Grandtully Div 1/2 - Course

davieq · Post by **davieq** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 pm

Raced at tully at the weekend and was wondering what folks thoughts were about the course. Personally I didn't like it, I thought the amount of single poles was over the top and removed a lot of the skill required, I am certainly not a brilliant paddler, and race purely for the enjoyment, but if this is the way forward for our sport then I am glad I am nearing the end on my 'career'.I would not have minded 1 or 2 but 15 out of 18 single pole gates and the other 3 wider than normal was a bit much. The worst decision since the abolition of reverse gates.
Hope this sparks some healthy debate.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:06 pm

I did wonder why there were so many single pole gates (I gather it is because the Scots train on single pole gates now) and did think that maybe it was because it saves time putting them up but I am not sure it did. Most of the gates did not need to be single pole. However, given the level of the water I am glad I had the chance to concentrate on the water more than worry about 2 poles!

80-1219672301 · Post by **80-1219672301** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:04 am

Just to reassure you - the Scots don't just train on single pole gates - two pole gates too!

I believe (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) the decision was taken because of the water levels being erratic -and would allow, as Munchkin says, paddlers to concentrate on the water - which was quite choppy.

I'm not sure single pole gates does mean less skill is needed. There appeared to be plenty of "fifties" given so folk weren't finding it that easy.

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:16 am

I wasn't there at the weekend, so my comments are restricted to the idea of single pole gates rather than the Grandtully course in particular.

I am totally in favour of single pole gates. The idea of slalom is to be able to measure a paddlers ability to paddle a set course in the shortest possible time, and this goes right back to the original slaloms. Since then artificial restrictions were put on how the course could be paddled, including such things as having poles touching the water and reverse gates. These did not add any greater degree of skill required, only the learning of technique to deal with the problem. The outside pole on a gate is a similar artificial restriction to how the course can be paddled. I don't believe that we can dispense with the outside pole altogether, since we need to be able to define where the gate line is to make the writing and interpretation of rules simpler to understand. My opinion is that it should be placed far enough away from the inside pole that the paddler doesn't have to consider it - which would mean having gates that are 2.5m wide as a mimum.

I would argue that by removing the need for techniques to overcome artificial problems, this actually increases the degree of skill required to be the best, and this leads to a more exciting sport for both the competitor and the spectator.

DavieD · Post by **DavieD** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:24 pm

I think the main reason for using the single pole gates was the ease of setting the course. We had a 3 hour window on Friday to put the course up and this was easily achievable with the single pole setup. The reduced weight of the single pole system enabled us to use the permanent training gate bearers and pole height was easily adjusted by setting the bearer tension without the need for additional pole adjustment lines - with the river dropping over the weekend this made pole height adjustments easier and quicker.

DavieD · Post by **DavieD** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:24 pm

davieq · Post by **davieq** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:13 pm

Fair point Davie. I know the organisation must be a nightmare, and cannot praise enough how well the event run, maybe I was being a bit over critical, but that was mainly due to the fact that I got 2 clear runs in good times (for me anyway!!!) Thought the event was superb which was only made better with the higher than normal river level.

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:02 pm

Happy with some single pole gates but I thought we lsot a lot at Tully. Single pole gates can be just as challenging but the course design needs to esnure that all gates are brought into play.

At Tully we had several instances where gates didn't play any part in the event - e.g. Gate 14 on saturday most people paddled about 6foot away from the pole in a straight line for the breakout at 15. Had the gate been set with the inside pole rather than the outside pole it would have had more relevance.

But perhaps I am just too old school - I still use the definition that existed when I started whereby slalom was a test of speed and ability in moving water. The course at Tully was moving much more onto a test of speed and power.

In terms of setting the course - the timeframe was established by the Organisers so I don't really buy the single pole requirements dictated by window for course erection. Albeit a great improvement on past times when I have started setting courses on a Thursday to ensure the course is in place for Sat morning early practice.

I would encourage their occasional use but more in the minority rather than the majority of the overall course.

Pity they didn't have Sundays course out on Saturday - then I wouldn't have felt the killer cross from 15-16 quite so drastically - alternatively perhaps I should get out in a boat more and improve my paddling fitness.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:45 pm

Although from the bank lots of people noted that gate 14 looked like a waste of time there was actually more than one person who 50d the gate so it must have had a purpose!

TOG · Post by **TOG** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:26 pm

Seedy Paddler wrote:But perhaps I am just too old school - I still use the definition that existed when I started whereby slalom was a test of speed and ability in moving water. The course at Tully was moving much more onto a test of speed and power.

This harks back to previous, reasonably heated discussion when we all became aware of of this year's incoming rule changes re gates: "fast and clean" becomes "fast and furious". Perhaps because I'm working with the 'original parts', I too am concerned that the ability aspect seems to be in danger of being downgraded in favour of sheer athleticism - a common trend in sport it would appear?

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:05 pm

i feel that the courses at Tully were good and challenging, using the single pole idea made its slightly more funny and easy to watch, (and judge!!).

as a mid range div1 paddle i think that single pole course's arnt the way forward, a mixture of the old and the new could pose some interesting courses. already this season the guys and gals over in wales put that idea to use with the tryweryn Selection/1 course with the crossover on the bottom section. yes is was a "wide" gate line for the spin gate but this would have made a good single pole gate.

Now against the idea of single pole gates; having extremely wide gate lines, essentially what were doing here, inhibits what a paddler can do, say if a paddler misses a gate and paddles back for it, more often than not when this is a single pole gate the best way to get the gate would in fact be going up through the gate the wrong way. so its basically game over, even if you tried for the gate the first time.
aslo i feel that single pole gates take the skill out of it. i felt and im sure others will agree with me, the div1/PC course at tully had some easy gates.

when single pole gates are used properly they can be fun. maybe someone should put forward a motion of guidelines for this years ACM.....

Russ Johnson

Kazz · Post by **Kazz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:22 pm

felt that the first weekends course was poor, with sixteen out of eighteen gates being single poles it did not encourage any skill level and many lower division paddlers took very wide lines avoiding penalties--I was a gate judge and it was boring

The second weekends course was much more challenging with single poles being placed strategically, i think that single pole gates are more suitable for narrower rivers and artifical courses than that of tully ???

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Tue May 05, 2009 3:15 pm

I'm surprised comment about the Tully Div 1 and Pan Celtic courses hasn't been a lot more savage. Riverbank opinion seemed to be.
There's a place for one-pole gates - they have been used well at Tryweryn and HPP. But building courses on the Tay, of all places, made up almost entirely of one-pole gates is crazy. Some specific objections:
The gates above and below the top drop were there to guide paddlers down the safe line. With only one pole each, they didn't do their job properly.
The long ramp from the top drop to mid-course is a great place for a long, fast stagger calling for quite fine judgement. Instead it became just a lazy "far enough this way, then far enough that...".
Sunday's gate 11, placed after the right breakout and calling for the paddler to catch the the wave across, must have been 20m wide. If you missed the wave, paddling back for the gate was impossible because the gate line effectively walled off the whole of the left-bank eddy.
Perhaps at the top of Prem having only one pole doesn't make much difference. At a Div 1/2 it doesn't measure skill effectively, and it doesn't help paddlers to develop their skills.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:23 pm

Agree it was strange. I thought the top few gates a bit of a waste of time as it was easy to paddle nearly in a straight line and the poles were so high even I could shoulder drop under them.

Not sure about not guiding though Nick, it was clear (and perhaps a good learning exercise) to me that you just stuck close to the pole that was there and surely thats what you always do even when there are two, the fact that the outer pole is not there should not change the line. If anything I was probably tighter to the pole on single gates than I am when there are two (for fear of dropping in the stopper!).

Similarly on the stagger a lazy stagger was not fast, thus those that took that option would surely lose out, again perhaps something could be learnt by keeping tight on each pole, in a similar manner all that had been removed was the outer pole, thus it really should make no difference (other than less poles for me to hit!). I guess it may have made it possible for some div 2's to complete the course who otherwise might not.

Agree with both of you re the possibilities to paddle back and thats why gate 18 was changed, must admit it was a shock on my 1st run as I missed it and couldn't work out where the pole had gone until I spotted it had been moved back to form a more normal gate after my official practice.

I'd agree there were too many single pole gates and they have been used effectively elsewhere but I think the reason given were reasonable (course building and quickly changing river levels).

The course must have been passed but I guess there may be some lessons to learn (like the paddle back issue) for those undertaking that role.

I can't really see how you can have guidelines but I guess you could add a rule to restrict the number of single pole gates but of course you could just set gates to their maximum width and effectively do the same thing.