After a excellent days racing at the national water sports center today, well run organized event so far, the course was doable by all divisions some smuggled but thats how the cookie crumbles! Then the sunday course was set, the gates were set in ridicules places, that a div 2 paddler would not be able to do, the top end div 1 men were struggling to get the gates thats how hard they were! After speaking to a few of the prem paddlers they all agreed that the course was more like a prem course than a course a div 2 could do.
i went to speak to control about the getting entry fees back for a div 1 lady, as when she was rudley told she couldnt have it back, i was greeted with the same responce, very very rude, shouting at me saying the course was suitable and that the refund was not available. (after she was told friday night she could have money back if she didn't want to do it) that i wasnt to bothered about it was the fact that they said that at a diviaion 1/2 does not have to be suitable for division 2 paddlers. ?? so therefore we could then have division 1/2/3/4 events if the course doesn't have to be suitable for the lower divisions. that will never happen, so why do it to the div 2's.
we struggle with numbers in slalom as it is is it really a great idea setting incredibly hard courses that is just going to put people of more!
Appropriate courses
-
oldandslow
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:11 pm
- Location: Peak District
Well said C1champ! The course is riduculously hard for the average div1 let alone div2. You would think the course setter would be more aware of the abilities of div 2's as his daughter was struggling today... how will she cope tomorrow? Will she get her money back if she decides the course isn't for her?
Life is what happens when you're making other plans.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
The accepted wisdom (although I can not find it written down fast enough to be bothered) is that for a mulit division event the course must be appropriate for the highest division, e.g. a 2/3/4 must test the div 2s, although the div 4 event can then miss some of the gates. Remember this was a SELECTION race as wellas a div 1/2. So I would expect teh coure to be appropriate for div 1, with div 2s experiencing bigger harder water.
BUT if it is troo much for div 1 K1W, it is not appropriate for div 1, and at the end of the day, it i also the Jury's call, rule UK 21.2.1 allows the jury to force an easing of the difficulty.
Interested to here if it was as nasty as billed from thosse who actually raced.
BUT if it is troo much for div 1 K1W, it is not appropriate for div 1, and at the end of the day, it i also the Jury's call, rule UK 21.2.1 allows the jury to force an easing of the difficulty.
Interested to here if it was as nasty as billed from thosse who actually raced.
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
My childrens thoughts were it was a good div one course and if anything far too open for a selection race - it was not as hard as May selection by any shot. Some good technical moves though set on the curls - the features were well used. 
The question is now that HPP is upgraded should it be used for Div 2 races - but they must be allowed to have a chance to paddle this kind of water or the old arguement about the leap from Div 2 to 1 will start.
The question is now that HPP is upgraded should it be used for Div 2 races - but they must be allowed to have a chance to paddle this kind of water or the old arguement about the leap from Div 2 to 1 will start.
I think that this goes far further than the problems this weekend.
There is clearly a barrier for people progressing in the sport above div 2. This has come about not through any single action nor a deliberate policy, but it is non-the-less detrimental to our sport.
The problem arises from people getting promoted through races like our own at Matlock, Cardington, Sowerby Bridge and others that are held on “easy” water. Once there was a natural progression, people would gain experience in Div 2/3 races but then could develop their skills at single diversion 2’s such as Chapel Falls, Stilling Basin, HPP and Serpents Tail. These offered harder water whilst being an appropriately hard Div 2 race. All these have gone, the only one this year was Washburn.
So if you belong to a club with a good coaching structure or one of the various youth squads, then getting good training on “Div 1” water is available and the transition from 2 to 1 eased. But if not then the barrier descends. We are seeing increasing numbers of people being promoted then not competing, some waiting a year for demotion and others just leaving the sport! I think most will agree, this is not good!
Last year guidance was issued to all slalom organizers that stated that in events involving more than one division, the course should be set to be an appropriate challenge for the higher division – quite right so it should. However this guidance is being interpreted by slalom organizers, course designers and juries when approving courses as means that only the higher division should be considered. Clearly this is not right and means that the only way for Div 2 paddlers to get experience on “Div 1 water” is to race div 1’s either as a judge or where it is also a two division event but with no account of their current skill level – they don’t get to race “real “div 2 races on the harder water!
I said that this is “clearly not right”, well rule 20.3 says “The velocity of the current and the difficulty of the course shall be appropriate to the level of the competition.” What it does NOT say is to be appropriate for only the higher division in a two division race.
The Div 1/2 at HPP this weekend shows this problem very well. On the Saturday it was a hard div 2 but still a challenge for the div 1 paddlers (as demonstrated by the number of 50s given to div 1 paddlers and the fact the same people topped the results both days). This was a good race for those div 2 paddlers wanting to race on harder water and aspire to div 1. However the Sunday course failed to comply with the rules in that it was not an “appropriate level of the competition” [for div 2s]. The course initially had a number of moves that were beyond most if not all div 2s and only after the jury insisted (very strongly) to the designer that gates had to be adjusted that most moves started to become reasonable. What the course failed to offer were alternatives that allowed less skilful paddlers complete moves within their capabilities. Also there was one move in the Office that caused serious problems, the result was those div 2 paddlers wanting to accept the challenge to paddle harder div 2 events were presented with something beyond their abilities. We had about 50% of those div 2s entered failing to cross the start line (50% of the C1M div 1 competitors also failed to start) and of those that did start we saw numerous swims and 50s. In fact all the K1W had at least 2 50s and the winner deliberately took 2 50s and this strategy beat those that attempted all the gates. How does driving away 50% of competitors and creating swims and forcing 50s for the other ½ help develop the skills of div 2 paddlers?
We need to encourage increased participation and improve the skill levels in the sport, but how? Well driving away those wanting to progress and not providing a suitable level challenge to develop the necessary skills is not the way forward, but we could:
• Offer more single division Div 2 races on harder water
• Double division races to provide a challenge for the higher division whilst offering a reasonable challenge to the lower division.
Neither requires a rule change, although the first does require clubs willing to run these events, but as the entry at Washburn shows there are sufficient paddlers in Div 2 (48 each day ignoring the competitors in the open event where Sunday’s HPP 1/2 had less than ½ of this number) up to the challenge.
There is clearly a barrier for people progressing in the sport above div 2. This has come about not through any single action nor a deliberate policy, but it is non-the-less detrimental to our sport.
The problem arises from people getting promoted through races like our own at Matlock, Cardington, Sowerby Bridge and others that are held on “easy” water. Once there was a natural progression, people would gain experience in Div 2/3 races but then could develop their skills at single diversion 2’s such as Chapel Falls, Stilling Basin, HPP and Serpents Tail. These offered harder water whilst being an appropriately hard Div 2 race. All these have gone, the only one this year was Washburn.
So if you belong to a club with a good coaching structure or one of the various youth squads, then getting good training on “Div 1” water is available and the transition from 2 to 1 eased. But if not then the barrier descends. We are seeing increasing numbers of people being promoted then not competing, some waiting a year for demotion and others just leaving the sport! I think most will agree, this is not good!
Last year guidance was issued to all slalom organizers that stated that in events involving more than one division, the course should be set to be an appropriate challenge for the higher division – quite right so it should. However this guidance is being interpreted by slalom organizers, course designers and juries when approving courses as means that only the higher division should be considered. Clearly this is not right and means that the only way for Div 2 paddlers to get experience on “Div 1 water” is to race div 1’s either as a judge or where it is also a two division event but with no account of their current skill level – they don’t get to race “real “div 2 races on the harder water!
I said that this is “clearly not right”, well rule 20.3 says “The velocity of the current and the difficulty of the course shall be appropriate to the level of the competition.” What it does NOT say is to be appropriate for only the higher division in a two division race.
The Div 1/2 at HPP this weekend shows this problem very well. On the Saturday it was a hard div 2 but still a challenge for the div 1 paddlers (as demonstrated by the number of 50s given to div 1 paddlers and the fact the same people topped the results both days). This was a good race for those div 2 paddlers wanting to race on harder water and aspire to div 1. However the Sunday course failed to comply with the rules in that it was not an “appropriate level of the competition” [for div 2s]. The course initially had a number of moves that were beyond most if not all div 2s and only after the jury insisted (very strongly) to the designer that gates had to be adjusted that most moves started to become reasonable. What the course failed to offer were alternatives that allowed less skilful paddlers complete moves within their capabilities. Also there was one move in the Office that caused serious problems, the result was those div 2 paddlers wanting to accept the challenge to paddle harder div 2 events were presented with something beyond their abilities. We had about 50% of those div 2s entered failing to cross the start line (50% of the C1M div 1 competitors also failed to start) and of those that did start we saw numerous swims and 50s. In fact all the K1W had at least 2 50s and the winner deliberately took 2 50s and this strategy beat those that attempted all the gates. How does driving away 50% of competitors and creating swims and forcing 50s for the other ½ help develop the skills of div 2 paddlers?
We need to encourage increased participation and improve the skill levels in the sport, but how? Well driving away those wanting to progress and not providing a suitable level challenge to develop the necessary skills is not the way forward, but we could:
• Offer more single division Div 2 races on harder water
• Double division races to provide a challenge for the higher division whilst offering a reasonable challenge to the lower division.
Neither requires a rule change, although the first does require clubs willing to run these events, but as the entry at Washburn shows there are sufficient paddlers in Div 2 (48 each day ignoring the competitors in the open event where Sunday’s HPP 1/2 had less than ½ of this number) up to the challenge.
I can certainly see the point here, I am also top end of Div 1 and I also found the course technically challenging.
However I don't think the problem was quite as bad as many people are making out, as paddlers were warned before the event that the course was going to be challenging for the Div1 paddlers.
More importantly though is that in the case of most of the difficult moves, it was possible to take a slower, but far easier line to the gates (eg, crossing well below the office-drop or spinning below gate 2).
Personally my only concern with the difficulty of the course was that gate 13 caused many people to attempt to break in part way down the drop, which was clearly daunting for many Div1 paddlerss, never mind those in Div2.
I did however fell that the course will have allowed paddlers of both Divisions a taster of what can be done at HPP, while still allowing them a easier, more familiar course on the Saterday.
However I don't think the problem was quite as bad as many people are making out, as paddlers were warned before the event that the course was going to be challenging for the Div1 paddlers.
More importantly though is that in the case of most of the difficult moves, it was possible to take a slower, but far easier line to the gates (eg, crossing well below the office-drop or spinning below gate 2).
Personally my only concern with the difficulty of the course was that gate 13 caused many people to attempt to break in part way down the drop, which was clearly daunting for many Div1 paddlerss, never mind those in Div2.
I did however fell that the course will have allowed paddlers of both Divisions a taster of what can be done at HPP, while still allowing them a easier, more familiar course on the Saterday.
To correct a couple of errors.
Sunday's course was not a prem course. 8 out of 14 division 2 men completed the course at least once without getting a 50. This demonstrates that there was not a single move that was technically too difficult for a division 2 paddler - QED div 2 paddlers had been taken into consideration in the planning of the course. On the runs, only 1 div 2 man swam (twice), none of the div 2 women, or either of the div 2 C1Ws. It looks like we had 5 swims in division 1. I do not think that this is exceptional for a div 1 at HPP
The course was not substantially altered after consultation with the jury. Only two gates were moved, the second, and most controversial, not because the jury strongly insisted on it, (the course had already been approved), but after some sensible discussion between the jury and the course designers. The position of the gate was not achieving it's purpose. As it happens, its later position also failed in that regard, though it was a more sensible position and so it remained.
The gates that were causing the controversy, were not even the cause of the majority of the 50s - these were earned on the fairly innocuous stagger between the plug hole and the muncher - no-one suggested that I take any of these gates out.
The fact that the same people came at the top of the Div 1 K1M both days does not demostrate that the Saturday's course was an equal challenge so much as that Sunday's course was not unfairly hard.
I run this event in the tradition set by Diane Woods at Rugby, as a paddler I always looked forward to the Rugby HPP event, in my opinion it was the best of the year - I know that there were plenty of people that disagreed, but I also know that there were many who felt as I do. Personally I get cheesed off when I get to HPP and I am faced with a course that doesn't make good use of the features available. If we are to downgrade courses to the weakest or least courageous paddler, we will soon have a sport that is quite different from the challenging sport that I want canoe slalom to be.
The Rugby competition was a division 2 on Saturday, and a division 1 on Sunday, which allowed Diane to be kind on Saturday to the division 2s, while giving her free rein on Sunday. Unfortunately the economics of trying to run a division 2 on HPP do not work. Even if you set the easiest of courses, you will be lucky to get 40 entries across all classes, and that won't anywhere near cover the hire of the course. I strongly believe that division 2 paddlers should be given the opportunity to race at HPP, and the only way to achieve this is by combining the event with a division 1. If this means that the entries are only just in double figures, then so be it, the rest can wait until they are in div 1 to find out what it is to race at HPP.
I advertised my intentions with this course, both on this board, and also when speaking to people at events - including the mother of the girl who is the subject of the opening post. It is disappointing that so many failed to start (though my understanding of the reasons the div 1 C1s did not race had nothing to do with the course), but most of those that did enjoyed the challenge, whether or not they successfully completed the course without any 50s.
Finally I'm sorry that oldschool was injured, but was it really due to being forced to do something that he wouldn't have expected to do at a division 1 race at HPP?
Sunday's course was not a prem course. 8 out of 14 division 2 men completed the course at least once without getting a 50. This demonstrates that there was not a single move that was technically too difficult for a division 2 paddler - QED div 2 paddlers had been taken into consideration in the planning of the course. On the runs, only 1 div 2 man swam (twice), none of the div 2 women, or either of the div 2 C1Ws. It looks like we had 5 swims in division 1. I do not think that this is exceptional for a div 1 at HPP
The course was not substantially altered after consultation with the jury. Only two gates were moved, the second, and most controversial, not because the jury strongly insisted on it, (the course had already been approved), but after some sensible discussion between the jury and the course designers. The position of the gate was not achieving it's purpose. As it happens, its later position also failed in that regard, though it was a more sensible position and so it remained.
The gates that were causing the controversy, were not even the cause of the majority of the 50s - these were earned on the fairly innocuous stagger between the plug hole and the muncher - no-one suggested that I take any of these gates out.
The fact that the same people came at the top of the Div 1 K1M both days does not demostrate that the Saturday's course was an equal challenge so much as that Sunday's course was not unfairly hard.
I run this event in the tradition set by Diane Woods at Rugby, as a paddler I always looked forward to the Rugby HPP event, in my opinion it was the best of the year - I know that there were plenty of people that disagreed, but I also know that there were many who felt as I do. Personally I get cheesed off when I get to HPP and I am faced with a course that doesn't make good use of the features available. If we are to downgrade courses to the weakest or least courageous paddler, we will soon have a sport that is quite different from the challenging sport that I want canoe slalom to be.
The Rugby competition was a division 2 on Saturday, and a division 1 on Sunday, which allowed Diane to be kind on Saturday to the division 2s, while giving her free rein on Sunday. Unfortunately the economics of trying to run a division 2 on HPP do not work. Even if you set the easiest of courses, you will be lucky to get 40 entries across all classes, and that won't anywhere near cover the hire of the course. I strongly believe that division 2 paddlers should be given the opportunity to race at HPP, and the only way to achieve this is by combining the event with a division 1. If this means that the entries are only just in double figures, then so be it, the rest can wait until they are in div 1 to find out what it is to race at HPP.
I advertised my intentions with this course, both on this board, and also when speaking to people at events - including the mother of the girl who is the subject of the opening post. It is disappointing that so many failed to start (though my understanding of the reasons the div 1 C1s did not race had nothing to do with the course), but most of those that did enjoyed the challenge, whether or not they successfully completed the course without any 50s.
Finally I'm sorry that oldschool was injured, but was it really due to being forced to do something that he wouldn't have expected to do at a division 1 race at HPP?
-
oldandslow
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:11 pm
- Location: Peak District
The accepted wisdom (although I can not find it written down fast enough to be bothered) is that for a mulit division event the course must be appropriate for the highest division, e.g. a 2/3/4 must test the div 2s, although the div 4 event can then miss some of the gates.
This is only written down in an insert in the Organisers Hanbook from Jim Croft. The yearbook guidelines are in rule 20.3 (pg 67). As all of the div 2 women had 50's, my vote is that it wasn't "appropriate"
Life is what happens when you're making other plans.
Whilst I appreciate some of the points raised about the leap between Div1 and Div2 water, if you enter a Div1/2 event you should expect that the course will be set for the higher division. This event was public knowledge that the course on Sunday was going to be a lot harder than the Saturday, but the same thing could be said for any double event.
The course on Saturday was a good Div2 course, on Sunday there was possibly 2 technical moves that needed a higher skill level and WW confidence to get the gates and complete the course.
If you enter an event you should think if you are 'competent to paddle that grade of water' there is no point in complaining when you get there and see the course and the water level.
Artificial courses like HPP, Tryweryn, Tees Barrage, Washburn and Nene are public courses and can be used for training when they are open, I do appreciate that in most cases it involves a fair bit of traveling, but better to spend a day on one of these courses than entering an event, paying your entry fee and then going home because you are not comfortable with the grade of water and with the course.
Looking at the results for the last Washburn event, there was a lot of 50's given and this was a Div2 event only, so the argument about appropriate courses for running single Div2 events still ends up with the same question, are the paddlers competing ready for paddling fast moving water?
With regard to training, I know that many clubs do not have slalom coaches, but I am sure that they have some very good coaches that could teach whitewater river paddling which would give paddlers the experience and confidence to tackle bigger water, lets face it you don't need to be in a slalom boat all the time to gain experience :;):
The course on Saturday was a good Div2 course, on Sunday there was possibly 2 technical moves that needed a higher skill level and WW confidence to get the gates and complete the course.
If you enter an event you should think if you are 'competent to paddle that grade of water' there is no point in complaining when you get there and see the course and the water level.
Artificial courses like HPP, Tryweryn, Tees Barrage, Washburn and Nene are public courses and can be used for training when they are open, I do appreciate that in most cases it involves a fair bit of traveling, but better to spend a day on one of these courses than entering an event, paying your entry fee and then going home because you are not comfortable with the grade of water and with the course.
Looking at the results for the last Washburn event, there was a lot of 50's given and this was a Div2 event only, so the argument about appropriate courses for running single Div2 events still ends up with the same question, are the paddlers competing ready for paddling fast moving water?
With regard to training, I know that many clubs do not have slalom coaches, but I am sure that they have some very good coaches that could teach whitewater river paddling which would give paddlers the experience and confidence to tackle bigger water, lets face it you don't need to be in a slalom boat all the time to gain experience :;):
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I too was worried about the course for Sunday, but was delighted to see the change made to gate 13 when I arrived on Sunday morning. This did make it possible to float across the looping pool and paddle up the eddy flow thru gate 13 and it was even possible to avoid the stopper altogether with a bit of luck, although entering it was not (IMHO) a major issue. I was delighted to see paddlers give it a go and achieve a confidence boost by doing so.
It was frustrating to get 'stuck' in 12 and 13 due to altering conditions (believe me!) but I believe that was more down to my skill/line than anything else. Not sure how much luck compared to skill was involved in completing the move thru the stopper. Some people seemed to get a perfect line, others seemed to hit a brick wall. It was very much a make or break move for those at the top end. Well done to those Div2 paddlers I saw taking the stopper route.
Dave did clearly state his intentions, that was a factor in my decision to race at HPP, as I knew I could race an easier course on the Saturday and it would give me time on the water before the tougher test on Sunday.
I think his only failing was the original placement of gate 13 on Saturday night, which whilst spectacular was leading to far to many unrecoverable capsizes and didn't allow an easy option, this was fixed (by what ever means) in time the for the event and made for a tough but fair course.
I thought many of the gates (if not all) were perfectly placed (to my iritation) so that every one challenged the paddler and a fast time required a very good line.
My problems were gate 19/20 on Saturday, which I put down to being worn out before arriving to compete and the plug hole on Sunday which I resolved on my 2nd run having sat and watched how it was being completed correctly. I have to agree with Dave that a lot of the 50's I saw were down to mistakes on other gates and not down to gate 13 or the looping pool.
At least the placement of gate 14 allowed paddlers to recover from a capsize and complete the course.
I guess the question re 50's is how many of those who did gain 50's expected to do so. By that I mean if they turned up for experience and did their best then that should not affect our view of its suitability. If those who 50'd would be genuinely be expected to complete the course then perhaps the course was too tough. The only way for Div2's to gain experience is to give it a go, they pays there money, pluck up their courage and off they go - good luck to them, lets encourage their attempts as they are the future of the sport. There is no practice that compares with competing in an actual event.
Clearly there is some debate to be had on paddlers winning races missing gates on purpose but thats a different one to paddlers missing out gates whilst gaining experience.
It was frustrating to get 'stuck' in 12 and 13 due to altering conditions (believe me!) but I believe that was more down to my skill/line than anything else. Not sure how much luck compared to skill was involved in completing the move thru the stopper. Some people seemed to get a perfect line, others seemed to hit a brick wall. It was very much a make or break move for those at the top end. Well done to those Div2 paddlers I saw taking the stopper route.
Dave did clearly state his intentions, that was a factor in my decision to race at HPP, as I knew I could race an easier course on the Saturday and it would give me time on the water before the tougher test on Sunday.
I think his only failing was the original placement of gate 13 on Saturday night, which whilst spectacular was leading to far to many unrecoverable capsizes and didn't allow an easy option, this was fixed (by what ever means) in time the for the event and made for a tough but fair course.
I thought many of the gates (if not all) were perfectly placed (to my iritation) so that every one challenged the paddler and a fast time required a very good line.
My problems were gate 19/20 on Saturday, which I put down to being worn out before arriving to compete and the plug hole on Sunday which I resolved on my 2nd run having sat and watched how it was being completed correctly. I have to agree with Dave that a lot of the 50's I saw were down to mistakes on other gates and not down to gate 13 or the looping pool.
At least the placement of gate 14 allowed paddlers to recover from a capsize and complete the course.
I guess the question re 50's is how many of those who did gain 50's expected to do so. By that I mean if they turned up for experience and did their best then that should not affect our view of its suitability. If those who 50'd would be genuinely be expected to complete the course then perhaps the course was too tough. The only way for Div2's to gain experience is to give it a go, they pays there money, pluck up their courage and off they go - good luck to them, lets encourage their attempts as they are the future of the sport. There is no practice that compares with competing in an actual event.
Clearly there is some debate to be had on paddlers winning races missing gates on purpose but thats a different one to paddlers missing out gates whilst gaining experience.
I am a Div 2 Paddler, maybe mid-table (trying desperately to improve this). I found the course very challenging, however for paddlers such as myself who are looking to push up and out of the division then I think we should be able to paddle harder courses such as Sundays. On my first run I got 2 50's but this was down to poor paddling and improved on my second run although it was still a bit sloppy.
I was well publicized that the course on the Sunday was going to be harder than the Saturday. My only concern is the winner of Saturday's event receives the same points as the winner of Sundays when Sundays was a much harder course. (I see no way around this).
All in all I very much enjoyed it, but next time I think I will come for both days :p
Nathan
P.s. I attempted the stopper route and got the line right once (gutting that it was on my practice run).
I was well publicized that the course on the Sunday was going to be harder than the Saturday. My only concern is the winner of Saturday's event receives the same points as the winner of Sundays when Sundays was a much harder course. (I see no way around this).
All in all I very much enjoyed it, but next time I think I will come for both days :p
Nathan
P.s. I attempted the stopper route and got the line right once (gutting that it was on my practice run).
As a newbie to Div 2 I don’t know why people are complaining about the course on Sunday. So the course was a challenge, but isn’t it supposed to be at Div 1 level and above ?
My aim is to become a better paddler, challenge myself and get into Div 1. Its an option to shy away from HPP, play it safe and paddler on the “flat” water courses, but what would be the point, would that prepare me for Grandtully, Tryweryn, Washburn - I think not !
There is a big step up from Div 2 to Div 1, but if you don’t take the first step, accept the odd roll and missed gate, you’ll never make the transition.
For the record, on the “easier” Saturday course I missed 1 gate, on the “harder” Sunday course I got them all, with only two touches ! I even had the odd roll – but oh what fun, I’ll be back for more !
Well done MCC.
My aim is to become a better paddler, challenge myself and get into Div 1. Its an option to shy away from HPP, play it safe and paddler on the “flat” water courses, but what would be the point, would that prepare me for Grandtully, Tryweryn, Washburn - I think not !
There is a big step up from Div 2 to Div 1, but if you don’t take the first step, accept the odd roll and missed gate, you’ll never make the transition.
For the record, on the “easier” Saturday course I missed 1 gate, on the “harder” Sunday course I got them all, with only two touches ! I even had the odd roll – but oh what fun, I’ll be back for more !
Well done MCC.
-
roodthomas
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:33 pm
- Location: Barnsley
I believe there is a great deal of difference between the Washburn and HPP for div 2's. HPP is quite flat in many areas with larger drops and quite a large river channel. The Washburn is a narrower river with a much faster flow rate which no other course I am aware of provides. With a lot less chance to train and compete on the Washburn I feel it is unfair to compare the 2 venues because of the number of 50s given to div 2 paddlers.
No real for or against here, just a comment and point of view with a lean towards difficulty being overrated.
I did'nt go last weekend. I cannot comment on the course. However, we have been discussing pool slaloms in a favourable light recently. No tricky features, no odd or difficult gate positions, no obstacles to negotiate, just gates.
I think maybe sometimes its easy to forget that slalom is not about can it be done but how fast can it be done. I favour seeing a course that all can complete and seeing who can complete it faster than anyone else. It demonstrates that the fittest, most skilful and best mentally prepared competitor will win. A very difficult course denies those who fail to complete it a measure of their ability against the winners or those above them. If they had been able to complete the course they would see what interval they need to make up, but a 50 takes a different line and produces a false time of course. A swim produces nothing.
If a pool slalom produces a result sheet highlighting the best and the worst attending, then a white water slalom need only do the same. Ideally without agitating so many people possibly. As pointed out above, plenty of people swim HPP, even without a gate on it! The water is a challenge in itself for many. To consistently complete even an easy course on HPP in a respectable time takes significant skill.
Premsters are a wholly different group of athletes from all but the very top end of Div 1 (who then find life very tough going once they step up to it - no pots for a while for sure!) At that level of commitment and dedication to the discipline, something more than speed seems to be desirable to really sort out the superstars. I see no real reason to make it a stroll in the park for them (sorry guys but you are in a boat a zillion times a week ok lol). For those who are struggling to find time, opportunity, transport, whatever to get some training in, some of the white water courses are tough enough by their existence alone. The location of gates obviously needs to test boat control and precision but it seems it might assist the sport somewhat if slightly more emphasis was placed on how fast can it be done, rather than can it be done.
Just food for thought
PP
I did'nt go last weekend. I cannot comment on the course. However, we have been discussing pool slaloms in a favourable light recently. No tricky features, no odd or difficult gate positions, no obstacles to negotiate, just gates.
I think maybe sometimes its easy to forget that slalom is not about can it be done but how fast can it be done. I favour seeing a course that all can complete and seeing who can complete it faster than anyone else. It demonstrates that the fittest, most skilful and best mentally prepared competitor will win. A very difficult course denies those who fail to complete it a measure of their ability against the winners or those above them. If they had been able to complete the course they would see what interval they need to make up, but a 50 takes a different line and produces a false time of course. A swim produces nothing.
If a pool slalom produces a result sheet highlighting the best and the worst attending, then a white water slalom need only do the same. Ideally without agitating so many people possibly. As pointed out above, plenty of people swim HPP, even without a gate on it! The water is a challenge in itself for many. To consistently complete even an easy course on HPP in a respectable time takes significant skill.
Premsters are a wholly different group of athletes from all but the very top end of Div 1 (who then find life very tough going once they step up to it - no pots for a while for sure!) At that level of commitment and dedication to the discipline, something more than speed seems to be desirable to really sort out the superstars. I see no real reason to make it a stroll in the park for them (sorry guys but you are in a boat a zillion times a week ok lol). For those who are struggling to find time, opportunity, transport, whatever to get some training in, some of the white water courses are tough enough by their existence alone. The location of gates obviously needs to test boat control and precision but it seems it might assist the sport somewhat if slightly more emphasis was placed on how fast can it be done, rather than can it be done.
Just food for thought
PP
Peter Parker - 12 gate courses are plenty long enough!