Slalom Struture - The structure of doemstic competition

[John Sturgess]

Anne

A little disingenuous, I think.

“Oh I have heard John's ideas now for years, but has he ever taken it to the ACM - no and on this thread is the first time I have heard anyone else support it!”

I have raised these ideas at AGM’s/ACM’s every year for at least the last 10. How else would you have heard them? And of the proposals I have raised them against, some have been defeated, and none have been passed with only ‘my’ vote against.

The last time there was this sort of thread - c. two years ago if I remember rightly - support was expressed also.

Why have I not brought a substantive motion to the AGM? No point in doing so until I can foresee at least its getting past the 75/25 rule, and thus being debated, given that defeated motions - even if not debated - cannot be reintroduced for x years. Also, until Colin’s recent excellent innovation of inviting discussion on this website, the debate was somewhat pointless because attenders are expected to arrive mandated by their Clubs. Therefore I lobby on river banks ...

And I am patient. As Gandhi once said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

These ideas have been raised whenever there has been a motion or other discussion (i.e. on the managed calendar) on anything which in my view takes slalom away from providing a racing system which meets the wishes of the paddlers as a whole.

So they have been raised to counter:

All proposals that depend on what is in my view a flawed belief that the ranking system, rather than coaches and parents, should prevent youngsters racing on rough water ‘until they are ready’.

All proposals to reduce the number of races on higher level water.

All proposals to make promotion more difficult in order to achieve a ‘pyramid’.

All proposals which seem to me to ignore the interests of the Regions, and of the Clubs within them (given that this thread began ref Shepperton, worth pointing out that virtually all the increase in slalom paddlers in England between 2008 and 2009 came from London & South-East, South, and South-West - the regions that most need Shepperton?)

They will continue to be raised on those and other topics - in particular what I see as a dangerous tendency to make our sport over-dependent on unsustainably expensive pumped courses.

No doubt Colin can provide chapter and verse - but as far as I remember the original proposal for the Managed Calendar was to do with co-ordination of events, not with imposing Strategic Plans. When did that change? When was that delegation made to the Committee? Please remind me.

And if ‘however few are willing to put their money where their mouth is and join the committee!’ is intended as a side-swipe at me - could I point out that I was on the Committee - elected by the Advisory Committee (Regional Reps and ECST) to represent England - until the Committee decided (without consulting either the Advisory Committee or the ACM) that it wanted England to be represented by the ECST instead; so I was told to cease attending.

[CeeBee]

The sport needs to evolve to cater for the competitors. However, as others have pointed out, this is fraught as only some changes work successfully.

I quite like the idea proposed by John Sturgess but would need to see far more detail to understand how this woould work in reality and whether it is a step too far at this stage for paddlers to accept. We do not want to 'lose' paddlers by making too radical a change.

Also, another advantange of the ranking system, is the inevitable Health and Safety considerations. At least once a paddler has progressed through the Divisions, you would expect them to be reasonably capable on white water. If events were open to all, I would be concerned that we would end up with inexperienced paddlers out of their depth.

I like the idea of some overlap at events. At Div 1/2 events, Division 2 paddlers will often say I would have finished 30th in division 1. This is quite motivating and lets the paddler see what they need to do to get to this level. This also applies at Div 2/3s, and Div 3/4s.

Just a thought for debate, but would it therefore be possible to have a combined Div 1/Premier so paddlers could compare themselves? The paddler numbers would be too high for all classes to run each day but this could be done by say , having Premier/div 1 men, C1W and C2s on Saturday and Premier/div 1 Women and C1 on Sunday. Another option would be to have all of premier on Saturday plus say division 1 K1 Men.

[Canadian Paddler]

Hey folks sorry to be a dampener. BUT as said in my paper, open events are a seperate, discussion, which WILL take place, but (In my opinion) take a lot longer to come to fruition. Can we concentrate on this paper as a way to assist in managing the calendar as currently in place.
I will be producind a discussion paper relating to open events, and how we may rank withtin them. Wether by the ideal paddler method (If I can work out how to get a simple way of working it/understand it) or by ranking events (how do we sort out high water vs low water ranking) Duty of Care etc etc etc. If ANYONE wants to preempt by doing it themselves PLEASE do so, or put your ideas down in a rough form and send them to me, I will put them together and get something out. My estimate of a time frame for me to get thoughts together on paper, after talking to various people is Autumn. Still aiming for the ACM, but may be tight for this year.

BUT this paper is to manage the calendar in the current environment. I have had many more comments from people who do not post on the web, the majority in support.

The discussion here seems to have concentrated on division 1, ignoring the suggestions that watre used for div 2 should be harder, which may have an effect on the sites that currently run div 2. Any comments?

[Dee]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record - to encourage div 2 events on harder water, encourage div 1/2 events. The div 1 element makes the event viable even if/when div 2 paddlers drop out because the water is too hard and they enable div 2 paddlers to compare themselves against div 1.

( oh dear! I had resolved to drop out of discussion. Failed again!)

[oldschool]

I have been thinking about how to go about grading some of the courses we race on troughout the season and if they are appropriate for the level of races on them. I went through the year book and graded all the sites that i had ever been too that were still on the calender. I combined this with my thought about competitors having to count at least 2 results from harder standards of water in order to gain promotion.This was what i came up with, bearing in mind Prem won't need a ranking as no promotions can occur, and i didn't bother with div 3 as div 2b would be on the same water as running a div2 on its own is not finacially viable for clubs.

If anyone can grade the others then please feel free.



Abbey Rapids (including falls) P/1b 2a

Abbey Rapids (not including falls) 2b 3/4

Aberfeldy 3/4

Alva Not Ranked as I havent seen it.

Bala Mill (inc fall) P/1b 2a

Balla Mill (not fall) 2b 3/4

Cardington 2b 3/4

Cardiff P/1a

Fairnilee 2b 3/4

Frome Market Yard NR

Grandtully P/1a 2a

Harefield NR

Howsham Weir NR

HPP – main course P/1a 2a

HPP – Chicken shoots/darlecs 3/4

Langham Farm NR

Llandysull 1b 2b 3/4

Marple 3/4

Matlock 2b 3/4

Middelton-in-Teesdale 3/4

Mile End Mill P/1b 2a 3

Nene NR

North Walls NR

Ogmore NR

Orton Mere NR

Oughtibridge 3/4

Rhug NR

River Loddon NR

Seaton Park NR

Serpents Tail P/1b 2a

Shepperton 1b 2a 3/4

Sowerby Bridge 2b 3/4

Stone 3/4

Tees Barrage P/1a 2a

Town Falls P/1b 2a

Tryweren – Graveyard P/1a 2a

Tryweren - Ski Slope P/1a 2a

Wagon Lane 3/4

Washburn P/1b 2a

West Tanfield 3/4

Yalding Weir NR


This list is just my opinion and i mean no offence to anyone who thinks their site should be graded higher/lower. Obviously water levels can dramatically affect the standard of competition which a site can sustain but i guess most of these are ok for normal levels.

I had imagined that in order to gain promotion to the next division competitors must have AT LEAST (but not limited to) 2 counting results from an A grade course. If a competitor chooses to they can have all results from a grade courses, but this system would eliminate people getting promoted before they are ready to handle the next divisions "standard" water.

[Munchkin]

Query, how can a 1b course also be a Prem? If it is not difficult enough for a 1a surely it is not difficult enough for a Prem?

I certainally query Mile End Mill, Washburn and a few of the others being a Prem...

[oldschool]

Query, how can a 1b course also be a Prem? If it is not difficult enough for a 1a surely it is not difficult enough for a Prem?

I certainally query Mile End Mill, Washburn and a few of the others being a Prem...

I agree but there have been Prems on these sites in the past. Prems sites wouldn't need to be ranked as no promotions would be taking place.

My personal opinions are, Washburn i'm not a fan, MEM was a good testing prem back when courses we in the 130 second range(using all 3 drops(&25gates)) maybe not so good for 100s courses. I guess the drops on Abbey, Bala,Tail and Town make then ok for prems if there is enough water in the rivers.

[Flipper]

Oldschool;

ACCESS IS ALL !
30% of the potential athletes are born to families in London/S/SE. Inconvenient but we can't help that. Do we want to tap into this potential? You bet!
Sadly this part of the country isn't exactly blessed with a huge selection of whitewater sites, we have to make the best of what we have. As it is, the only "local" training venue we have is Shepperton, which involves schoolkids in a 90min train journey (with changes) then a 20 minute walk or bike ride at the other end. Then a 40 minute car journey back at the end. They do this 3 times a week, bless 'em, homework on the train. Then at the weekends its a min 2 hour trip each way, max 9 hours, to Div2 events, at which point some parents rebel and we've lost them forever.
To illustrate the problem I've plucked out from your useful lists the venues accessible to our paddlers, by accessible I mean within 3 hours (Nottingham & Cardiff are both 3 hours so that's the limit). We are left with:
Cardington 2b 3/4
Cardiff P/1a
Frome Market Yard NR
Harefield NR
HPP – main course P/1a 2a
HPP – Chicken shoots/darlecs 3/4
Langham Farm NR
Nene NR
North Walls NR
Orton Mere NR
River Loddon NR
Shepperton 1b 2a 3/4
Yalding Weir NR

Note that your "NR" courses are all 3/4s.
Some seem to doubt that any site could cover 2/3/4 so Nene and Cardington must be in question as 2b's.
Longer term I have severe doubts about the financial viability of pumped courses, so Nene (again), Cardiff, and sadly Broxbourne can't be relied on to give our sport much of a look in. Some basic physics. It takes 10kW to lift each cumec a meter. Cardiff on 15 cumecs, 3m will be burning 450kW (in fact more like 600kW to allow for pump inefficiencies). I don't know what they pay for their electricity but I'm not surprised that rafting sessions cost £25/hour each punter, at 8 cumecs. And energy aint gonna get cheaper I'm telling you.

So what are we left with? Loads of bright-eyed enthusiastic paddlers coming into the sport, but a real shortage of sites they can progress on. So do we just wak away and tell em to try football instead? NO. We make the best of what we have. Yup, it's a compromise.
I means building on the infrastucture we have - training venues, clubs, and event calendar - and NOT stripping away rungs from the progression ladder because they don't deliver the water quality we would all ideally like. It means preserving the status of the one reasonable site we have left - Shepperton - and building on that by looking for new ones - Old Windsor again? Dart? Mostly it means each region being charged with the responsibility of rebuilding the sport in its own locality.

Here's wher I'm heading:
Permanantly rigged training centres: Shepperton, Yalding, something near Southampton/Portsmouth/Winchester.

Events within reach:
Prem/1 Cardiff x 1; Broxbourne x 1
D1/2 Shepperton x 1; Cardiff x 1, Broxbourne x 1
D2/3 Shepperton x 1; Old Windsor or Hambledon x 1; Dart x 1, Nene and Cardington)
D3/4 Shepperton x 2; Yalding x 2; Loddon x 1; Langham x 1; Frome Market Yard; Harefield x 1, Nene, Cardington, Orton

..... and of course, other "regions" will have different goals, priorities, plans, capabilities, opportunities.

Anne is right that there is an ACM that need full attendance, if we want to progress the running of the sport then that's the final forum. This website medium is a brill way to get the ideas out now into the arena so the ACM can really reflect what the community are willing and able to do. Maybe the next step for us "southies" is to use it to table a discussion paper for a regional development plan?????

[andya]

Totally agree on the regional approach. This has to be the way forward.

If we adopt this National approach, slalom in the S and SE will shortly be as dead as it is now in the SW... which to paraphrase messers Cleese and Palin can be summed up as:

It's passed on!
Slalom is no more!
It has ceased to be!
It's expired and gone to meet its maker!
This is a late slalom!
It's a stiff!
Bereft of life, it rests in peace!
If we hadn't nailed the pole to the Langham spreader it would be pushing up the daisies!
Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians!
It's hopped the twig!
It's shuffled off this mortal coil!
It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!
This.... is an EX-SLALOM!


Flipper .. happy to help with any "southern" ACM proposals ... anyone else??

[Fup Duck]

Aubergine Flipper

I'm with ya

[Username]

I'm not sure who many of you are in real life, but I'm more than happy to be involved in a Southern slalom development plan.

Cat
(Organised the Shep 1 and 2 this year, also 'grass roots' slalom/rec paddling coach)

[Dee]

And me

(sheppy organiser for previous 4 years , but no paddling skills whatsoever )

[Munchkin]

How far north does south go? If you are including Broxborne, Cardington, Orton Mere and the other new slalom's being introduced to the Eastern Region then I will be involved, if we are too far north to be south then don't worry.

Munchkin - Eastern Region Slalom Rep, timing team member, paddler, club chair, but no coaching qualifications whatsoever

[Fup Duck]

I think it depends on a number of factors

1 - How tired you are
2 - Whether a young person is talking incessantly
3 - If you want a wee
4 - What the traffic is like
5 - If you have joined the motorway with low fuel

All of these can increase the distance travelled in the imagination and thus push the boundaries with it.

I've done whole trips where it all blurs into one

I'm sure there are others to add

Still if you can look forward to a conversation about vampyres of a certain persuasion at the end of it, WHO CARES?

[andya]

How far north does south go?

Indeed .. that was my question on the first reply in the thread .. great minds....

Orton Mere = South ?
Matlock = North ?

HPP = ?????? (n?)
Stone = ???? (n?)