Hi Mark (and all),
I admit I was playing 'devils advocate' a little, however, the 10% promotion percentage, would only exasberate any problems we already have.
If you set the % figure too low, then too many people automatically get promoted, ready/experienced or not. This would only increase every problem i have eluded too about div1-prem promotion, and not reduce the problem.
(Though 10% was a good figure this year; last year as was rightly pointed out was only 8 k1M, this value is much closer to 5%, and only this number earned the right to get promoted.)
So the opposite to this as you have just said is that only 5% get promoted. This is a target and definitive number, who would know that they are promoted on the last day of the season, they know no matter what happens they are in the Premier division for the following year. However, there is still the ability for the committee to promote paddlers, i.e. another 3 or 4, in some seasons, or none in others. It means paddlers still have a target.
SMART.argets
Simple Measurable Attainable Realistic T.argets
Targets should be a achieveable, giving paddlers something to aim for; but they must not be too easy, else the is no sense of achievement, and paddlers are underprepared for the harder reality, when in Prem, or even worse when crossing from Junior-u23-senior. We are looking to retain paddlers aswell as produce medalists.
The wording of my percentage style proposal, was to give a SMART target to every div1 paddler, but that there may be, an additional number of paddlers, that the Slalom Committee deem to have shown themselves to have a suitable paddling ability/experience to be promoted into Prem.
My issue is not with people getting promoted, nor with new paddlers (junior or senior) coming up through the system, and winning medals in the future. We have many paddlers in our club who are in the Premier Division, we have many more who are not in the Premier division, but strive to be. As the coaching co-ordinator for the club, it is neither sensible nor helpful to put unnecessary obsticles in the way, but i would suggest that an issue with our juniors is the amount of White Water experience, not with the level of commitment, nor the willingness to do whatever it takes, the ambition to be the best, and the drive to suceed. (all this comes with a certain amount of parental support - but is there none-the-less)
If this is not the case, then please shoot me down. But so far i have had no one suggest that the paddlers do not need more White water time, that they do not need more race experience on the big water, that these are not both characteristics of being in Division1.
6.5 Change to Promotion to Premier Division - End of season promtion by the back door?
-
Non paddler
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:13 pm
- Location: Salisbury
Robin,
The argument of paddlers needing more white water time being fixed by forcing paddlers ready for prem to wait a whole season is bogus. A paddler may have already spent a year or more in Div 1 and worked really hard over winter on white water and is ready for prem early in the season. You seem to be basing your argument on all Div 1 paddlers being brand new to Div 1 at the start of each season.
Your use of SMART targets highlights what is missing from this proposal, i.e. measurable rules, you say:
"there is still the ability for the committee to promote paddlers, i.e. another 3 or 4, in some seasons, or none in others. It means paddlers still have a target"
how can that be a SMART target when the criteria is not known?
(The T in SMART is generally intepreted as timely or time bound, maybe we should be working to get the Timely to mean when the paddler is ready, not at a fixed point of the season)
There may well be a case for end of season promotions, but that is not what the proposal says. I would be uncomfortable if some deal on this was agreed at the AGM as there is no proposal to this effect and is such a big a change it deserves proper consideration by the membership. Especially as we now have a range of possible solutions without really have agreement on the problem.
Sorry if I am wrong Robin, but I get the impression you are not one of the original proposers and are discussing this as you believe strongly. If that is the case, and given the amount of debate it has generated on this message board, it is a shame that no other original backers of the proposal have joined in to help clarify the objectives of the proposal and how the proposal would satisify those objectives.
The argument of paddlers needing more white water time being fixed by forcing paddlers ready for prem to wait a whole season is bogus. A paddler may have already spent a year or more in Div 1 and worked really hard over winter on white water and is ready for prem early in the season. You seem to be basing your argument on all Div 1 paddlers being brand new to Div 1 at the start of each season.
Your use of SMART targets highlights what is missing from this proposal, i.e. measurable rules, you say:
"there is still the ability for the committee to promote paddlers, i.e. another 3 or 4, in some seasons, or none in others. It means paddlers still have a target"
how can that be a SMART target when the criteria is not known?
(The T in SMART is generally intepreted as timely or time bound, maybe we should be working to get the Timely to mean when the paddler is ready, not at a fixed point of the season)
There may well be a case for end of season promotions, but that is not what the proposal says. I would be uncomfortable if some deal on this was agreed at the AGM as there is no proposal to this effect and is such a big a change it deserves proper consideration by the membership. Especially as we now have a range of possible solutions without really have agreement on the problem.
Sorry if I am wrong Robin, but I get the impression you are not one of the original proposers and are discussing this as you believe strongly. If that is the case, and given the amount of debate it has generated on this message board, it is a shame that no other original backers of the proposal have joined in to help clarify the objectives of the proposal and how the proposal would satisify those objectives.
Though i see your point about keeping paddlers down unneccessarily, if they are that good, they would get promoted by the 5 wins method, hence not held down. If they are only as good as their compatriots, then they are only good enough for Div1, that is my opinion. There is no rule saying you are or are not good enough for Prem, there is no reason why a paddler cannot go and Judge at a Prem race, in Div4 (or more likely in Div1), and compare themselves, whilst having the time allowance to watch and compare themselves with the top paddlers. We learn far more from watching our peers properly, than we do from repeating the same move wrongly.
In Prem you have no practice. In Prem (until this year) you may or may not have a good race, and still get 400 points due to the number of 50's. With that in mind, it is a fair assumption to say that a div2 paddler could get a good number of points in prem, just by completeing the course with no 50's, would that make them ready, would it make them elite level athletes, and would they be best prepared for racing at all levels.
If we want to produce elite level, medalists, we need them to do more races. This year, the total number of races was 8. The total number of available runs = 18 (if you qualified for McConkey Finals).
However, if you raced in division 1, there were 16 races, thats 32 race runs, with 16 official practices, and coutless unofficial practices if you wish. There is the highly likely chance of racing prems as guests/opens/judges, and there is a greater variety of water, than in Prem.
My main issue with all the comments is that Division 1 is portrayed as a lesser division, that it is not a worthy target for a paddler to get to div1, (and in some cases only get to div 1), my opinion is as has been stated in the section relating to as change in girls points, that paddlers will try and take the easiest route to the top, and not neccessarily the best, on the assumption that any paddler has got promoted by june, highly unlikely in all situations, but was achieved by one paddler (this year) - they then have a grande total of 4 races to race at in the season. That just isn't a great outcome for any paddler, and is certainly not increasing their competancy/race mentallity/or white water experience).
And with the propsed changes to single run times, there is no difference, barring no practice (i.e. the sport forcing you to have less water time) from div 1 to prem.
There was a rule brought in, which was observed in one race in 2005, (mile end mill) that ment paddlers in prem would be able to paddle the water on the morning with no gates to reduce this forced lack of water issue, but it was lost along the season, as it made it too difficult for organisers to set the course.
My observations, to be for this motion are,
- this year too many men were promoted in season, an unsustainable number.
- there race results in Prem, were averaging 200points; (this is both not good enough to be percieved as they deserve to be in prem, nor does it support the theory that they must be in Prem as we are holding them back - from racing well and highlighting their inaility, rather than racing well, and being near the top of a race field, this has many mental flaws.
And as has been previously stated this effects the standard of Prem aswell finishing in the same place start and end of season, can result in upto a 80 point difference, for the Prem paddler.
- The issue that Div1, is not a good target, well why not? I was in Div 1 for 3 seasons, not 1, as is the current possible climate, im not assuming paddlers have been in Div1 for 1 season, i am assuming that the system from div4 - prem, is by far quicker now than with the end of season promotion method, and why to what advantage. I can see none.
-If Div1 was exceptionally hard to get out of, and Prem easy to fall out of it would automatically reduce the numbers and create the pyramid people want easily, [i don't think we should make it exceptionally hard, just a challenge, not a 'right of passage'] (i personally don't like the idea of pyramid structures, by reduction, pyramid structures, by increased participation, yes.)
- If world class funding brackets are based on your position in Prem, then either the kids are going to have to start paddling earlier/get better earlier (as in europe), or the funding brackets change relating to the standards/numbers they want to support. The reality being, WC have to focus on 2012, and have alreay said that the olympic racers will come form those already inside the sport, so that is where the funding is going, and not any further down, to grass routes, or supporting juniors for the future of the sport. With this in mind, it is the role of the Slalom Committee, to get the best system available to support/nurture/and deliver talent.
- why does it make any diffenrce to any of the paddlers that they have got on the water in a Prem race before the winter, if we assume that they will only be expecting good results after a winters training? (taking into account that all the div1 races are on the exact same stretch of water as Prem, and in some cases better water(bala mill).
The Committee, needs at this point to assume that the future paddling juniors/new comers will not have excellent coaches/parents in the know; but will have average parents/coaches, who want their paddlers to do great things. With this in mind they might not know or understand that getting to the top as fast as possible regardless of how or where or when, is actually not a benefit to the paddler in any way, because Prem is actually not a benefit due to all of the issues i've already listed.
I so far have only heard people saying well we don't feel confident voting for a system, that we can't be sure will work, and no-one putting any answers/questions opposing all the observations i have made.
I am by no means an expert on divisional stucture, but i do believe i am right in this case.
But I may not be... please explain to me why i am wrong and how, or get off the fence and do something to benefit the new comers to the sport; stand up and be counted.
In Prem you have no practice. In Prem (until this year) you may or may not have a good race, and still get 400 points due to the number of 50's. With that in mind, it is a fair assumption to say that a div2 paddler could get a good number of points in prem, just by completeing the course with no 50's, would that make them ready, would it make them elite level athletes, and would they be best prepared for racing at all levels.
If we want to produce elite level, medalists, we need them to do more races. This year, the total number of races was 8. The total number of available runs = 18 (if you qualified for McConkey Finals).
However, if you raced in division 1, there were 16 races, thats 32 race runs, with 16 official practices, and coutless unofficial practices if you wish. There is the highly likely chance of racing prems as guests/opens/judges, and there is a greater variety of water, than in Prem.
My main issue with all the comments is that Division 1 is portrayed as a lesser division, that it is not a worthy target for a paddler to get to div1, (and in some cases only get to div 1), my opinion is as has been stated in the section relating to as change in girls points, that paddlers will try and take the easiest route to the top, and not neccessarily the best, on the assumption that any paddler has got promoted by june, highly unlikely in all situations, but was achieved by one paddler (this year) - they then have a grande total of 4 races to race at in the season. That just isn't a great outcome for any paddler, and is certainly not increasing their competancy/race mentallity/or white water experience).
And with the propsed changes to single run times, there is no difference, barring no practice (i.e. the sport forcing you to have less water time) from div 1 to prem.
There was a rule brought in, which was observed in one race in 2005, (mile end mill) that ment paddlers in prem would be able to paddle the water on the morning with no gates to reduce this forced lack of water issue, but it was lost along the season, as it made it too difficult for organisers to set the course.
My observations, to be for this motion are,
- this year too many men were promoted in season, an unsustainable number.
- there race results in Prem, were averaging 200points; (this is both not good enough to be percieved as they deserve to be in prem, nor does it support the theory that they must be in Prem as we are holding them back - from racing well and highlighting their inaility, rather than racing well, and being near the top of a race field, this has many mental flaws.
And as has been previously stated this effects the standard of Prem aswell finishing in the same place start and end of season, can result in upto a 80 point difference, for the Prem paddler.
- The issue that Div1, is not a good target, well why not? I was in Div 1 for 3 seasons, not 1, as is the current possible climate, im not assuming paddlers have been in Div1 for 1 season, i am assuming that the system from div4 - prem, is by far quicker now than with the end of season promotion method, and why to what advantage. I can see none.
-If Div1 was exceptionally hard to get out of, and Prem easy to fall out of it would automatically reduce the numbers and create the pyramid people want easily, [i don't think we should make it exceptionally hard, just a challenge, not a 'right of passage'] (i personally don't like the idea of pyramid structures, by reduction, pyramid structures, by increased participation, yes.)
- If world class funding brackets are based on your position in Prem, then either the kids are going to have to start paddling earlier/get better earlier (as in europe), or the funding brackets change relating to the standards/numbers they want to support. The reality being, WC have to focus on 2012, and have alreay said that the olympic racers will come form those already inside the sport, so that is where the funding is going, and not any further down, to grass routes, or supporting juniors for the future of the sport. With this in mind, it is the role of the Slalom Committee, to get the best system available to support/nurture/and deliver talent.
- why does it make any diffenrce to any of the paddlers that they have got on the water in a Prem race before the winter, if we assume that they will only be expecting good results after a winters training? (taking into account that all the div1 races are on the exact same stretch of water as Prem, and in some cases better water(bala mill).
The Committee, needs at this point to assume that the future paddling juniors/new comers will not have excellent coaches/parents in the know; but will have average parents/coaches, who want their paddlers to do great things. With this in mind they might not know or understand that getting to the top as fast as possible regardless of how or where or when, is actually not a benefit to the paddler in any way, because Prem is actually not a benefit due to all of the issues i've already listed.
I so far have only heard people saying well we don't feel confident voting for a system, that we can't be sure will work, and no-one putting any answers/questions opposing all the observations i have made.
I am by no means an expert on divisional stucture, but i do believe i am right in this case.
But I may not be... please explain to me why i am wrong and how, or get off the fence and do something to benefit the new comers to the sport; stand up and be counted.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
My personal knowledge of most of the paddlers promoted to Prem is that it has taken 2 or 3 seasons to get promoted to Prem from Div 1 - I haven't checked my facts - just working from memory - I have been in Div 1 3 seasons and some of those who got promoted with me have just made it to Prem (after a lot of training, races and judges runs I might add).
I would not expect a newly promoted paddler in Prem to achieve much more than 200 points or so per race, not only it is a step up but they have to cope with combined runs, no practice, harder courses etc - its a learning curve. There would be something wrong with the competition in prem if they did. Last years promoted paddlers look to be doing well with an average result near 400 points.
My observation is that most of the young prem paddlers I know attend and race as Judges at Div 1's to gain extra experience once promoted as well being very committed to training at places like HPP. Unfortunately not everyone lives near such facilities and I am sure paddlers who usually train at HPP are going to have a difficult winter and will appreciate the difficulties.
If there was a lot wrong with the current system we would be seeing last years promoted paddlers getting demoted as they would have struggled but I see they are not and I doubt any of the juniors promoted this year will be up for demotion next year (looking at the results its the non juniors that have struggled since promotion if anything).
We can only talk about this years proposal as it is too late to amend or submit one (as far as I know).
Judging from what I have read I think people might agree with 5 wins promotion during the season (or something more difficult than is required now) and a GUARANTEED number of end of season promotions fixed at the start of the season less those promoted during the season. Thus paddlers have a target. So if the declared promotion number was 6 at the start of the season and 2 got promoted in season there are still 4 places to race for at the end of the season. At the end of the last race those paddlers in the top 4 KNOW they have been promoted and can prepare.
This way it does not leave the paddler hanging on for a decision for months, gives paddlers a target which is fixed and attainable and does not put the committee in the awful position of having to decide who is and isn't good enough (how often do they see those paddlers actually race bearing in mind they might not be the top 4 until the very end of the season). Based on committee decision there will always be those that dispute the decision and can not understand why the line has been drawn where it has and leading to great disappointment and accusations of bias or worse.
I would not expect a newly promoted paddler in Prem to achieve much more than 200 points or so per race, not only it is a step up but they have to cope with combined runs, no practice, harder courses etc - its a learning curve. There would be something wrong with the competition in prem if they did. Last years promoted paddlers look to be doing well with an average result near 400 points.
My observation is that most of the young prem paddlers I know attend and race as Judges at Div 1's to gain extra experience once promoted as well being very committed to training at places like HPP. Unfortunately not everyone lives near such facilities and I am sure paddlers who usually train at HPP are going to have a difficult winter and will appreciate the difficulties.
If there was a lot wrong with the current system we would be seeing last years promoted paddlers getting demoted as they would have struggled but I see they are not and I doubt any of the juniors promoted this year will be up for demotion next year (looking at the results its the non juniors that have struggled since promotion if anything).
We can only talk about this years proposal as it is too late to amend or submit one (as far as I know).
Judging from what I have read I think people might agree with 5 wins promotion during the season (or something more difficult than is required now) and a GUARANTEED number of end of season promotions fixed at the start of the season less those promoted during the season. Thus paddlers have a target. So if the declared promotion number was 6 at the start of the season and 2 got promoted in season there are still 4 places to race for at the end of the season. At the end of the last race those paddlers in the top 4 KNOW they have been promoted and can prepare.
This way it does not leave the paddler hanging on for a decision for months, gives paddlers a target which is fixed and attainable and does not put the committee in the awful position of having to decide who is and isn't good enough (how often do they see those paddlers actually race bearing in mind they might not be the top 4 until the very end of the season). Based on committee decision there will always be those that dispute the decision and can not understand why the line has been drawn where it has and leading to great disappointment and accusations of bias or worse.
Good point HaRVey. I don't see what benefit is brought to the paddlers promoted mid season from being able to race at a couple of prem races and coming near the bottom.
I do think that the old system of committee decision worked, as each season, natural gaps appeared and people could generally see where the cut off point would lie. But if people are unhappy with committee decision, I'm not sure that a system of fixed points totals, or numbers could work?
What happens in a situation of a strong cohort of 10 or so paddlers, as we've seen to a certain extent this year? Would only a portion of them go up? Or could we say 6 will go up and the committee has the option of promoting a few more if they have shown throughout the season (in div 1 and in judges), or if a significant number of prem paddlers have packed in. I think that pre season is too early to know what is going to happen at the end of the season... Does it not make sense to have some flexibility built in?
Nicky
I do think that the old system of committee decision worked, as each season, natural gaps appeared and people could generally see where the cut off point would lie. But if people are unhappy with committee decision, I'm not sure that a system of fixed points totals, or numbers could work?
What happens in a situation of a strong cohort of 10 or so paddlers, as we've seen to a certain extent this year? Would only a portion of them go up? Or could we say 6 will go up and the committee has the option of promoting a few more if they have shown throughout the season (in div 1 and in judges), or if a significant number of prem paddlers have packed in. I think that pre season is too early to know what is going to happen at the end of the season... Does it not make sense to have some flexibility built in?
Nicky
Simple solution - scrap Prem and just have one large Div1.
Whilst we have a Premier division paddlers will want to aspire to it, whether it is beneficial for their future development or not, so no one is going to win with that argument.
Second - no one counts race weekends as quality training time, so it doesn't matter whether there are 8 or 80 races of 4 minutes each. It is the countless hours of training in between that counts. Everyone knows that - the hours I and a lot of parents must have spent driving places just so our kids can have water time!!
Third - you are arguing that Div1 paddlers aren't good enough for Prem. Looking at the results this year, there are far too many Prem paddlers that also aren't good enough for Prem. A significant number didn't even manage 5 races and when they did weren't up to the challenge, so what right do they have to stay in Prem?
The vast majority of Div1 paddlers do race as judges at Prem events - some even do so without a practice run so that they are simulating what it will be like to race in Prem one day. Do they beat Prem paddlers on the day - a significant number do actually as I always find it interesting to compare results between the two groups and the overlap is normally very apparent.
We already have evidence of what happens when you allow end of season decisions to affect the fate of every paddler. Demotions!! The stated intention was to reduce the size of the Premier division to make it a pyramid again. Did it happen in practice? Prem K1M promotions last year - 8 paddlers. Prem K1M demotions last year - 4 paddlers. Net effect - Premier division gets top heavy leading to the argument that it is already too large and can't sustain the level of promotion from Div1 each year. Panic - must do something to slow down the Div1's getting promoted. Sound familiar?
I actually have a very good reason for wanting to see a larger exchange of Prem & Div 1 paddlers. If we had in fact demoted 8 Prem paddlers last year then there is a good chance (but no guarantees) that the existing Div1 paddlers would have had a harder fight to get in to Prem - so slowing down their progression slightly. As you quite rightly point out, there is nothing wrong with Div1 so why should it be such a stigma for any Prem paddlers who happen to be in the drop zone.
So, playing devil's advocate once again, what about fixing it at 10 K1M, 6 K1W & 3 C1M, with any mid season promotions based on 5 straight wins reducing these numbers accordingly. A fair compromise? Not that hard then to work out demotions as well (apart from those who will play the 'I was injured' card - but that is entirely another debate).
Whilst we have a Premier division paddlers will want to aspire to it, whether it is beneficial for their future development or not, so no one is going to win with that argument.
Second - no one counts race weekends as quality training time, so it doesn't matter whether there are 8 or 80 races of 4 minutes each. It is the countless hours of training in between that counts. Everyone knows that - the hours I and a lot of parents must have spent driving places just so our kids can have water time!!
Third - you are arguing that Div1 paddlers aren't good enough for Prem. Looking at the results this year, there are far too many Prem paddlers that also aren't good enough for Prem. A significant number didn't even manage 5 races and when they did weren't up to the challenge, so what right do they have to stay in Prem?
The vast majority of Div1 paddlers do race as judges at Prem events - some even do so without a practice run so that they are simulating what it will be like to race in Prem one day. Do they beat Prem paddlers on the day - a significant number do actually as I always find it interesting to compare results between the two groups and the overlap is normally very apparent.
We already have evidence of what happens when you allow end of season decisions to affect the fate of every paddler. Demotions!! The stated intention was to reduce the size of the Premier division to make it a pyramid again. Did it happen in practice? Prem K1M promotions last year - 8 paddlers. Prem K1M demotions last year - 4 paddlers. Net effect - Premier division gets top heavy leading to the argument that it is already too large and can't sustain the level of promotion from Div1 each year. Panic - must do something to slow down the Div1's getting promoted. Sound familiar?
I actually have a very good reason for wanting to see a larger exchange of Prem & Div 1 paddlers. If we had in fact demoted 8 Prem paddlers last year then there is a good chance (but no guarantees) that the existing Div1 paddlers would have had a harder fight to get in to Prem - so slowing down their progression slightly. As you quite rightly point out, there is nothing wrong with Div1 so why should it be such a stigma for any Prem paddlers who happen to be in the drop zone.
So, playing devil's advocate once again, what about fixing it at 10 K1M, 6 K1W & 3 C1M, with any mid season promotions based on 5 straight wins reducing these numbers accordingly. A fair compromise? Not that hard then to work out demotions as well (apart from those who will play the 'I was injured' card - but that is entirely another debate).
The above is the personal opinion of Mark Shaw and does not reflect the views of either the BCU or England Slalom Committees.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
As canadian paddler pointed out:-
END OF SEASON PROMOTION: was never removed as an option for Prem the committee retained that (right = Rule 3.1 page 57).
All I am suggesting is there is a fixed target (whatever figure that is set at) for paddlers rather than a complete unknown.
If the committee then feel there is a reason to promote additional paddlers at the end of the season then I am sure they will as they have in the past.
This whole issue (16 promotions) might be a one off, it just happens a lot of paddlers got promoted to Div1 around the same time having had a good battle to achieve that, they have progressed at a very similar rate and all got promoted once again (having had another season long battle) around the same time.
I'm not sure whether this will happen again. If the correct number of paddlers get demoted this year it is going to be a hard season to get promoted from Div 1 next year!
END OF SEASON PROMOTION: was never removed as an option for Prem the committee retained that (right = Rule 3.1 page 57).
All I am suggesting is there is a fixed target (whatever figure that is set at) for paddlers rather than a complete unknown.
If the committee then feel there is a reason to promote additional paddlers at the end of the season then I am sure they will as they have in the past.
This whole issue (16 promotions) might be a one off, it just happens a lot of paddlers got promoted to Div1 around the same time having had a good battle to achieve that, they have progressed at a very similar rate and all got promoted once again (having had another season long battle) around the same time.
I'm not sure whether this will happen again. If the correct number of paddlers get demoted this year it is going to be a hard season to get promoted from Div 1 next year!
-
Phil Stevo
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Duncan makes a valid point about a tough year in Div 1 next year. If you have a look at who will be demoted to meet the published starting numbers for Prem next year there are some excellent Prem paddlers to be demoted due to lack of races entered this year, including the 2004 British Champion.
So lets say under proposal 6.5 two of those paddlers are able to go for it full tilt next year what will be the likely outcome?
Firstly they will take 5 wins each reducing the likelihood of anyone else getting an in season promotion and they will be inprisoned in a division they are too good for, for too long.
Secondly the Div 1 competition is skewed and the confidence boost given to up and coming paddlers by winning a Div 1 is also greatly diminished.
With the current system those two Prem paddlers can be up and back where they belong fairly quickly leaving the rest of the season for a more realistic competition. Those two can also still get a decent crack at the Prem ranking competition.
I can see proposal 6.5 demotivating both those coming down and those trying to get up.
As far as I'm concerned there is no real evidence to show there is anything broken here.
On the SMART targets I prefer A to be for AGREED. This leaves R for REALISTIC, which I would define as attainable and within personal control. Acheiving 4750 points is within personal control, the decision of the slalom committee is not.
So lets say under proposal 6.5 two of those paddlers are able to go for it full tilt next year what will be the likely outcome?
Firstly they will take 5 wins each reducing the likelihood of anyone else getting an in season promotion and they will be inprisoned in a division they are too good for, for too long.
Secondly the Div 1 competition is skewed and the confidence boost given to up and coming paddlers by winning a Div 1 is also greatly diminished.
With the current system those two Prem paddlers can be up and back where they belong fairly quickly leaving the rest of the season for a more realistic competition. Those two can also still get a decent crack at the Prem ranking competition.
I can see proposal 6.5 demotivating both those coming down and those trying to get up.
As far as I'm concerned there is no real evidence to show there is anything broken here.
On the SMART targets I prefer A to be for AGREED. This leaves R for REALISTIC, which I would define as attainable and within personal control. Acheiving 4750 points is within personal control, the decision of the slalom committee is not.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
Just put my thinking cap on and realised that the effect of changing 3.1, there will be no basis for end of season promotion, not even to prem.
Not even the tenuous basis that end of season promotion was done this year.
I think that this is exactly the opposite effect to that intended,
and of course a motion can not be changed at the meeting ot have the opposite effect. 
So lets see what happens. .
BUT 5 wins and no end of season promotion does seem at little steep. . .
Not even the tenuous basis that end of season promotion was done this year.
I think that this is exactly the opposite effect to that intended,
and of course a motion can not be changed at the meeting ot have the opposite effect. So lets see what happens. . BUT 5 wins and no end of season promotion does seem at little steep. . .
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
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Well spotted Colin.
If the changes to Rule 3.1 are voted in first then the proposed change to Rules 4.1/4.2/5.1 can no longer stand, as they rely on the slalom committee's ability to promote paddlers to Prem.
The whole basis for having a Premier Division was a hotly discussed topic at the Tryweryn today between a few parents. It would appear that John Sturgess is being proved right after all, as we now have two totally opposing reasons for needing a Premier Division.
The first is to recognise a small group of athletes for having attained the pinnacle of their sport by being in Prem. When the division was first proposed I believe the intent was originally to keep it very small (approx. 25 paddlers?). Over the years it has been increased in size to the point where it is no longer seen by some as the 'elite' division it once was.
The other reason we need a Premier Division is to decide who is allowed to paddle in Prem races, which is quite different. For a Prem race to be viable for the organiser you need a minimum number of paddlers to compete. I would suggest that the Prem divisions are finally reaching this optimum number with the size they will be by next season (assuming we don't have a significant number of demotions).
So, it would appear that we can't have both and so one will have to go. The obvious one that has to go for me is using the divisions to decide which races a paddler can race at. We either make races open to all to compete at or we have a system whereby paddlers are allowed to attend races in their own division and the next highest (this one is probably the most sensible).
It would still require quite a bit of thought before any changes could be introduced but I do feel it needs some proper analysis of exactly what we want to achieve by having divisions in the first place rather than just tinkering around the edges every year.
If the changes to Rule 3.1 are voted in first then the proposed change to Rules 4.1/4.2/5.1 can no longer stand, as they rely on the slalom committee's ability to promote paddlers to Prem.
The whole basis for having a Premier Division was a hotly discussed topic at the Tryweryn today between a few parents. It would appear that John Sturgess is being proved right after all, as we now have two totally opposing reasons for needing a Premier Division.
The first is to recognise a small group of athletes for having attained the pinnacle of their sport by being in Prem. When the division was first proposed I believe the intent was originally to keep it very small (approx. 25 paddlers?). Over the years it has been increased in size to the point where it is no longer seen by some as the 'elite' division it once was.
The other reason we need a Premier Division is to decide who is allowed to paddle in Prem races, which is quite different. For a Prem race to be viable for the organiser you need a minimum number of paddlers to compete. I would suggest that the Prem divisions are finally reaching this optimum number with the size they will be by next season (assuming we don't have a significant number of demotions).
So, it would appear that we can't have both and so one will have to go. The obvious one that has to go for me is using the divisions to decide which races a paddler can race at. We either make races open to all to compete at or we have a system whereby paddlers are allowed to attend races in their own division and the next highest (this one is probably the most sensible).
It would still require quite a bit of thought before any changes could be introduced but I do feel it needs some proper analysis of exactly what we want to achieve by having divisions in the first place rather than just tinkering around the edges every year.
The above is the personal opinion of Mark Shaw and does not reflect the views of either the BCU or England Slalom Committees.
It appears that we have reached the stage in the year where not only promotions are causing great conflict but also the topic of how many/who are going to be demoted
I have heard that a number of paddlers facing demotion are going to claim injury in an attempt to maintain ranking status. I have no problem with this as we need to have paddlers ranked according in the correct division but am afraid that some may use this to escape demotion after poor performance, if they are injured they should not paddle, I also feel that if a paddler has competed in five or more races their request should be denied.
I think that the proposed rule change to 3.1 will not only impact on promotions but also and perhaps more importantly address this and would urge clubs to support this motion
I have heard that a number of paddlers facing demotion are going to claim injury in an attempt to maintain ranking status. I have no problem with this as we need to have paddlers ranked according in the correct division but am afraid that some may use this to escape demotion after poor performance, if they are injured they should not paddle, I also feel that if a paddler has competed in five or more races their request should be denied.
I think that the proposed rule change to 3.1 will not only impact on promotions but also and perhaps more importantly address this and would urge clubs to support this motion
-
Phil Stevo
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 pm
If a Prem paddler hasn't got enough points to save demotion due to lack of commitment to training and or racing they should rightly be demoted (with the exeption of genuine injury/illness). This allows the divisional system to wash down those who can no longer compete at the top level, for whatever reason.
However, if the demoted paddler's circumstances change and they can commit fully again they should not be held too long in a lower division needlessly as with proposal 6.5.
Perhaps genuine injury/illness should be lodged with the Slalom Committee as soon as a paddler realises it will have a major impact on their results rather than just playing the injury card at the end of the season.
Kazz is right on saying that anyone with 5 races in should not be allowed the injury/illness exemption.
However, if the demoted paddler's circumstances change and they can commit fully again they should not be held too long in a lower division needlessly as with proposal 6.5.
Perhaps genuine injury/illness should be lodged with the Slalom Committee as soon as a paddler realises it will have a major impact on their results rather than just playing the injury card at the end of the season.
Kazz is right on saying that anyone with 5 races in should not be allowed the injury/illness exemption.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
Colin is mistaken in thinking that the change to 3.1 will stop any end of year promotion. If it did, it would also stop demotion! The text is:
3.1 Promotion during the season through the divisions is based on performance at events as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 below. Promotion and relegation also occur at the end of each season, as decided by the Committee, when ranking lists have been finalised. Competitors promoted during a season, or granted ranking status after 31st July are designated ‘Short Season’ and are not liable for relegation at the end of that season.
The proposal is just to remove the following paragraph, which says:
With effect from the end of the 2001 season, end of season promotion except into Premier was discontinued.
My view as Ranking Officer, and I think that of the committee, is that the committee's authority to promote at the end of the year should be used only where a paddler is within a point (K1W, C1) or 10 points (K1M) of automatic promotion, or where there is a need to adjust division sizes because a serious disparity has developed.
3.1 Promotion during the season through the divisions is based on performance at events as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 below. Promotion and relegation also occur at the end of each season, as decided by the Committee, when ranking lists have been finalised. Competitors promoted during a season, or granted ranking status after 31st July are designated ‘Short Season’ and are not liable for relegation at the end of that season.
The proposal is just to remove the following paragraph, which says:
With effect from the end of the 2001 season, end of season promotion except into Premier was discontinued.
My view as Ranking Officer, and I think that of the committee, is that the committee's authority to promote at the end of the year should be used only where a paddler is within a point (K1W, C1) or 10 points (K1M) of automatic promotion, or where there is a need to adjust division sizes because a serious disparity has developed.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact: