British National Veterans Championships

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:42 pm

I note from the event advert that there is a different entry fee for Div 3/4 Vets to that of other Vets. I have no problem with the fees at all but wonder if this is also suggesting that there will be two separate elements to the competition? Will all Vets irrespective of Division be competing against each other or will there be a separate comp for the Div 3/4 Vets?

I ask this question in the hope that the answer will be just one competition for all Vets in all Divisions. If not, do we end up with a British National Vets Champ and also a Vets Champ of Div 3/4? I do not think I have ever entered this event (my poor memory is directly related to my age I think!) so I am sorry if this seems a silly question. But my thinking behind this is that if there should be any separation by class then it should be in terms of age rather than division. There are quite a lot of older Vets nowadays and some paddling very well. Despite this they obviously cannot compete on a level playing field with younger Vets and so they get no recognition for their abilities.

I am obviously making reference here to the idea of age banding within the Vets class. At the same event is the British National Under 14/16/18 Champs and, clearly, the age banding as youths is necessary and logical so why not in Vets? I mention this in specific regard to this one event, not the remainder of the ranking events, and really in anticipation of a possible change along these lines for the 2009 comp and not this late in the day for this years comp.

It seems reasonable to me that if youths are classed in three x 2 year bands that it would be equally reasonable for Vets to be classed in a few 10 year bands at least. This could be 35 to 45 etc or 40 to 50 etc as determined appropriate by those who are responsible for such changes. This has been mentioned before on this Forum but only in regard to the ranking competition and not with specific regard to this Championship. So this thread is specifically for this competition.

I would have thought that attendance would improve with such banding as those who may not typically enter, due to maybe not having a hope of even making midfield, would consider the competition more fair and reasonable.

Whilst I mention this is separate from the ranking events it would obviously be sensible that if any "age banding" changes were to be made to that, they should be reflected in the Vet Champs event also. But as it seems to be a wholly separate event from the ranking events, this need not actually be the case as the ranked Vets events will produce its own Champion(s) anyway.

I am sure that if enough Vets make themselves heard in this regard that changes will come about. I have been raising this matter for the last year or so now and the more people I talk to about it the more I find who are not very satisfied with the current Vets situation. So pipe up and lets see if we can bring about some reasonable changes and improvements within the Vets class. This thread here may allow us to do that with the National Vets Championships before the ranking events. Jim, you know this has been something on my mind for a while so what do you feel can be done regarding similar banding to that which exists abroad?

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:16 am

I enjoyed this weekends event at Cardington

However, the rain on Saturday was not too pleasant and the wind on Sunday was VERY strong! I assisted my wife, Love Mae (she is the small Filipina that some of you may have seen at various events this year) with her hobby of photography and we set up a PC in a small marquee to view the images shortly after she had taken them. Unfortunately the wind got under this and trashed it complete with several panels of my car as it flew across it

....I wish to thank many people for immediately coming to my assistance - Thankyou

But the good news is that a lot of competitors enjoyed her photography and we will be shipping disc's out for the rest of the week I think!!

The main event was on Sunday, this being the Junior and Vet Champs. This was really well attended and, although windy, we had sunshine all day

Unfortunately the course design was probably the worst I have ever seen at Cardington and was badly thought through. You need to know the place to make a good course here but even not knowing it I have to ask why anyone on any course would put a downstream gate BELOW an upstream requiring a 180 degree turn mid flow, paddling back up to take the upstream and break back into the flow and taking the downstream gate AGAIN to use the best line!? This strange "paddling past an upstream, down through a downstream, back up for the upstream" was featured TWICE!? Combine this with an upstream (gate

that was literally an "upstream" as there was no eddy in sight and you have a 20 gate course with a quarter of the gates being simply perculiar! It was not testing, not challenging, it was simply odd and uncomfortable and far from flowing. Personally I found it very difficult, mentally, to paddle PAST an upstream gate - I have spent my entire career trying to avoid it actually!!!

But the event was well organised as usual and many hands made light work of the whole thing. Congrats to all the podium place paddlers, especially Andy Norman and the other Vets who beat me

One was only 36

No fair I cry! Also our lovely Country Park (where Cardington course is located) was left absolutely free of litter. What a nice lot these slalom types are!

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:38 am

Saturdays course was probably the best I have paddled on Cardington, it flowed and there was plenty of space (and water) to do the up gates. I was hoping Sundays course would be similar with just a few changes.

I have to agree the course design on Sunday was most odd which resulted in my official practice and 1st run being a disaster as like you my brain simply couldn't cope with paddling past up gates and attempting a down gate (12) that was arguably set as an up gate.

Much course studying between runs meant an improvement of 16.6 seconds for me much to my relief but I think I could still have improved on this as I was very cautious around gates 11/12/13 to make sure I got them right on the 2nd run.

I guess at the end of the day the course challenged us all but perhaps for the wrong reasons.

The only up side for older vets in my opinion was that it really did even out any advantage younger vets had as there was nowhere on the course to use any extra ability to sprint etc.

There were a couple of decisions to be made on the course so that was a plus point for the designer.

Gate 12 could be exited either side, to the left back into the flow and then paddling back up dead water to 13, or to the right with the flow of the eddy, across the flow and into the gate.

Gate 17 (if memory serves me correctly) could be done as a standard break out or as an S.

Gate 19 could be taken either side, to the right was risky resulting in a few 50s and the water seemed to alter and affect this option for the worse later in the day.

Cardington is very tight for space so I'd give the designer some credit for being able to give us some options. Overall though I didn't see the point of passing up gates to do down gates and paddle back. Perhaps the 11/12/13 combination was valid given the options it created but 1/2/3 didn't achieve anything in my opinion.

I know the course builders spent over 2 hours doing the change over from Saturday so credit to them for their hard work.

End of the day the chair must have approved the course but it is nice when it flows more.

Overall I enjoyed the event if not the gale force winds. If it hadn't been for the relative shelter of the trees I am pretty sure the event would have been cancelled. However it was a bit of a lottery especially for the C2s. Condolences to those who had (both) their runs ruined by the conditions.

Many thanks to all those involved in running the event.

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:42 am

Thats a fair and detailed account I reckon

yes...it was a bit blowy!!!!!!!

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:19 am

Anyone got the full results for Sunday?

briman · Post by **briman** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:50 pm

Hi Spiderman, hope your car and tent are repairable after the weekend. it certainly was an 'interesting' course laid out on Sunday that certainly wasn't as flowing as the Saturday event.
The photos your good lady took certainly did look pretty good and i look forward to getting copies in the post.
It was a nice friendly event and certainly enjoyable depite the wind.
Jim has a post on this board where you can get the results.

Cheers,
Bri

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:17 am

Thanks Bri for your kind words and thoughts. Nobody injured so all is repairable

Just one of those things. Hope to see you at the next one....but not the wind!

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:07 am

It's not only our National Junior & Vets championships that have such gate sequences, at the World cup race in Tacen last weekend they had to paddle past gates 2 & 3 before negotiationg gate 1! Good practice for future international events?!

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:41 pm

Yes Anne! I read Tim & Et's account of what they referred to as "a very original move" whereby two gates were passed in order to initially take the first gate of the race! However, from the description, it appears that whilst the layout was "original" the actual gate techniques required were traditional. ie gate 1 was a conventional upstream in an eddy, 2 was an additional upstream in the same eddy but still consistent with the flow, then 3 was a further traditional breakout in an eddy on the opposite side of the river on the same line as 2 - requiring a traditional high cross. This type of originality is acceptable IMHO although still being required to travel past gates that are "later" gates is little short of mental torture! What is not acceptable, again IMHO, is the incorrect use of the flow and location of obstacles. On an International course I am absolutely confident that you will not be seeing a downstream gate in the middle of the flow where the competitors are then required to throw a "u" turn and paddle back upstream for the next gate without any sign of an eddy to assist them! Well.....not unless the same course designer is involved maybe......

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:01 pm

Re Tacen: "Gate 1 was a conventional upstream in an eddy"? No it wasn't. Tim and Etienne describe it "Gate 1 was a downstream at the bottom of the river right eddy". But the gate wasn't in the eddy. It was tight on the next step down, and required a 180 very much in the downstream flow and with a real risk of falling off the step. Then it was 10m back upstream to (upstream right) Gate 2. Admittedly you were not likely to pick a route back through Gate 1, but there's a bit more space at Tacen than at Cardington.
I thought the Sunday Cardington course was original and got a bit more mileage out of the natural limitations of the water than usual.

Shorty · Post by **Shorty** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:08 pm

Video of course at Tacen is here if you want to see it.

http://www.canoeworldseries.com/video/view/368

Also, just I'd add something about the course at Cardington. I didn't like it, and none of the people I spoke to liked it either... BRILLIANT. This made it a good course!

The course designer good job of setting something a bit different and challenging.

Nice work!

Adam

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:19 pm

Nice link Shorty thanks

I stand corrected Nick, apologies as I was going from memory of the report, but having seen the video the course clearly flows very well indeed due the the first downstream being well placed to enter that huge swirly eddy. Not at all like Cardington! But I also see what you mean about the penalty of not making the breakout - yikes! A whopping 3 x 50's in a heartbeat! Not for the feint of heart me thinks!