country. We have the perfect catalyst because, less than five years from now, we will host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Then, two years later, the Commonwealth Games will be held in Glasgow. We have the prospect of the Rugby, Cricket and Football World cups coming to these shores.

We are at the dawn of an incredible decade of sport. And we would not forgive ourselves if we failed to create a community sports infrastructure to capitalise on that decade: to take the enthusiasm of those who watch our sports stars and turn it into a lifetime’s commitment to sport.

Seb Coe tells a story about how when he and Daley Thompson returned to the UK after their Olympic glory they went back to their sports club in Haringey.

They found a queue 50 metres long of young people who had been inspired by the Olympics to get involved. And Seb talks of the heartbreaking sight of the club turning young people away because they just didn’t have the capacity.

I wonder how many times this has been repeated at tennis clubs after Wimbledon fortnight, rugby clubs after the Rugby World Cup or cricket clubs after the Ashes. How many have missed out on the joy of sport? How many sporting stars has the country missed out on? How would we feel in five years time?
We never have had a better opportunity to enthuse a whole generation about sport. Just under four and a half million children will leave school between now and the summer of 2012. We must be able to meet the ambitions of this ‘Olympic Generation’.

The PM recently announced £100 million additional funding which will provide children with more opportunities to be coached by qualified sports coaches; to take part in competitive sport; to provide provision for children with disabilities; to improve sport outside school.

We are appointing a national network of 225 competition managers. They are establishing links with yourselves, with selected national governing bodies and with Sport England. We want to increase the amount of competition and will support it with better clubs and coaching.

The first UK School Games were held in Glasgow in September of last year. They will take place in a different city each year until 2012.

Together we can match our passion as spectators to a renewed passion for taking part. I can see how we get there. We need to give all children a good grounding in PE and sport at school. We need to clear the path for talented children to progress to higher standards. And then we need world-class clubs helping young people to progress into adult sport.

The years in front of us are very exciting. I’d like to end by thanking you all again for your continued dedication and commitment in everything you do. As a government we have always taken sport seriously. But it’s not a cliché to say it can’t be done without you.

Facilities are no good without coaches; programmes and funding packages are a waste without the ability and commitment of the people who put them into practice.

Our sports policy has a simple and powerful idea at its core: the idea that if you have a talent we will remove every barrier in your way to help you achieve.

Competitive sport is a perfect meritocracy. The best rises to the top. But everyone has the chance to do their best. We want everyone, at all levels of ability, to find that passion. That is the beauty of sport: to fulfill our potential.

It does improve our health, it does help us to learn, it does help to bind a community. But its greatest virtue is none of these things. Its greatest virtue is to be found in the sheer joy of playing and competing.

Winning, losing, taking part, being as good as we can be.

quaker
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:54 am

Post by quaker » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:35 pm

John Sturgess wrote:before you can gather in a crop you need to plough the soil and sew the seed
John... I aint got a clue which corner you are standing in here!

You seem to continually talk about competitions and people pushing as hard as they can to achieve the best they can. Yet the letter that you have attached talks about how sport is in the best interest of the nation. I understand that having a good sport base is essential for having a good competition base, but it doesn't necessarily follow that having a good competition base is good for sport.

You need to understand the crop that you are trying to sow let alone ploughing the field before hand!

I think that you need to start a new thread so that we can all discuss your proposals.... and stop polluting the other threads!

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Post by Canadian Paddler » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:28 pm

Gosh that was awkward, everyone was ready for a debate, and big arguments, but when the motion was first voted on (under regulation 5.9) more than 75% voted against it, so it failed with no debate.

Watch this space, I bet it is back in a modified form for next year :D
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

Post Reply