"The slalom committee decided that there should be few doubles if any....."
This is a quote from an organiser recently to a general question on whether or not their event was a DOUBLE. It seems to endorse a willingness to run one but not cooperation for them to do so.
So does this, along with the recent site vote / poll - that showed almost two thirds of those expressing an opinion in favour of DOUBLES - show that that slalom committee hasn't understood the wishes of the paddling public or is it that their voices are being drowned out by the wishes of other interest groups?
Comments anyone?
IN TUNE OR OUT OF STEP? - Slalom Committee
-
PaulBolton
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:30 pm
- Location: Lincoln
Richie, that's not really a fair comment. As this really only affects Div1, that represents ~10% of that division - not a bad indicator to get a flavour.
As an aside, I read an article at the weekend describing how Triathalon is booming in Britain with new clubs starting every week and competition entries far exceeding present capacity. The sport is dynamic, run for the benefit of all competitors (not just Olympic aspirants), allows all levels at every competition and is open to feedback from the grass root membership and so is developing in a way that encourages participation. Is canoe slalom similar? Personally, I have some doubts. Certainly, there is evidence on this site that individuals are leaving the sport due to the lack of affordable oppportunities to compete. Perhaps they are starting Triathalon!
As an aside, I read an article at the weekend describing how Triathalon is booming in Britain with new clubs starting every week and competition entries far exceeding present capacity. The sport is dynamic, run for the benefit of all competitors (not just Olympic aspirants), allows all levels at every competition and is open to feedback from the grass root membership and so is developing in a way that encourages participation. Is canoe slalom similar? Personally, I have some doubts. Certainly, there is evidence on this site that individuals are leaving the sport due to the lack of affordable oppportunities to compete. Perhaps they are starting Triathalon!
Yes Richie I am quoting from the limited poll you refer to. Seems a great shame that not a lot of people use this forum for such dicussion. Wasn't it a member of the committee that once siad this isn't the proper place to develop such ideas?
The only other comment I wish to make at the moment is to refer to a comment Walt Disney made once - in another fairtale land - namely that "you've lost a client the moment you find you have to argue with them!".
I was rather hoping that the committee might have a more open approach to tose clubs wishing to run DOUBLES as opposed to putting barriers in their way.
The only other comment I wish to make at the moment is to refer to a comment Walt Disney made once - in another fairtale land - namely that "you've lost a client the moment you find you have to argue with them!".
I was rather hoping that the committee might have a more open approach to tose clubs wishing to run DOUBLES as opposed to putting barriers in their way.
Well it's the only place we have online, so why not use it to start discussions?surveyme wrote:Wasn't it a member of the committee that once siad this isn't the proper place to develop such ideas?
I think I'd like to see a "proper" survey of Div 1 paddlers, to see whether doubles are wanted. Then if enough paddlers and clubs are likely to be in favour a reasonable proposal can be put to ACM (i.e. the way we're supposed to do it).
So how to conduct such a survey? By post of all current registered Div 1 paddlers? Possibly a bit expensive on postage. Not sure.
Personally for all the reasons stated I would prefer doubles. Also another reason that isn't often mentioned is that I may often only be free one day of a weekend, and if the single is on the other then that's quite annoying.
As for triathlon, I'm not sure you can make comparisons. You certainly can't make it on account of being cheap, entry fees are really high and even a half decent tri bike sets you back £lots. I think it's probably just a fad, but some of the appeal could simply be because most people know how to swim, cycle and run. Navigating a long lump of carbon fibre down a raging torrent requires more specialist training!
Firstly I think that the slalom committee do an excellent job and to say that they are out of touch is unfair. They are volunteers. If you think you could do a better job, why not stand for a place on the committee?
Richie is right too, of the 10 or however many people have voted on the poll, how many are div 1 paddlers?
I do also agree though, that there are quite a few people that would prefer more doubles, but there are lots of things that need to be considered if a change is to be made. If the number of doubles is increased, then this could either mean fewer weekends, fewer locations, longer breaks, is this desirable? Alternatively, increase the number of races, and have more doubles that way, but this will lead to more promotions and people reaching the next division before they're ready/capable.
I don't think that reducing the number venues is desirable, I'd prefer to have the choice of venues, and it wouldn't be too disasterous missing the odd race weekend, but then there is the question of too many promotions. Would you increase the number of points required for promotion, increase the number of races that points were classed, i.e. best 6/7/8... or go to end of season promotion.
I think that here is possibly the right place for discussion, but someone needs to come up with a clear proposition to put to the agm looking at all the issues, not just saying we want more doubles! Everyone knows the current situation, I think that the process is fine. Amendments once a year is good so we have continuity through the season. So which one of the people moaning is going to draft a proposal?
With regard to triathlon, they are bound to get more people at each meet. Every standard can race the same course. That can never happen in slalom. It's hard enough for organisers to set courses for one division having to set something challenging for the best K1M, whilst having it not to difficult for the newest K1L. Triathlon is much cheaper to start. You can also pick up cheap bikes all over the place, speedos aren't expensive and everyone has trainers... You don't have to have the best kit as a novice, whilst to start paddling you'd struggle to start for less than a couple of hundred quid...
Richie is right too, of the 10 or however many people have voted on the poll, how many are div 1 paddlers?
I do also agree though, that there are quite a few people that would prefer more doubles, but there are lots of things that need to be considered if a change is to be made. If the number of doubles is increased, then this could either mean fewer weekends, fewer locations, longer breaks, is this desirable? Alternatively, increase the number of races, and have more doubles that way, but this will lead to more promotions and people reaching the next division before they're ready/capable.
I don't think that reducing the number venues is desirable, I'd prefer to have the choice of venues, and it wouldn't be too disasterous missing the odd race weekend, but then there is the question of too many promotions. Would you increase the number of points required for promotion, increase the number of races that points were classed, i.e. best 6/7/8... or go to end of season promotion.
I think that here is possibly the right place for discussion, but someone needs to come up with a clear proposition to put to the agm looking at all the issues, not just saying we want more doubles! Everyone knows the current situation, I think that the process is fine. Amendments once a year is good so we have continuity through the season. So which one of the people moaning is going to draft a proposal?
With regard to triathlon, they are bound to get more people at each meet. Every standard can race the same course. That can never happen in slalom. It's hard enough for organisers to set courses for one division having to set something challenging for the best K1M, whilst having it not to difficult for the newest K1L. Triathlon is much cheaper to start. You can also pick up cheap bikes all over the place, speedos aren't expensive and everyone has trainers... You don't have to have the best kit as a novice, whilst to start paddling you'd struggle to start for less than a couple of hundred quid...
Div1 paddlers seem to want several things.
1)As many opportunities to paddle a variety of courses
2)To be able to paddle on a Sat and Sun if they have travelled a long way
3)To avoid demotion due to not being able to attend enough ranking events.
All the 2008 'single' div1 events are part of a mixed weekend with the opportunity to judge/paddle on the other day and often paddle the evening before. Many are combined with Prem events which allows div1 paddlers to learn from the best, and test themselves on the hardest courses.
Assuming no increase in the number of ranking event days, every single that becomes a double, means 2 days of potential paddling lost. As someone who often has other committments at weekends, the impact of missing a double event is far greater, especially if you have to wait 2 months before the next. As a paddler without a nearby slalom course, I'd give up slalom if there were just 7 doubles in the yr, 3-4 of which I couldn't make, as I need events to practice. By providing lots of singles/variety the committee have kept me paddling.
Point 3 would have less of an impact if paddlers could avoid relegation by scoring well in 1, 2 or 3 races eg.500, 800, and 900 total points consecutively. However, if I get demoted because I could only attend 5 ranking days, and flopped on three of them, then I'll accept I probably wasn't good enough to stay in div1.
1)As many opportunities to paddle a variety of courses
2)To be able to paddle on a Sat and Sun if they have travelled a long way
3)To avoid demotion due to not being able to attend enough ranking events.
All the 2008 'single' div1 events are part of a mixed weekend with the opportunity to judge/paddle on the other day and often paddle the evening before. Many are combined with Prem events which allows div1 paddlers to learn from the best, and test themselves on the hardest courses.
Assuming no increase in the number of ranking event days, every single that becomes a double, means 2 days of potential paddling lost. As someone who often has other committments at weekends, the impact of missing a double event is far greater, especially if you have to wait 2 months before the next. As a paddler without a nearby slalom course, I'd give up slalom if there were just 7 doubles in the yr, 3-4 of which I couldn't make, as I need events to practice. By providing lots of singles/variety the committee have kept me paddling.
Point 3 would have less of an impact if paddlers could avoid relegation by scoring well in 1, 2 or 3 races eg.500, 800, and 900 total points consecutively. However, if I get demoted because I could only attend 5 ranking days, and flopped on three of them, then I'll accept I probably wasn't good enough to stay in div1.
My suggestion to this would be to contact Jenny Walker as requested on the web page and offer to be part of a working party and look at the calander and see how it can be improved.
However here are a few thoughts of mine (not the slalom committees!):
Advantages of double events:
-2 results from one weekends, travelling more cost effective
to the competior on fuel.
Can't think of any more
Disadvantages of double events:
- The timing team and section judges already havea huge committment to the calendar as it is therefore:
- To keep a sensible number of Div 1's it would entail drippong the other day (either prem or Div 2) to make it a double - where do we put that lost event?
- Events would either have to be sacrificed eg Div 2's and Prems (the latter can't as limited numbers already) or lead to the need for more committment to clubs to run more events on seperate weekends.
- Families often have paddlers in both divisions of a mixed event weekend, having more doubles this would mean more weekends away for them.
- Clubs would have to be willing to run double events - they are the ones that put in for what the would like to run.
- Less judges, at mixed weekend many paddlers will judge the other day to help their training programme and gain experience.
- Overnight costs to the competitors could be more expensive to a family than travelling for one day.
- more limited weekends to race.
- Commitment to a full weekend instead of one day.
- Cancellation due to low water or high water means 2 events lost to that division.
Hope this gives everyone food for thought.
It MAY be possible to increrase the number of doubles slightly, particularly in Div 1 if clubs are willing and a lot of thought goes into it, but it should not be at the expense of other divisions. Criticising the Slalom Committee is NOT the way to do it! Come on folks your all in this sport lets work together.
However here are a few thoughts of mine (not the slalom committees!):
Advantages of double events:
-2 results from one weekends, travelling more cost effective
to the competior on fuel.
Can't think of any more
Disadvantages of double events:
- The timing team and section judges already havea huge committment to the calendar as it is therefore:
- To keep a sensible number of Div 1's it would entail drippong the other day (either prem or Div 2) to make it a double - where do we put that lost event?
- Events would either have to be sacrificed eg Div 2's and Prems (the latter can't as limited numbers already) or lead to the need for more committment to clubs to run more events on seperate weekends.
- Families often have paddlers in both divisions of a mixed event weekend, having more doubles this would mean more weekends away for them.
- Clubs would have to be willing to run double events - they are the ones that put in for what the would like to run.
- Less judges, at mixed weekend many paddlers will judge the other day to help their training programme and gain experience.
- Overnight costs to the competitors could be more expensive to a family than travelling for one day.
- more limited weekends to race.
- Commitment to a full weekend instead of one day.
- Cancellation due to low water or high water means 2 events lost to that division.
Hope this gives everyone food for thought.
It MAY be possible to increrase the number of doubles slightly, particularly in Div 1 if clubs are willing and a lot of thought goes into it, but it should not be at the expense of other divisions. Criticising the Slalom Committee is NOT the way to do it! Come on folks your all in this sport lets work together.
-
Non paddler
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:13 pm
- Location: Salisbury
I am not sure there is a mass desire to make a lot more Div 1 doubles. I think the discussion started around the perceived desire of the committee to reduce the number of doubles and the fewer number this coming season compared with last. Is this a trend of phasing out doubles all together at Div 1? It is always dangerous to believe everything you hear second-hand, but it has been suggested to me that one of the other doubles was also originally marked as a single.
I know it is not always possible, but some explanation of the schedule from the schedulers would help, for example is the loss of the Washburn double at the organiser's request or was it a deliberate decision to cut the number of doubles, and if so why? It is the change of status quo that concerns paddlers, if there were the same number of Div 1 doubles as last season I doubt if this thread and discussion would have started.
Finally, we all know the sport relies on the volunteers, either at committee level, club or just helpers and supporters. The committee in particular commit time and effort that I just can't imagine being able to do myself and without that the sport would be dead. But if someone from the committee could comment on the short and long term planning for doubles that would help resolve this discussion. (Apologies if this has already been done elsewhere and I missed it!)
I know it is not always possible, but some explanation of the schedule from the schedulers would help, for example is the loss of the Washburn double at the organiser's request or was it a deliberate decision to cut the number of doubles, and if so why? It is the change of status quo that concerns paddlers, if there were the same number of Div 1 doubles as last season I doubt if this thread and discussion would have started.
Finally, we all know the sport relies on the volunteers, either at committee level, club or just helpers and supporters. The committee in particular commit time and effort that I just can't imagine being able to do myself and without that the sport would be dead. But if someone from the committee could comment on the short and long term planning for doubles that would help resolve this discussion. (Apologies if this has already been done elsewhere and I missed it!)
-
PaulBolton
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:30 pm
- Location: Lincoln
I've noticed that when anyone posts a topic for discussion on here, within seconds someone is on here vehemently defending the "Slalom Committee", pretty much regardless of the content. They must be the most sensative bunch in the whole country!! Guys, take a deep breath, relax, discussions can happen and change can be suggested without it being a direct or implied criticism of the present organization and leadership. Debate is passion and care, not a threat!
So, why is more people getting promoted percieved as such an unthinkable, terrible problem? Does slalom only have room for 10,20 or 30 elite paddlers? Don't demotions occur too for those not good enough for a division? People generally get better the more events they do, so if there is more choice via a more flexible programme, there will be more promotees. That's a successful sport, not one entrenched in fear of change and a myriad of well developed arguments explaining why it shouldn't, under any circumstances, do anything different. I first competed in the early 80s, stopped in 1987 and returned seriously a couple of years ago. The decline in 20 years is immense. When was the last event to attract 250 entries 2 weeks before the day? Why has slalom declined so significantly? Surely its not just down to playboats? I think part of the decline is that the sport has failed to evolve quickly enough. I think I now understand why.
So, why is more people getting promoted percieved as such an unthinkable, terrible problem? Does slalom only have room for 10,20 or 30 elite paddlers? Don't demotions occur too for those not good enough for a division? People generally get better the more events they do, so if there is more choice via a more flexible programme, there will be more promotees. That's a successful sport, not one entrenched in fear of change and a myriad of well developed arguments explaining why it shouldn't, under any circumstances, do anything different. I first competed in the early 80s, stopped in 1987 and returned seriously a couple of years ago. The decline in 20 years is immense. When was the last event to attract 250 entries 2 weeks before the day? Why has slalom declined so significantly? Surely its not just down to playboats? I think part of the decline is that the sport has failed to evolve quickly enough. I think I now understand why.
Please look at my opening statement. Do the committee often make decisions without a plan? I would hope not - so why is it that when you say they don't have one, other organisers are of the opinion that committee positively discouraged the running of doubles?
Surely everything in the recent past such as the reduction in size of the (upper) Divisions as well as the overall number of events, points to the fact that the Committee DOES have a plan!
Surely everything in the recent past such as the reduction in size of the (upper) Divisions as well as the overall number of events, points to the fact that the Committee DOES have a plan!
Anne
How does your statement that the committee has no plan compare against the the Committee's previous minutes namely "Anne Hounslow reported that there has been a lot of chat about double events however it was felt
that the mix is about right."
How did the committee reach that conclusion if it wasn't assessed against a plan?
How does your statement that the committee has no plan compare against the the Committee's previous minutes namely "Anne Hounslow reported that there has been a lot of chat about double events however it was felt
that the mix is about right."
How did the committee reach that conclusion if it wasn't assessed against a plan?
"We had a request from Viking K.C. that their event reverts back to a 2/3/4 double. The committee
decided that this would only be allowed providing the course is set to Div 2 standards and there is a
significant course change for the Sunday event. This will also apply to any multi divisional events."
Surely THIS shows that the committee DOES have a plan?
decided that this would only be allowed providing the course is set to Div 2 standards and there is a
significant course change for the Sunday event. This will also apply to any multi divisional events."
Surely THIS shows that the committee DOES have a plan?
-
Bus Driver
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:50 pm
Survey me. The following is on the front page of the slalom website, maybe you would like to volunteer to give the whole sport some of the valuable time you spend on the chatter board?
"Managed Calendar
Jenny Walker has kindly agreed to take on managing the slalom calendar. This is one of the most onerous jobs in slalom as everyone has a different idea as to how the calendar should be managed.
The committee are as always open to constructive suggestions as to how to improve the calendar for all. However these will only be taken into consideration if directed to the committee via Jenny. Jenny.Walker@talktalk.net
Anne Hounslow
Chair BCU Slalom Committee"
"Managed Calendar
Jenny Walker has kindly agreed to take on managing the slalom calendar. This is one of the most onerous jobs in slalom as everyone has a different idea as to how the calendar should be managed.
The committee are as always open to constructive suggestions as to how to improve the calendar for all. However these will only be taken into consideration if directed to the committee via Jenny. Jenny.Walker@talktalk.net
Anne Hounslow
Chair BCU Slalom Committee"