6.4. Veterans

[FatBoy]

In all other sports I've raced in - running, cycling, orienteering, there has been age banding and it was taken as read.

True, but then none of those have divisions.

[HaRVey]

Seeing as im a relative youngster, in VET terms (i.e. im not going to be one for 10 years) i have no reason to be for or against any proposal, however, just having a read, i would suggest that some ill chosen words may have perhaps, casued offence to some, and agreved others.

So... why not try and get back to the basis of the proposal.
Is it a good idea to link in some way the VETS and the Divisional vets.

From an outside point of view, it does seem some what of a farce, to have presented the National award for top veteran to someone in Division 2/3, and not have one for the best over 35 person in canoe slalom.

So would it not be a better to have a system in place that allowed us to reward and treasure all these great paddlers. With a 28% retention level, i.e. 28% of canoe slalom competitiors are over 35. We should have the oportunity to recognise those individuals, that have stuck with the sport, that may coach/organise/sit on club committee's, the volunteers which makes the sport actually function.

It was lovely to see the 2008 olympians, dedicate there success to a fantastic coach (long standing and very much veteran paddler), but i would suggest that the success and strength of the British sport is enitrely due to the VETERANS in the Sport, anything that World Class have mananged to do has always been/probably will always be, off the back of the sports success and ongoing hard work in getting new talented paddlers in to the sport/and clubs to provide a community for this to happen in.

Therefore, a simple combination of the divisons maybe a disadvantage to those paddling, well then a combined/points system which allows combination within the current structure, would allow all aspects to be covered without putting anyone off.
One idea, is to be ranked in Divison, so that a div1 could not be ahead of a prem.

Another could be that Veteran Prem paddlers get 1000points max from their race, div1 500 points max, div2, 250 points max, div3 100 points. Points would be calculated by comparison with the equivalent divisional catergory.

e.g. Prem K1M
A veteran racing in Vet Prem, may get a result of 123seconds, if this result in K1M Prem, would put them 28th then they would get the same number of points as the 28th man. e.g. out of 50, would be 460points.

If a div 1 VET, was to finish in a time equivalent to 5th place in Div 1, their points would be e.g. out of 50, 920*0.5 (maximum number of points for a div1 is half 1000)= 460 points.

This is just one idea, maybe a 'best 5 results count' again but perhaps this may need some refinement to work the points out, to a position that is comparable.

But this system would allow all positions to be intergrated, though could legitemately end up with a Div2, winner. A similar percentage system could be set up for K1W and C1?

Wh ??? at say you

[John Sturgess]

RV

That is already how the Div 2/3 Vet system works - including end-of-season promotion - it could just be extended to Prem/1.

Div 2 Vets can race at Div 3 races, but hey only get point when they race at Div 2 races. Presumably the same would need to happen between Prem Vets and Div 1 Vets?

[Dee]

The points calc could help comparision of Vet to Vet, but however you calculate it, I'm not sure that it will be possible to compare points between DVs and Vets whilst Vets can paddle in more than one division.

At the end of the day, surely we just have to recognise that Vets and DVs are in different competitions. Both groups are in their competition by choice and most have good reasons for those choices.

At an individual race, times can be directly compared, and, yes, prizes could reflect the combined group, but the only real way of awarding a joint end of season prize would be to remove that element of choice - a move that would understandably be unpopular with the affected group!

The two independant competitions serve different communities of paddlers both of which are valuable to the sport - so lets keep both competitions and allow our older paddlers choice!

[Dee]

With regard to the age grouping - I personally think this is OTT and fraught with administration issues, some paddlers won't want to disclose their age and organisers will inevitably make mistakes causing more unrest and complaints. It is bad enough with Juniors!

An earlier post said 28% of mainstream K1Ms were DVs

From a quick look at the rankings and high level guestimating I reckon Junior split across divs P-3 is something like:
J18 - 6%
J16 - 18%
J14 - 15%
J12 - 10%

Of course this will vary enourmously by division and I'm sure someone could work it out accurately, but it seems to me that from a prize giving point of view the disparity compared with lumping DVs as one group is not that huge, especially given the desire to encourage the youngsters.

[oldandslow]

Surely the reason for junior prizes is to encourage the juniors. I think most VETs whether DV or V just enjoy the racing and don't do it for a prize. In fact many don't want a prize because their trophy shelf has been overflowing for many years. I'm sure recognition and a clap is enough to keep them happy. Many clubs already give prizes to DVs anyway, but surely it doesn't need a rule.

[The Doc]

You're right, whilst its nice to get a prize its not important, in fact the best prize I got was a can of beer! Cheaper than a lump of wood for the club to provide as well. It is also embarrassing recieving a prize when you are the only Vet/DV competing

[katonas]

One idea, is to be ranked in Divison, so that a div1 could not be ahead of a prem.

Another could be that Veteran Prem paddlers get 1000points max from their race, div1 500 points max, div2, 250 points max, div3 100 points.

Wh ??? at say you

New promotees to Prem K1M seem to be doing well if they achieve 250points in a race so this ought to be equivalent to 950-1000 points in div1.

Alternatively you could say that once a Prem/1 vet had achieved 300points in a single Prem race, or 500 in 2, or 600 in 3, then they should be ranked ahead of any Vet who has only raced in div1 races (I used this sort of idea to rank DV and V paddlers together in an end of yr list for 2007). This method is easier to calculate.

[katonas]

Until proven otherwise:

K1M Overall veteran/DV champions 2008:
35-49 Ian Bridges
50+ Peter Parker (Spiderman)

It would be great to see a few coaches fighting for these coveted awards.

[Mark Shaw]

Continuing the debate about the choice of age groupings for DVs, here is the latest ICF proposal that looks likely to become adopted for 2009 -

Masters events shall be held in the following age
categories:
(27-34,) 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-
69, 70-74, 75+.
A competitor can compete in a Masters event in the
year in which he or she reaches the lower limit of the
age categories, i.e. in the 35-39 age group in the year
of his or her 35th birthday. In C2 events
the average age of competitors will control the
category in which a crew can compete.
In the under 35 category, competitors must be
minimum 27 years old.

If we aren't awarding prizes then it doesn't matter how many age categories we have and so could fall in line with the ICF rules. Alternatively, we could decide to group them, i.e. 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75+.

The 27-34 age category is interesting, as it takes a serious chunk out of the Senior age category and allows these paddlers to compete in a Master's event for the first time.

Definitely time to make a bit more of a song and dance about the paddlers that give so much back in to our sport by rewarding them for their endeavours.

Time for a GB Masters Slalom Event to be put in the UK slalom calendar?

[Spiderman]

Oh wow! Thanks for that information Mark. I have never seen that printed anywhere but always have been aware that these age bands exist. Also, a very valid point you make that it should not make any difference to the running or expense of the event if prizes are not given but, more importantly, points are! Can anyone inform me why, if this is an international method why we do not adopt it? Please do not state the old chestnut of not enough paddlers in each class as this is not a good enough reason of course. On the contrary, having such age bands may attract more competitors into the sport if they can see that the manner in which the competition is both fair and reasonable - which it certainly is not currently.

Thanks also Steve for your input here as you too have obviously spent some time thinking about this matter.

I am attending the ACM but have no idea how such meetings work as I am far from the committee type - ever since someone said to me as a young lad "A camel is a horse designed by a committee" I have been wary of their ability to actually arrive at sensible decisions. Accordingly, I have no idea what can be introduced at the meeting, if anything, other than input on the previously mentioned weirdness on the agenda. However, I propose to make my views heard as it seems they have fallen on deaf ears for the last two seasons that I have been bleating on about them. No idea if anyone will be listening but at least it will give me good reason to trash anyone here who puts the mockers on plain common sense.

I see no reason why Britain should have any different classification of its Veterans to the rest of the planet so the above mentione dage bands look perfectly acceptable to me I even like the term "Masters" actually.... maybe because, pre-prem in the mid 1970's, I was one of the then Master Class and it would pretty cool for me to revisit that class in my 50's! And before it is suggested, no, it would not mean lady paddlers become Mistresses! They would be Masters too of course.

So ...agree with ICF age bands and Master title? If not, why not, if so, get to the ACM and make some noise!

[Spiderman]

With regard to the age grouping - I personally think this is OTT and fraught with administration issues, some paddlers won't want to disclose their age and organisers will inevitably make mistakes causing more unrest and complaints. It is bad enough with Juniors!

An earlier post said 28% of mainstream K1Ms were DVs

From a quick look at the rankings and high level guestimating I reckon Junior split across divs P-3 is something like:
J18 - 6%
J16 - 18%
J14 - 15%
J12 - 10%

Of course this will vary enourmously by division and I'm sure someone could work it out accurately, but it seems to me that from a prize giving point of view the disparity compared with lumping DVs as one group is not that huge, especially given the desire to encourage the youngsters.

Hi Dee. Sorry, lovely lady that you are, but my personal view is at odds with your personal view and this is why. You mention the 28% DV figure (which would be greater if the pointless Veteran class was scrapped) is not so huge compared to other classes....none of which are even close to the size of the Vets class. And why place the emphasis on encouraging juniors when encouraging Vets is equally important for the health of the discipline?

As for your concerns about administration issues, ....c'mon....this is hardly rocket science. Are any Vets REALLY bothered about stating their age anyway? If the potential for error in the calculation of results is such a concern, simply put everyone in one class with a simple first second and third and make the entire discipline unreasonable and unfair for everyone instead of just the Vets class. No? I thought not. What I am proposing is a simple means of arriving at fair and reasonable competition for Veterans (or Masters ideally) so all competing can win points for a competition in which they are properly pitched against others of the same age - not others form a subsequent generation!!

PS - No offence Maam

[Nick Penfold]

A suggestion:
* Abolish the separate Vets classes.
* Raise the DV minimum age to 40 or 45.
* Give DVs protection from demotion. At the moment there are too many DVs for that, but the new age line should fix that.
Note: In Div 1 K1M there are currently 52 DVs. If the DV age was 40 there would be 37. If age 45, 20. At that level we could afford to allow protection.

[mwilk]

With the idea of raising the DV age to 40 or more, protection for demotion for these, the use of the term "Master" and age banding, the discussion has re-cycled back to exactly were we where just over 12 months ago. So, why did nothing happen in time for this year's ACM ?

[Dee]

Would need to somehow add the option for demotion at paddlers request if they feel that the water at the higher levels is getting too much for them